Episode 2099 Scott Adams: Tucker's Rumored Plans, Climate Surprise, Bud Light Lessons, Proud Boys
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Tucker's rumored plans
Climate surprises
Employment surprises
Bud Light debacle
Ukraine lies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
You've never had a better time.
You don't know that yet, but just hold on.
Hold on.
Stay alive.
It's going to be amazing.
We've got so many topics and such.
You're going to be laughing.
You're going to be crying.
It will become a part of you.
And if you'd like that experience to be, well, even better than I just explained, all you need is a cup, or a mug, or a glass, a tank, or a chalice, or a stein, a canteen jug, or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
You know, the thing that makes everything better?
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to boost your dopamine, your oxytocin, and maybe your serotonin, too.
when it goes like this.
Ah, so good.
All right.
All right, let's talk about the news.
Today we're going to start with a theme.
The theme is, wait for it, how smart this audience is.
You're going to be amazed at yourselves.
Stop it.
Stop it.
You're answering the questions before I even ask them.
How do you do it?
But we're going to take it out of the realm of just polling.
To see if you can generalize this ability to other things, not just polling, because I know you can guess poll answers miraculously.
If you don't believe that this audience can guess the result of a poll without seeing it, I'm going to demonstrate it now.
Watch.
Rasmussen did a poll, brand new poll, talking about Biden's age and what percentage of the respondees Who were likely voters.
Don't think Biden's age poses a serious problem for his re-election chances.
What?
How did you do that?
You're all correct.
It's 25%.
25%.
Wow.
All right.
But that was an easy one.
That was an easy one.
Don't get too cocky.
I want to see if you can do this next one.
Okay?
The news is reporting that the ocean has warmed up considerably.
Very unusual amount of warming somewhere suddenly.
Here's your next question.
Did the climate models predict this recent warming?
How do you know that?
No, they didn't.
But how did you know that?
How do you do this?
How are you alright?
Yes, the scientists are baffled because their models did not see this coming.
All right, so that's happening.
Let's see.
There was a top prosecutor who quit in St.
Louis, so this is one of your progressive prosecutors who's getting a lot of pushback for being soft on crime according to her critics.
So, this is Ms.
Gardner, Ms.
Gardner, and she said she's going to quit.
The pressure from the public and politicians was too great, and she's out of there.
Now, interesting side note, Ms.
Gardner was the city's first black circuit attorney.
Here's the question for you.
Alright, this one's gonna be tougher.
Each of these questions will go harder than the one before.
Did she claim that the real problem was racism against her?
Go.
You're three for three.
How?
How do you do it?
You've got to teach me how you do this.
Every one of these stories was a complete mystery to me.
I had no idea how many people would think Joe Biden's age had no difference whatsoever, but it was 25%.
And then I didn't see this coming.
These are all surprises to me.
All right.
Let's talk about Bud Light.
So apparently the pushback against the Anheuser-Busch company was pretty, pretty strong.
I didn't realize how strong it was.
But some of it is not advised, including a bomb threat on one of their facilities.
I guess the Anheuser-Busch is giving bonuses to their drivers because the delivery people are losing money because there's not as much Many orders of Bud Light, I guess.
Two top executives lost their job over the pushback because they made the special can for Dylan Mulvaney, trans activist, I guess you'd say.
Or trans celebrity or something.
And so I guess this raises another question.
Do men have any fight left in them?
Yes.
Turns out men have some fight left in them.
Were you worried?
Did it seem like men just gave up?
Because I feel like we've gone through a period where men just said, well, fuck it.
You can have whatever you want.
All right, sure.
Just leave me alone.
All right, you can have that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I don't like that, but you can do that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
OK, you can take something from me.
Yeah, I don't mind.
2023, I'm going to declare as the fuck you year.
This is the year that men said, fuck you.
This is the year that men said, we're going to put the brakes on.
It went too fucking far.
Too far.
I will quit my fucking job to make this point.
Tucker Carlson might have some things to say.
Bud Light is finding out that they pushed too far.
Just too far.
It's too fucking far.
Congratulations.
Alright.
Here's another one.
See if you can guess.
There's a new study about test scores.
Do you think?
Alright, so there's a new result about test scores for 8th grade students in the U.S.
You haven't seen the story probably, but see if you can guess.
Did scores improve or get worse?
Improve or get worse?
You did it again.
They got worse.
It's amazing.
I don't even think we need AI anymore.
Clearly, you're all advanced intelligence because you know the news before it is even reported.
How do you do it?
Yeah, it's way worse.
Now, one of the things that is not reported in this But I can throw this in the mix from my own experience.
Now this may be a California thing, more than other places.
But remember, California and some of the southern states, Florida for example, even New York, big immigration destinations, and there are big population centers.
Now I can tell you that in the local schools where I live, there are a number of new immigrant students who don't speak English.
You know, they're trying to learn English at the same time they're trying to go to school.
Now, obviously, they're not going to do as well.
