Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 31, 2022 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:44:47

Episode 1913 Scott Adams: Elon Musk Looks At Internal Twitter Communications And It's Glorious, More

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Big medicine is corrupt Randi Weingarten defends decisions Max Boot says I'm an expert gaslighter What virtual reality will teach us Elon Musk having fun with Twitter Defending Paul Pelosi ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Why am I in such a good mood?
	Well, it's because the news is funny.
	When the news is funny...
	That's when I come alive.
	Today we've got lots of funny news.
	So if you'd like to take your already beginning to be a good mood up to a great mood to start the day, I've got exactly what you need.
	And all you need to join me is a cupper mugger, a glass of tanker, a chalice of stein, a canteen jugger, a flasker, a vessel of any kind.
	Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
	And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
	It's called the simultaneous sip.
	And it happens right now.
	Go. So good.
	Take a moment to savor it.
	Goes good with oxygen.
	Well, here are some stories that I'm going to update you as I go.
	Remember I told you I had problems with my blood pressure meds and then when I got off them I felt great?
	So this caused me to do a semi-deep dive into the question of, and I don't want to, I want to be very careful here, nothing I say about medicine or health should be taken seriously.
	Do not use anything on this live stream.
	To make, like, major health decisions.
	We're just speculating, okay?
	Imagine being me, okay?
	Just put yourself in my head for a moment.
	I just went through the entire vaccination, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, you know, past two or three years, right?
	So that's my context.
	And then I find out that my blood pressure medicine has bad side effects.
	But I say to myself, well, that's not a big deal because there are so many different ones.
	There's probably one that, you know, will suit my needs.
	And then I said to myself, you know what?
	I should probably just spend five minutes Googling Which I've never done.
	To find out, just ask the question, is it possible that blood pressure medicine is total bullshit or partial bullshit?
	I'm sure it's not total bullshit.
	But is it possible that it's bullshit and it was never good for you in the first place?
	And I'm not sure.
	I actually can't tell.
	I will tell you that all the signals...
	That we're sort of there when we found out we couldn't trust science on other things.
	All the signals are there that it's not real.
	They're all there.
	Now let me be careful again.
	I'm not saying you should not take blood pressure medication.
	That would be very dangerous.
	Talk to your doctor.
	Do what you need to do.
	You're an adult, probably.
	Don't stop taking any medications because you think I said something clever.
	That's a bad idea.
	But honestly, I'll tell you where my head is at.
	I don't think it's real.
	I think that if you have a serious problem, it probably does keep you alive.
	But I think maybe the blood pressure, medicine, the science behind it has never been real.
	That's what I think. And again, I'm way, way different from science here.
	There's no large, as far as I know, I haven't found it, there's no large body of skeptics saying what I'm saying.
	I don't believe there are even too many rogue doctors, I saw a few, but I think it's bullshit.
	Now, when I say I think it's bullshit, I mean at the low end.
	People like me. So if I'm untreated, I'm going to start to get up into 140 over 100.
	If I spend a little more trouble on lifestyle, I'm down to mid-130s, roughly 85.
	Here's the question. If I went to any doctor in the world and I said, my blood pressure is consistently, with good lifestyle, 135 over 90, should I treat it?
	Most, I think, would say yes.
	I think most would say yes.
	Because that's right at the edge where you treat it.
	And I'm not sure that there's any science to support that.
	Somebody says, research cholesterol.
	Here's another question.
	Is high cholesterol real in the sense that it's as dangerous as science says?
	I don't know that it is, right?
	Didn't we learn that our understanding of it was different?
	I don't know if it debunked it or not.
	But our understanding of cholesterol is now in question, right?
	Whether that was a big deal or not.
	Man, I'll tell you, these last two years have made everything up for grabs, right?
	So, what would you do if you were me?
	I'm not going to follow your advice, but put yourself in my situation.
	You just watched proof positive that big medicine is corrupt.
	Would you agree? Would you say that we have proof, no question about it, that big medicine is corrupt?
	That's no longer in question, right?
	There's a question of how much and in what specific ways, but there's no question about the larger question.
	Would you take blood pressure meds, if you were me?
	Because you know now that the doctors sort of have to do what the institutions, their bosses tell them, and the bosses have to do what the big pharma tells them to do.
	Yeah. And if somebody says, check SSRIs or SSRIs, what are they?
	Yeah, I think it's the same thing.
	I think Tom Cruise was the smartest person in America, and he got there early.
	That's what I think. You know, maybe not for all the right reasons, but he got there.
	So I don't know what to do.
	I have not decided to not take blood pressure meds.
	So I've not decided to stop them forever.
	I'm just off of them at the moment.
	But I'll keep you informed.
	Funny story of the week.
	Kim Kardashian went to a Halloween costume party dressed as Mystique from the X-Men.
	You know, very elaborate costume.
	She found when she got there it was not a costume party.
	It was just a birthday party.
	So Kim Kardashian was the only one in a costume, except for two people she went with.
	Now, here's the question I ask you.
	Do you think that would have happened if she were still married to Ye?
	Do you think Ye would have asked if it, you know, is it really a costume party or maybe somebody would have checked it out?
	Maybe it would have. Maybe it would have.
	Now, here's the great thing about this story.
	Do you think that Kim Kardashian is embarrassed by the story?
	What do you think? Do you think she feels embarrassed by the story?
	No, of course not, because it works in her favor.
	So here's a different way to interpret the same story.
	Somebody gave a boring party and there was only one really interesting thing about it.
	Kim Kardashian, right?
	She was the only interesting thing that happened.
	And that's her job. You know, her job is being interesting.
	Roughly speaking, right?
	Her job is to be interesting.
	Boy, was she interesting. So weirdly, although it was an accident, apparently, it was probably one of the best accidents anybody ever did.
	I mean, it was sort of brilliant.
	It just worked exactly in her favor.
	And she also looked great.
	If you saw the pictures...
	It was an interesting kind of a great, because she was sort of poured into a skin-tight outfit, and she wore it well, and the makeup worked and everything.
	So she looked great, but she's also in that weird category of sexy whatever.
	You know, whatever costume you wear, it's the sexy version.
	And let me ask you this.
	When you think of Kim Kardashian, is the first thing you think Her young, single Kardashian?
	Or do you think of her as a mother?
	Because I don't know if it's just because I'm listening to too much yay, but I think of her as a mom now, don't you?
	And so when I see her, I think of her as a mom, and then I see her in the skin-tight outfit, which she totally pulls off, by the way.
	She did a great job on it.
	I thought, I don't know, it's a little uncomfortable now.
	At the same time, she looks terrific.
	If I looked like that, I'm sure it'd show it off, too.
	But does anybody else have the same reaction to it?
	I've actually adopted Ye's point of view effortlessly, which suggests he's pretty persuasive.
	It could be just because we're paying attention to him, so you get that frame.
	But man, I just frame her as a mother now, and now it looks different to me.
	It's just not on point anymore.
	But she had a good day in a weird way.
	Speaking of Ye, he's speaking out about his latest bad news getting cancelled by all of his what would you call them, partners?
	Adidas, etc. And he says that it's God humbling him because he was bragging about being the richest black man and So he thinks God is knocking him down to get him back in humble territory.
	To which I ask this valuable question.
	Does God really care if you're humble?
	Is there a commandment about humility?
	I don't know all my Ten Commandments.
	Which one is about humility?
	Which commandment can you...
	Oh, pride is...
	No, that's not in the Ten Commandments, right?
	It has to be in the Ten Commandments.
	Give me a fact check.
	I know pride is bad in general, but is it a Ten Commandment?
	I'm seeing some no's.
	Somebody looks smart. It's not actually...
	It's not actually a commandment, right?
	We accept humility as a virtue, yes.
	Sort of socially.
	And pride is bad, religiously wise, and envy.
	But is humility...
	It's not the Ten Commandments, though, right?
	Oh, it's a deadly sin.
	It's one of the seven deadly sins.
	All right. Alright, so we'll take that.
	So that's his interpretation.
	But he feels that God has humbled him now.
	Some people say he walked back what he said about George Floyd, because he said George Floyd was killed by fentanyl, not the police officer.
	But here's what he said.
	You tell me if this sounds like he walked it back.
	So remember, he said that Floyd died of fentanyl, so it was kind of fake news.
	So see if he walked it back with a statement.
	When the idea of Black Lives Matter came out, it says yay, it made us come together as a people.
	So I said that and I questioned the death of George Floyd.
	It hurt my people.
	It hurt the black people.
	So I want to apologize for hurting them because right now God has shown me what Adidas is doing and he talks about being humbled by God.
	So did he walk it back?
	No, he did not.
	He didn't do anything like walking it back.
	Not even close.
