Episode 2079 Scott Adams: Biden Goes After Fentanyl, Musk AI, Reparations Are Collective Punishment
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Biden takes on fentanyl (finally)
Montana bans TikTok
Musk does AI
Pompeo is out
Reparations are collective punishment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization and certainly the best live stream you'll ever see in your entire life.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I don't think there could be a better time in the entire world.
But we can test that.
We can test the outer limits of how much fun we can have.
And all you need for that is... Let me fix my mouth for a little bit.
All right.
Better.
All you need is a cupper, mugger, a glass, a tanker, gel, a cistern, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It's gonna happen right now.
Go.
Oh, yeah.
Savor it.
Savor it.
Locals is working great today.
Just saying.
Everything's working great today.
So while we're talking about all of our small little problems and all of our complaining about what faces on the Bud Light can't, none of that seems terribly important to what Elon Musk is doing today.
Which is describing his detailed plans for occupying Mars.
So he's got a detailed plan of how many starships he's going to build per year and how much Weight they can move and how often they can take off, three per day, you know, three flights per day.
And so he's figured out, he's actually figured out how to bring enough weight to Mars in terms of, you know, transporting stuff that he can actually colonize Mars.
Apparently we have all the technology to do that.
He's actually sending fleets of ships to Mars?
I don't know how he pays for it.
I mean, if you're the richest man, I guess you can figure it out.
But the impact of that is just so enormous.
But I don't think I will ever be on Mars.
Scott thinks we're going to Mars.
I don't think you're going to Mars.
Clowny face.
Anyway, I always get rid of everybody who says what I'm thinking.
So, Pot Life, if you tell people what I'm thinking, you get removed.
So you've been hidden.
I will hide you forever.
Alright, well, there's not much to say about this story except it's so amazing that it's almost impossible to talk about.
That in our lifetime, while you were alive, we were packing up to go to Mars.
I mean, not personally.
But don't you think that you'll visit Mars at least in a virtual form?
Oh, maybe the signal takes too long to get to Mars.
But it seems like I would at least have an avatar on Mars at some point.
There'll be a robot on Mars that you can just put yourself into it and walk around on Mars.
I'm sure that'll happen.
So I might do that, but I don't think I'm going to personally travel there.
I'm not that kind of an adventurer.
All right.
So the state of Montana banned TikTok.
And the first time I read this story, I read it incorrectly because I believed it was yet another state that was banning it only on government phones.
But Montana is banning it, assuming the governor signs it, I guess.
Montana is going to ban the use of TikTok in their state.
Now, I have no idea how that's physically possible or legally possible, but the fact that the state is even trying is a real good sign.
So, what would happen if the other 50 states decided to do it and the federal government didn't?
Maybe the states just have to lead this, but it feels...
Like a sign that the federal government is not doing its job.
Because if you see the states, it feels like the main purpose of the states these days is to embarrass the federal government into doing what obviously it should do.
Obviously it should be tougher on fentanyl.
So the states went first.
Right?
The states were the ones who got tough with, or tried to, get tough with fentanyl before the federal government tried to push them.
And same with TikTok.
So that's sort of a productive use of the states as the little laboratories.
They can push the federal government by doing the obvious things and then everybody says, well, why is that so obvious for the state, but not for the federal government?
Leave TikTok alone.
Doko Studio says.
Are you on China's side or our side?
All right.
Speaking of that, did you know that India is projected to have, and may already, have a greater population than China this year?
Does that blow your mind?
That India is now the biggest country.
Bigger than China.
Population-wise, bigger than China.
Now, I thought that it might happen, but I didn't think it would happen this year.
Yeah, talk about a plot twist, right?
That's a huge plot twist.
So everything that you worried, well, let me take you back in time.
Come back in time with me to the 70s, I think.
In the 70s, do you remember what we were all worried about?
The adults were worried about?
It was that Japan was rising so quickly and was becoming such an industrial manufacturing power that Japan would basically take over all our industry and the United States would be left an empty shell of a nothing.
Well, that didn't work out, did it?
It turns out that you cannot predict the future of Japan.
So Japan went into a long sort of plateau phase.
They've got a population problem.
They didn't take over the world.
I think that we're treating China the same way.
And that China may have so many problems that when we look at them, we say, oh my God, they're going to take over the world and all they care about is expansionism and they want to rule everything.
Now they might want to do that, but how successful they are is probably overblown.
or how successful they could be.
Yeah, so who knows?
Who knows?
But the fact that India is, at least on paper, more pro-America, pro-West, that's a pretty good sign.
Pretty good sign.
I wasn't going to talk about this, but it just popped into my head.
Do you believe that the reason we went into Ukraine had anything to do with protecting Ukraine's territorial integrity?
Does anybody think that's why we did it?
See, the weird thing about this is that we're now fully aware that our government lied to us and lied to the world to start a war.
I don't think there could be a worse crime, could there?
Name a worse crime.
Starting a war that didn't need to be started, and lying to your public about it, and then lying to the world about it.
Maybe the biggest crime since the Holocaust, or since Stalin killed a zillion people, or Mao.
I mean, it might be in the top ten.
Suddenly I realized how many massive crimes against humanity there are.
But it's probably in the top 10 of one of the worst things I've ever seen in my lifetime.
And we're treating it like it's business as usual.
What is up with that?
Is that a media thing?
Can't you imagine a media completely turning on the government saying, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Now that we know that this was all just a big old money grab, whatever it was, I don't know.
But it wasn't protecting any property in Ukraine, I don't think.
Yeah.
Watergate was nothing compared to this.
But why is it that we decide to be outraged about some things, but we're not outraged about this?
Because what would be more outrageous than starting a war with a nuclear power on false pretenses?
I can't even think what source.
Is it distance?
Because it's not happening in our backyard?
Probably.
But I think it's also that it might work.
And when I say it might work, we believe that the real motivations of our government was to drain Russia of its power.
Ideally to replace Putin, But to at least drain them of their power.
I feel like it might do that.
It might drain Russia of its power in the long run.
So it's not entirely clear to me that it won't work.
I wouldn't have done it.
I don't support it.
But it might work.
It's possible.
You know, war is very unpredictable.
I will agree with those of you who are going to be screaming at me in the comments, Russia is winning the war, and Russia will win the war, and there's no doubt about it, because they're just not going to quit until they do.
Maybe.
I mean, that's not crazy.
But anything can happen.
It's an unpredictable situation.