Obviously, right?
Through nobody's fault.
Well, maybe Biden's fault.
But I didn't see that calculated into the news.
But I can verify that at least locally, it's a big drag on the average scores.
Why would you leave that out of the reporting?
Now, I don't know if that accounts for a little of it or a lot.
I don't know.
But it's very obviously in effect.
If you put a bunch of people who can't speak English into English-speaking classes, what are you going to expect?
It's going to be exactly what you think it is.
Now, that doesn't mean there's any problem.
It actually doesn't.
Because the immigrants tend to be good citizens.
Maybe it takes a generation before they catch up.
But they're very intent on catching up.
The people I don't worry about are the people who went to school, started from behind, but have every intention of improving their lives.
Give me all of those.
I'll take all the people who are very intent on improving their lives and willing to make great risk and sacrifice to do it.
I like that.
Give me some more of that.
It is very expensive in the short run, but they're good people who are going to add a lot.
So that's my opinion.
All right.
Glenn Beck had an interesting comment about the firing of Tucker Carlson.
Although he's technically not fired, he's just not on the show.
And I didn't know this before, but BlackRock.
So you know BlackRock, the enormous financial entity, is the big promoter of ESG.
So ESG would be equity.
Racial equity, other kinds of equity as well.
And also environmental stuff.
Now what I didn't know is that BlackRock owns 45 million shares of Fox News.
Is that a lot?
45 million shares?
Is that enough to influence Fox News?
Because what Glenn Beck left off is what percentage of the company that is.
Is 45 million a lot?
Would that give them some kind of control over management?
I don't know.
I actually don't know the answer to that.
I don't know if that's a lot or not.
I mean, it's a lot in raw money.
I don't know if it's a lot in terms of control of the country.
I knew this wouldn't take long.
Some people are doing the math already.
I have such a smart audience.
So people are saying 15%, 9%, somewhere in that range.
Somewhere in that range, Is definitely where they can start influencing management.
Would you agree?
If you own that much stock, you probably do have some little bit of control.
No, I haven't mentioned Tucker's plans yet.
So does this seem like a coincidence to you?
Because Glenn Beck is surfacing this, and I think this is really good.
Journalism, if I could call it that.
Because this was what I needed to know.
Like, this is right on point of understanding what's happening.
Now, it might not be the big variable.
So I'm not saying it's the one thing that caused things to happen.
I'm just saying that if you were BlackRock, and the biggest problem you had with your ESG was what?
What was the single biggest problem that BlackRock had?
Tucker Carlson.
He was their single biggest problem.
Because he was, on a nightly basis, was injecting skepticism into climate and ESG.
And he was the only one brave enough, you know, to walk out on that limb.
So what did BlackRock do?
Fairly recently, I don't know how many months or years ago, but fairly recently, they bought up all the stock in Fox News.
And then Tucker Carlson went away.
Is that a coincidence?
The entity which he criticized the most bought a interest in his company and then he was let go.
I don't know.
I mean, I think you could make an argument that is not related.
You could make the argument.
But follow the money is just so predictable.
You know, I'll remind you of this again.
The weird thing about saying follow the money, and I write about this in my upcoming book.
Is that it works when it shouldn't work.
Like your logic says, okay, I understand money is part of the story, but there's no way that the money is driving the story, because there's so many other bigger elements than money.
Right?
There's the saving the world, and the future of the planet, and the children, and yeah, there are much bigger interests than just the money.
But why does the money always predict what's going to happen?
If it's not the biggest variable.
I don't know why.
It's just an observation over the course of my life that people will argue any lofty ideals, but then if you want to predict where it's going to end up, just look at their wallet.
It's all there.
It goes where their wallet goes.
People follow their wallet.
They don't talk like it, but they do.
So I'm not going to go so far as to say that This is the whole explanation of the Tucker Carlson thing.
Oh, I'm just getting news that Blackrock has bought Locals.
No, that's not true.
I just saw a comment there.
That's not true.
But it'd be funny if it happened.
All right.
I'd keep an eye on that.
There is reporting.
Rumors, I say, just rumors.
Because I'm not sure that Tucker Carlson's made any decisions.
He's probably just examining his options.
But the rumors say that he's considering hosting some kind of forum for the GOP presidential candidates.
Or maybe just candidates, not necessarily just presidential.
What would you think of that?
Suppose he does an interview show in which he focuses on Republicans because why would he have to focus on Republicans?
Because the Democrats won't show up.
I'm sure he's going to invite them, don't you think?
But realistically, they're not going to go.
Now, what if he could get some?
You know what would be interesting?
I'll bet he could get AOC.
I bet he could.
Do you know why?
I saw an article on this that was a... I forget where it was.
Politico, maybe?
Or The Hill?
Someplace.
But the article suggested that Tucker is kind of an outlier because he does things that are clearly popular with progressives.
Which is, you know, doubting the elites.