	He simply said he's sorry it hurt people.
	He's sorry that his opinion, which I imagine he thinks is the truth, You're sorry that it hurt people.
	Now, do you think that that's a good kind of apology?
	Is that a good apology?
	On one hand, some would say you should never apologize if you still hold the opinion.
	It sounds like he still holds the opinion, so he's not apologizing for the opinion, he's just apologizing that it hurt you.
	Sorry it hurt you. Yeah, it's sort of a half-apology...
	But it's also as good as you can do if you want to be honest.
	The best you can do if you want to be honest but also show some empathy is what he did.
	It's not good.
	It's simply the best that could be done under that circumstance.
	You can't do better than that unless you lie.
	Because he's not going to change his opinion.
	Nor should he. There's nothing that would change it.
	But he didn't want to lie, so he just said, sorry it made you feel bad.
	Yes, she could do. This is a funny story.
	All the stories are interesting today.
	So Arizona, the governor has decided to use a bunch of empty shipping containers piled too high to fill in spots of the border wall where it was too easy for people to get across and there was no fence.
	And I saw the, quote, fence, or the wall or whatever.
	It looked pretty good.
	It turns out that if you put two containers, number one, they're built to stack, so that's good.
	They're actually made so that you can put them on top of each other.
	Somebody says, very old news, I understand that.
	But what's new about it is he's being asked to remove them.
	So it's a current topic as well.
	But I'd never seen the picture.
	And it looks like it actually works.
	But then it made me think of the following.
	Don't you think that containers would be way more useful for reuse if you could easily remove all of the walls?
	Right? Imagine if it were easy to remove, let's say even just the front and the back.
	You could just flap them down.
	If you could remove easily the front and the back, you could build a tunnel.
	You have that boring machine that just builds a tunnel.
	It's a machine that makes tunnels.
	If you could make the tunnel just shaped right, you could just drop a shipping container in there and just slap down the front and the back and connect them together, right?
	Couldn't you build all kinds of useful things?
	Somebody says that's already been done.
	Yeah, maybe. But it makes me wonder how useful these shipping containers are.
	Because one of the problems is you don't want to ship back an empty container, which apparently happens a lot.
	It would be easier if sometimes you just say, oh, these are old ones.
	Just leave them where they are and recycle them.
	So I just love this idea.
	Now, what are all of the things you could do With an easy-to-build tunnel.
	Are you ready? Here are the things you could do if you had an easy-to-build tunnel.
	Building communities, right?
	You build a community so that you have underground cabling and underground fiber optics and stuff like that.
	But also for heating and cooling.
	Now, I don't know how far down the boring machine goes, how deep it could go, but it goes pretty deep, right?
	Because I know it goes below the earthquake level.
	That's why they're safe from earthquakes, because it goes so deep that all the earth quaking is above the tunnel.
	So if you could go that deep, can you not somewhat easily build heating and cooling tunnels where the natural difference in temperature below the ground...
	It's all you need to keep your above-ground homes reasonably around 56 degrees.
	Earthquakes can be very deep, but my understanding is that when the Boring Company was going to build that underground tunnel in Los Angeles, I think, right, which they've already built, that they do go down so deep that it's below the earthquake line.
	So check that out. I think that's an important part of the process.
	No, obviously not the approach.
	The approach would have to be high at some point.
	But maybe if there is any risk, it's got to be much lower.
	I'm pretty sure of that. It can be hundreds of miles before you get under the earthquake line.
	Maybe it depends on the specific area, huh?
	So maybe we know that some places the earthquakes are never deep.
	Is that something that we would know?
	It could be that maybe there's some place you can't build these tunnels.
	Yeah? I don't know.
	All right, well, that's something we don't know.
	But I think this is bigger than you think, even though it looks like a weird little story.
	Tunneling and then easily building walls for your tunnel is civilization transforming.
	Because you would do everything differently.
	Let me give you another example.
	Underground farming. There you go.
	I'm not sure if you could do this, but if you could do a light tube...
	Do you know what a light tube is?
	It's like a skylight that takes the sunlight and then distributes it inside the house.
	But if you could do light tubes, would that give you the right kind of light for growing underground?
	Because once you're growing underground, you don't have to worry about the bugs, the weather, any of that stuff.
	And I don't even know about fertilizer.
	I think fertilizer, you still need it, but I believe you could fertilize way more efficiently if you're doing hydroponic underground.
	Can somebody tell me if that's true?
	This is another example of the collaborative brain.
	So I don't know the answer to this, but some of you do.
	If you're using hydroponic growing and the fertilizer is added to the liquid, the liquid I guess, is added to the liquid that you water the plants with, is it true that that is way more efficient for use of fertilizer which is now in tight supply?
	Is that true? I'm saying yeses, but...
	I don't know if it's 10% true or like 100 times better.
	Does anybody have an estimate?
	I'm saying all yeses.
	Okay, thank you. Thank you for the yeses.
	Does anybody know how big a difference it is?
	Is it like a 10 to 1 difference?
	Or like a 20% difference?
	Does anybody have a sense for that?
	I'll give you my guess.
	Like just as a person who lives in the world...
	I feel like just the fact that the liquid suspension would get it there better would mean, yeah, at least somewhere in the 40% range, right?
	If you didn't know anything at all but you had to put a guess on it just based on the few things that you do know, just based on the few things that you do know, wouldn't you say around 40%?
	Does that feel about right?
	Any engineers here?
	Because the liquid suspension gets it to places better than the dirt would.
	The dirt is going to prevent your fertilizer from getting to the roots, right?
	But the liquid would do less?
	I don't know. Anyway, I think it's a big deal.
	Here's a report from Mexico.
	Mexico's doing great.
	We don't hear... Much about civilization in Mexico, even though it's so close.
	But here's a little public interest story.
	Residents of Zacatecas, Mexico, they witnessed a dog carrying a human head in its mouth as it ran down the streets.
	Okay, that's not so good, I guess.
	Yeah. Okay, change that.
	I thought it was more of a feel-good story.
	But it's more of a dog with a human head walking down the street story.
	Which in many ways is completely different.
	Okay, so I had that one wrong.
	Speaking of a human head and a dog's mouth, let's talk about the teachers' unions.
	Now, was that the best segue you've ever seen in your life?
	Can we take a moment to just savor that?
	Okay, savor it.
	Good, now we can go on.
	So the American Federation of Teachers, you know, Randy Weingartens, Organization, whom many, including me, blame for the children being kept out of school and their progress being stilted.
	Is that a word?
	Stymied or something.
	But Randy Weingarten is trying to gaslight it away, saying this.
	The bottom line is everyone suffered in the pandemic.
	So the first thing you need to know is...
	It wasn't just tough on the children.
	So Randy is trying to...
	It was tough on all of us.
	So the bottom line is everyone suffered in the pandemic.
	Because of the pandemic, blah, blah, blah.
	The disruption was everywhere.
	And it was bad regardless of whether schools were remote or in person.
	We were focused on the urgent need to help kids, blah, blah, blah.
	So it wasn't a case of Randy Weingarten and her union making the wrong decision to her children.
	It was a case of things were bad everywhere.
	Things were bad everywhere.
	Now, how much more fucking evil can this organization be?
	On one hand, I actually respect the fact that they understand their mission.
	The mission of the union is to take care of the teachers.
	And I'm not really hearing the teachers complain.
	Has anybody heard the teachers complain?
	I mean, ones and twos.
	But I don't think the teachers complain.
	So if the teachers union is doing what the teachers seem to be okay with, they're not complaining.
	Then you have a competitive, free market system, I guess.
	Except that we can't just say, well, we don't like that, so we'll take our business elsewhere.
	That's the problem, right?
	You can't take your business elsewhere.
	So I'm perfectly okay with a competitive system, which would include unions.
	Except that the side they're competing against can't compete.
	Because what they're competing against is parents.
	Where's the parents' union?
	Parents don't have a union.
	So it's not really market competition.
	that sort of one side has a hammer and one side is Paul Pelosi.
	That story is so fucking funny.
	Now, I hate that he was injured, and we all have genuine concern that That he recovers.
	Apparently he'll recover, but, you know, I don't think you're ever really recovered from that, right?
	You never really recover from that.
	Somebody says, I nailed it.
	All right, the hammer puns are just, well, I can't resist.
	I can't resist hammer puns.
	It's not going to happen. Did you know that the leading cause of death for people between 18 and 45 is?
	What's the leading cause of death for people between 18 and 45?
	Fentanyl. Fentanyl.
	It's the leading cause of death.
	And do you think that our government is treating it like the leading cause of death?
	Well, not according to Republicans.
	McCarthy was making this point yesterday.
	Nope. Do you want to know how much worse it is than that?