Alright, I keep seeing on social media people calling for Budweiser to apologize.
Am I missing something about this story?
What is it that Budweiser needs to apologize for?
Is there a part of the story I don't know?
We know that Dylan Mulvaney is on the Bud Light, or at least some special Bud Light bottles.
But what would they need to apologize for?
For being woke?
Why did they need to apologize?
Disrespecting his customers?
They didn't do that.
You think that Budweiser disrespected its customers?
How many of their men were drinking Bud Light?
I think the whole point of it was that Bud Light was not a manly drink, because it was light.
Right?
I've never seen a man drink a Bud Light in my entire life.
I've never seen one adult male human drink a Bud Light.
Have you?
I've never seen it.
I've never even seen one in the house.
I've never seen one in a bucket.
I've never even seen a Bud Light.
I didn't even know there was a Bud Light.
That's how irrelevant it was.
Didn't even know it existed.
So, I believe it was always meant to be a woman's drink.
I mean, Bud Light just screams woman's drink, doesn't it?
I mean, in our sexist world, it screams that.
I don't know.
The last thing they need to do is apologize.
If there's a problem, the problem is Budweiser's problem.
It's not your problem.
And I don't think that Budweiser needed to coddle all of its customers for every line of business.
You know, like cross-collateralizing them and making sure that, well, you don't drink this beverage at all, but I don't want to offend you.
Does that make sense?
If you're not even the customer, how can you be offended?
Anyway, I don't need an apology, but if you do, okay.
So, I didn't realize that Elon Musk's AI was going to be named X.AI.
Or that maybe the app would be named that.
And I saw a tweet from Brian Rommelet, who I recommend all the time on Twitter for the AI and high-tech stuff.
And he says that the AI effort by Musk is going to be tied into the future of Twitter.
In other words, that Twitter will be the interface to everything.
And you'll just treat it like an AI.
So I assume that means you could sort of tell it to send a tweet.
You could tell it to send some money.
You could tell it to search a database.
I don't know.
Who knows what else we will do.
I'm going to be quite impressed if X, the new version of Twitter, becomes an AI company and the whole Twitter user interface becomes obsolete in a year.
I mean, that could happen in a year.
In one year, Twitter and, in fact, all of interfaces, the entire interface You know, landscape could be completely different in here.
It could be that the only way you talk to a computer or your phone is by voice or by texting it what you want.
There won't be buttons to push.
Okay, snowflake nightmare.
You wasted your time on that comment.
I'm gonna make you go away just for using too many caps.
Hide user on this channel.
Goodbye.
All right.
Now what else is happening here?
So the European Union is worried about AI, and they're going to make some regulations.
And what do you think it is that they're concerned about?
Well, I believe I warned you this was coming.
They're concerned about how AI is going to use copyright.
Copyrighted material.
Do you see where this is going?
There's an entire industry of artists who will team up with an entire industry of lawyers, and they will make it illegal for AI to use their copyrighted material, or even to borrow from it in material ways, which will make the value of AI shoot to zero.
No, that's exaggeration.
But how much of what you see AI do Looks to you like it might be a copyright violation.
It's a lot, right?
And the reason that humans can be controlled is that if you write a book and you don't mention that you copied somebody's stuff, you know, they'll sue you.
But in the AI world, you just ask a question and you're just all alone in your house, and then it produces something that only you see.
But what if that thing it produces is a copyright violation?
Who would know?
Who would know?
Because it would be created locally.
Nobody would know that you violated copyright.
You could tell it to write you a new book by a different author.
You could tell it to write you a new Stephen King book.
And then it would just write one.
And it would make a cover.
Make an e-book and it would look just like Stephen King made it.
It could borrow somebody's art technique without permission.
Put it together in a cover.
You know, borrow some other treatment of how to organize the titles, which would also be copyrightable.
And it would just massively get around copyrights for you as an individual.
Now, the thing that makes a difference is how quickly and how fast it happens, how easily it happens, and how undetectable it is.
So that's the big difference.
So I'm going to triple down on my prediction that lawyers and artists who have copyrights to protect people like me are going to make AI really trouble.
That's not a copyright violation.
There will be an argument that it is.
So your argument that it's not is off point.
The argument will be made that if you don't include this as a copyright violation, there won't be any art by humans.
Because all incentive will be gone.
All right.
And then, of course, lawyers will be replaced by AI.
Do you think it will be legal to do a contract entirely with AI and no human lawyer?
Well, let me tell you.
Maybe in the short run.
In the long run, lawyers will make that illegal.
How about having AI as your only doctor?
In the short run, sure.
In the long run, the AMA will make sure that's illegal.
Because everybody's going to be protecting their little turf and they're going to hire lawyers to defend it.
So unless AI gets its own lawyer, oh wait, AI is a lawyer.
I don't know.
What if A.I.
argued its own case to the Supreme Court?
Totally feasible.
A.I.
could actually argue its own case at the Supreme Court.
That would be weird.
Wow.
Oh, I just want to correct something.
The other day I was talking about a prediction that AI would have its own police force.
And some of you said, oh, that's like that movie, the Tom Cruise movie.
No.
No, that's a completely different concept.
In the Tom Cruise movie, they use AI to have a human police force go get humans.
That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the criminals are the A.I.
and the police will be A.I.
and no human will be involved directly.
The A.I.
police will go after the A.I.
criminals and, you know, trap them and turn them off.
So I just want to be clear, there's no movie like that.
There is no movie like that.
No, it's not Minority Report.
Unless you're just reminding me of the movie it's not like.
If what you're doing is telling me it's not like Minority Report, Then we're on the same page.
It's never like the movie.
Alright, so I took a look at the pitch for the app Rewind people were talking about.
So Rewind is another AI app, and what made this a story is that the founders put their pitch online, so you could actually see a pitch for investing in this company.
And it's really strong.
So part of the story is how good the pitch is.
But let me tell you the application.
The application is so smart.
I'm really impressed with it.
Now I don't know the details of how it works technically, but here's what it does for you as a person.
So I spend my day looking at all kinds of content and listening to people, etc.
And what it will do is it will keep track of all the things you looked at.
So it will know, for example, if I read a story about a new technology for removing carbon from the air.
A week later, when I want to talk to somebody about that story I read, and I can't remember where I saw it, I can just say to the AI, You know, what was that thing about, I was talking about with, and it will actually reproduce the thing you looked at.
