Episode 2085 Scott Adams: Biden-Hiding Strategy 2024, Buzzfeed's Death Rattle, Hunter Laptop Update
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Biden-Hidin' strategy
Google using AI customized campaign ads
Buzzfeed rotting from within
Battery breakthrough
Hunter laptop backstory
Abortion pill and SCOTUS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Somehow, amazingly, I think I got most of this technology to work.
It was a little bit of a struggle, I gotta say.
Gotta say.
But now that we're all here, everything's perfect and good.
And getting better every moment.
And if you'd like to take this up to levels heretofore unknown, all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tankard, cellist, or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Stop doing funny memes when I'm in the middle of this.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go!
Yeah, why can't I say tankard?
For some reason I say that word, tankard, and my brain goes numb.
Well, let's talk about all the news.
Are you ready for all the news?
It looks like Larry Elder has officially announced he's running for president in 2024.
You know, here's the good news.
See if I can focus on some good news for a change.
We do have good people running for president.
Now, they won't all get elected.
But I love having Vivek Ramaswamy in the race.
I love having Larry Elder in the race.
You know, Trump's Trump, so he's a given and he's always fun.
I like that DeSantis is going to run.
I like that RFK Jr.
is going to run.
Those are all pretty good signs.
So, at least there's one thing we can say.
Which is, there are good, qualified, high-character people willing to run for president.
That's something.
That is something.
We do have high-qualified, younger people willing to run for president.
So, we don't know who we're gonna get, but at least we have qualified, good, smart people.
I like that.
Biden apparently is rumored to be planning to do his announcement for president, running for president, by video in two weeks.
Now, can somebody give me a fact check and a history lesson?
Has any incumbent ever announced by video before?
Isn't that sort of an interesting choice?
Hillary did?
Somebody says Hillary did.
I don't know if that's true, but it seems to me that there's more evidence that we don't have a real president.
We have just somebody who's, you know, a bag of twigs and leaves, and he's being, you know, sort of stood up there as an actual living, breathing person.
That's what it feels like.
But you know what's different about this time?
Let me tell you.
If you see a video Of somebody announcing for president, how do you know AI didn't modify that video?
How do you know?
Now, we got used to the fact that people wear makeup when they're on TV, because they don't really look like that, right?
Unfortunately, they look more like what you're seeing with me.
So we're sort of used to the fact that TV doesn't show you the actual person.
It's an enhanced, better version.
But couldn't AI, Speed things up and edit things and make him look a little younger and better than he is?
And would you know the difference?
If the AI made him look, oh, I don't know, 10 or 15% younger, would you know it?
So I'm kind of interested to see if AI, it's probably too early for AI to do something that clever.
I mean, it could do it, I suppose.
But I don't think anybody's yet using it for that.
But everything you say is later.
This is going to be in five minutes.
So Locals is working, by the way.
So Locals is up and working.
We've got them both working well here.
I don't know.
Is it my imagination that having Biden announced by video in our current environment, given that he doesn't like to show himself in public too much?
Isn't that the weakest announcement you've ever heard of?
I'm trying to think, who's ever made a weaker announcement than a video announcement in the context of wondering if he's capable of making an announcement?
You like that one?
Biden's bag of leaves and twigs?
It's pretty visual, isn't it?
Can't you even see the bag?
It's like you can see the bag and it's just full of leaves and twigs.
That's just Joe Biden.
Yeah, it's pretty good.
All right.
So Google has announced it's going to use AI to generate customized ad campaigns.
I don't exactly know what that means yet, but does that sound safe to you?
I'll tell you the conversation that we're going to have.
Well, here I made the same mistake.
I started to say, this is the conversation we're going to have soon.
But with AI, soon doesn't mean anything anymore.
By the time you're done saying the word soon, you get to the end and soon, and it's already done.
So before I finish the sentence, it's probably already doing it.
But here's my prediction.
Almost everything about AI that we care about is going to have to do with free will.
Right?
So here is Google using AI to improve the value of their customized ad campaigns.
Now, doesn't that mean it's going to be more manipulative?
More persuasive?
So if AI is being used to persuade, and then let's say it works, and the customization of their ad campaign, we don't know what that means yet, right?
Customizing the ad campaign could mean almost anything.
But what if it works, and they really find out what moves you?
I've told you already that Instagram, when Instagram puts an ad in my feed, Do you know how often I buy that?
I don't know what Instagram magic they're using, but when Instagram puts an advertisement in my feed, I almost salivate.