	If the only thing I told you was the leading cause of death from 18 to 45 is fentanyl, and we're not doing enough about it, that would be terrible, right?
	I'm going to make this so much worse.
	You ready? Do you remember when the pandemic was raging, And people over 80 were dropping like flies.
	And while those were all tragedies, those were all human tragedies, we were also in a triage emergency situation.
	And we were able to say, for the first time, young people are worth more than old people.
	We can say that out loud.
	Because the old person had their life...
	And the next year or two of their existence wasn't going to be that good.
	And if an 80-year-old dies and loses three years of life, you cannot compare that to a 10-year-old dying and losing 100 years of life.
	I'm assuming they have longer life spans.
	The 10-year-old will lose 100 years of life.
	The 82-year-old today will lose one or two.
	So there's a difference of like 50 times.
	So let's say there's a 50 times worsened difference between somebody ready to die anyway, who goes early, and somebody in the prime of their life.
	So now we take these 18 to 45-year-olds, and do you say that one of those is equal to one senior citizen?
	Only if you're an idiot.
	One 18-year-old is not worth...
	The same as one 80-year-old.
	I'm sorry. We can say that out loud now because these are emergencies, right?
	In, let's say, easy times, you would never let those words leave your lips because it sounds too much like we're not valuing senior citizens and nobody wants that.
	But the truth is, when you lose people who are between 18 and 45, you're losing what?
	50, 70 years of life per person.
	So one of these people dying is equal to, what, 50 old people or something?
	Depending on who they are.
	So when I said that the United States is ignoring the biggest cause of death between 18 and 45, that doesn't come close.
	That doesn't come close to telling you how big the problem is.
	Because if you were to measure it in life years, like productive, good life years, this is the biggest disaster we've ever had, by far.
	It's bigger than the pandemic, by far.
	It's bigger than World War II, the deaths, by far.
	And World War II killed a lot of young people.
	There's nothing like this.
	There's nothing close.
	And have I ever told you that the biggest problem with people who are not good at analysis...
	What I tell you is the biggest problem.
	It's always the same. What's the number one problem of people who are not good at analyzing things?
	What mistake do they always make?
	Go. Let's see if you've learned.
	Can't compare. They compare it to the wrong thing.
	Classic example.
	Even the Republicans...
	Who are on the correct side of this argument, because they're strong about fighting fentanyl, they don't have a policy, so they're worthless in terms of what to do about it, just to be clear.
	Just to be clear, we'll remove this asshole.
	Goodbye, asshole. But this is the classic problem.
	So even the Republicans who have every incentive to make the problem seem as big as possible are not even in The ballpark.
	When McCarthy says it's the leading cause of death between 18 and 45, he is wrong by 20 times?
	10 times?
	He is so wrong, he could not be more wrong.
	Because he's comparing wrong.
	It is implicitly saying that a person is a person, a death is a death, right?
	He doesn't say that, but that's embedded in the statement.
	What he should be comparing is not, you know, well, you know what to compare.
	He should compare the number of years of productive good life that are lost.
	And if he did that, maybe you could make this something that people care about.
	Maybe. Maybe. And I think when we watch the problems with the school kids who are losing that year of school, does everybody say, well, they had one bad year, but now it's over?
	No, we do not.
	So here you're going to see a case of narrative bleed.
	Where one narrative influences the other, even though they're different.
	So the narrative about these school kids losing one year of school, how do we measure that?
	Do we say, well, that kid was going to live to 90, he only lost one year or two, whatever you're counting.
	You say, well, he lost one out of 90, so one out of 90 is bad, but not that bad.
	No. We say that that one year that they lost will fuck up the rest of their whole life, don't we?
	We all say that that one year is not one year.
	We are correctly, correctly comparing it to the rest of their life, aren't we?
	So that's an example where we're making the correct comparison.
	Now what happens when everybody makes the correct comparison?
	Have you noticed? What happened when both the left and the right used the correct comparison?
	What happens to these kids for the rest of their life?
	We fucking agreed.
	We fucking agreed.
	How about that, huh?
	When we compared the right things for the first time, it's never been done before, Democrats and Republicans all said, oh shit, at the same time, and we identified the correct evil as not each other.
	Am I right? How many of you blame Democrats, sort of in general, for the school closings?
	I don't. Do you?
	I mean, you could argue they should have done more about it or something like that, but I don't feel like they even had the power.
	Okay, some of you do. I know you're highly political.
	But do I make my point?
	The simple act of knowing what to compare was all it took to take two groups that were at each other's throats to say, oh yeah, well that's true.
	Let's try to keep these schools open.
	That's all it took. Now take that to fentanyl.
	In fentanyl we knew to make the correct comparison and that allowed at least the public Not the teachers' unions yet, but at least the public, to start getting on the same page.
	With fentanyl, we feel like we're on the same page, but we're not.
	We're not on the same page.
	Because even the people who say, that's terrible, they think it's terrible because people between 18 and 49 are the leading cause of death.
	If that's the only thing they think, that's not nearly enough energy to get something done.
	But if we can get them to understand its quality life years is what's being taken from us, then you can get people on the same page.
	All right. I'm going to take another run at why analogies usually fail for thinking.
	I did my list of hoaxes, and I had somebody say, compare that to a known lie.
	And it was this weird comparison.
	And I was accused of making people think past the sale because I said, how many of these hoaxes do you still believe?
	And the criticism was that I've made them think past the sale of whether the hoaxes are real by saying, how many do you still believe?
	Now, of course, that's true.
	But there's also something you know about the list.
	Hell, there's no such thing as making you think past the truth. - I love.
	It's not a sale. It's just the truth.
	So I can refer to the truth any way I want.
	It's not gaslighting because it's just the truth.
	And then that was compared to asking people how many of the hoaxes they believe was compared to somebody saying to me, hey, Scott, why did you stop beating your wife?
	To which I say, you just compared things which are known to be true...
	To a speculation. That's the opposite of how you should use an analogy.
	Do you get that?
	They're not both a case of making you think past the sale.
	That's not the important part.
	The important part is one is a bunch of true stuff, and one is just speculation.
	You can't compare those.
	So analogies fail almost every time, the way we use them.
	The only way to use an analogy is, I'm convinced, is this way.
	You give your analogy, and then you state the one and only thing that you can learn from the analogy.
	Well, and the analogy shows you that, you know, you can never promise something you don't deliver, or something like that, right?
	If that's the only point you're making, then good.
	But otherwise, people will just argue all of the other parts of the analogy, which were never part of your point.
	I'm always surprised that people read my tweets.
	I know it's a weird thing, but because you tweet when you're alone, or at least I do, I'm totally alone, it's just me and my phone, I'll like boop boop boop.
	And then I'll tweet about some famous character, because I think it's just me and my followers talking to each other.
	And then the famous follower responds, I'm like, oh shit, I didn't know he'd actually read it.
	Even the size of my Twitter account still surprises me.
	So here's an example of that.
	So Max Boot was...
	Tweeting today. And he says, don't accept the GOP framing of the assault on Paul Pelosi as evidence of a problem plaguing, quote, both sides of the aisle.
	Political violence in America is being driven primarily by the far right, not the far left.
	And then he refers to a Washington Post link.
	And so I saw that, and I said to myself, hmm, Max Boot.
	Does everybody know Max Boot by reputation?
	Is there anybody here who needs an explanation of who he is?
	I'll give it to you anyway.
	So he's as Democrat as you can be, meaning that for people who are in the tank for Democrats, you know, ride or die, he's sort of a ride or die Democrat.
	But he's also been associated with some of the most insane Democrat narratives That have been, you know, let's say discredited.
	Now, I'm not going to say who's right or wrong about anything.
	I'll just say that, you know, in many people's opinions, his views have been discredited.
	That's fair. You can say that about me as well.
	So, I tweeted this.
	I said, once you know who the players are, Meaning, in this case, if you knew who Max Boot is, I said, everything looks different.
	Democrats will see this tweet as their new narrative, which is what Max Boot sort of is.
	I would say that Democrats know to look at Max Boot and others, but a small group of people, to know what their narrative will be.
	In the same way that the right might look at Tucker Carlson.
	So people on the right would wait for Tucker Carlson to have an opinion, for example, not just him.
	And then, you know, they'd form their narrative.
	So Max Boot is one of those narrative-hardening characters.
	That once he's put out a good narrative that others can adopt, they see it, and just the fact that they see him talking about it, they go, okay, that's a safe, it's got a link to it, it's got a little meat to it, we can jump on that.
	So if you know that Max Boo is a narrative booster, or even narrative creator, then everything looks different, doesn't it?
	Because once you know that there's some people who are not in the business of even trying to give you a balanced opinion, then you can see them for what they are.