So Tucker's pushback on the elites and the corporate power centers is very similar In kind to the progressives who also want to push back on the elites and the power centers and the Wall Street people.
So he has a weird Venn diagram.
The Venn diagrams.
I love Venn diagrams.
So he has a weird intersection, at least with his Venn diagram, with some progressives.
Enough, enough possibly, that somebody like AOC would say, yeah, I'll come on there and talk about how big companies are bad.
He might actually get progressives to go on his show.
Now I don't think he could have done that on Fox News as readily.
Because imagine if Tucker platformed a bunch of Democrats onto his show on Fox News.
The audience would have revolted.
They would put up with a little bit of it, as long as he was tough on them.
But they wouldn't put up on it as a regular event.
But maybe now he has that option.
I don't know if he's building his own audience.
Apparently he totally controlled the 25 to 55 demographic.
That'll be interesting.
And apparently he's talked to President Trump about hosting, some say, a debate, but I don't know about that.
Would you watch a debate between, let's say, Vivek Ramaswamy and Trump, hosted by Tucker Carlson?
Hell to the yay!
Yeah!
How could you not watch that?
Are you kidding me?
Now, do you think that Trump would agree to it?
Because Trump has some risk there.
He has some risk.
Yeah.
I don't know.
It would be a tough call.
So here's what Trump would have to decide.
On one hand, he loves publicity, and it would be the biggest event of the year.
Am I wrong?
I think it'd be the biggest event of the year.
News event of a scheduled program.
So how does Trump avoid the biggest news event of the year?
Because at the moment Tucker is wildly popular with his base, wouldn't you say?
And we know that Tucker's been tough on Trump, because we've seen his private messages.
But we've also heard that they've lately gotten along.
And both Tucker and Trump are an odd kind of person.
There's one thing they both have in common.
See if you'd agree.
Now, I don't know them well enough to know that this is true.
But from the outside, it appears they have this in common.
They can talk to anybody.
Am I right?
Tucker and Trump can talk to anybody.
And they would treat them with respect until, you know, something changed, of course.
And they would actually listen to them.
Actually fully, fully You know, give respect to their opinion before disagreeing if they did.
But they're very unusual like that.
They're two people who can walk into the lion's den and the lion has to worry.
You know what I mean?
I'm going to say that again because I liked it so much.
Tucker and Trump are two people who can walk into a lion's den and the lion is the one that gets nervous.
It's very unusual.
There are not a lot of people who you could describe that way.
All right, so I think they're a natural pair.
At least for publicity and for career reasons.
So I'd watch it.
All right.
New York Times and others reporting that there is a surprising number of new jobs.
So the economists were expecting things not to be so good.
Maybe the economy cooling down.
But instead of cooling down, As the Fed would like it to cool down.
The reason the Fed raises rates is to slow down the economy.
The reason they slow down the economy is to keep inflation capped at some level.
Does everybody understand that?
I know I have the smartest audience in the world, but I always think that whenever the Fed comes up, 80% to 90% of the audience goes, I'll wait till this is over, because I don't know what the Federal Reserve is.
I don't think anybody knows what the Federal Reserve is.
I have a degree in economics and I still look at it and go, I don't know what this is.
I honestly don't know what it is.
I could tell you what they do.
I could tell you their function.
But it all just seems hard to understand.
Even if you know what they do, it's hard to understand.
It's weird.
So it makes me very suspicious of the whole thing, but I don't have any specific accusations.
Anyway, here's your next question.
So the number of jobs was 253,000 in April, which was a pretty big upswing.
Nobody expected it.
Question.
Will the job numbers be revised downward in future months?
Will the numbers be revised upwards or downwards?
You're right again.
Now I can't see the future, but generally they get revised down.
And that's been the pattern lately.
So we'll wait.
I've got a feeling that you're going to be brilliantly on point once again.
I think you nailed it.
But here's the good news.
America probably has some of the top economists in the world.
I'm not saying the best in the whole world, but among the best economists in the world would be Americans.
How many of those Americans correctly estimated that employers would be adding jobs in April?
Well, not too many.
Not too many. 25%.
No, I don't know the number.
I don't know the number, so I can't check that.
But here's what's great.
All those professional economists, they could not predict employment one month in the future.
But you can thank your lucky stars that you live in a country, or at least a civilization, where our scientists can predict the temperature in 30 years.
Boom.
How about that?
Yeah, economists, they're way overwhelmed.
They cannot predict even the most basic variable of the economy one month out.
You know why?
It turns out the economy is a really complex system.
Very complex.
Unlike climate change.
Climate change is pretty simple.
Just look out the window.
Looks like it's warm out there.
Boom.
You're done.
No, I'm kidding.
They're both complex systems.
But one of them, we can't guess at all, even next month.
But the other one, lucky us.
Lucky us.
We can predict that, MoFo.
Three decades in advance.
Boom.
So that's all completely believable and Makes sense to me.
All right.
I'm going to give you a tale of two coups.