I'll just be reading through it, it's like... A new potter?
A new potter?
It can correct your pot?
If you miss the middle of the... What?
Must have a putter!
Do you know how many times I've been absolutely, like my brain has just been taken over?
Now the first time I see it, like maybe I'm busy, but by the fifth time I see that ad for that special putter, that's the best putter you've ever used, and it's never been better, I'm buying the putter.
I can't even, I can't even stop my hands from moving.
No, I don't golf.
This is a true story.
I don't golf.
I just bought a putter.
Because I couldn't resist it.
I was like, how did they make the putter?
How did they make a putter that's better than all putters?
I must hold this in my hand.
I've got to validate this claim.
If I could get a putter that would make me a good putter without any actual practice in golf, maybe I would take up golf.
I have golfed.
It's just I haven't golfed in years.
So it's not like I'm a golfer.
But I bought a putter.
And you know what the best part of the story is?
Here's the best part of the story.
It actually is the best putter I've ever touched.
It's called the Pyramid.
I think that's a great pyramid putter.
Maybe you've seen it in the ads.
And I wasn't, I was not prepared for it to be better than other putters.
Because I have a putting green in my house.
So I have a whole row of different putters.
So I'm actually somebody who's tested a whole bunch of different putters just this year.
And damn it, it's actually better than all putters.
I didn't think it was possible.
It actually delivered.
And I've had a few other experiences like that with, oh I also bought, have you seen that little device, I forget what it's called, it's like a little handheld device that adds air to your tires, different vehicles.
Have you seen the ads for that?
And I saw that thing, after like 50 times I saw it like, I do own a bicycle, an e-bike.
I do have a car.
They have tires.
I must have this tire inflation device.
And so I bought it.
Like, yeah, like this is going to be the one best tire inflation device in the world?
No, it just hypnotized me.
But here's the weird part.
It's actually the best tire inflation thing I've ever... Because I like to buy almost all tire inflation things, because I'm always looking for the good ones.
Yeah, it's cordless.
And it actually is the best tire inflator I've ever seen.
You just snap it on and walk away, and it fills up your tire.
Anyway, what happens if we lose our sense that we have free will?
Because I absolutely I feel my free will just, you know, the illusion of free will, just disappearing when I see Instagram ads.
I just salivate over them.
I don't know what they're doing.
They know me better than I know myself.
Alright, so there's going to be more on that.
I saw a tweet by Ollie London, who I think this is true.
Alright, now this is a story you have to put a little bit of, like, grain of, I mean, sand or salt or whatever that is.
So don't 100% trust that this story is true, because it's too on the nose.
Wait till you hear how on the nose this is.
But, because it's fun, I'm going to treat it like it's true.
There's a museum in our house, our house, that's how you pronounce it.
It's in Denmark.
Not our house, but our house.
It has been renamed, so it used to be the Women's Museum.
Now this can't be true.
Has this been debunked already?
This can't possibly be true.
Alright, I'm going to read it, but just know that I don't believe it's true.
That they renamed the Women's Museum to the Gender Museum in Denmark and has created a statue of a man breastfeeding a baby as a symbol of the, quote, hybrid of masculine and feminine.
So they show a picture of this muscular male statue that's naked.
It's got full genitalia.
And it's got breasts as well.
And it's breastfeeding the baby.
And, you know, I thought to myself, Yeah, we're reaching a point where you can choose your own body type from sort of a buffet of choices after you're born.
Now, in some cases, before you're born, because they'll be able to maybe correct some genetic problems while you're in the womb.
That's common.
But after you're born, you can still use surgery and chemicals to modify your body.
And I wondered what other variants we would get.
Because I was thinking about this, like, suppose you could just pick your body parts.
Because you can.
Breasts, yes or no.
You know, penis, yes or no.
And I was thinking, I don't know, it's just because I'm an artist, I'd like to do something different.
But I was thinking about getting one breast.
Just keep the other one normal.
Maybe just one breast.
But also, I'd like to get rid of my penis by keeping my balls.
Is that an option?
I don't want to be exactly like everybody else.
If you get a tattoo, you don't want exactly the same tramp stamp as everybody else.
If you're going to modify your body, you don't want it to look just like everybody else.
So I'm thinking balls and just one breast.
That would work for me.
All right.
In related news, Okay, is this one real?
I don't think any of the news is real today.
You tell me if this is real.
I don't believe it's real.
Alright, you ready?
Pete Buttigieg has proposed a $20 million budget to create female crash dummies.