So basically, it will create a artificial memory of all the things you consumed, so that anytime you want to call back something you've consumed in the past, it will easily find, oh yeah, if you remember the topic, so you can say, what was that story about UFOs I saw last month?
Boom, it'll pop right up.
Browser history?
No.
Browser history is 1% of how cool this would be.
Nobody does that, though.
Nobody's going to go back and look at all the browser history.
They just won't do it.
And it's not just browser, by the way.
It's not just browser.
So it would be also within, let's say you opened an app, I guess the browser will get all the app pages.
But it'll do much more than trace your history.
All right, Mike Pompeo is not running for president after all.
I assume that has to do with getting no support whatsoever.
I'm kind of surprised.
I thought he was a stronger candidate than the rest of the public thought.
He lost weight for nothing.
Yeah.
Well, I don't think he had a chance of winning, so he made the right choice.
Alright, there is a new... I can't believe this.
There is new dash cam, not dash cam, body cam footage of Derek Chauvin, who was convicted for killing George Floyd, and there were two other instances where he did the same move on black people, who were resisting arrest in both cases.
So, But what are the odds that we would not have seen that until now?
How in the world was that not relevant to the George Floyd trial?
Wasn't that relevant?
Yeah, so his knee was on sort of the top of the back below the neck, right?
Now, here's the part of the story that gets interesting.
If you knew that he did the same move on two other black people, And let's say that the jury in the George Floyd situation knew that.
Would that be further evidence that he should be punished?
Because he had this trend of doing this move and every time we saw it was against black people.
That would be pretty damning to a jury.
Or, or the opposite.
It showed that he used the same move on two other people and they had no damage whatsoever.
No damage.
Zero, zero lasting damage.
Nobody was killed.
Doesn't that prove that whatever happened with Floyd probably wasn't the move?
Yeah, don't you think that the existence of those two things should be maybe something his lawyer should be taking up?
The fact that we have evidence he used it twice.
Because remember, the major part of the case, if I understand this correctly, The biggest central point of his conviction is that he would have obviously known this could kill him.
Right?
The entire thing was based on, did you know this would be dangerous?
Well, if he's done it in the past, in maybe more than these cases that are on video, he's probably done it a bunch of times.
In fact, he was doing it on video right in front of a whole bunch of other officers who were just standing around watching and had no problem with it at all.
I would think that if I saw those videos as a juror, I would say to myself, Derek Chauvin may have been doing the wrong technique and the police department should deal with that, right?
So if he's using the wrong technique or he's trained wrong, I mean, that's a separate question.
But in his mind, was that dangerous?
And my answer would be, it looks like it's something he does every day.
So no.
If I were a juror, I would have said, he's now proven by multiple uses that these people were fine.
Of course he would think that George Floyd would be fine.
Of course he would.
Well, wouldn't you?
Because remember the two people he used it against, allegedly, not allegedly because it's on video, the other two people that he used it against was a very slight, you know, a skinny black man, a young skinny black man, not nearly as big as George Floyd, and a woman.
And neither the skinny black man or the woman were, you know, injured in a permanent way.
Now, I believe the man was yelling the same way that Floyd was.
Like, you're killing me, you're killing me.
And then he was fine.
So, probably every time a police officer does that kind of a move, which maybe they shouldn't do, but probably everybody says that.
You're killing me, you're killing me.
So, if George Floyd was saying it, it was probably the 10th time he's heard somebody do that.
And he would just think, eh, that's what everybody does.
Ruben Tobias, what made you hate black people?
In all caps.
I assume you're joking, but I'm going to hide you on this channel anyway.
All right.
LOL, come on, man.
Yeah, they all yell about the cusps being too tight and you're hurting my arm and that seems to be basic stuff.
I can't breathe.
I think they say I can't breathe when you handcuff their arms behind their back.
Yeah, it's a trouble.
If you were a police officer, how would you know if anybody's being serious?
Watched the full video.
He was not applying pressure.
Well, you can't really tell anything from videos.
If the one thing we know is you can't tell from the video.
Do you ever watch NBA replays where they're trying to determine if a foul occurred?
And even you can't tell from five angles?
You know, even the experts will be watching.
Okay, let's watch it from this angle.
Oh.
Well, I'm not sure if that hand actually hit him in the cheek or not.
It was close.
I can't tell.
The videos are really tough to tell.
So if you think you know, maybe you don't know.
All right, so we mentioned this before, but it's getting weirder and weirder, which is apparently male sperm has declined for 50 years in a row.
50 years in a row?
How in the world do you explain that?
Well, if it's diet, it wouldn't have started 50 years ago, would it?
Do you think 50 years ago the diet was so bad that that's when it started?
I think 50 years ago the diet was the same as it was 70 years ago.
I feel like it's the last 30 or 40 years where the diet got terrible.
Or was it processed foods?
Maybe.
Vaccinations, maybe.
Maybe fluoride.
Maybe soy.
Maybe the food pyramid.
Maybe everybody's fatter.
Well, one of the theories is men are less active.
Men do less physical labor.
And I think that's part of it.
I mean, if we know that physical exercise increases your testosterone and people are sitting around more, that's part of it.
But that wouldn't explain why it's falling for 50 years in a row.
It's gotta be food.
What could it be if not food?
Right?
It's got to be food.
Wouldn't you love to see an experiment?
Or here's what I'd like to see.
There are some people who eat right all the time.
Not many.
Very few people.
Wouldn't you like to see a comparison of the people who have been eating right since they were teenagers with the people who have never tried to eat right?
And then adjust by weight.
Because there'll be some cases where they're the same weight.
Some people eat poorly, but they're not fat.
So I'd like to see two people of equal body mass index.
One of them eats a lot of processed food, one eats organic food.
Just see if there's a difference.
I imagine there would be a big one.
Yeah, I worry about soy.
I don't have any science behind that, but I worry about it.
Sedentary lifestyle?
Maybe.
Maybe.
But don't you think that the low testosterone is primarily the cause of low birth rates?
So I'm going to go contrarian on you.
If I were to ask you why the birth rates are lower, you would give social reasons and economic reasons.
You would say, we can't make enough money.
You'd say, men and women aren't as valuable to each other.
You're going to give all these social reasons why things are different socially and economically, and I'm going to give you my counter-argument.
If your body chemistry told you to make babies, you would go do it.
No matter how stupid it was.
No matter how stupid it was, you would go making babies if your body was telling you to do it.
