My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Drone attacks Putin
NY Times attacks Tucker
Saudi joins BRICS
Trump & DeSantis ticket polled
Fox News drama
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 best thing that ever happened to you.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and every day, every day, I'm here to be your virtual friend.
Are you lonely?
Well, this is where you come.
It's like having a friend who will shut up the moment you put on the mute.
But until then, let's talk.
And if you'd like this day to be Hold on, I know what's wrong.
Just do a little experiment.
And now, except that I can't see where to plug it in.
Hold on a second.
Here we go.
Here we go.
How's that?
Alright, we'll be back on line here in a minute.
No problem.
Just before I went live, I was saying to the locals people, I feel like there's something I forgot.
And there was something I forgot.
I was testing a little two-way connector and now I know it doesn't work.
So apparently you can't split a USB-C for audio.
Now I know.
You can't split it for audio.
All right, well, as I was telling you, today will be amazing, and I am your virtual friend here every day.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels which nobody has ever experienced before, all you need is a cup, or a mug, or a glass, a tank, your chalice, a sign, a canteen, jug, or 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Ah, the simultaneity feels so good today.
Well, yesterday was kind of amazing in the history of Twitter and just Watching how the whole Elon Musk thing is evolving.
So you might remember that Twitter used to have, and I guess it still has, this feature called Periscope, where it can do live streaming.
And that's where I first started before I moved to these platforms.
And Elon Musk takes over Twitter, and apparently yesterday, for the first time ever, he turned on Periscope.
You got to be at home.
And watch it in real time as the richest man in the world who owns Twitter picks up his phone, goes live, and doesn't know exactly what's going to happen.
He's just playing with it.
So I think there were over 300,000 people that saw it on the replay.
Probably had a few tens of thousands of people were immediately on it.
But the funny thing was that it was built in 2015, and they hadn't upgraded it.
So the quality of the feed, somebody was calling him 8-bit Elon and he was laughing at that.
But the fun part was, he got to be in the room while he was redesigning Periscope.
He's holding it in his hand and he's turning around and talking to his staff while the entire public is watching.
He's asking questions.
Like, one of the questions he asked was, can everybody do this?
Which is a funny question.
Can everybody do this?
Can they just turn it on and they have Periscope?
The answer was yes, but I don't know how you activate it.
So it sounded as if he was redesigning it in real time, and he just wanted a little more resolution, I think.
So we'll see if Periscope turns into anything.
All right, Saudi Arabia is joining the BRICS, the B-R-I-C-S.
Now, so that's the end of the petrodollar situation, and does that mean the value of the dollar will plunge?
I don't know yet.
I don't think anybody knows how any of this stuff works.
I'm convinced the economists are just bluffing.
They're just making stuff up.
You know, I don't think the Fed knows what's going to happen, and I don't think anybody knows anything.
Honestly, I don't know why anything works.
But I've decided not to panic about this BRICS thing, because I don't understand it.
I mean, I understand it in the broad sense.
But I don't think anybody knows how any of this plays out.
Because people are still going to want dollars if they think the United States is still the most stable country.
And unless we spend ourselves into oblivion, which looks like we're on the way to do that.
You know, it makes me wonder if in a situation in which debt is possible, does every successful company go bankrupt?
Because they just borrow until it's too much?
Because it feels like that would be a natural way that life would always go.
Because the government has trouble saying no.
Because every individual decision is just, well, I'm only adding 1% to the debt.
And then the next Congress says, well, I'm only adding 1%.
And then pretty soon, you're crushed.
It feels like there's nothing that would stop any country who could borrow from borrowing too much in the long run.
Feels like that just would always happen.
So I don't know what's gonna happen.
Maybe we'll have to go crypto and start all over or something.
So Rasmussen did some polling on what would happen if DeSantis ran as a VP for Trump.
Do you think that's an option?
What do you think?
DeSantis as a VP for Trump.
Do you think it could ever happen?
Well, my initial thought was it could not happen because he's too strong of a politician, but also that you don't need Florida, do you?
Don't we assume that Trump would win Florida pretty easily at this point?
So if you don't need Florida, I don't know if that makes as much sense to get a vice president like that.