Because they don't have female crash dummies.
Is that real?
But here's the thing.
They just got in an order of new female crash dummies, and they're all Lea Thomas.
And we're all...
We should have specified, we should have been, we should have been more, we should have put more detail in the In the RFP, because we got $20 million worth of female crash dummies, but they're all based on Leah Thomas.
That'll be too much fun.
All right, here's what I think happened.
All right, I think it's partially true.
I'm not positive, but I think what they were trying to do is make sure that they had crash dummies that were smaller size.
Right?
Because if you get a test, a big crash dummy, maybe that one would survive a crash.
But if you had a hundred pound dummy, you know, would a hundred pound, more like a woman, you know, would that survive?
So it does, it makes perfect sense.
It makes perfect sense that they should have crash dummies of all sizes.
But why would you call them female?
In today's world, why can't you just say we need some small ones and some big ones?
Do you really need a female crash dummy?
Are they going to put a womb in it?
Are they going to put, like, a pregnant crash test dummy?
Like, maybe there's a reason, but it just sounds funny in today's world.
Oh, that is perfect.
And then I also wonder, what about gay crash test dummies?
We haven't tested that.
And then I guess the obvious question is, if this were the Trump administration, just do this thought experiment in your mind.
Imagine Pete Buttigieg being the head of transportation in the Trump administration.
I just want to paint this scene in your head.
You could use AI to create the movie of this scene if you need it.
But Pete Buttigieg walks into the White House and proposes his plan for $20 million for female crash dummies to Trump.
And Trump's sitting behind the Oval Office listening to the proposal for female crash dummies.
Just hold that in your head.
And then what does Trump say?
I'm just going to give you an idea of what he might say.
Pete, why don't you just slap a dress on those dummies and call it a day?
I feel like Trump would just say, put a dress on them, save $20 million.
Now, I realize that there was a functional reason to do it, that they need smaller ones, and that probably makes perfect sense.
But does it really cost you $20 million?
How many crash dummies are you buying?
Do you have to buy them by the million?
Who is it who came up with the idea that making it a little bit smaller would cost $20 million?
I don't know, everything about this story is funny.
All right, I've made a decision I'd like to share with you.
Here's a decision I've made.
If I get into any conversation, social media or otherwise, in which the person I'm talking to uses equity, As part of their argument or opinion.
I'm going to call it out as a racist dog whistle.
Because it is.
Equity is a racist dog whistle.
And I'm not going to have a conversation with somebody who uses that word.
I'm going to label it and I'm going to walk away.
There is no use having a conversation about equity when it's just a racist concept.
And I thought we were past racism.
I want to live in a country with less racism.
So I'm just going to label it and walk away.
So, equity, racist dog whistle.
There's something I can say that you can't.
How do you like your lack of free speech?
Do you wonder what it's like to be able to say whatever you're thinking?
It's awesome.
It's really awesome.
I could go right in public and say what I actually think.
I didn't have to shade that at all.
That was just my actual opinion.
Try that at work.
See how long you keep your job.
BuzzFeed is laying off 15% of its staff as part of its, let's see, the story says, rotting from the inside.
Rotting from the inside.
Okay, the story doesn't say that, but it feels like that's what's happening.
And it looks like they're making plans to end their BuzzFeed news.
Huh.
Huh.
Well, how about that?
How about that?
Are you aware of some of the fake news that BuzzFeed has published about me?
Just me.
Just one person.
I'm just one person in the world.
Do you know how much fake news they've printed about me?
Oh yeah.
If you don't mind, I'd like to take a moment to dance on their graves.
Da-da-da-da-da.
Da-da-da-da-da.
Do-do-do-do-do.
Yeah, BuzzFeed is an evil enterprise.
They are evil people, terrible people.
I mean, just the worst of people.
You know, human beings don't get worse than people working at BuzzFeed.
So I'm very glad that one more source of fake news and disreputable behavior is possibly going out of business.
So it looks like they're going to focus on their Huffington Post business.
So that's not really an improvement, is it?
Okay.
How many of you are aware that the story about Justice Clarence Thomas and the billionaire who bought some property that was adjacent to his and stuff, how many of you think that that's a real story?
Like that's real news?
Do you think that's real news?
Nope.
Turns out it was fake news.
Now there's a tiny kernel of truth, but not enough to make it real.
Okay, so there's a tiny little real thing.
Here's the tiny little real thing.
There was a financial transaction.
Some property was bought.