	And so I tweeted that, you know, everything is different once you know who the players are.
	And Max Mood apparently saw my tweet and responded back to me, and he said, always nice to hear from an expert in gaslighting.
	Now, you know what this was interesting for me?
	Because Max Boot told me what the Democrat narrative about me is.
	I'd heard that about myself a lot, but this is the first time I got a confirmation that what the Democrats will lie about me is that I'm a gaslighter.
	I thought, oh shit, that's good to know.
	Now, obviously, I've seen people on Twitter call me a gaslighter because everybody calls everybody a gaslighter.
	It's just sort of a universal thing everybody says.
	But hearing it from him suggests that the only way they can stunt my influence is by saying I'm a gaslighter.
	So if they can frame the narrative that I'm the person who always makes stuff up, Then whatever I say, you can ignore it.
	Oh, it's that make-stuff-up guy.
	So it's sort of the same way I treat John Brennan.
	When John Brennan's on, I try to tell all of you, hey, hey, he's their official gaslighter.
	So it doesn't matter what he says, because he's not in the business of telling you the truth.
	He's in the narrative business.
	So once you know who's in the narrative business, you can just say, oh, there's the gaslighter.
	So, apparently Max Boot would be at least one person who thinks that of me.
	And so when he said, always nice to hear from an expert in the gaslighting, I agreed and amplified.
	I am, in fact, an expert on gaslighting.
	And as I tweeted back to him, it's totally true.
	I'm a trained hypnotist, but my expertise in gaslighting is limited to the spotting of it because of ethics.
	I don't think I could...
	Have I ever done this?
	Let me ask you. Let me do an audit of my own ethics, okay?
	So I need you to audit my ethics.
	Have you ever seen me...
	Create a story that was intentionally fake.
	Have I done that? Have I ever created any narrative that was intentionally fake?
	Because I'm trying to think if I ever did it just for fun or I was playing a hoax or anything.
	I can't think of one.
	Oh, yeah, okay.
	When it was a joke, for sure.
	Yeah, my IQ of 185.
	So when it's an overt prank, yes.
	But have I ever done it for, like, serious reasons?
	I've said things that didn't turn out to be true.
	We all do that.
	But I thought they were true.
	For example, I said that, you know, when Hillary was running, I thought she looked ill, and I predicted that she'd have a lot of problems.
	So maybe she had less problems than that, so that would just make me wrong.
	But I believed it.
	I wasn't telling you something I didn't believe.
	That was my opinion.
	Interesting. Alright, Rick Wilson, who you know as someone who used to identify as Republican, but now he's transitioned into something like a Republican disliker, or at least mostly a Trump disliker, I think. Um...
	But he tweeted today that that Pelosi attacker, even though he was definitely a crazy person, that it's the rhetoric of the right which activated him.
	So he really was weaponized to attack Paul Pelosi by all of the anti-Nancy Pelosi rhetoric.
	And I decided to agree and amplify.
	So I agreed about this point of using rhetoric to get crazy people to kill people.
	That's a real problem. When Rick Wilson says the way we talk about politics could be activating crazy people to do stuff, that's real.
	We're on the same page on that.
	That's real. I don't know if there's anything you can do about it.
	Within the limitations of free speech and political discussion, I don't think you can fix it.
	But it's true. And it's a real problem.
	So I agreed and amplified.
	And I said, it's a strong point by Rick Wilson.
	Because it is. And I said, we've watched Rick Wilson trying for years to indirectly kill Trump by using this method of riling up left-wing nutjobs with conspiracy theories about Russia and whatnot.
	And the practice is as dangerous as he notes in his video.
	So agree and amplify.
	I'll model it as many times as I can.
	But do you see how often that works?
	Have I sold you yet?
	Watch me making you think past the sale.
	Have I sold you yet?
	Because I will. That agree and amplify just kind of always works.
	But it only works for ridiculous points.
	So if somebody makes a point that's just sort of ridiculous, Then it almost always works.
	There may be some exceptions, but I have great success with it.
	Alright, here's a little glimpse of the future.
	I've told you that I saw VR before you did.
	You meaning most of you, not all of you.
	So, but that now is, how long ago was it when I was first telling you I got a VR set at home?
	Three years? Something like that?
	So, imagine three years in virtual reality, how the technology has improved.
	Well, the VR that we usually see is the consumer type.
	So the kind that Meta would be making, you know, the kind that you strap on and you pay, let's say you pay several hundred dollars.
	But it turns out that there's a real high-end company whose name I forgot to write down.
	But there's one company that's doing the highest-end virtual reality goggles and they're aiming toward a market of like medical stuff and maybe technical stuff where the degree of resolution And the reality that you see has to be super high.
	And I think they use, it's not Oculus, and I think they use a technique where the focus of what you're looking at, like the center of where you're concentrating, is super crisp, but the things that would be your peripheral vision are a little less crisp.
	But that's how your actual eye works.
	So your brain interprets everything you see as being clear, but the truth is there's only this little space right in the middle where you're actually focusing that's clear, and everything else is fuzzy.
	But you don't care, and you don't see it that way, because you're not looking at it.
	You're just sort of aware that there's some peripheral vision.
	So that's one of the tricks they used, is to make it just like an eye.
	So they don't use too much resources for the peripheral, it's just there, and your brain thinks it would be clear if you looked at it.
	Because if you do, it's clear.
	So if you do look at it, it's incidentally clear, wherever you look.
	But it's just not clear until you look.
	Do you think I'm teaching you something about virtual reality?
	No. What you're going to learn from virtual reality and AI is about your actual reality.
	You're going to learn a lot about virtual reality, but it won't come close to the gigantic mindfuck you're about to have, which is everything you think about reality It's going to be disproved.
	And very soon.
	Like really basic stuff is going to be all disproved.
	And the way it's going to be disproved is that we'll learn so much from virtual reality that it will allow you to question the basics of your reality.
	May I give you an example?
	I think we live in a simulation, that this is actually a software construct, and that I only believe I'm real, but there's somebody who created me and a bits.
	And it might have been me.
	I might have created myself, and, you know, I'm living in my own avatar.
	That's possible. It's possible I created a Like a virtual end life for myself after my organic body died.
	It's possible that I'm the legacy of the organic person who programmed me.
	But here's the point. If we are a simulation, the simulation would not add equal detail everywhere.
	It would only put detail where you were looking.
	Just like virtual reality.
	The only way virtual reality could have the, let's say, the power to make you think you're living in a different world is they have to cheat on all the stuff that you're not looking at at the moment.
	All of that had to be approximately there, otherwise there wouldn't be enough resources to compute it all.
	Every time you see the virtual reality world run into a physical block, You're going to notice that the same physical limitation exists in what you thought was your real world.
	Once you learn that 100% of the programming obstacles for a virtual world are identical to the ones in your real world, that's the moment you'll know you're living in a simulation.
	And here's where the proof will be.
	If you build a virtual reality, And you want your person to go for a walk.
	And you say, all right, you're going to go for a walk in a forest.
	And you can walk as far as you want.
	Would the virtual reality create an infinite forest, just in case?
	Or would it fill in the forest as you walked?
	And the answer is, of course it would fill it in as you walked.
	It would just stay a little bit ahead of you and harden it as you walked.
	We are going to discover, here's my prediction...
	That our actual reality does the same thing.
	We will discover in our lifetime, because of virtual reality, I think, that our actual reality doesn't exist until you need it.
	It's on demand.
	It's basically Schrodinger's cat writ large.
	It's just Schrodinger's cat.
	If you don't observe it, it doesn't need to be there.
	Chris, you're at me.
	So Chris, let me talk to you.
	So Chris says we're already there.
	I agree with you 100%.
	What I'm telling you is that everybody else isn't there yet, Chris.
	So you're there, and I'm there.
	I'm totally there. And a lot of you are there as well.
	But the general public is very much not there.
	But they will be. You want to get a little more evidence of this?
	So I tweeted, you can see it in my Twitter feed, highly recommended.
	If you want to know what the next five years looks like, highly, highly recommended that you look in my Twitter feed today and look for my tweet.
	There's a YouTube video where a guy who's sort of an expert on VR tried out these high-end glasses.
	And here's what he describes as his experience.
	Somewhat lifelike human characters would be in the virtual world.
	The first thing you need to know is that in his virtual world, he could not distinguish between real and virtual objects.
	So they put him in a room that had some real furniture and some virtual furniture.
	He couldn't tell.
	There was no difference. He couldn't tell if the table he was looking at was real or had been put there.
	He had to feel it. If his hand went through it, it wasn't real.
	If he touched, it was real. You ready for super weirdness?
	This one will just blow your mind.
	So then they also put him in a room where there were human-like people who looked as much as virtual reality can, like a real person.