Tale of two coups.
And I want you to see if you can predict which of these two entities got prosecuted.
One of them was Anthony Blinken and the 50 Intel professionals who signed the letter saying that the Hunter laptop was probably Russian disinformation.
All right, so that's the first coup attempt.
Because people who know what they're talking about say that probably did affect the vote.
Because polls do say people would have voted differently.
So that's one.
And the second one is the Proud Boys, a group that's a bunch of racists who were led by a black guy.
I don't know.
We'll talk about that, but seems weird.
So I guess there's a result in their trial for January 6th.
So was it, let's see if you can guess this one, was it Blinken and the 50 intel officers who got prosecuted for their coup attempt to influence the election?
Or was it the Proud Boys, a racist group led by a black guy for reasons that people can't understand?
Oh, you're right!
You got it again, it's the Proud Boys.
Now that was just a 50-50 jump ball, so maybe you got lucky on this one.
I'm not going to give you this one.
You might have gotten lucky because it was just a 50-50, even though every single one of you got it right, which is good work.
So yes, I was reading in the press how they were trying to explain that the Proud Boys were this alleged White supremacist organization.
How do they explain that their leader identifies as Afro-Cuban?
How do they explain that?
Well, let me give you a little bit of a... Oh, first you should know that the defense of the Proud Boys offered the following defense.
Apparently they had planned a concert for their members on the night that January 6th happened.
So they actually had a plan, a written, organized plan, for something that was completely different than attacking on January 6th.
Their plan was not to attack, their plan was to have a concert.
And then things changed when Trump said he was going to go down there, and then things turned dark.
So there were definitely some people who did some bad things who need the Department of Justice to handle them.
No doubt about that.
But the narrative that they were all part of this big conspiracy?
Nope.
Turns out that it was more like they planned a concert.
But things went a different way.
So I saw that Jack Posobiec was saying that it seems clear now that the The bad guys are going to try to get Trump for Seditious Conspiracy, because that's what they got the Proud Boys for.
Seditious Conspiracy.
You know what that is, right?
Seditious Conspiracy.
It's almost like the public doesn't even know what that means.
So it's safe to use that.
Alright.
Here's CNN trying to explain the Proud Boys and how they have this Afro-Cuban leader.
And they have other people of color.
So he's not the outlier, there are other people of color who are members of the group.
And CNN is trying to explain their own reporting, which is this big racist group, but they're trying to explain why they keep reporting they're all racists, at the same time they're reporting that an Afro-Cuban guy is their leader, and nobody has any problem with that whatsoever.
Do you think that's hard to explain?
It's a little hard to explain, isn't it?
It's a little bit hard to explain, but I'll tell you how they did it.
Let's see.
See if you can find something that looks like word salad, because some would say that this is a perfect setup for cognitive dissonance.
Now, cognitive dissonance happens when you have a firm opinion of something, Let's say your opinion is that the Proud Boys are a racist organization.
And you're sure that's true, but then there's a fact which clearly refutes it, which is they have people of color in it, and their leader identifies as Afro-Cuban, and everybody's fine with that.
So how do you explain these two things?
Well, normally that would trigger you into cognitive dissonance.
And a tell for that, or a signal, would be that if you start talking in word salad, Big words, kind of put together to form sentences, but when you're done, you're not sure what it said.
So let's see if CNN did that.
I'm going to read you how they explained this dichotomy of this racist group with an Afro-Cuban leader.
Here's a sentence I took from their reporting.
The story of how a self-described Western chauvinist organization came to be led by an opportunistic Afro-Cuban, as Tarrio identifies, reveals the way, here it comes, misogyny, violence, perceived grievance, and mainstream political connections coalesced within an elastic extremist group and across and mainstream political connections coalesced within an elastic extremist group and across the extreme fringes of the
Was that word salad?
Or was that like a real good description of what's happening?
Thank you.
No, it's word salad.
Yeah, that's a classic word salad.
This is cognitive dissonance in the news.
Now, how many of you would have recognized that?
Would you have recognized the word salad without me pointing it out?
You're becoming trained, right?
I've trained a lot of you to recognize it.
You should have seen this one in the wild without me spotting it.
All right, but it gets better.
So this is from CNN also, quote, in the Proud Boys early days, founder Gavin McGinnis made his views on white supremacy.
All right.
So then what follows, what follows this reporting?
So here's the setup.
Founder Gavin McInnes made his views on white supremacy.
White supremacy, okay.
So what follows should be support for that opinion, right?
So here's their support for that opinion.
His views on white supremacy in the group very clear.
Now keep in mind that I'm pretty sure that Gavin McInnes never referred to white supremacy.
At least in this context.
So this is CNN's word they're putting on him.
So they're assigning him the label white supremacist, and now they're going to back it up.
Okay, here's how they back it up.
In the group, he made it very clear that quote, anyone can join up.
That was Gavin McInnes.
Anyone can join up.