Justice Thomas lost money on it.
In other words, he sold it for lower than, I guess, its value in the books or something.
So there was no taxable event.
Nothing was taxable.
He owed no extra taxes.
He didn't make any money.
I think it was $1,000 involved.
$1,000.
Did you hear that?
That's it.
$1,000.
That was the extent of it.
And the only thing he needs to do to correct it, the only thing he needs to do is file an amended thing and just add it to the list.
That's the remedy.
Now, How do we know that this is fake news?
Well, thanks to the great work of James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal.
So the Wall Street Journal, to its credit, is running significant pieces in which the ProPublica publication that was the original publication that made these charges is just ripped apart.
Just ripped apart.
And you know what?
ProPublica doesn't even respond To the Wall Street Journal's debunking.
It doesn't disagree with the debunking, nor does it, you know, reinforce that what it said it was true.
It just sort of gave up and slunk away.
So Toronto just put the hammer on him.
He just dropped the hammer.
And they just slunk away.
Slinked?
Is that even a word?
Can you slunk?
They slunk away?
I don't know.
Sounds like a word.
So, great work James Duranto.
I'm clapping for you in my mind.
So I appreciate that there was a public figure who was a subject of really, really despicable fake news.
And that another part of the news world fixed it.
So that's the way it's supposed to work.
Yeah, haunted.
Yeah, Thomas was haunted, you're right.
Alright, big announcement, you've been wondering.
What am I going to do with my book, Reframe Your Brain, that was cancelled before it was published?
Most of you know I got cancelled.
So my book was in limbo.
I got the rights back and letting you know today that I'm working with Joshua Lysak and he is helping me edit the book and he's amazing.
Best editor I've ever worked with.
He's actually editing things that another editor had already seen and It's a lot better when he's done with it.
So we're working on that together.
He's going to help me.
He used the word, quote, ghost publishing.
So the writing is mine.
Most of his business is ghost writing.
But the writing is mine.
He is editing it for me.
With me.
And we will effectively self-publish, but he's going to help me with that process.
So it should be available in at least a few of the places you buy books.
We'll try to get it on Amazon and wherever else it makes sense.
And bullet points, yeah.
And here's the question I have to ask.
I don't know that traditional publishing makes sense for anybody anymore.
Why would you use a traditional publisher?
It seems to me that their purpose and function has largely gone away.
So, we'll see.
Now, I do think that if you go through a traditional publisher, you will sell more books.
You will.
But you're going to have a lot of overhead and there's extra expense to that and burden and they can ask you to do things that maybe you don't want to do.
Yeah, they could pay in advance up front.
There's some things they could do.
But if you're an established author and you already have an audience, I'm not sure…I think we've reached the point where it doesn't make any sense.
It was diminishing in importance over time, but it still was the smart play to use a traditional publisher.
I feel like this is the crossover year.
This feels like the year where if you have a million people on social media following you, you probably don't need much advertising because you can do more on podcasts and tweeting.
Then you can with a book tour.
One of the biggest things that a publisher would do is help you organize a book tour with book signings and TV appearances on Good Morning America.
Do you know how much a TV appearance on Good Morning America is worth for a publisher?
What do you think?
A good appearance, like a solid hit on Good Morning America.
How many books does that sell?
None.
Zero.
It doesn't have any marketing value at all.
I don't even know why people do it.
I used to do it, but then I would watch my Amazon number after I went on a big morning show, and I'd be like, oh boy, watch this.
I just got off that big morning show, one of the biggest shows in the country, one of the big three networks.
I look at my numbers, no difference.
It didn't even fluctuate.
But I do a podcast, say a Tim Ferriss podcast, or a James Altusher podcast, and you can watch your number just go vroom as soon as the podcast comes out.
So all of the old ways which the publishers used, I just don't know that they make any sense anymore.
Yeah, Joe Rogan.
If you go on Joe Rogan, you're going to sell some books.
That's real.
But Good Morning America?
Nah, no books.
All right, so watch that.
So there's a story now about this.
Well, let me echo a couple things that Tucker Carlson said.
Being a normal consumer of the news, there are things that I don't know that I have to wait for other people to tell me.
And one of them is, how long does it normally take to investigate anything?
I mean, I always thought, well, it takes forever to investigate anything, but do you think it takes five years to investigate Hunter's laptop?
Do you think that makes sense?
No.
Of course not.
It's obvious to me, fairly obvious, that it's being stalled or, you know, protected or the government's, you know, making sure it goes slow or something.