	That real person walks up to you like a real person and stands right in front of you.
	Here's the weird part. They're virtual, so you could put your hand right through them, but you don't.
	You touch them, and you can feel them.
	You ready? You can feel them, and they're not there.
	You put your hand on them, you can feel their warmth.
	You can feel their shoulder.
	It's not there. Now, this is something we already know about.
	It's called phantom. You know, people lose a limb, can still feel their limb.
	That's a very well-known thing, right?
	Phantom limb. How many of you have phantom cell phone buzzing?
	Do you have the buzz in the pocket where you carry your phone?
	A lot of you, right? I have that.
	I have that all the time.
	I feel my phone buzzing, and it's not buzzing.
	It's a phantom buzz.
	So, wait till you find out that even in your real reality, the things you think you're touching and feeling, you might not be.
	You might not be. You might not be touching anything.
	You might not be feeling anything.
	And I'm going to give you a super messed up thing now.
	If you, in the real world, if you were to, say, jump off, let's say, a 10-foot height...
	You would feel your stomach go, right?
	You know if you're in an elevator and the elevator comes to a stop and you feel your guts changing?
	Now go into a virtual reality game in which you're made to seem as though you're also moving.
	What happens to your guts?
	Same fucking thing.
	Same thing. Your guts will react as if you're actually moving.
	Or you'll feel like they do.
	They don't actually move. But you'll have the gut feeling.
	Yeah. Now, I know you can't see it yet.
	Chris can see it. So Chris may have spent some time in virtual reality.
	You have to spend time in virtual reality to understand this.
	I don't think I could understand it If I hadn't spent some time doing it.
	And I did just the beginning, early stuff, right?
	It's just the earliest stuff. But wow.
	Wow, do you have a mindfuck coming.
	Wait till you see what's coming.
	Speaking of Twitter, the New York Times tweeted that, quote, in a headline they said, the New York Times, Elon Musk, in a tweet, shares link from site known to publish false news.
	Elon Musk retweeted that headline and said, this is fake.
	I did not tweet in a link to the New York Times.
	Is it just me, or does the air feel cleaner?
	Shhh.
	Shhh.
	Whew.
	Thank you.
	I feel more free.
	Hold on. Hold on.
	Yup, it's a song. There's a song in my body.
	I can't even turn it off.
	Is that a butterfly?
	Okay, I swear I see a rainbow.
	Unicorn? Unicorn?
	I don't know. Just everything seems better.
	Just everything seems better today.
	Maybe this is the golden age.
	Maybe this is the golden age.
	Because honest to God, I have not awakened feeling so good.
	I don't know. It's hard to remember the last time.
	It's been years. But for the last several days, I just wake up feeling great.
	Just feeling great. Can't wait for the day.
	It gets better. I'm just building up to the best story.
	We're not even at the best story yet.
	It's coming. Alright, so my first thought when I saw that Musk had originally, when he tweeted that link, which I knew immediately was not a credible link, my first thought was, oh my god, I wonder if he'll get cancelled. I actually had that thought.
	I wonder if he's going to get cancelled for that.
	And then I thought, hey, he owns Twitter.
	He's the first person who can't be cancelled.
	He's the first one, right?
	In the world. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's the first person in the world who can't be cancelled.
	Am I wrong about that?
	Because I can be cancelled.
	Let me put it in different terms.
	I've told you before that I have fuck you money, right?
	Meaning that I can say things you can't say, because if I get cancelled, well, I'm not going to be poor.
	So that's fuck you money.
	But what Elon Musk has is whatever is the level above fuck you money.
	What he has, I'm going to coin a new phrase, he has fuck your spouse right in front of you money.
	That's different money.
	It's like, you know, I say I'm rich, but I'm not private jet rich.
	Meaning I wouldn't waste my money on a private jet.
	Like I don't have that much money.
	But I have fuck you money, but I don't have fuck your spouse right in front of you money.
	Elon Musk has fuck your spouse right in front of you.
	He's a free man.
	He's as free as you can get.
	But here's the best part.
	If you haven't heard this story yet, watch how happy this makes you.
	Are you ready for this?
	And I hope some of you...
	Is there anybody who hasn't seen the news yet?
	I hope there's somebody here who hasn't watched the news, because I want to be the one who tells you.
	Can somebody... Oh, good, good.
	Good, good. So some of you don't know this news from today, right?
	Because it's brand new today.
	This is so beautiful.
	I get to tell you.
	I get to tell you.
	Here's the news. I had not thought about it, but it turns out that Elon Musk, now owning Twitter, has access to all of the internal communications of the staff.
	How do you feel now?
	And the first thing he found, he has tweeted, which is...
	Which is that...
	Oh, I hope I wrote it down.
	He found an internal communication in which the person who's in charge of the sort of Twitter censoring stuff was blaming somebody else within the company of hiding data.
	Not only hiding the data, but hiding it exactly as Musk is accusing them of doing.
	And he threatened that he was going to basically be a whistleblower.
	So I saw a lot of people come down hard on that...
	What's his name? Yole something?
	Who was the head of...
	What was his actual job?
	But he was head of some kind...
	He was in charge of something important to, you know, tracking down bots and stuff.
	Right? So Elon Musk has the actual communication...
	That proves that he was right in his accusations.
	It's just the beginning.
	Security? He wasn't a security guy, was he?
	It must have been a wing of security.
	Oh, here it is. Here we go.
	Somebody who was nice enough...
	It's the old Roth...
	And the thing you send me, I can't open, unfortunately.
	But Yole Roth. So, when people saw it, they were like, why is this Yole Roth guy still working?
	Because it looked like he was, you know, part of the, you know, it looked like he might have been part of the process of hiding information.
	But if you read it more carefully, you can see that he was the guy, Yoel, was the guy who was criticizing the person hiding the information and was threatening to take it public, or at least public within the company.
	And then, interestingly, Musk actually tweeted his support For Yoel and says he has his trust.
	And what's interesting is people found the past tweets of this individual, Yoel, and found that he was pretty anti-Trump and anti-Republican, and very anti-Republican.
	And Musk, to his credit, says that's just a political opinion, but as an employee, he has his trust.
	And I thought, damn!
	Damn, that is exactly what you want to see, isn't it?
	The very thing you wanted Musk to do was to conspicuously keep somebody who hates Trump but does a good job.
	That's exactly what I wanted to see.
	And that's exactly what he served up.
	I've told you about the new CEO move, right?
	And Musk is just killing it.
	The new CEO move is what you do in the first week.
	Because you end up believing your first impression, it's hard to shake it, right?
	So whatever first impression becomes your thing.
	When Trump was first elected, but before he was sworn in, he and Pence started traveling around and trying to make sure that their companies were hiring Americans and staying in America.
	And that became your first impression of Trump.
	Very good form.
	You know, to give your first impression before he's sworn in, that's just great stuff.
	And I called it down at the time.
	But... But this is even better, because everything that Musk is doing is just what you wanted to see.
	Now, here's the best part of the story.
	It's interesting that he caught this one example of maybe some bad behavior.
	We'll have to hear the other side.
	But he has access to all of the internal communication.
	Everything that Twitter has done...
	He's going to find out.
	Oh my God! Now, this is yet another warning I would like to give you.
	Don't ever put anything in a digital message that you can't live with being public.
	Do you all get that now?
	Like, it used to be that you thought, well, I'm an average citizen, I'm not doing anything, nobody's even going to look anyway.
	Don't put it in any kind of communication.
	Don't put it in a DM. Don't put it in, and especially, especially, don't put it in an encrypted app.
	If you think you're safe because an app is encrypted, and that's his whole point, the whole point is that nobody can see it, you are not safe.
	You're not even close.
	Because you know what people really want to get at?
	Your encrypted apps.
	So they can read it on your phone before it gets sent.
	The person you send it to, maybe their phone is hacked, so it can be read from the phone.
	Maybe the person himself is not trustworthy.
	There are a million ways that that message can get out.
	So do not write down anything you don't want somebody to read.
	Period. Ever.
	And I ask myself if I've followed that advice.
	And the answer is, almost.
	And by that I mean, the only reason I'm safe is that I don't have any sense of embarrassment and I have fucking money.
	So I can't think of anything that could hurt me that would be in any of my messages.
	I mean, there might be things that would titillate and excite you and you'd be like, whoa, didn't know that.
	It could be that kind of stuff.
	But nothing that would really hurt me.
	So be like that.
	This is one case where you should be like me.
	And I almost never tell you to do that.
	Because being like me is usually a recipe for disaster.
	But this one time, be like me.
	Don't write anything in the message that you don't want to see.
	Here's a typical tweet from the left.