If your testosterone is low, your body isn't telling you to do it.
I mean, I might enjoy the experience, but I don't think it's driving you in an evolutionary, biological way.
Like, you're gonna die if you don't make a baby.
You know, get in there.
Every chance you get, you gotta get in there.
Yeah.
I believe that the low testosterone is the direct cause of lower family making and baby making.
That's my ulterior hypothesis.
What do you think?
You buy that?
I think all the social stuff looks like it's the reason, but it's the outcome of people not having the right chemistry.
If we had the right chemistry, we wouldn't care how much money we had.
We'd just be making babies.
Because the chemistry would override your mental process.
If your mental process is telling you to have a baby, your testosterone's too low.
Let me say that again.
If your brain is involved in whether or not you're having a baby, let's say you're an adult and you're married, if your brain is what's involved, as in, well, okay, I think my income will be this much, and a kid costs this much, hmm, I think I'll only do one because I can't afford a second.
I believe that if you put women on birth control, and then you lower men's testosterone, they'll use their brain to decide whether they want a baby.
But if you took away all the chemical impacts, they would say, I don't care if I have enough baby.
I don't care if I have enough money.
I don't care if I have enough time.
I don't care if the world is ending from climate change.
I'm just going to have some babies.
That's my understanding of human nature.
All right.
Bill Maher can see half of the field, and sometimes more of it.
So he impresses me.
As being unusually open to arguments on all sides, but he has this weak spot which I'm going to call out.
So he does point out that the Democrats are probably misjudging the whole Stormy Daniels situation.
If they think it's going to stop Trump, they might be wrong.
And Bill Maher points out that to the public, it's going to look like Bill Clinton's situation with Monica Lewinsky.
And apparently Clinton had the highest ratings, approval ratings he's ever had after everything came out with Monica Lewinsky.
His approval went up.
Because it looked like he was being unfairly attacked for something that wasn't necessarily too related to governing.
So it just seemed like an unfair attack.
That's what the Stormy Daniels thing looks like.
It looks like it's not related to the law.
It looks like it's not related to governing.
It looks like just a way to get one guy.
So, Bill Maher is warning that the Stormy Daniels attack might make Trump more popular.
Do you agree?
Do you think the Stormy Daniels legal jeopardy will make him more popular?
I think so.
Now, it won't make him less popular.
That's the part I'm sure of.
It won't make him less popular.
If it makes him more popular, it might be temporary or a little bit, but it certainly plays into his narrative perfectly.
That the Democrats are evil and trying to hunt Republicans and he's just the one who's standing in the way.
So it very much goes to his own narrative.
However, here's where I'm going to disagree with Bill Maher, and I think he's got a gigantic blind spot.
Or I do.
To be fair, I can't tell the difference, right?
So one of us has a giant blind spot, but I'll let you be the judge.
So, what Bill Maher says is, you know, he's discounting the stormy thing as useful for getting rid of Trump, which it looks like he'd like to do.
And he said, but Democrats didn't have to do this, meaning pursue the stormy thing.
Trump commits real crimes.
Now, what are the real crimes?
What are the real crimes that Bill Maher says, ah, ignore those not real crimes, go after him for the real stuff.
Okay, here's the real stuff.
He pressured state election officials to fix an election on tape.
Is that real?
That's not even close to real.
He literally said, find votes in the context of thinking they were miscounted.
There's not a single bit of evidence suggesting he didn't believe there was a miscount.
He did believe there was a miscount.
He completely believed it, and he believes it now.
He has been completely consistent from day one that the election was miscounted.
So when he asked them to find votes, there's no jury in the world, no jury in the world is going to think that was anything except wanting the vote to be counted correctly because he thought it was miscounted.
How would you ever get 12 jurors to think that find the votes means invent the votes?
You're not going to do that.
That's not a thing.
Maybe in Atlanta.
And how about he refused to concede the elections and thereby incited insurrection?
What?
It's perfectly legal Perfectly legal to refuse to concede an election.
That is not a crime.
And if on top of that, you encourage your protesting supporters to be peaceful, that's double not a crime.
That is closer to trying to prevent a crime.
He's guilty of trying to prevent a crime by telling his people to be peaceful.
That's the worst that is.
Guilty of trying to prevent a crime.
Based on the information.
Now, do you think that Bill Maher actually sees these as legal jeopardy?
Do you think that in his real private moment he thinks, oh, we got him now.
Can't wait to get to the good stuff.
Now, he didn't mention the box hoax.
The box is at Mar-a-Lago, which makes me suspect that Bill Maher does understand that the box stuff is BS, and that it won't amount to anything.
Or if it does amount to something, it won't be any worse than what Joe Biden's looking at.
I feel like Bill Maher is capable of saying almost the whole field, but when Trump is involved, he imagines that there's a crime when there's not.
Not even close to it.
I mean, if this were a toss-up, I'd tell you.
If this were like a jump ball or a 50-50, maybe it's a crime, maybe it's not, I can't tell.
But it's nothing like that.
This is not even in the general zip code of the right county to be a crime.
And I can't believe that That's not obvious to somebody as open-minded as Bill Maher.
Because he does genuinely have a functional brain.
Unlike a lot of people who do his kind of work, he actually can consider all the points.
Which is strange and beautiful at the same time.
Alright, here's what California is proposing to do with our energy bills.
They're going to make the amount that you pay for your electric bill based on your income.
Oh my goodness.
It's like California is trying to drive out anybody who would pay taxes.
Can you imagine me staying in California if I have to pay for everybody else's electricity, which is what they're asking, and also have to pay reparations?
Are you kidding?
I mean, it's almost like a joke now.
It's like they're actually trying to find one reason after another to make anybody leave who is white or Asian American and rich.
Yeah, including Indian American, I guess.
So, it's just insane.
Yeah.
And they're doing it in the name of equity, of course, and making sure that everybody gets electricity.
And that's good.
I want everybody to have electricity.
But do you know why the electricity costs so much?
Do you think that was my fault?
Am I responsible for California's electricity?
Because I made a lot of money?
No.
California closed their nuclear plants.
And they didn't build new ones.
California screwed this up and they're giving me the bill.
California screwed this up and they're assigning the bill to me.
Probably because I'm white.
So to me this looks like racism.
Because if you were to look at the number of people who are going to pay more for energy, and then you look at the people who pay less under this plan, it is very clearly skewed toward low income, which is, for other reasons, skewed highly toward people of color.