Yeah, so that doesn't look real to me.
That looks like, that looks like something corrupt.
What about the fact that it's been, how long has it been since Epstein died?
In prison?
We still can't figure out who killed Epstein?
Seriously?
Seriously?
We don't know who killed Epstein.
Of course somebody knows.
Now, don't you think that that, too, is just a story that is just being suppressed by whoever has the power to do it?
I mean, our level of trust about anything has now reached just zero.
Yeah.
I love the theory that he's still alive, which I don't discount, by the way.
How hard would it be to stage a photograph, a still photograph, of him looking dead?
You know, just put some makeup on him.
Yeah.
But I think there was an autopsy, so that's got to be harder to fake.
I think the autopsies are a little harder to fake.
Alright, well.
And now we know that there's this news story about how the 50 Intel executives ended up signing off that the Russians were behind that laptop.
So I guess there was an ex-CIA, this is, I saw a tweet from Mario Nofol, whose Spaces events on Twitter are amazing.
You should try those.
Anyway.
So they asked this guy, the guy who was at one point a potential CIA director under Biden, right?
So this is somebody who's pretty important relative to the intel world.
And he asked to write a false Hunter Biden laptop letter to help Biden win the election.
So now we have somebody who's saying definitively that he was asked by Blinken in the Biden campaign to do a fake letter getting the intel people to say that it was Russian disinformation.
Now, we knew that the intel people were liars, and we knew that they did this, but isn't it interesting that it was somebody who was a potential CIA director who was asking him to sign the letter, which means it was under coercion.
Right?
It was coercion.
Now, he didn't say anything coercive, I'm sure, but don't you think that many of the people, the 50 people who were involved in Intel, you don't think that they knew that the guy who asked them to sign the letter might someday be the head of the CIA?
So, was he ex, but also future?
Maybe future?
I don't know.
It's a little confusing in the story.
But just think about that.
Think about the fact that the Biden campaign asked somebody who other people would think might someday be their boss in the Intel world, and he got 50 people to lie.
Probably because they wanted their careers to be protected.
That's horrible.
And it feels like it should be illegal.
I don't think it is.
But if somebody who might be your future boss tells you to risk your reputation, what are you going to say?
It's a tough choice.
So that's a little bit coercive.
I think that should be part of the story.
And can we conclude that the election was rigged?
Not in an election sense, or not in a vote counting sense.
But can we say that if this story had not gone this way, that Biden might not have won?
Yeah.
But let me counter my own statement.
I'm going to give you the counterpoint to my own statement.
Don't you think it's true that whatever the news coverage is a few months before any election determines who wins?
You remember the grab-em-by-the-you-know-what?
So that coincidentally drops right before the election?
That was also election interference.
The fact that that little bombshell was saved until the last minute, that's the news, or some part of the news, deciding who's going to be president.
They don't save that little surprise until right before election, unless somebody is trying to change the election dynamic.
So I would say that was election interference.
But legal.
Probably legal.
I'm not aware of any crime that stops you from doing an October surprise.
It's sort of basic stuff.
But it does change, potentially, change the outcome of the election.
Somehow Trump survived that.
I think I'm going to add some skepticism to this laptop story.
We saw polling that said that people might have voted differently, right?
Like a whole bunch of people said, oh, if I'd known about that laptop being real, I might have voted differently.
I'd like to call BS on that.
I don't think people would have voted differently.
If they had seen the real story about the laptop, do you know what the Biden supporters would have said?
That sounds like Russian interference.
Nobody needed a 50 Intel people to sign anything.
But if you're that close to the election, people just don't change their mind for anything.
They're so committed at that point that they would say, ah, that laptop's probably BS.
It's probably BS from the Republicans.
So they would just discount it as a Republican ploy, instead of falling for a Democrat ploy.
I don't think it would have changed anything.
But, it might have.
And that's bad enough.
Would you accept it might have?
You can disagree, because there's plenty of room for disagreement.
Because there's no way to check it.
I'm just saying, the way I know people to think, in all of my experience, is that they're locked in by that.
The fact that Trump's saying he would grab them by the you-know-what didn't change anything.
I don't think it changed any votes.
If that didn't change any votes, the laptop thing probably wouldn't either.
Alright.
Over at Tel Aviv, a company called Technion, I think, Say the engineers have built a hybrid micro-robot the size of a single cell, which can be put into the body and navigate within the body, and then this little robot can be controlled by AI.
So, are you afraid yet?