	Somebody was mad because there's this hashtag, Pelosi gay lover going around.
	We'll talk about Paul Pelosi in a moment.
	And a lefty account said, yeah, Twitter advertisers, time to bail.
	So somebody who uses Twitter, who is encouraging the advertisers to leave.
	Have I ever mentioned that Democrats don't have a firm understanding of economics?
	Have I ever mentioned that?
	I've seen no better case.
	Here's somebody who thinks that they can enjoy their Twitter experience.
	Here, I'm reading between the lines, but I think that's safe.
	I think that if they're a Twitter user, they obviously like Twitter, right?
	If you're using it, and you like it enough to use it.
	Here's somebody who likes it, but thinks maybe they can still use it if the advertisers go away.
	Maybe. Maybe Musk will pay for it all himself.
	But I wouldn't encourage the advertisers to go away if you want the model to continue.
	I think...
	Didn't Jack Dorsey say that the advertising model was the mistake?
	I thought I saw that, right?
	So even Jack Dorsey knew that advertising was sort of the road to ruin.
	And maybe...
	Twitter will become a non-advertising model.
	What would you pay to use Twitter?
	So Twitter has how many users?
	Are there a billion users?
	How many users does Twitter have?
	Give me that quickly. Quickly, how many users does Twitter have?
	It's under a billion, right?
	700 million or something.
	I'm going from...
	200 million? Yeah, somebody who actually knows.
	I'm seeing a number of people say 300 million.
	Is that really the right number?
	300 million? Nobody knows?
	All right. Well, if you're a blue check account, you would pay more.
	Because having a blue check experience on Twitter is just a better experience.
	I can tell you that having a blue check just makes everything different.
	I have a completely different experience than you do.
	I would pay for that. Five dollars a month, easily.
	Easily. Five dollars a month.
	But there aren't that many blue checks compared to other people.
	So would the rest of you who are just using it to read content pay a dollar?
	A dollar a month? You know what kind of advertisement I would accept?
	I've never seen this.
	I wonder if anybody's tested it.
	I would accept challenge out advertisement.
	Challenge out.
	So imagine if you want to see a video, instead of having to sit through a minute of an ad, which seems like forever, suppose they just slapped up a multiple choice test.
	And it says, let's say, Toyota Prius.
	Gas mileage is 20 miles per gallon, 30 miles per gallon, 75.
	I don't know what the real number is.
	But if you correctly guess the right gas mileage, it goes away and you're on with your content.
	Do you know how quickly you could answer a multiple choice?
	Like three seconds, right?
	You don't even need to get the right answer because it'll show you the right answer if you get the wrong answer.
	You don't even get... Weighed down by that.
	Now, suppose it asked me a question I didn't know the answer to.
	I would actually be interested.
	Let's say it was some kind of laundry soap product, which typically would not be served to be because I wouldn't see that kind of ad.
	But let's say it did. And it said something like, laundry soap is also flammable under the following condition.
	I don't even know if that's a thing, but it might be.
	I wouldn't be interested in that.
	And I would say, what?
	And I would actually stop, I would remember the name of the company, and it might actually bind me to them a little bit, and it would still, it wouldn't slow me down.
	It would be a little bit of a distraction before I watched my video, but still, five seconds.
	Five seconds. And if you ask me, that would be better for the advertiser.
	Alright, here's how I would do it.
	Here would be my advertisement.
	Pop! Pops on the screen.
	You could read Dilbert in newspapers, but where else?
	And then it would say, newspaper websites?
	No, it wouldn't say that.
	It would say, in the New York Times, somewhere on TV, and then at Dilbert.com.
	And then, of course, I would want you to know, yeah, there's some other answers, but I would want you to know that the real answer that I'm trying to lead you to is Dilbert.com.
	So I would have informed you that there's a place you can see my comics, it would have taken you no more than five seconds, and then you'd go on with it.
	Now, that's better than paying for it, isn't it?
	Your ad block is keeping you from seeing Dilbert?
	All right.
	Let me ask you this.
	If advertisers left Twitter, would Twitter be a safer place or a less safe place?
	Go. So this is, again, the left not understanding the economics.
	If advertisers left, would...
	It would be safer, you say.
	Let me offer you the devil's advocate counterpoint.
	If every time you tweeted you didn't have to worry about anybody, would you tweet the same as if you did have to worry about at least advertisers wanting you to get kicked off?
	I feel like the advertisers create a guardrail that can be both good and bad.
	Would you agree with that? It definitely creates bad, so that part we can stipulate, we all agree, that advertisers can cause bad distortions.
	100% agreement on the bad part, right?
	But is there not a balancing effect that it keeps us all within a socially appropriate channel for the most part?
	Because the thing about social media is that we act like monsters in ways we wouldn't in person.
	But the advertisers are sort of like a conscience, you know, with a bite, to keep you acting a little bit closer to how you would in person.
	I don't know.
	I'm not a big fan of the advertising model, but I'm not sure I understand totally how it would play out if you took it away.
	Imagine being a left-leaning political person, and you have these two choices now that Musk owns Twitter.
	If you stay there, you're going to be exposed to, let's say, painful freedom.
	Painful freedom.
	It's actually going to hurt.
	If you leave, then you're not part of the game.
	You lose your power. Because Democrats have a lot of power because of their influence on Twitter.
	I've argued that Twitter is the tail that wags the entire media dog.
	And it goes like this.
	Even though you say to yourself, no, Twitter is just one more outlet.
	No, Twitter is not just one more outlet.
	Twitter is where every professional journalist goes to figure out what they can and cannot say.
	It's way bigger than just one outlet.
	Twitter's influence on the people who can be influenced, the ones who make a difference, the influencers, is everything.
	And I don't think Facebook has that, you know, not Instagram, not LinkedIn.
	It's only Twitter.
	Twitter is the tail that's wagging all of the dog.
	And Musk now owns that.
	So he owns You know, the thing that controls other people in a way that nobody else ever has.
	And so now the Democrats have this weird choice.
	They can either stay on Twitter and be exposed to painful freedom, because it's going to hurt, or they can leave and give up their power.
	Because if you get off of Twitter, You've really given away your power.
	And I mean the Democrat power, not just an individual's power of influence, but the whole Democrats.
	The fewer Democrats there are on Twitter, the less influence Democrats have.
	Would you agree with that?
	The fewer Democrats on Twitter, substantially, the less power they will have in the real political world.
	Because Twitter is where all power emanates, and from there, all things happen.
	But if Twitter says you can't say that, they're not going to say it.
	And if Twitter says it's true, then they'll say it.
	That's what I think. Because Twitter is where you go to get mocked for a bad job if you're a journalist, right?
	If you're a journalist, let's say that the journalist who interviewed Fetterman, I can't remember her name, Don't you think she loved that day when all the people were saying, great job, you were honest, you finally told the truth?
	That was a huge dopamine hit.
	But then also people on her side were saying, damn you for hurting our candidate.
	I don't think people could quit, so Dem's got a bad choice.
	I saw somebody on the left say that Musk is obviously a sociopath.
	Musk is a sociopath.
	That would conflict with about 100% of everything you observe about him.
	I don't think...
	I mean, to me that is the most absurdly wrong comment I've ever heard in my life.
	His entire Mars thing is to spread the light of consciousness.
	Like, there's nobody who cares about humans in a demonstrably, you know, you're working on it every day, putting your heart and soul, your blood into it.
	Nobody's working harder than he is on behalf of humanity.
	I mean, literally, just count the hours he works trying to save the planet from climate change as he sees it, trying to save the planet from, you know, energy shortages as he sees it, trying to save us from a planet that can't sustain us forever.
	How much of that is a sociopath?
	It's like the word lost all meaning.
	It lost all meaning. He's got nine kids, because he apparently loves kids.
	He jokes like a person who's definitely not a sociopath.
	And I have real questions about his claim that he's Asperger's.
	I'm not seeing it.
	I don't see it at all.
	I don't know. I'm no expert, but I don't see it.
	Alright. I saw an interesting couple of articles by a fellow named Will Lockett, who writes in an online publication called Predict.
	I don't know either the person or the publication, but he had some really interesting claims I want to run past you.
	Did you know that your thermonuclear stockpile has to be continuously refreshed with tritium?
	Is that right, tritium?
	Let me make sure I got the right material here.
	No, not tritium.
	Lithium or something.
	No, tritium. Yes, tritium is the right word.
	So tritium apparently doesn't last long.
	Tritium doesn't last long, so if you want your thermonuclear weapons to work, you have to continually be adding to them and topping them off.
	The ability to continually produce this stuff, the tritium, is really, really expensive.
	It's like $30,000 per gram, but I didn't see how many grams you need, but it must be enough.
	Now, you can't stockpile it.