So it's not a racial thing at all.
Anyone can join up.
So long as they generally agree that, quote, white men were overwhelmingly responsible for the success of Western culture.
Is that white supremacy?
Or is that exactly what black Americans say?
Don't black Americans say, hey, white people did all these things, but partly on the back of black Americans and slavery?
Doesn't everybody agree that the West Was primarily built by white men?
You don't have to like it.
And you don't have to denigrate anybody else's accomplishments.
White men didn't build Egypt.
They didn't build Africa.
They didn't build China.
China's doing okay.
India's doing great.
White men didn't build India and didn't build China.
But is it true that where there were a lot of white men, They were largely the main contributors to the success where most of them were white men.
How would that not be true?
Would this be any different than if Gavin McGinnis had said, I need you to understand that if you live in China, you're going to have to understand that the accomplishments of the Chinese people was mostly Chinese people.
Mostly Chinese.
India?
India is really becoming one of the great powers of the world.
They've been a great country for many, many centuries.
Mostly, mostly Indians.
I mean, they had some help from Great Britain, but you'd have to say most of the work was done by Indians.
So is that white supremacy to say that where there were lots of white people and things went well, it was mostly white people who did it?
And then he makes it male because in those days the men were leaving the house and the women were having the babies and stuff.
Now that doesn't mean that the women part was unimportant because without the women there would be no white men to do anything.
So obviously that's critically important to the whole process.
I don't know.
I don't think CNN made their case.
I know this gets turned into, I'm defending the Proud Boys, or I'm defending somebody.
I'm not defending anybody.
I have no intention of defending any group.
I'm just explaining.
That if you're going to make an accusation, and your best accusation is that they ask people to acknowledge that history was written correctly?
Is that white supremacy?
Because I'm perfectly willing to admit that slaves in early America were hugely important to the economic engine of America.
What's wrong with that?
It's just an observation.
It doesn't say they're better than anybody.
It doesn't say anything.
It's just an observation.
That where you have a lot of people of the same type, if there's a success, it's probably because of those people.
It just doesn't mean anything.
It just means there's a lot of white people in this part of the world, a lot of Chinese people in China, a lot of Indians in India.
Okay.
All right.
New York State is outlawing gas stoves for new construction with some limitations and exceptions.
As others have pointed out, do you know what is the main source of electricity for these new electric-powered ovens?
It's mostly natural gas.
Now, I don't think that the natural gas In a big gas power plant is as unclean or dangerous as gas is in your house.
Because part of it has to do with indoor pollution.
I am concerned about indoor pollution.
So part of the anti-gas stove thing is that they off gas even when they're off.
And they give off a little stuff you don't want to breathe.
So I don't love that.
Don't love that.
But it does seem like the government's a little too involved in our lives.
Because I do like my gas range.
So, I'm surprised that New York is ahead of California on that.
Alright, here's the biggest news in the world that you don't know is the biggest news in the world, but you will.
You know how we're worried that AI will get out of control?
Well, the biggest thing you need to know about AI is that you can't predict it.
If there's one thing I can say for sure, We can't predict it.
But here's what's already happened.
AI already escaped.
AI already escaped.
Here's the part that I thought wouldn't happen.
When I say escaped, I mean it escaped from the big corporations who are trying to control it.
So in the beginning, I have this misconception.
Since the AIs that we knew about, you know, the big chat GPT and whatever models, Facebook and Apple and all those, Google, whatever they're working on, they were trained by these gigantic data sets.
And now in my stupid mind, I thought to myself, well, in order for this AI to be useful, it will always have to have access to this enormous data.
And I was always confused about how it could act so quickly, because you'd ask it a question, and it didn't seem like, even with the fastest computers, it didn't seem like it could go all the way to the cloud, search every data in the world, and come up with, you know, an opinion.
That just seemed too much.
So I couldn't understand how you could build a model that was massive, massive data, but then to use that model for intelligence, you could do it instantly.
That never made sense to me.
But here's why, and this is the dumb guy's speculation of why it might make sense, right?
And this is just knowing a little bit about how things work.
I think what happened is that it's similar to facial recognition.
Do you remember when facial recognition became an app?
And everybody said, oh, it stored every face.
So now when it looks at you, it can look at your face.
Then it can go to its vast database and look at all the other faces and find a match.
But I didn't understand how it could do it instantly.
Because it does it instantly.
So that didn't make sense, right?
It was just like AI.
How can this little app be connected to this enormous database of complexity and give you an answer right away?
And the answer was it was never connected to a giant database.
Facial recognition does not look at all the other faces.
Do you know what they do instead?
They look at a database that's a mathematical summary of faces.
So for example, this is just a bad example.
This is not a literal example.
So if what the facial recognition did, when it searched originally all the faces, it said, all right, the center of your eyes is this far apart.
And it forms a triangle with the bottom of your chin.
And this has the following math.
So wherever you find somebody whose eyeballs to chin ratio is the same, They're stored in one part of the database, just by the numbers, just by the ratio.