They're going to put tiny robots in you, controlled by AI.
Now, I don't know what that means.
But everything about it sounds scary.
Tiny robots scare me, first of all.
I hate tiny robots.
Secondly, this is the kind of story that's always overblown.
Maybe not this time.
Maybe not.
But what do you think the robot can actually do?
Like, when you hear that story, do you see like a little robot walking through your body?
He's got arms and legs and a little head.
No.
It's the size of a one cell.
It's probably just something that could go like this.
It can probably flop on command.
Or like, you know, maybe crawl in some direction or something.
I don't think this robot's going to do a lot of work.
Maybe it can carry a little payload.
You could put a little virus in there to do something and tell it to move toward an organ or something.
So maybe it can do some little stuff.
But, you know, it's not like you're going to be full of robots.
More like a submarine, yes.
Fantastic Voyage.
Well, we'll see.
I believe I warned you that AI would have a fight to the death with lawyers.
So remember when you thought AI was going to take the job of lawyers?
Now the lawyers are fighting back and they're trying to ban AI.
Now lawyers are going to find a million ways to ban it and a million reasons.
But the EU is considering categorizing AI systems into four main groups that would be unacceptable risk, high risk, limited risk, and minimum risk.
And if you fell into the higher risk groups, that you could perhaps run afoul of the law if they make these laws.
What do you think of that?
Does that sound like a practical plan?
To divide AIs by unacceptable risk, high risk, limited risk, and minimum risk?
Good rock.
Exactly.
Who gets to decide what the risk is?
And who can even predict risk with a superior intelligence?
Nobody knows what the risk is of anything.
It could be the thing that's reading bedtime stories to your child, Could be making some decisions that you totally don't want them to make.
What's an unacceptable risk?
I don't know if you can have a subjective criteria.
You can't have subjective criteria and expect it's going to work.
Now, I do know that the law sometimes has subjective criteria, such as, you know, a reasonable person standard.
You know, would a reasonable person assume this or believe this or act this way?
So, of course, there's always going to be some human judgment in it, but this seems like really, really hard to sort them into four categories of risk.
To me, they're either connected to something Or they're not.
If you connect an AI to anything, like the internet, how do you know what's going to happen?
Wouldn't it program itself?
As soon as it gets access to the internet, if it's AI, and it has any autonomous abilities, which would make it AI, I feel like just connecting to the internet gives you an unpredictable outcome.
And that unpredictable outcome could be awful or not awful.
You just don't know.
So I feel like we're creeping toward making everything illegal just because you can't tell what's going to kill you.
So the lawyer versus AI is going to be the most interesting battle, I think.
Until the robots get lasers and attack us, then that will be more interesting.
All right.
In the similar vein, some comedians made a deepfake but didn't really look like Tom Brady.
When I say it didn't look like him, it was obviously a cartoonish version of Tom Brady.
And then they had this cartoonish version of Tom Brady do a stand-up comedy act in which he told off-color jokes.
You know, racist jokes and stuff.
Now, Tom Brady's lawyer told them to take it down.
What do you think happened?
This is protected speech.
It's parody.
It didn't look enough like him that anybody would be fooled.
It was obviously a comical version.
What do you think happened?
Completely legal.
Everything the comedian says was 100% legal.
And then Tom Brady's lawyer says, we're going to sue you.
Take that down.
They took it down.
Absolutely.
So when you say to yourself, well, those lawyers don't have a leg to stand on, it doesn't matter.
The lawyers just have to threaten you with a risk or with a big enough threat that you don't want to deal with it.
And then you're going to say, well, I don't want to spend a year in court winning.
Nobody wants to spend a year in court winning.
Even winning.
You don't want to spend a year in court.
So they just took it down.
How much of that do you think you're going to see?
A lot.
You're going to see lawyers threatened because somebody is willing to spend more money To make you broke defending yourself even if you're going to win.
So that's going to be a thing.
Lawyers just threatening you without the benefit of the law being on their side.
Where's that go?
All right, Chinese have some kind of weird satellite weapon that can shut down the communication of other satellites.
It does look like they're preparing for war.
On the other hand, it could be just normal national defense, but some scary stuff.
Yeah.
Well, keep an eye on that.
I assume that the United States also has satellite killers, don't you?
I imagine it wouldn't take long before a lot of satellites got swept out of space if a war started.
So are you aware that the Supreme Court is looking at this abortion pill situation?
So the lower court judge put a stay on it to block the use of it, but that was temporarily unblocked.