	This is important. Because there would be no point in stockpiling the very thing that, you know, it decays over time.
	So you can't stockpile it.
	So you have to make it as you need it.
	So if Russia is running out of money, Which is suggested by the fact that they've asked their soldiers to buy their own equipment, in some cases.
	There is clearly indications that Russia's got a budget problem.
	Don't know how much.
	It could be no big deal.
	But as Will speculates, there's a non-zero chance that their thermonuclear weapons already don't work.
	Now, we should not make any serious decisions based on that being true, because you'd hate to be wrong.
	I'd be really surprised if they don't have a few that are working.
	It seems to me that they would keep a few fresh.
	So I don't think they're all broken.
	But I do wonder if Putin knows which ones work.
	Because it seems to me that the worst thing you could do is attempt to fire a nuke and it doesn't work.
	You'd be really in trouble then.
	Because you don't know if the American nukes work, but I'll bet they do.
	Not all of them, but I'll bet they do.
	So I don't know that we can make anything in terms of a decision about this, but it's interesting to know that if you don't have a huge budget, your nuclear weapons become obsolete fairly soon.
	I think maybe within a year or so.
	Does anybody have it? How long does it take for your tritium to wear out?
	Eight days? Twelve-year half-life?
	But is the half-life what we're looking at?
	Or just when it decays too much?
	Alright, well, we don't know.
	People are guessing. Here's another thing that Will Lockett says.
	There's a recent paper out of the University of New South Wales where some entity figured out how to recycle solar panels.
	You know how solar panels are a big polluting problem?
	Because once you make them, if they go bad, once they wear out, there's nothing to do with them.
	Well, some company cleverly figured out how to...
	What do they do? They remove the aluminum frame, and then they've got some electrostatic process that separates all the valuable materials that they can reuse.
	So instead of being mostly toxic garbage, They become mostly a source for valuable materials.
	Now, remember, it's just a paper.
	Just a paper doesn't mean that it can actually work in the real world.
	But it's nice to know somebody's working on that problem.
	I'd be surprised if it doesn't get solved eventually.
	So that's the good news.
	Now, that, ladies and gentlemen, brings us...
	To approximately the end of what has to be the most entertaining livestream you've ever seen in your life.
	And... I know.
	It's really surprising that I can do it every single time.
	It's hard to top myself every day, but so far, it just keeps getting better.
	Yes, and it's Halloween.
	Um... I will be handing out candy at my house.
	If anybody wants to come say hi, that would be an excellent time to do it.
	So if you live anywhere in my driving distance, it isn't hard to find my house.
	You can find it pretty easily.
	So come to my house, I'll give you some candy.
	But I might run out, so...
	Let's declare a pandemic amnesty in the Atlantic, even the Atlantic.
	All right. I think I'm going to put on a green t-shirt and go as Zelensky.
	Did I talk about Pelosi?
	Oh, good catch. I didn't really talk about Pelosi, did I? All right, let's talk about Paul Pelosi.
	So here are the mysteries so far.
	And you can update me in case any of these got solved in the last hour.
	Number one, oh, his 911 call came out.
	Number one, why did he know the name of his assailant?
	I don't find that too strange because he may have asked the name.
	He may have just asked him his name.
	Maybe he just told him. Because I think there was some interaction no matter what.
	If he said his friend, that may be because he knew he was dealing with a crazy person.
	It may be because he knew he was dealing with a crazy person.
	It may be because it was his friend.
	So we don't know. The question of the security cameras, that's a pretty big question, isn't it?
	And the no staff and no security?
	I'm going to tell you something that probably shouldn't, but it's relevant to this story.
	In many cases, the people you think should have security don't.
	Because having security is a giant pain in the ass.
	Even if you can afford it, it's a giant pain in the ass.
	So I do think that there are some people, especially like a spouse of a politician, probably they could, they could afford it, and just don't.
	So I think there's a whole lot of people...
	So here's what I don't find completely surprising.
	I'm not surprised he knew his name.
	That doesn't tell you everything.
	I'm not surprised that he didn't have security.
	I know you are, but I'm not surprised by that.
	I'm also not surprised if his security camera didn't work.
	Has anybody ever owned security cameras at your house?
	Let me give you my experience.
	I've owned maybe five expensive security systems for various homes.
	None of them worked.
	Let me say it again.
	I've had probably five expensive security systems for different homes at different times.
	None of them worked.
	I actually have a redundant system now.
	So I have two security systems because the odds of one of them working are less than 50%.
	Let me say that again.
	I have two security systems, two completely redundant systems, because the odds of any one of them working is low.
	Probably half of the time, maybe at best.
	Probably half of the time. Let me say that again.
	It works half of the time.
	All right. My current security system, set up by professionals, for whom I paid a lot, if I open it up on my app, it just crashes.
	And I ask them to fix it, and they're busy.
	For months. Now, I have an entirely second system that is working at the moment.
	So I do have security, but it's my blink camera.
	Like, if I didn't buy a blink camera system, I wouldn't have security right now, for all practical purposes.
	Have I ever told you I have this problem?
	Well, alright, let's go back to Paul Pelosi.
	So, I'm not surprised that security cameras don't work.
	That's actually normal. And when you heard that Epstein's camera was off, did you all say to yourself, my God, the only way a security camera could not be working is if somebody intentionally turned it off?
	And do you know what I said?
	No, it's about a 50% chance.
	I'll bet if you went into any prison right now, you'd have problems with your security camera somewhere.
	Somewhere. Yeah, in a prison.
	Yes, in a prison.
	Even in a prison. That's right.
	Because, you know, I'm a perfect example of somebody who should not ever not have a security system.
	But lots of times I would if I didn't have two.
	If I didn't have two, I wouldn't have a security system right now.
	All right. Paul Pelosi.
	Now, what do you feel about the fact that Elon Musk tweeted something that clearly was a non-credible source?
	Which you probably knew.
	We don't know. I love the fact that, here's what I think.
	I think when he tweeted the non-credible source, it was more like a proxy for just the hypothesis that there's something more to the story.
	That's how I took it.
	I didn't take it that that story was necessarily credible, but rather he was just sort of teasing them that there might be more to the story.
	It seemed more playful.
	Than serious. And so that I just loved because it bothered them so much.
	I just loved it because it bothered them, I guess.
	I can't be proud of that.
	So now, if Paul Pelosi had been gay, we presume it didn't happen instantly, if that's true, do you think you wouldn't know about that already?
	What do you think of the odds you wouldn't know about that already?
	Okay, you'd call it bi.
	What are the odds you wouldn't know about that already?
	Or what are the odds you wouldn't have heard some confirming stories by now?
	Like, by now, you already would have heard of the guy who said, yeah, I met him at the bar that time.
	He's been bi or gay for years.
	Where are all those people?
	Because you'd know that by now they would come out of the...
	Right, yeah, they'd be coming out of the woodwork.
	Because if it were true...
	And I think probably not.
	But if it were true that he had some relationship with this intruder, why would he pick that guy?
	And if he did pick that guy because it was a mistake, don't you think there would be a whole history of other guys?
	You don't think one of those people would want to cash in?
	If he had some history of, let's say, sex with marginal people who could barely support themselves, if that were true, one of those wouldn't take a $10,000 payday?
	You don't think somebody would want to get the $10,000 payday for saying, oh, yeah, I was with him that time?
	Of course. Of course they would.
	So the longer we don't hear of any confirmation, the less likely the story is.
	Now, is there any good reason they would both be in their underwear?
	Yes. One of them just woke up, and the other one is a known nudist who walks around in his underwear.
	Yeah, there is.
	Is there any reason that the glass that's broken would only be broken outside?
	Yes. Yes, there is.
	Because he got in some other way, and then a fight happened, and something went through a window from the inside out.
	Easily. Yeah.
	So everything that you think is proving that he had a gay relationship has an other explanation that's far more likely.
	Right? Far more likely.
	Now, can I rule out that there was some kind of Something going on?
	No. No.
	But I'm not willing to believe it.
	We have a confirmation there was only one hammer.
	So it was a fake news that there was another person present.
	At one point, somebody else answered the door.
	But now we hear that that wasn't true.
	There were only two people there.
	So here are all the things that can easily be explained away.
	Security systems routinely don't work.
	Very normal. People you think would have security often don't.
	It would surprise you, but they often don't.
	Being in their underwear is explained.
	Broken window can be easily explained.
	Knowing his name can be explained.
	He probably just asked him. Probably just asked him his name.
	Calling him a friend can be explained, because he might want to keep him calm, right?
	Because that would actually be a good technique.
	If you have a crazy guy who looks dangerous come to you, try that technique.
	Try the Paul Pelosi technique.
	So, my friend is here.