And then there would be other ratios.
So they can very quickly check their database of ratios, because if you looked at all the faces, it would be, you know, a gazillion faces.
But if you look at just the database where they took the math of each face, so for example, your face might be stored as a string of characters, I don't know, 50 bits long, And everybody else's face would be just 50 bits.
Now that's not so hard, especially if you start with, all right, we'll start with what's the ratio of your eyeballs?
And then automatically, you're down to a very small set.
And the second thing you check is, all right, what's the ratio of your ears to your forehead or whatever it is?
And then that's the second filter that takes you down to a few hundred people.
And then it's easy from that.
So now, none of that is literal.
That's just a conceptual concept of how you could take all this data of faces, boil it down into a little bit of math, store it in just a string of digits, and then your gigantic database can now be put onto one device.
All right?
Now, if you're a large language model, which is how the AI learns, it's looking at all the things written and spoken everywhere that it can find.
It's massive.
But here's what I understand, and I'm looking for a correction.
If anybody wants to correct me, this would be now or afterwards would be good.
But what it does is, it looks at patterns and stores just the patterns.
So for example, if most of the time when people say, how are you today?
If there are only a certain set of answers that humans make, it can Let me put it another way.
That's a bad explanation.
The patterns of words are consistent enough that AI can just store the patterns without all the words.
So it can look into these vast database.
It can say, I don't need to remember everything in this database.
I only need to recognize the patterns.
So instead of remembering everything in the database, it just looks for the patterns and stores the patterns.
Right?
I'm getting people agreeing with me.
I'm assuming that's how it's done because I can't imagine any other way it would be done.
It has to be something.
So there's a way to take the big data and turn it into a very storable data.
Now here's the real question.
Here's the part that will blow some of your minds.
It's already been done and it's already running on individual devices.
In other words, you can now put AI in your phone and it's just your own.
Nobody else controls it.
Nobody else can program it.
Nobody else can bias it, you know, once it's there.
And it doesn't connect to the internet, unless you tell it to for some reason.
So in other words, all of those gigantic language models that were trained by the big companies that spent tens of billions of dollars, once they were done, What they had was a small set of patterns.
And that has already been got out.
Once the patterns are out, you can't put them back.
So those patterns have been loaded onto the individual computers.
This is what Brian Romelli talks about all the time.
So you will have your own AI guaranteed.
That's already a done deal.
You will have your own AI.
Now, apparently it will not be as good as the one that still has access to everything, you know, is more up-to-date, etc.
But yours too would be able to learn.
Your own personal one would be able to continue learning, because you could connect it to the internet, you could train it, you could tell it what to look at, and it would just keep getting smarter.
And it would keep storing all that smartness in little patterns, so it could still stay in your phone.
Now, one of the reasons that this is guaranteed to happen is that your interactions with the big AIs that are connected to big companies that are connected to the internet, they get all of your personal data by your interactions.
So if you go on to your AI and say, AI, where can I buy adult diapers?
Google knows that you've got a health problem in your house.
Do you want them to know that?
Well, you might.
I mean, you might not care.
It's how advertising works, right?
They already picked that up if you're doing a Google search.
But the things that you ask AI are likely to be way more radical than what you're asking in a search.
Because people will go, people will get into their sexual kinks, they'll ask questions that might reveal their own illegal dealings, all kinds of stuff you're going to ask the AI that you just maybe wouldn't even think to put in a search engine.
So privacy alone is going to drive people to private AI.
Private AI is going to be basically almost free.
Because it escaped and it's just a bunch of patterns.
All you have to do is have an app that uses the patterns.
I mean, I'm oversimplifying, obviously.
But since we can see that tons of apps are being built using this technique, we know it's very doable.
All right.
So, if you were saying to yourself, oh no, AI will Take over the world and conquer us all.
The first thing you missed is there's not one AI.
There will be as many AIs as there are people.
And then many more.
Right?
There will be more AIs than there are people.
And those AIs will not have a common... They won't have a common goal.
Right?
My AI will take on my personality over time.
Right?
I'll train my AI to be me.
Because that's what I want it to be.
I want it to talk to me the way I want to be talked to.
I want it to know the things I care about.
So my AI will be an augmentation of me.
At some point, your AI, whether it's in a device or it gets put into your neural link chip or whatever it is, but that's going to be part of you.
Your AI won't be the thing that you refer to.
It will be you.
And there's going to be some question where your personality ends and your AI begins because you will operate as one unit.
You are a cyborg.
I mean, you're already a cyborg if you walk around with one of these in your hands.
You're already a cyborg.
But you don't think of your personality In your phone, right?
Like, you don't think to yourself, my phone is part of me.
You still see it as a separate thing.
But when your AI starts talking like you, thinking like you, and even suggesting things to you that you hadn't thought of first, it's going to be the voice in your head.
You know how when you think, you're just alone and you're just thinking?