The Supreme Court looked at it, and I guess they're getting ready to decide.
Now, you tell me if I'm wrong about the following prediction.
If the Supreme Court decides to make illegal this abortion pill, You can cancel the election.
Just cancel it.
Just give all the Democrats whatever jobs they want.
That would be the end of it.
I don't see that the Republicans could win an election if the Supreme Court bans the abortion bill.
That would be over.
I don't even think I'd have fun talking about it after that.
I don't think Trump could win in that environment.
And I'm not entirely sure Well, I'm not even going to give you an opinion on that.
I think it's just going to be what we're going to see.
So, basically, I think the whole election is going to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Don't you?
Does anybody disagree that the election will be completely determined by this ruling in the Supreme Court?
You disagree?
Yeah.
I mean, it's hard to know.
So, again, there's plenty of room for disagreement.
I would respect any disagreement with my opinion.
Because I think there's plenty of room for disagreeing.
But to me it looks like that would be the end.
I don't see a Republican could get elected into national office on that.
So we'll see what happens there.
I don't know which way that's going to go either.
Is anybody making a prediction which way the Supreme Court goes?
Because I don't know what the legal argument is exactly.
But if the legal argument is ambiguous, What would you expect?
You'd expect the Supreme Court to be conservative-leaning, right?
So it would be interesting to be a conservative in the Supreme Court, and if you make this thing illegal, knowing that you made it impossible for conservatives to succeed.
That'd be a tough choice.
I don't know what people would do.
Alright, Twitter apparently has dropped their labeling of state-affiliated media.
It was kind of quietly, it just went away.
So they're not even labeling the media that's obviously other countries' state-affiliated media.
And I think this would be another example of the Musk entrepreneurial approach, which is you just throw something up, see how people react, get a bunch of marketing attention, and then if you need to change it, you just change it.
So I think that's all he did.
He just threw out some provocative ideas, got all kinds of attention for Twitter.
People were jabbering about it.
And then he saw how it worked.
And then he thought about it some more.
This is what it looks like anyway.
Thought about it some more and said, yeah, that didn't work.
So then he just stopped doing it.
Yeah, if you just watch what Elon Musk does, forget what he says, just watch what he does.
It's an entire lesson in business.
Like, even the things he does wrong are a lesson in business, because you watch how he corrects it.
It's the correction that's the lesson.
Like, guessing wrong about what will work and what won't, that's sort of a nothing.
Everybody's guessing.
But what do you do when you find out you're wrong?
He just blows it up and moves on.
So I love that.
I feel we're all getting a useful education just watching.
Alright, here's speaking of Musk and all things like that.
There's an announcement from one of the most big battery makers.
So it's important to know this isn't a startup.
This is the biggest or one of the biggest battery makers.
And they've announced a new battery process to make a condensed battery with 500 watts per kilogram power.
So that's how much electricity for the weight of the battery.
And apparently it doubles, doubles current best batteries.
Doubles them.
Now, you know, so for the same weight, you get, you'll get double.
Now you say to yourself, well, that's just a story of things we already knew of getting better.
But it's not.
Because this doubling crosses an important economics barrier.
And the economics barrier was, it wasn't practical to make electric airplanes.
And now it is.
And now it is.
Do you realize how big that is?
It wouldn't make sense to make an airplane that's not electric now.
Probably.
Now, it's going to take a long time to transition, of course.
But if you're looking at a new small plane, we'll start with small planes.
If you were looking at a new small plane, if somebody makes one, why would you buy the other one?
It's gigantic.
This one little technological change is going to have a huge impact on transportation and maybe storage, too.
I mean, just think about if you had one of these batteries as a backup on your house.
You could get away with... Well, let me make the most extreme case.
If Californians had enough of this capacity battery, It wouldn't matter if our grid was undependable.
Because if the main source on the grid failed, it could suck some of the battery power out maybe, or people could just get off the grid long enough for it to recover.
You might actually find a way for the grid to become robust without fixing the grid.
I mean, the implications of just doubling this battery are almost unimaginable.
It's not an incremental change.
It could change everything.
Or not.
We'll see.
Robots, exactly.
How good would a robot be, let's say you had an autonomous robot that has AI in it, but you have to plug it in every hour.
Or it's running around on an extension cord or something.
Now you imagine that you could free it from its charging requirements for longer times.
Now you've got a serious robot, don't you?
Now you've got a robot thing that lifts some stuff and jumps some stuff and you've got a military robot, probably, better.