However, you should be interested to know that Trump And DeSantis, as a package, would handily beat Biden and Harris based on current polling, and do better than Trump without DeSantis.
So the Rasmussen results show that adding DeSantis would strengthen the ticket.
And it would strengthen it apparently across almost every demographic, which is interesting.
Does that sound right?
Do you think adding DeSantis would strengthen the ticket across every demographic?
I feel like it might, yeah.
Although, I'm kind of confused though.
Are there really that many Democrats, let's say, who think that DeSantis is the safe one and Trump's the bad one?
Maybe.
Maybe Floridians.
I'm gonna say I don't think it's gonna happen.
It's interesting to look at it, but I don't think that's gonna happen.
Well Nordstrom in San Francisco closed because of rampant criminal activity.
And that follows a closure of, let's see, Whole Foods, Walgreens, and other stores.
But I'm not so sure that's why Nordstrom closed.
Because the Nordstrom in my town also closed.
And we had no rampant criminal activity.
I feel like it might be a Nordstrom problem that they might be blaming on crime.
Now, I'm sure that they also had a big crime problem, but given that their other store closed without any crime at all just down the street, I don't know.
I don't think it's all crime.
No, not all Nordstroms.
The San Francisco one.
Was San Francisco the original Nordstrom?
I can't remember.
Alright, let's talk about Tucker Carlson.
So as many people have noted, there seems to be some kind of full court press attack on Tucker.
Some of it is by his old enemies who just want to paint him as a bad person.
So a lot of it is just revenge, because Tucker has been a big critic of the news.
So if you're a big critic of places like the New York Times and the Washington Post, what should you think when they attack him?
Does it sound like news?
He literally every night would make fun of the entities that are now attacking him.
I don't think you can believe anything in the news about Tucker Carlson, because it's all reported literally by his enemies.
How would you believe that?
But, I'd like to say a few things.
So there's some message that surfaced in which Tucker was talking about some video he saw of, I don't know when, but there was some MAGA-headed guys beating up an Antifa person.
And since it was, I don't know, three-on-one or something, it was a crowd beating one person, Tucker said in his message, that's not how white men fight.
And so the New York Times and all of his enemies have decided that's racist!
It's racist.
That's not how white men fight.
Now I'd like to say two things about this.
Number one, let's do the Alan Dershowitz shoe-on-the-other-foot test.
Shoe-on-the-other-foot.
Imagine, if you will, that a black man, some prominent black man, could be in the news or anywhere else, was known to have sent a private message, private, just like Tucker's, and said that that's not how black men fight.
Would we be talking about it?
No.
Nobody would care.
If a black man said of any situation, that's not how black men fight, nobody would even think twice.
How about a Hispanic?
Hispanic American.
If in a private message they said, that's not how Hispanics fight, would you care?
Wouldn't even register with me.
How about if it was a woman?
And a woman said, that's not how women fight.
Nothing.
Asian American?
Let's just go right down the fucking list.
Asian American?
Would anybody care what an Asian American said about how they fight?
Compared to other groups?
Nope!
Nobody cares.
Why do they care when Tucker said it?
Because they're racists.
It's obviously just a racist attack against Tucker and other white people.
Let's be honest, it's an attack on white people.
It's just an attack on white people.
That's all this is.
With Tucker being the focus of it in this case.
Now I'd like to reinforce something I tweeted the other day.
Do you remember I tweeted the other day a cryptic message and people said, what's that related to?
It doesn't seem to be connected to any current event.
And my message was this, before the Tucker thing, just like a day before, I said if somebody publishes a private message, the person who publishes it is responsible for its content.
Because you're taking it into a new field, and communication changes, very fundamentally, when you change its context.
So, the way you talk to a child is different than you talk to an adult, the way you talk to your boss is different than a stranger, the way you talk in private is different than the way you talk somewhere else.
I don't believe you can be racist in private, if you're talking to somebody who doesn't mind what you're saying.
That's closer to a thought crime.
We don't punish people for their thoughts.
And that's kind of what a private message is.
It's a lot closer to a thought than it is to, here's the message I want the world to hear, which could or could not be racist.
But a private message?
No, the New York Times is responsible for it, and they're fucking racist.