	Hey, my friend.
	Hey, friend, let's talk.
	What's bothering you, friend?
	So, you automatically went to the worst assumption about a very smart guy.
	You went to the worst assumption that something was going on there.
	If you say he's a smart person who still has his faculties, then he has game.
	And if he has game, calling this guy a friend when he's dangerous is exactly the right play.
	Persuasion-wise, that's right on target.
	I would have done the same thing.
	If somebody comes in who's dangerous but crazy, you treat them like a friend.
	You got that? And it wasn't until the hammer came into the question.
	Remember, Pelosi brought the hammer.
	It wasn't until the hammer was introduced that the guy flipped out.
	So Pelosi had actually controlled the situation by calling him a friend up until that point.
	Here's the other bullshit part of the story.
	Was it Biden who said this?
	That the crazy guy was chanting January 6th slogans.
	Did you hear that? And then did you hear what the slogan was?
	Where's Nancy? Because some of the January 6th people were saying, where's Nancy?
	Where's Nancy? Now, what is the most ordinary question you'd ask if you were, let's say, looking for Nancy?
	If you were looking for Nancy, what words would you choose?
	I would have chosen, where is Nancy?
	And I might even use a contraction to say, where's Nancy?
	And if he didn't answer, I might ask again.
	Because we do assume that he broke into the house to confront her, not him, right?
	So if you confront somebody's spouse in the home in which you were trying to talk to the other spouse, what would be the normal question you would ask?
	Where's Nancy? How many times would you ask the question?
	As many times as you needed to.
	Where's Nancy? No, where's Nancy?
	Where's Nancy? Where's Nancy?
	And then Joe Biden says he was chanting January 6th stuff.
	That fucking piece of shit.
	I mean, Joe Biden is really just a piece of shit.
	He really is. I remember when I used to think, well, I disagree with his policies, and maybe he's misguided, and oh, he makes some gaffes and stuff, but he's just a piece of shit.
	He's like just a piece of shit.
	He really is. And this was a perfect example.
	All right. Now, can you name anything else that I cannot explain away this easily?
	Anybody? And while you're naming that, now that I've explained away all the suspicious things, did I miss anything?
	Both in their underwear make sense.
	One just woke up, two in the morning, and one is a known nudist.
	Totally explained. It was not a wellness check.
	It was not a wellness check.
	That's fake news. Pelosi called 911 and they came.
	Because he snuck into the bathroom and used his phone and called 911.
	So we've explained the wellness check, the underpants, the broken window, all of it.
	All of it's explained.
	And all of the explanations I gave you are the ordinary ones.
	The extraordinary one would be if this rich guy was gay and the best he could do to work out a gay encounter was this guy.
	Let me toss you a really, okay?
	We'll back up and we'll take a running start at a good really.
	This is really persuasion, alright?
	So, you're telling me that Paul Pelosi...
	A successful business person who by all accounts has all of his faculties, very high operating individual, super rich, super connected, and he lives in the gayest city in the entire solar system, San Francisco. Are you telling me that this highly capable person couldn't find a better gay partner than a homeless guy who's crazy?
	Really? Really?
	This guy who can make hundreds of millions of dollars, I know you think he did insider trading, but even before then, this hugely successful, high-operating, brilliant guy in all of his faculties, and the best he could do for a gay tryst was that guy.
	Really? And he would just let him in his house?
	Really? All right.
	Well, then you throw on top of that he has a drinking issue, maybe.
	I don't know if he was just drinking and driving that one time or if he has an issue.
	But I don't know.
	I don't buy the gay lover story.
	How many of you think it's real?
	Now, one of the things I tweeted today is that I don't believe there's a single Republican who cares where Paul Pelosi parks his becker.
	Does anybody care where Paul Pelosi parks his becker?
	No, right? We don't care.
	It's a complete non-story, except that it's funny.
	Complete non-story.
	And I would like to defend Paul Pelosi to the right.
	Well, I know you're having fun with it, and I don't begrudge you the fun, actually, as long as he's going to live and recover.
	I think we can live with a world where people have naughty senses of humor.
	So I'm going to support it.
	I think that the speculation is fun, but don't take it seriously.
	The evidence strongly suggests it's exactly what it looks like.
	Strongly suggests. Alright, we're still guessing.
	Now, and let me also say that we're in the fog of war of this, right?
	Fog of war. So everything that I've said could be completely wrong.
	But if you play the odds...
	Alright, now having heard me explain away every element that you found suspicious, having done that, did you learn anything about confirmation bias?
	It's the best confirmation bias story you'll ever see.
	It should be like a case study in confirmation bias.
	The moment you heard, wait, am I being gay?
	Did you notice that everything confirmed that?
	Where it seemed to. Now, as I explained, it didn't.
	It did the opposite of confirming it.
	But you had to take the least likely explanation of every piece of evidence.
	Did you not? In order to get to that conclusion, you had to take the least likely explanation of every element.
	And you did. Not you, but people did.
	People took the least likely of like 10 pieces of evidence.
	Two on the nose.
	Thank you.
	Was it too on the nose?
	So, you know, I promote that standard for detecting bullshit.
	I don't know. Was it too on the nose?
	Because it's pretty ordinary that people are having, you know, affairs and gay relationships and stuff.
	This seems pretty ordinary. I don't know.
	I wouldn't call that one too on the nose.
	The wellness check is debunked, yes, because it was a 911 call from Pelosi using his own phone from the bathroom, so we know that.
	I think the... Oh, here we go.
	I think the police call it a wellness check when there's not a specific immediate danger that's mentioned.
	How about that? If you call the police and say, there's somebody in my house and, you know, I'm a little concerned, that's a wellness check, right?
	Because at that point, that was before the hammer came out.
	So before the hammer came out, if Paul Pelosi said, all right, there's a guy here, here's his name, and we're having a conversation, but there's clearly something off about this guy and he shouldn't be in my house, can you stop by and make sure everything's okay here?
	And then they say, okay, that's a wellness check because there's no crime reported.
	No specific crime.
	Because probably, it's possible he didn't know how he got in the house, either.
	Like, there might have been some point where Paul Pelosi was saying, I don't know, maybe I left a door unlocked.
	Who knows? Like, maybe it wasn't so much breaking and entering as it was just opening a door.
	Yeah. If you have a small house, It is probably your practice to make sure the doors are locked when you go to sleep.
	Am I right? Do you check all your doors to make sure they're locked before you go to sleep?
	Depends where you live, I guess.
	Yeah. How many doors do you think Paul Pelosi had and windows?
	How many doors do you think he has?
	More than an 82-year-old will check before he goes to sleep.
	Do you think an 82-year-old, if he was living there alone, let's say for the weekend, do you think he checked all his doors?
	Do you think that people who work there, probably during the day, do you think that service people were in and out of his house all day, using various different doors?
	Of course they were. And do you think he checked them before he went to sleep?
	He's 82. Probably not.
	Probably not. So he may not have known at that point.
	We don't know what he knew. But he may have thought, oh shit, I just left a door open and this street person wandered in, so I just have a situation here.
	All right. No, not intentionally.
	Did anybody hear me say leaving their doors open intentionally in San Francisco?
	Nobody does it intentionally.
	I'm just saying he has lots of doors and he's not the one using them all.
	If you had all your doors locked and you only ever used your front door, Well, probably you check it before you go to bed.
	But I'll bet he doesn't walk the entire perimeter of his mansion, check the garage door.
	I don't think so. And there wasn't anybody else there, so it would have had to be him.
	Alright, so let me ask you again.
	Now that some of you are coming in late, but trust me, I just debunked all of the evidence that he was having a gay affair with a far more likely explanation of the same facts.
	How many of you, forget about the fun of it, right?
	Forget about the fun of it.
	Tell me if you believe or do not believe he had a gay relationship.
	Go. Did he or did he not have a gay relationship with that man?
	Mostly no's, but some yes's.
	Mostly no's, but some yes's.
	I think we're about 90% no.
	Maybe 80 to 90% no.
	If you said it's possible, I'm with you.
	I'm totally with you on it's possible.
	Everybody good with that?
	Because there's nothing that debunked it.
	It wasn't debunked.
	It just doesn't quite fit the facts as well as the ordinary explanation.
	The most ordinary explanation fits everything.
	The gay explanation has problems.
	Like, why that guy?
	Just all of it has a problem.
	And if they were there for sex, don't you think the sex would have happened first?
	Does the hammer out before the sex?
	Maybe at your house the hammer comes out before the sex.
	I don't know. And yes, it was a ball-peen hammer.
	I just assumed it was.
	It's just as funnier. All right.
	That's all for me. I told you it would be the best live stream you've ever seen, and I'm sure I didn't disappoint you.

▲