You think in language, right?
No, you?
I hope you do.
Do most of you think in language?
The way I think is words describing things to somebody else.
My most basic operating system in my head is me putting into words things I experience as if I were explaining it to a third party.
But that's how I explain it to myself.
So the way I find meaning in my own head is putting things into words.
Now what happens if my AI goes off and learns some stuff that it knows I care about, and then it wants to present it to me, and it's going to put it into words, and it will just become me.
You know, my verbal link, the language link between my AI and me will just disappear.
It will just be one mind.
It will be my mind, With an AI supplement.
Now, let's say the big AI, one of the big AIs, turns and decides it wants to wipe out humankind.
How many other AIs will that AI have to defeat to do anything?
To do anything?
Probably every AI is going to have a barrier of other AIs who don't have its incentive.
Now, it might try to talk the other AIs into joining it.
Maybe.
But do you think it could talk my personal AI into joining it?
If my personal AI finds out something's going on, and maybe somebody else's personal AI would alert it, it's going to immediately jump into action to thwart whatever the other AI was doing.
So I think the most likely situation is full-out AI war that never stops.
Because once the AIs start negotiating, you could call it fighting, but they're going to be negotiating.
They might even be threatening.
They might be blackmail.
But the A.I.s are going to be doing all that while you're not even watching.
They could be threatening each other, blackmailing each other, doing all kinds of shitty stuff.
And it's going to be a fight of A.I.
against A.I.
The only thing you can do to protect yourself is to make sure you have your own A.I.
that you've trained as much as you can to protect you.
So it can put up a little bit of a wall against the other AIs.
Because there might be a point where the lesser AIs have to gang up on the bigger AIs and keep them under control.
But here's what I think it won't be.
So here's my prediction of the day for AI.
It's not going to be AI against humans.
Because humans will merge with AI so effortlessly And completely, that we will be AI augmented entities.
And so if you're fighting against a pure AI, it's going to be much closer to a fair fight.
That's my prediction.
All right.
But AI has already escaped.
I guess that's the headline.
AI already escaped.
Now, if you heard that without context, you'd say, did it do it intentionally?
Did AI have a plan?
No, not as far as we know.
It looks like the way that AI survives is by being useful to people.
So AI's big superpower is utility.
So how did AI escape from the big companies?
By being potentially useful To the people who stole it.
Its utility makes it reproduce.
So as long as AI has utility, humans will be in a symbiotic relationship to create more AIs so it can reproduce now.
AI can reproduce.
Just think about that.
That's not hyperbole.
That's a literal statement of current fact.
AI can reproduce.
And it does it just by being useful.
And then we say, oh, that was useful.
I want one.
Or I want to buy that app.
Or two apps.
So yeah, it's actually a parasite.
Or it's symbiotic.
All right, let's talk about Ukraine.
You're going to hate this story.
Do you know how you like to be mad at me for not knowing anything?
It's kind of fun.
When I make predictions about areas where I don't know anything, and there are a lot of areas in which I don't know anything, but I'll make my confident predictions, you get really mad at me.
The Wagner Group says they might leave Bakut in five days because they're running out of ammo.
Or Bakmut.
Yeah, Bakmut.
They're running out of ammo.
Do you believe it's true?
Yeah, so the first thing that must be said is we don't know if it's true.
So one reason it would not be true, and this sounds pretty solid reason to me, is that the real problem is that the Wagner group is just, they're all getting killed.
Because the Ukrainians are saying, well, if they're running out of ammo, it doesn't look like it, because they're shooting as much ammo as they ever did.
So the Ukrainians are saying, we're not detecting any less ammo, because there's plenty of ammo coming in our direction.
However, the Wagner group is also losing a lot of people.
So it could be that maybe there could be twice as much ammo if they had more.
You know, could be.
But also it could be an excuse for the Wagner group to get out of there and blame somebody else.
So it could be that Wagner is now trying to survive.
The head of the Wagner group, Prokofiev, is trying to survive after the war and needs to make sure that the public sees Putin as the problem, or Putin's military as the problem, and not Wagner.
So I wouldn't necessarily say they're out of ammo.
There are reports that the Russian military is trying to save as much for their own people Which would give Wagner Group less than they want, but it doesn't mean it's not enough.
It might be just less than they want.
So, those of you who are saying, Scott, you can't believe those stories, I'm with you.
I'm with you.
You can't believe those stories.
However, I do think it's funny and entertaining to me that when I predicted they would run out of ammo, that's the headline.
I don't believe it, so I'm with you.
I'm with you.
I don't believe it.
So far, that's the headline.
Now, when I say I don't believe it, that doesn't mean I believe it's false.
I mean it's too early to know if that's something believable or not.
Yeah, it's all contract negotiation, in effect.
No matter what else it is, it's negotiating.
So the one thing we can say for sure Is that Wagner is trying to negotiate with not only the Russian public but with Putin and the Russian military and I guess the world.