Because they're only attacking him because he's white.
And it's easy to demonstrate.
I just did.
Because if you change the ethnicity of who said it, nobody would care.
It's only because he's white.
Alright.
So, I guess I'll get cancelled for that tomorrow.
For being a white nationalist.
So, if you don't know how the ecosystem works of cancellation, if you've got a sketchy A sketchy little claim, like this private text message from Tucker.
It's kind of, it's not quite, you can't quite make it racist, but if you have to make something that isn't really racist into something that really is, how would you do it?
Do you know what the process is?
Well, the process is, it's very much like the worse than Watergate guy.
You know how CNN brings out the worst in Watergate guy whenever Trump does something?
That's just so he'll say in live TV, that's worse than Watergate.
Bernstein.
Right?
It's his only purpose.
So when this Tucker thing happens, and he says this thing that some people would say was racist, but not really, what do they do?
They're going to turn it racist.
They're going to turn the story into something.
So they call Jonathan Greenblatt.
He also came after me.
He had absolutely nothing, but it didn't stop him.
To him, I'm just a white nationalist.
Because he's a racist.
Obviously he's a racist.
And so they bring him out to talk about Tucker.
They call him a white nationalist.
So if you see Jonathan Greenblatt, that means the claim is so weak that they needed to get somebody who would say, you're a racist, because other people wouldn't say it.
Like serious people wouldn't say it.
So he's, when you see Bernstein or Greenblatt, that's your, that's a big flag for fake news.
All right.
I would like, so I tweeted this, I haven't seen the answers.
I would like someone in public to say that they were offended by Tucker's comment.
Personally.
Now, we all like to get offended on behalf of other people.
Which is not a bad impulse.
I think it's good that we have a sort of a reflex to protect, you know, marginalized people.
But I don't think any marginalized people were offended.
Do you?
Do you think you could find me one black American who was offended by Tucker's comment?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Anyway.
It also seemed like he was criticizing the white people in the video, because he was saying that's not how white people fight.
I mean, there's two ways to take that.
But at least one way to take it is that he doesn't want to be part of a group that would do that.
So it's like a criticism of his own group.
You saw that, right?
So he's being blamed to be a... He's being called a racist because he criticized his own group.
It's so ridiculous, but so typical.
All right.
Apparently, Tucker's departure has caused a ratings catastrophe at Fox.
I don't know if it's a catastrophe, but you know the people on social media are trying to act like it's a pretty big deal.
But in the 25 to 54 demographic, I saw one tweet that said Hannity is below 100,000 viewers in the key demographic.
That would be amazing.
Amazingly bad, if that's true.
I don't know if it's true.
And that Tucker's old time slot lost more than 70% of its young audience.
Now, I don't know if that's permanent.
That could be like a little protest situation.
If they put somebody who was kind of a star in that spot, I think it would probably recover.
At the moment, they took a pretty big hit.
So, in conjunction with this story, I saw the ratings of all the shows, all the news shows and all the news networks.
And the number one and two show, by far, the number one show was The Five.
Also on Fox.
So even though Tucker's gone, the number one show is still on Fox.
The Five.
Does anybody know what the number two show on Fox is?
So, I don't know, I mean I'm not sure how important that is to the world, except to Fox News and to Guffield, but you can't kill it harder than that, can you?
Talk about somebody who's just slaying!
This is just crazy to have the two, to be a key part of the two biggest shows.
Yeah, I worry that Gottfeld will be the next target.
But he does not do the same kind of controversial things, and when he does, he's always just kidding, so it comes across differently.
Well, we'll see what happens.
Well, in the news, allegedly, and I'm going to put a big allegedly on this one, the Ukrainians attacked Putin's residence in the Kremlin to try to assassinate him.
But the Kremlin cleverly shot down those two drones and stopped the attack.
Do you think any of that's true?
I don't believe any of it.
Nah.
Nah.
Now, it wouldn't surprise me.
And by the way, I've already seen a deepfake of the Kremlin shooting down a drone.
And I don't think that the people who looked at it knew it was a deepfake.
Unless it's real, I don't think it's real.
But I don't think anybody actually, you know, had a camera already focused at exactly when the drone got taken down, if that's what happened.