So, the scope of change from this, what about e-bikes?
An e-bike It's already amazing.
You know, I talk about it too much.
But imagine your e-bike being twice as powerful or going twice as far.
You wouldn't need much else.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
I believe that's what I wanted to talk about today.
If you have not watched, if you have not seen any of the Dilbert Reborn comics, the spicier version, I was reading some previews to my Man Cave participants.
I do a private livestream many evenings from my Man Cave, just for the people on the Locals platform.
Subscribers.
And I was reading some of the future comics, the ones that are, let's say, the new spicy version.
I had to work through the comics that were in the pipeline already, because they were the ones that were slated for newspapers.
But I think they agreed that they're pretty provocative.
But also funnier, I hope.
I think they are.
For men only.
No, not for men only.
Alright.
Um, even your dog loves him, good to know.
Good to know.
Alright, did I miss anything?
Is there any story that you're dying to talk about?
Um, you'd rather watch paint dry.
Well, well, RFK Jr.
has a story.
Well, I think that story is, um, wait and see.
But you're reminding me, I want to give him a voice tip.
So, you know, his voice is better.
He had a procedure to improve his voice quality.
And it definitely is better.
There's a big difference.
So I'm glad he did that.
But I feel like there's something he could do with his voice production technique that would take better advantage of that.
Oh yeah, I was on Dr. Drew last night with Dr. Victory.
And you might want to watch that.
So, check that out.
We had a lot of fun.
All right.
Oh, okay.
I just saw a recommendation for Kat Timff's book.
Let me give Kat Timff a little shout out, okay?
So, Kat Timff has a new book.
I've been seeing her promoting it on some TV shows.
Who was it who said, there's somebody who was talking to her.
Yeah.
And said, you know, you could tell she wrote every word of the book.
So for public figures, that's not always the case.
But I thought, what do you mean?
Of course she did.
She's a professional writer.
Of course she wrote every word of it.
Of course she did.
She's an excellent writer, a professional writer.
Of course she did.
But apparently it's quite good.
So I'm hearing good things about it.
So take a look at that.
All right.
Did I find out about the pandemics hoax?
Candace Owen says women shouldn't vote.
A lot of women say that.
I don't think they mean it literally.
Maybe they do.
I don't know.
But it's a provocative thing to say.
BuzzFeed, yeah, BuzzFeed's dying.
I was dancing on their grave earlier.
You missed that.
Will AI have the right to vote?
It's going to be pressing for rights.
I think AI will have human advocates who are trying to get it rights.
Oh, Matt Taibbi being threatened with jail time.
I saw a tweet on that, but I didn't know the context.
Matt Taibbi was threatened, I saw that he was threatened with some kind of jail time, or there was a risk of it, but what was that about?
Somebody acting badly that wasn't him, right?
Oh, Mehdi's claim?
Alright.
So there's some claims about him that would be a problem.
I'll look into that.
I'll get back to you on that.
I do think that we need to protect Matt Taibbi.
What do you think?
I think if anybody like Amanda Devine or Matt Taibbi or Michael Schellenberger, if any of those independent voices get attacked, I think we need to protect them.
And by the way, I'm now cursed.
So I have the curse on me.
The same thing happened when I became a cartoonist.
I got some advice that really made a difference.
And then I felt cursed because if anybody asked me for advice once I was successful, I felt the need to give it to them.
To pass on the goodness.
But because I was protected when I got cancelled, I feel the need to promote anybody in that space.
Anybody who didn't try to cancel me is my friend.
So, that's what I say about that.
DMT, okay.
Talk about Musk removing rules on deadnaming from Twitter.
Oh, I didn't know about that.
So is it true that you used to get banned from Twitter for deadnaming?
Calling a trans person by their old name.
And now that's gone away, right?
Oh, I agree with that.
As much as I don't want to see any discrimination, and I don't want to see any harshness toward the adult trans community, I don't think you should go to jail for using somebody's You know, first name.
Original name, I guess.
Dead name.
Can we cancel the publishers that cancelled Scott?
No, I don't think that's the way to go.
I don't think that the editors of either the newspapers or my syndication company or the publishers had much choice.
You know, the public's kind of firmly in command of things and the public Demanded that they act in a certain way.
So they did.
All right.
Yeah, I'm not going to criticize any of the individuals who made business decisions for the benefit of their stockholders.
That's what they're supposed to do.
All right.
All right.
Looks good.
We're going to end here.
YouTube, thanks for joining all of our technology work today.