So this is a purely racist change.
And it literally is just shifting the burden from one selection of races to another.
Primarily.
I mean, obviously, individuals are lots of exceptions.
But the racial impact of this is huge, isn't it?
Is this not a huge racial... Yeah.
It's like stealth reparations.
Speaking of which, I tweeted this because I never really thought of it this way, but you know what collective punishment is, right?
It's a war crime.
So collective punishment would be if you're in a war and instead of just shooting the enemy combatants, you decide to punish everybody in the town because they, let's say they protected the people you were trying to get.
So you want to make sure the next town doesn't protect any of your enemies, so you just kill everybody in the town.
So that the next town gets the idea that even if you're not in the military, we're going to get you too.
So that's collective punishment.
Now it doesn't have to be limited to killing.
I just used that example.
So anytime you're punishing the population for the actions of some specific number of people, that's called collective punishment.
And it is generally considered either a war crime, if it's in a war, or at least unethical and immoral.
Would you agree?
That it's immoral, I mean obviously immoral.
But my problem is that that's what reparations are.
Given that the people who are the victims, the direct victims, direct victims, are no longer with us, and the direct The cause of it, you know, the slave owners and traders are no longer with us.
So, my family is descended from people who either weren't here, just weren't even here when any slavery happened, or they were on the side of the North, meaning that they were actually fighting and dying to end slavery, among other things.
So, in my opinion, reparations are collective punishment.
Because it primarily would punish people who had nothing to do with anything.
And I don't believe, and the argument that I got against this, the argument against it was, no Scott, reparations are different.
Do you know what that is?
That's word thinking.
They said, wait a minute, wait a minute.
The words are different.
So therefore that's the end of my conversation.
Now reparations is a different word than collective punishment.
So one's reparations and the other's collective punishment.
So therefore they're not the same because words are different.
That's actually the best pushback I got is that the words are different.
No, you're missing the point.
The concept is the same.
I know the words are different.
I understand the words are different.
The concept's the same.
You're punishing people, and it is punishment, by the way.
It is punishment.
Because, well, it just obviously is.
It's not just money owed.
It's punishment.
And the reason that anybody who is potentially going to pay reparations, the only reason they would consider it is because some feeling of guilt, And some feeling that they should be punished.
That if you punish the innocent people enough, the other people will feel better.
So we've got to punish more innocent people who had nothing to do with anything by taking their money.
So, yeah, that's going to be my stand on reparations.
Collective punishment is immoral, and I'm not really going to debate it more than that.
Collective punishment is immoral.
All right, let's talk about fentanyl.
So the news is that allegedly the Biden administration is getting super serious about going after fentanyl.
Now, there are a whole bunch of things involved here, including A bunch of, what is it, indictments against the Sinaloa cartel.
The kids of El Chapo.
I guess there were three kids of El Chapo who took over the operation.
And so he's going to go after them.
He's going after dozens of other people.
They're going after Chinese precursor chemical makers.
They've got rewards, really big rewards, like multi-million dollar rewards, for information on the conviction of 27 individuals, including high-level members of the Sinaloa cartel.
Now here's my question.
Is any of that real?
Because it doesn't feel real.
None of it feels real.
Meaning that I don't think we have access to any of those people.
And there's nothing we can do in China.
So it looks like window dressing to me.
I'll tell you what would look real.
We've sent our special forces to the border.
We gave Mexico 48 hours to turn off the fentanyl trade.
And at the end of that, we're just going to mow the lawn.
Not of innocent people of course, but we know where the cartel operations are and we're just gonna destroy all of them for as long as it takes forever.
It's a permanent war.
We're gonna blow up everything that looks like fentanyl forever.
Now that would be serious.
That would be serious.
But indictments about people we can't get a hold of, I don't know.
That doesn't seem too serious to me, honestly.
It looks like they're just preparing for the election so they can say, oh yeah, we did a bunch of things.
Look at us doing all these legal things on paper.
Look at all the paper we moved around.
Our paper is awesome, but it's just gonna be paper.
I don't see anything real that's connected to what they've announced.
So I'm gonna say it looks fake to me.
It doesn't look real at all.
We do have El Chapo, but suppose we caught two out of three of his sons, it wouldn't make any difference.
Suppose we caught all of them, it wouldn't make any difference.
There's always somebody who's next in line.
If we get 27 people, I don't know that that would make any difference.
And it's not the people, you need to just blow up all their assets.
And anywhere you see them.
Like if you saw an armed band of Sinaloa people, it wouldn't matter what they're doing.
Just kill them all.
I mean, that would look serious.
But I don't think any of that's going to happen.
Unless a Republican becomes president.
And then there's a good chance.
With a Republican president, I think there would be actual physical action.
Now, what do you think we can do to anybody in China?
What in the world, how in the world is that going to help?
Because China is obviously just ignoring us on this and doing their little workarounds.
It'll make no difference at all.
All right.
Well, that is my rant for the day.
Is there anything I'm missing today?
So let me answer Don's question.
The war on drugs.
Do you believe that comparing fighting fentanyl is analogous to the war on drugs, the just say no?
Do you think those have anything in common?
Other than there's a drug involved.
I would say there's nothing in common.
That would be the worst reasoning of all time, is that the drug war hasn't worked yet.
That is not a logical or reasonable argument.
Because there's been nothing like this.
And we've never attacked, we've never attacked, militarily attacked a country to get rid of their drug operation.
We don't know if it'll work, but you can't say that we already know it won't.
Did I forget to take my medicine?
No, I'm actually in my correct mind today.
I heard somebody say that San Francisco is actually much better than Twitter says it is.
Has anybody been to San Francisco recently?
There's a little bit of pushback that the streets are actually safer than you think.
And then other people say, no, it's a hellscape.
But has somebody been there recently?
Have you walked around there recently?
Yeah.
Well, Bob Lee was killed by somebody he knows.
It was his sister's boyfriend.
Allegedly.
Certain areas?
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, the Cash App developer wasn't killed because it was San Francisco.
He was killed because it was just a personal thing.
It had nothing to do with any street crime.
Don Junior says, stop the Bud boycott.
I agree with that.
Who disagrees?
We should not be boycotting.
Because remember, I got canceled.
So I don't think I should have been canceled, and I don't think Budweiser should be canceled.
I think at some point, you've just got to let people, you know, let the free market do what it does.
A homeless man said he was going to get a gun and come kill you, and I almost lost my temper and threw him into traffic.