Now I also, it seems like it would be a drone swarm if they were really trying to take him out, not two drones.
So I'm not sure if any drones were there, I'm not sure if, well the first question I'd ask is, in the context of a war, Would Putin be sleeping in his official residence?
Wouldn't that be the worst thing to do if you're at war?
I feel like nobody would ever know where he is.
You'd be sort of like Saddam Hussein.
So I doubt everything about this story.
Who wants to bet it gets debunked?
Because Russia is the one that claims Ukraine did it.
So it's the lowest level of credibility you could ever have.
And there wasn't much damage.
So, looks like propaganda to me.
Probably.
And I have predicted, I predicted that Ukraine would take a run at Moscow, and would take a run at Putin.
Because why wouldn't they?
That's not illegal, is it?
There's nothing illegal about a country at war trying to take out the leader of the other country.
I think that's part of the war.
So why aren't they doing that every day?
I feel like Ukraine should be sending a drone into the Kremlin every day.
Because the Kremlin would send a drone into Kiev every day.
And do.
Right?
So why can't you send drones into Moscow every day?
Is it because you're afraid of nuclear war?
If they're not already having a nuclear war, I'm not sure how much worse they could get.
Worried about escalation?
I don't know.
We'll see.
But I don't believe that story.
All right, Matt Gaetz and AOC have teamed up, among some other people, in a non-partisan attempt to try to get Congress banned from the ability to buy individual stocks, so that they can't get rich trading stocks.
And apparently, it's just really obvious that there's insider trading going on just massively.
Now, the problem is, I don't know how you can stop it.
Because it's too easy for the insiders to simply tell somebody else to buy the stock.
Now, they might try to stop a family member, you know, like an immediate family member, so you can't do it with your spouse, for example.
But what about, what about their cousins and their friends?
What about you just say, hey, Cousin Bob, I got a hot stock tip for you.
If you make a fortune, maybe you consider buying my house for too much.
You know, something like that.
So you can work out all kinds of deals where they still get the benefit of the trade without being the one who made the trade.
So it's really tough to stop.
But at least you can stop the easy stuff.
Because there may be enough members of Congress who are not clever.
So they don't know how to do a whole Biden crime family thing.
They only know how to trade stocks.
So it might stop the dumb ones, but it's not going to stop the clever ones.
Apparently the Bud Light so-called boycott is working and that Bud Light sales are way down.
Does anybody care?
Butt wipe instead of Bud Light.
Yeah, nobody cares.
Again, I am so not in favor of this boycott.
You can do whatever you want.
And I'm not sure it's called a boycott.
Maybe it's not a boycott.
Maybe it's just a whole bunch of people who are individually registering their displeasure.
Which just sums up to a boycott.
But I feel like it's less about an organized boycott than it is to just a bunch of people who don't want to be associated with the brand anymore.
But imagine how much teasing you would get if you showed up with a Bud Light in your hand.
That's the problem.
It makes me want to drink it.
You know, I don't drink.
I don't drink alcohol.
But if I did, you'd know I would bring a Bud Light to a party.
I hope you know that about me.
Oh, I would so bring a Bud Light to a party.
If I drank.
Because it'd be funny.
It'd just get people talking and blah, blah, blah.
All right, so I guess that's happened.
Do you feel, let me ask you this, do you feel that there is a, the woke backlash is bigger than the wokeness yet?
Or am I in a bubble?
It seems like, here's what's different.
I noticed that a lot of the hosts on Fox News are calling trans women men.
And I don't know that that would have happened Two years ago?
One year ago?
But have you noticed that shift?
That there are conservative names who are willing to just say, that's a man?
Jordan Peterson, same thing, you say?
Yeah, I feel like there are enough people who have raised their head out of the foxhole That there might be a little bit of a shift coming.
Because these things never last forever.
There should be, at some point, you know, there's going to be a slide back to the middle, I think.
I mean, that would be the most logical, predictable thing to happen.
So yeah, I think there's a lot happening there.
I think people are able to talk more freely, in a way.
All right, here's my favorite parlor game with CNN.
It goes like this.
The headline of CNN says there's a new study, or a new drug, or a new thing that they think might be causing some benefits.
Or they found something that causes something else.
And here's what I do.
I count the number of paragraphs before the story is debunked in its own story.
Right?
So here's the headline.
Regular internet use may be linked to lower dementia risk in older adults, study says.
And I'm like, whoa, that would be pretty good.
Because if that were true, then that would be a real practical thing for keeping your brain active.
You'd say, hey, Grandma, you should use the internet more.
I'll send you some email.
Let me show you how to browse Instagram.
And then you'd have a real functional, cheap way to help people's cognition.
The 16th paragraph says, one of the research people says, but we wouldn't want to read too much into this study in isolation.
It doesn't establish cause and effect.
There's one study and it doesn't establish cause and effect.
Now, what do you think is more likely?
I'll just ask you common sense, if you have any common sense.
Is it more likely that using the internet protects your brain Which I think it might.
Or, that people who have the best brains are most likely to use the internet.
Which do you think is more likely?
Don't you think that the smartest, most active brains, which you would predict would be, continue to be the best brains?
I mean, if your brain is already good, you're probably going to use the internet.
If your brain is already slowed down, You're probably not going to figure out how to use email.
So this is one of the most obvious reverse causation things you could ever see.
But that does not eliminate the possibility it could work both ways.
It makes perfect sense that it would work both ways.
The best brains are most likely to use the internet when they're old.
But also, any form of intellectual activity is probably good for your brain.
It's just that this study didn't tease out any of that.
Just none of it.
You can't tell.
So, do you know how many times I've done that with CNN?
Now, to their credit, they do say Maybe linked to lower dementia.
But nobody reads the maybe.
You read linked to dementia.
You read the first three paragraphs and you say, I better put grandma on the Internet.
And maybe you should for other reasons.
But yeah, it's a little bit leading the witness here.
Leading the witness.
All right.
It seems to me that the news got really slow.
I'm going to make some observations.
When I first started talking about the headlines, 2016 or so, I would go to CNN and see what they had to say, and then I would go to Fox News and see what they had to say.
And it would be real interesting, because they'd cover the same story, but a completely different filter on the story.
But today it's really different.
Today the one or two biggest stories will be covered by both entities, but 80% of the news on Fox News is not even on CNN and vice versa.
They don't cover the same news.
So it's an entirely set of different directions about what is news.
So I can't even do the Which, so I can't even do the comparison of, oh here's what CNN says, here's what Fox News says, because it's different news.
Just completely different.
And that's, that's really changed.
All right, so the writers are on strike.
But do we know, I guess the View used writers?
Did you know that?
Did you know that the show The View used writers?
Now obviously they have writers for the introductions, but what else do they have a writer for after you do the introduction?
And Whoopi was apologizing.
She said maybe their commentary would not be as crisp as usual.
Maybe.
So I think That would also be a reason why the shows The Five and Gutfeld will probably even gain ground in the next few weeks if the strike continues.
Because those are both based almost entirely, well I won't say that, but mostly those shows are based on the individuals coming up with stuff on the spot.
With a little bit of preparation.
I paved the way for Tucker.
I don't think so.
Union rules mandate writers whether you need them or not.
Oh, is that true?
You have to have a writer even if you're not using them?
Maybe?
Have I ever told you my most annoying writer's union story?
So I was a member of the Writers Guild and Screen Actors Guild and That too.
For a while.
So when I was writing scripts for the Dilbert TV show that ran for a few half seasons on UPN, I would write a first draft and hand it off to a writer or I'd maybe outline the story and then a writer would handle it.
So I would get writing credit for the first draft And then whoever did the teleplay or the finish part, they'd get credit for that part.
And then the union rules would specify how much I got paid as the first draft guy and how much they got paid for finishing it.
Well, there are also rules that if you rewrite somebody's work, they still get paid.
So here's what would happen a number of times.
I'd give the writers the outline, so that makes me the author of the work.
And then they'd write something, and I'd throw the entire thing away because there wasn't a single line of it that I could use.
And then I would write the whole thing from scratch.
So it was my framework, my first draft, and my finished work.
So there was not a single word Of any other writer on it.
Although I usually work with my co-executive producer, so he would be also a credit.