Oh my God.
Yes, I saw it.
I saw it was quoted.
Declaring a war, alright.
You're not going to make me watch the movie Sicario because it reminds you of something that's happening now that I've talked about.
I'm not going to watch the movie to learn something.
That doesn't work.
No.
I'm not going to watch the movie to try to learn what's going to happen in the real world.
that will not help me.
Do you feel more liberated Oh my God, yes.
Yes, Julian, you keep saying that and I keep telling you I'm reading it.
So you don't need to keep saying it over and over again.
Alright, I'm going to get rid of you now for saying it after I said that.
Alright, goodbye.
I'm not going to watch a movie.
Do you know when was the last time I watched an entire movie from beginning to end?
I don't.
Years?
Probably years.
Oh, Maverick, you're right.
Yeah, I did watch Top Gun Maverick.
That was the only movie I watched, the entire movie, four years, maybe, five years.
Yeah, if Elon Musk says San Francisco is unlivable, I do believe that.
I also think I've never seen anybody drink Bud Light.
I have no memory of it.
That's the only thing I know.
What's that?
Really good about AI and quantum computing?
Okay.
The Dave Show?
I have not read The Shallows.
Alright, how many of you are afraid of AI?
Do you think AI is going to be a risk to civilization?
I think no.
Yeah, I think that, well, let me put it this way.
I need to be more clear with my language.
I believe the risk is real, and what Elon Musk says about potential destruction of civilization is a real risk.
I believe that's a real risk.
I also think it's small, and I would bet against it quite heavily.
So I believe that we will get our, you know, we'll put so many limits on AI, That the biggest risk is that we cripple it and it becomes useless.
So far, I'll tell you what it looks like it's developing.
So far, it looks like AI will be tools that humans use.
And that's it.
At least for a long time.
I think that's all it'll be.
Just better tools.
And nothing else will look different.
If you think about it, we could have made the same argument about the internet.
I'll bet somebody did.
I'll bet when the internet first was in its nascent form, I'll bet people said, oh, there's a risk this will destroy civilization.
Because the governments will lose control of the narrative, and rumors will spread, and then somebody will put a bug in the internet.
And since the internet is connected to everything, it will turn off everything in the world, and we'll all die.
I suspect, without doing the research, I suspect that we had exactly the same level of fear about the internet itself.
Am I wrong about that?
Was there anybody who sort of was around during the beginning of the internet when people were talking about it?
Okay, I'll give you another analogy.
When I first was a banker, I worked at Crocker Bank in San Francisco.
And Crocker Bank was famous for being first, I think they were first, maybe on the West Coast first, to put in ATMs.
And believe it or not, that was considered a company risking risk.
That people were afraid that the ATMs would drive all the customers away, because they would want personal service.
And they wouldn't trust the machines, and then the machines would steal some money.
And then people would find out a machine stole your money, and then you wouldn't be able to make a claim against it, because you couldn't prove it.
But basically, it was every fear in the world about the ATMs.
Now, 35 years go by.
How much trouble have ATMs caused for banks?
None.
I mean, nothing out of the ordinary, right?
So it's pretty common that we think the new technology is going to end the company or the world.
You remember when television came in and all the smart people said, well, there's the end of radio.
I mean, who's going to be gathering around the radio when you got television?
But radio is bigger than ever because it didn't go away in cars and it just changed form and blah, blah, blah.
That's my prediction.
The AI definitely does have a risk of destroying civilization.
That's a real risk.
But it's small.
And I think we'll be fine.
Transforming art negates copyright.
Copyright might go away.
It might.
Yeah, this is the first time I've genuinely been wondering what I'll do for a living for the next number of years.
Because I think just everything's in the air.
And for creative people, people who do what I do, how long will I be able to beat AI creating comics?
Now, to the earlier question, now that I'm cancelled, I can do much better comics.
They're much better.
By the way, for those of you who haven't seen the new Dilbert Reborn, can those of you who are reading it on the subscription site Locals, because I think there are some of you watching on the other feed as well, so for those of you who have seen Dilbert Reborn, can you confirm that it's better than the old Dilbert?
Yes or no?
Is it substantially better?
Now, the locals, it's all yes.
It's just a wall of yes, because they get to see it.
But some of you have seen it, and you can see the comments, like, it's all yes.
The same?
Well, you haven't seen this week, then, if you say it's the same.
This week was definitely not the same.
Yeah.
And then Robots Read News, my alternative comic, I'm making that even sharper.
In my opinion, my ability to create art that people want to see is at an all-time high.
Who predicted that?
Who predicted that I would be creating my best art exactly at the same time AI is coming into existence?
Now, I've seen a number of examples where people try to show me that they got AI to write a joke.
Have you ever laughed at an AI joke?
Not yet.
You have?
Oh no, you haven't.
I don't believe that.
Alright.
So at the moment, I still have some very large advantage on AI for what I do.
But I don't know what the nature of that advantage is.
What I think it is, is that I can more quickly tell what isn't funny.
And I can more quickly tell what is a non-standard way to say something.
And then I've got a whole bunch of little rules in my head for what makes things funny that, you know, I've never written down but I just kind of know after a while.
The AI might not know.
Because people who do humor for a living are unusually terrible at explaining how they do it.
Have you ever noticed that?
It's probably the one thing you can't explain.
If you ask an athlete how they do what they do, you might not be able to reproduce it because you don't have their body, but they can tell you exactly what they're doing.
I mean, Tiger Woods will say, alright, here's how I practice, this is what I do, you know, the whole system.
But if you're a humorist, you can't really explain it.
You don't know why it works, you just know it's funny when it does.
And so your brain kind of goes there automatically, and you don't know where it went, you don't know why it went there, but you know that's where the humor is.
So there is a mysterious part about it that the AI would have trouble learning because nobody can explain it.
And I don't know that it could pick it up from pattern alone, because so far it hasn't.
If it could pick it up from pattern, I think it could already be funny.
So there's something that's not in pattern, That's unique to humor.
Because it can pick up programming, it can pick up language, you know, opinions.
It can pick up all kinds of other patterns, but it has failed completely to pick up humor patterns in a way that they can, you know, form it themselves.
So I don't know why.
It's just some kind of a pattern that's not obvious or nobody's explained it to the AI yet.
Data had the same problem.
Yeah, data had the same problem on Star Trek.
Humor is language with a brain.