But the, do you know who got paid?
Not me.
No, the people who got paid were the ones who wrote the stuff I threw away.
Because the union rules say that whoever does the bulk of the writing, gets the credit.
And if you later edit it, You don't get credit for that.
It's still their writing.
Even if there's nothing left, I literally just put the whole thing in the trash.
Started from scratch.
So I still see things that I wrote completely with other people's names on them.
When I see the credits.
Do you know how much that bothers me?
It bothers me a lot.
There's not much money involved.
If you're a writer and you see somebody else's name on your work, and you know that they get a check for it, it makes you crazy.
It just makes you crazy.
All right, a Dilbert contest on Locals.
What would that be?
All right, now, is there anything else that I haven't mentioned?
If you were a member of the scottadams.locals.com subscription community, Tonight you will be participating in a book club review of my book, God's Debris, and the Religion War.
Now, if you've not heard of these books, well, let me do it this way.
For those who have heard of the books, give your opinion in the comments.
So most, especially on YouTube, for the benefit of anybody else who wonders what's going on.
So those books are not like ordinary books.
They change people.
People become different after they read them, especially God's Debris.
That's what they tell me.
They tell, you know, change their life, etc.
And I hear that all the time.
So we're going to have a book discussion on Locals, but that's just for subscribers.
They have bad titles?
I don't know.
I think God's Debris is the best title.
The other one, maybe not.
But what's interesting about the Religion War is that it was written in 2003 or 4, and it anticipated today.
So it was about the future, but the future is right now.
So part of that future was big data and AI.
Less AI than big data.
And drone attacks on major cities.
So those are two big themes.
Yeah.
Yeah.
All right.
Honestly, I think it would benefit younger people more.
Yeah, God's Debris is popular with 14-year-olds and up.
Tiny bombs.
was-- Why is it okay to cancel Dilbert, but not Bud Light?
Well, it's not okay in either case.
King Charles Coronation?
Boring.
Kamala is holding a White House AI meeting?
Are you serious?
You know what's funny?
If Kamala Harris is holding an AI meeting at the White House, She's actually the job you could most easily replace with AI.
How long would it take AI to learn to giggle over a Venn diagram?
Not long at all.
Yeah, I mean, I can't think of any job that would be easier to replace than the Vice President.
I mean, I realize we have a constitutional problem if we do that, but that would be the easiest one.
It makes you wonder if it's a deep fake or the real problem, having that meeting.
I wonder how she ever shows up on time for a meeting.
What time is the meeting?
Three o'clock.
In the context of time, in the contextualized period of the passage of time, which is this moment, and then she misses the meeting.
Yeah, she's the border czar.
I'm starting to think czar means nothing's going to happen.
Is it just my imagination or none of our czars, you know, they all end up like Anastasia.
All the czars get murdered by Bolsheviks, basically.
John Kerry.
What we see the czar of?
Drugs.
Yeah, we need a new czar.
All right.
There's no other news today, so I think we're going to do something else.
Let's do something else I should be talking about.
Did I miss anything?
It's really all about wondering if our economy is going to be destroyed on its own, right?
What would you say is the biggest issue right now, in terms of the risk to the country?
What do you feel is our biggest risk?
Debt?
Socialism?
Debt?
Biden?
Debt ceiling?
Wokeism?
Inflation?
Housing?
Inflation?
Yeah?
Yeah.
Inflation is gonna be pretty big.
And what about AI taking jobs?
Do you worry about AI taking jobs?
I feel like that's going to be slower than it looks.
There'll be some areas like... But it's not huge industries.
Economic collapse.
Yeah.
So nobody said nuclear war.
Nobody said nuclear war, and climate was almost not mentioned.
Border, I don't know if that's the biggest problem.
Is border the biggest problem?
I mean, it's a big problem, but elections?
Yeah, guns.
I don't know, I would say the health of the economy, but I'm also concerned about Taiwan.
If you had to guess, what are the odds of China actually making a military move on Taiwan?
Let's say in a year, within the next year.
So why are you worried about that?
Wouldn't that be catastrophic?
Here's what I think.
I think China doesn't like to do catastrophic things.
That China doesn't act like Russia does.
Russia will roll the dice.
You know, we've seen Putin do it.
Russia will take a chance to gain another country or to gain some territory or to gain something.
China doesn't take those kind of chances.
So, it would seem out of character to try to take Taiwan.
Now, here's my question.
Does Taiwan make chips for China as well?
They do, right?
I would imagine Taiwan is their biggest.
Do they not know that we would destroy the... I shouldn't say this.
I shouldn't say this out loud.
You know those chip manufacturing plants are never going to go to China, right?
Let me just do the Joe Biden grin when he talks about the Nord Stream Pipeline.
Well, how is that Nord Stream Pipeline going to stop pumping stuff to Russia?
We'll do it.
Trust me.
We'll take care of the Nord Stream Pipeline.
Don't you think it's the same with the chip companies?
I think the chip companies would just get whacked by friendly fire.
And I think that the day that an invasion started, this is my guess.
The day that an invasion started, there would be some kind of American vessel parked nearby in which every chip scientist and their extended family would be getting a free trip to America.
I feel like we would steal their people and rebuild over here.
And we would probably have enough warning before shots were fired that there would be this whole sea of people who would just run out to the beach and start getting on boats and head to America.
Just like we did with the German rocket scientists, exactly.
That is the model I was thinking of.
But we'd have to take their families.
Which would be fine.
I mean, if you get a bunch of chip scientist employees, I think I do want their families, if you know what I mean.
You're gonna get some really high-achieving people if you take Taiwan's best scientists and their families.
Because the family you get, that's like, you're almost guaranteed to get good citizens and of, you know, chip scientist families.
Alright, so, I feel as if China wants Taiwan for all the reasons they want it historically, and because it's too close to their border, and they're Chinese speaking, and all the reasons.
But I don't think that they want to start a war that would eliminate chips.
I think the last thing that China wants to do is not have any microchips.
So I don't think they're going to... So I'm going to go with, we'll not attack Taiwan in the next year.
How many would agree with me in the will not attack in the next year?
Who knows after that?
Yeah.
See, I think the assumption of an attack, I think, imagines that the chip business would still be in business when they took it over.
And I think that's the wrong assumption.
All right.
Okay ladies and gentlemen, once Russia wraps up Ukraine, they will.
So I saw a news story that we've shipped massive amounts of ammunition to Ukraine in anticipation of their spring offensive.
And that sounds like that's true, right?
You imagine that we've sent tons of ammo and they're just waiting for their so-called spring offensive.
And then I saw that one of the things that the Ukrainians did was they took all that ammo And they put them in a few easily identified places where Russia has already blown it up.
Is that true?
I feel like maybe they're already out of ammo.
This could be the only war where neither side has ammo.
Because I don't think we've ever had as good an ability because of our drones and our satellites.
We've never had this much ability to know where the weapons depots are.
Right?
I feel like we know Where every one of Russia's ammo depots is.
But they also probably know where every one of Ukraine's ammo depots is.
And if you've got weapons that can go off into deep territory and strike at pinpoint, aren't both of them going to run out of ammo?
Because it seems to me it would be the easiest thing in the world to spot their ammo dumps once the firing starts.
Because they're going to need to make a lot of runs, put them on trains.
I mean, it's really easy to spot.
And if you know where it is and you have weapons like the HIMARS, aren't the HIMARS going to take out all the weapons depots on both sides?
I mean, whatever Russian's version of that is.
Because the depots are the things you can't move.
Everything else can, you know, you can maybe move out of the way and they don't know where you are any minute of the day, but it's pretty hard to move those weapons depots.
Yeah, they can't easily be dispersed.
That would be inefficient.
You spread out ammo once you get inside the range of the HIMARS.
Well, you spread it out, but you don't allocate it ahead of time.
Maybe it's smaller ammo dumps, but they should be able to get them all.
Put them underground.
Yeah.
Then we just... Yeah, probably underground.
But we know that they weren't putting a lot of them underground, even though that seems obvious to us, so... Alright.
Their inventory is mostly on trucks.
Oh, Amazon is developing an improved LLM to power ALEXA.
Good.
Good.
Alright, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say bye to YouTube.