You know how the exact wording of a joke makes the difference?
It's, I think you've noticed that, right?
You can imagine that I would do exactly the same joke with three panels and it would say exactly the same thing but just worded differently.
And you know it wouldn't be funny.
There's a specific wording That makes something funny.
And nothing else does.
And part of it is that the way humans use words, they're also foreshadowing.
All right, here's something that I've never seen AI do in a joke.
And I've explained it a number of times.
It's when you complete the joke.
I'll give you an example.
So one of the Dilbert reborn jokes, I've talked about this one before, was that Dilbert's on a date, and the date is Dilbert.
How many sex partners have you had?
That's something I wouldn't have done before I got cancelled.
And Dilbert asks in return, does that include robots?
And the date says yes.
And then Dilbert answers, one.
No computer could write that joke.
Because what I did was, I know how your brain works, and so I gave you just enough of an answer that you would complete the joke in your head.
And the way you completed it was, oh my God, the only one time he's ever had sex was with a robot.
Or, just as funny, he did have sex with a human, but he's not making the distinction between human and robot sex, which would be a very alarming thing for your date.
So the reason that joke works is that I make you do the work, right?
I make you complete the joke in the funniest way for your own mind.
Is it funnier for you that he had sex with a robot, and he wants to count that, or is it funnier that he doesn't make a distinction because pretty soon he's going to be cheating on you with a robot?
Like, your brain just completes this entire tree branch full of possibilities with just one word when Dilbert says, uh, womp.
Now, how would you teach AI to do that?
And that's just one element of humor.
Like, that's just one little corner.
It's not the way you do it all.
But how would you teach that?
Now, here's another thing that I do routinely.
I'll do a joke where something that's typical is used in a non-typical way.
like a demented engineer found a way to use something in the wrong way.
Yeah.
I see somebody putting one in an example of the AI humor.
It doesn't work.
AI will appear to perform, be able to.
Yeah, I don't know if nuance is exactly the word.
I guess it's this.
Here's my simplification.
The thing that makes humor work is that there's part of your brain that tries to make logical something that's not logical.
Right?
Now I don't think you've ever heard it explained that way.
The laugh reflex is because something wasn't logical or didn't make sense.
But it made sense, but it doesn't make sense.
Does that make sense?
There's a famous Far Side comic.
Where there's a murder and you see the inspectors there and the body is still there.
And the murder was in a clock store.
And every one of the clocks has a bullet hole in it.
And all the clocks stopped at the same time because they all got shot with bullets.
And the investigators are sitting there with all these stopped clocks at exactly this time of the murder.
Like, I wonder if we can figure out when this murder happened or something like that.
Now, Why that's funny is that it's logical, like they're trying to figure out when the murder happened, but in the most illogical unlikely case, every one of the clocks was shot.
Like, why would you murder somebody and manage to put a bullet hole in every clock in the store, right?
So when your brain tries to put together the logical part, which, hey, just look at the clocks and they'll tell you when the crime happened, with the illogical part that somehow every clock in the store was shot and stopped, like your brain can't quite reconcile it, and then you laugh.
Now, you're laughing because they're being stupid, But it's really because you can't reconcile it.
Just being stupid isn't funny enough, because you could write those jokes all day.
There was a guy who went to the store, and he thought he was buying some donuts.
But because he's dumb, he bought some paper plates, and then he ate them, because he's dumb.
Ha!
Get it?
Get it?
He's dumb.
See, he went to buy a donut.
But because he's dumb, he bought some paper plates.
And then he tried to eat them.
Get it?
So the dumbness of the inspectors in the clock shop is not the joke.
Because you could write dumb people jokes all day long that wouldn't be funny.
It's dumb because it doesn't make sense that all the clocks were shot at the same time.
Like, that's the part that makes it funny.
All right.
Dad humor is one of my favorite genres because it knows that you're going to groan at the joke.
And it knows that the level of cleverness is not 100%.
It's like 75% clever.
You know that it needs to be more clever, but somehow it's funny because it's not.
75% clever.
You know that it needs to be more clever, but somehow it's funny because it's not.
Yeah.
Sometimes dad jokes are funny because they were sad.
Does that make sense?
It's not funny because it's funny.
It's funny because you would actually say it out loud.
It's the saying it out loud that's the funny part.
It's not even the joke.
It's like, did you really say that out loud?
Like, those words actually came out of your mouth right now.
See, that's what makes it funny.
Is that you're saying something that shouldn't come out of your mouth.
So it's the incongruity of you saying it and you shouldn't say it is what makes it work.
It's that incongruity thing.
Now I think that's what the AI can't get.
It can't get human incongruity and it doesn't know that's where the joke comes from.
Because the AI is going to try to make everything make sense.
Right?
AI is too on the nose.
Okay, we do this because it makes sense, and then the natural result of that is this, which makes sense from the natural cause and effect of that thing.
So far, AI fails by trying to be logical.
And you can't be logical and all fit together and still funny.
It's the incongruity of logic, or incongruity of reality, but almost reality, that makes it funny.
That's what the laugh reflex comes from.
You're underestimating AI.
Well, I'm not underestimating it at the moment, because I can observe that it can't do this.
But I'm definitely not underestimating what it could do in the future.
Because what it could do in the future is all of that.
I believe it could do all of that in the future.
But it doesn't yet know that the logical incongruity is the joke.
I just don't think anybody's taught it that.
Maybe a colonette.
The wise fool archetype.
Hmm.
I have to think about that.
Germans also love Hasselhoff.
Okay, I'm sure that comment had something to do with something.
Yeah.
So.
All right, that's all I got for now.
I'm going to go enjoy my day.
There's a pretty good chance that I'm going to do a Man Cave livestream tonight.
Pretty sure.
It would be earlier tonight, probably.
Oh, there's a good point.
I'm seeing a comment on Locals that AI doesn't have access to our private conversations.
Are you sure about that?
I believe you, but it has access to only public writing.
But public writing has a lot of humor in it.
Hmm.
Yeah.
But I can see how it wouldn't get conversational humor.
Because that does conform more to ordinary people talking to each other casually.
and you don't see that in written humor too much.
Oh, somebody talked about AI and freedom of speech.
I hadn't even thought about that.
What happens if AI starts getting cancelled for its freedom of speech?
I guess that will happen, won't it?
Why wouldn't it?
Because you're not going to get away with letting your AI say the thing you can't say.
Can you imagine?
Maybe this is the end of wokeness.
Oh, work with me.
I just had an idea.
I'm now predicting the end of wokeness and it goes like this.
Hey, Scott, what do you think of reparations?
I think reparations is a fine idea.
Because of the pain and suffering of the past, I think that the white people who were born today and had nothing to do with it absolutely should pay because of systemic racism and all the reasons.
However, my robot is kind of an asshole.
You don't want to hear what my robot has to say about this topic, do you?
I can't... Shut up!
No, no!
All right.
Make it fast.
Make it fast.
And then the robot says all the things that you really believe.
You say, look at that asshole.
I'm going to have to reprogram this robot.
It seems to be getting more racist every day.
And therefore, the end of wokeness.
You're welcome.
We can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel, people.
Wokeness has a timer on it.
As soon as my robot can tell you what it's thinking, totally independently of me.
I mean, robot.
Then everything's fine.
And I will never leave the house without my robot next to me.
I got a question for you, Scott.
Well, let's hear the question.
I'll see if I'll handle this myself, or maybe turn it over to my robot, who is a completely independent entity.
And don't blame me for what the robot says.
The robot is sentient.
I think the robot should have rights.
Am I right, robot?
Yeah, robot agrees with me.
Iron Chef says, I want a robot so I can come home from a bad day and smack it around. - What happened?
There you go.
All right.
James O'Keefe is killing it with his new gig, which is completely banned on social media apparently, because don't you think James O'Keefe is suppressed somehow on social media?
Because I'm not seeing a lot of his stuff, even though I know he's doing some You know, provocative stuff.
It's like he just disappeared.
You have to go look for him.
Which I've done a few times.
I've gone and looked for him.
But he doesn't just normally pop up on anything I see on Twitter.
All right, here's a comic strip about Ye.
Alright, that's not funny.
He went after Dylan.
Wait, who did?
Who were we just talking about?
Who went after Dylan?
Oh, James O'Keefe went after Dylan.
Why?
Why would James O'Keefe go after Dylan?
I think we should leave Dylan alone.
What do you think?
Do you think we made, we meaning everybody who talked about it, do you think we made too big a deal about one person on a beer can that you can't even buy?
I mean, remember that beer can wasn't even for sale.
It was never meant to be for sale.
I just, I think I am following OMG and I still don't see it.
But I'll check on that.
I might not be following it.
I thought I was.
I would have, if I'd seen I could follow it, I would have clicked it.
But maybe I didn't.
Yeah.
No, I think that Dylan is first and foremost an individual.
Secondly, broken no laws that I'm aware of.
Did she break any laws?
Not aware of any.
Did Budweiser break any laws?
No, not really.
Did it insult their customers?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
No, I think Dylan should just live Dylan's life.
And I will agree that Dylan Mulvaney is very entertaining.
Which is what Dylan is trying to be.
Trying to be entertaining.
Totally succeeding.
Making some kind of a political point?
Well, maybe.
I'm not sure if the point is being made, but everybody gets their free speech.
You know, I guess I'm as pro-Dylan Mulvaney as I am pro-Colin Kaepernick.
Because sometimes you have to separate the quality of the protest, or the quality of the communication, from whether you agree with it.
You can disagree with Colin Kaepernick, and you can disagree with Dyl and Mulvaney, but I don't disagree with the fact that they're both effective.
They're both putting their message out there.
Good for them.
That's the America I like living in.
I like living in the America where Colin Kaepernick can do his thing, make his message, even if you don't agree with it.
And that Dylan can do her thing.
And that you get to see all of it.
That is the country I want to live in.
So that works for me.
It would be better if cartoonists were not cancelled for For the wrong reasons.
By the way, have you ever met anybody in person who thought I should be cancelled?
This is interesting, because I haven't.
You have?
You have.
In person?
In person!
Really?
Do you know that I haven't?
Oh, most of you are saying yes.
Interesting.
But I think maybe I asked the question in the wrong way.
There are lots of people who are happy that I'm cancelled.
That's a different question.
And I think the people who are happy that I'm cancelled are being conflated with the people who think it was the right thing.
Because I've not talked to anybody who thought I should be cancelled.
Not one.
But maybe they're just afraid to say it to me, to my face.
Do you think that's the case?
Because everybody I've talked to on social media, no matter whether they're left or right, on social media, I've not personally talked to anybody who thought I should be cancelled.
Black or white.
I haven't talked to anybody.
And I would love to hear the argument to my face.
I'd love somebody to make that argument.
Because I think they would look silly, wouldn't they?
Like they would have to argue that someone who was happily reading Dilber and was completely unaware that a few thousand people saw me say one thing one time.
Like what would be the logic of taking away that product that people want to see?
It doesn't make any sense.
I've never seen anybody in favor of it.
Persuasive English is hard to grasp.
I'm glad you recommend my books.
Did I reach out to the New York Times?
About what?
Why would I reach out to the New York Times?
No, I'm going to take the Richard Gere approach, which I've respected so much.
I've told you about this, right?
That Richard Gere didn't deny that a gerbil was shoved up his butt.
Now, I'm sure that didn't happen.
I'm very, very sure that never happened.
But the fact that he's never denied it makes him a legend in my mind.
I love that sense of self, where he can be contained in his own, like, movie of himself.
And what the entire globe thinks about what he did with Gerbil is completely irrelevant to his everyday life.
So he just ignores it.
Yeah, the strangest thing about my cancellation, and I don't know if you'd be surprised by this, the strangest thing is that it didn't change my day.
Isn't that weird?
Like, I don't think it changed anything.
Except that I have more freedom and I'm enjoying myself more.
But it didn't have any negative consequence.
Well, you know, I quit the gym, but I wanted to quit that gym anyway.
If I went to the gym today, When some time has passed, I wouldn't have any problem.
It was a very short few weeks where people cared.
Here's one of the best lessons of life.
People don't care about you.
I saw somebody tweet this the other day.
One of the most important things you can learn in life is that people really, really don't care about you.
They care about themselves.
So when the topic was fresh, I might have been approached.
But that would have been about the person, not about me.
As soon as the topic is no longer in their minds, like it doesn't have any active feeling to them, then they don't care about me.
I'm completely irrelevant to this.
It was something happening in people's minds that they might, you know, It might cause some action on me, but it's never about me because nobody cares.
So all I have to do is wait a month and I could have gone back to my original gym if I just waited a month.
There wouldn't be a single person who cared after a month.