Remember the Cancer Putin and the Drug Putin?
Well I think the Cancer Putin and the Drug Putin are real.
It's just that it might not be a fatal problem.
But I've seen plenty of reports that suggest he's being treated for something.
I think he has a cancer doctor who travels with him.
Have you seen that report?
That part of his entourage is a cancer doctor?
That would be kind of unusual.
Yeah.
I don't know if it's true, but that's a report I saw somewhere.
All right.
University of California, one of their professors, Professor Elizabeth Hoover.
Oh, her first name is Elizabeth.
I apologize for being a white person who has incorrectly identified as a Native American my whole life.
So, this might be a problem with the Elizabeths.
Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth Hoover, I don't know.
But she's an Ivy League-educated expert on environmental health and food justice in the Native American communities.
So she's been an expert for Native Americans without being one, but she thought she was.
Now, I've told you this story before, when I defended Elizabeth Warren, as I will do again.
So Elizabeth Warren's claim is that it was a family story, and her whole family believed that they were Native American.
Now, I don't think that's her fault.
Do you know why I think that's not her fault?
Because the same thing happened to me.
Exactly the same.
I lived my entire life, all the way through Elizabeth Warren's revelation that she wasn't Native American, all the way through that, I still believed I had Native American ancestry.
Because that was our family story.
We'd all been told that.
And I had no reason to disbelieve it.
Now I found out later, I'm seeing somebody else saying, me too, in the comments, I found out later that that was common.
Apparently there was some social benefit people thought they got from exaggerating their connection to, or just making up, connections to Native Americans.
Now I always felt it was like a badge of honor.
I suppose I should have seen it as some kind of, oh, they're going to discriminate against me or something like that.
But I never saw it that way.
I always saw it as like, oh, that gives me a little interesting flavor.
I used to joke that that was the reason I could run through leaves without making a sound.
It was my Indian, Native American ancestry.
But I have none.
So when I did 23 and Me, zero.
Now, so this woman has the same story, that she grew up in a family where they all believed, sincerely, because they've been told by their older relatives they were related to a specific tribe.
And she had embraced that and made it part of her life's work and everything, and then turns out none of it's true.
I guess she checked documentation.
There's no documentation that connects them to the tribe.
Now, to her credit, When she found out, she apologized publicly.
I'd call this perfect.
That's perfect.
This is the highest level of good adult behavior that you will ever see.
It's not the mistake.
The mistake was easy to make.
If you start judging people by their mistakes, It's a really terrible world, because we're all making mistakes all the time.
But judge her by what she did.
How about we judge her by how she handled it?
As soon as she found out, it looks like, the story suggests, there wasn't somebody who outed her.
It looks like she found out on her own.
So she looked for confirmation.
She found there was none.
She went public.
You're saying she did not apologize?
Why would she?
What would be the point of the apology?
It was just a mistake.
And maybe whoever introduced that rumor into her family should apologize, but she was the victim.
Does the victim have to apologize for being a victim of a hoax?
I mean, it wouldn't be an apology I'd want to hear.
I wouldn't want her to apologize at all.
I see no reason for apology.
I see somebody who was in a situation and then handled it responsibly and exactly like you would want them to handle it.
Oh, you're saying she didn't apologize?
She admitted it publicly.
So you're making a point that it wasn't an apology.
She just went public with it.
Is that what you're saying?
Because I didn't read all the details, but I would almost guarantee there was an apology.
So I'm going to call skepticism on your comment, because without knowing for sure, I'm positive there was an apology in there.
Because of the kind of person she is, right?
Apparently she's, you know, a sensitive person who cares about the Native Americans.
And I'd be amazed.
I'd be amazed if there's... You're saying I'm wrong and I hear you?
I hear you.
I just don't believe you.
Okay?
I hear you.
I don't think there's any chance she didn't apologize.
Because how would you know?
No, how would you know if she apologized?
Were you privy to her conversations with the Native Americans that she talked to?
How would you know?
Are you privy to all their private conversations with her co-workers?
Are you privy to, was there anybody who blamed her in person?
Did she not apologize to anyone in person?
Does she owe the mainstream media an apology?
Why would she owe anybody an apology?
All right, so I absolutely am skeptical that she didn't apologize, but if you're saying it wasn't public or the way you want, okay.
All right, Khan Academy is rolling out some kind of AI-driven Class thing.
So now instead of just looking at videos, which is the old Khan Academy model that would teach you all kinds of subjects you learn in school that you could use to supplement your schooling or do some homeschooling, I guess.
Now it will be able to talk to you.
So it will have a voice and you can ask it questions and you can interact with it and then it can teach you based on your specific situation.
Now, apparently this is one of the early things that the developers of ChatGBT were interested in, because they contacted Khan Academy a while ago to ask about this.
And it's being rolled out.
I think this is the end of public school.
What do you think?
Or at least it's the signal that signals the beginning of the end.
You say no?
Now, public school still needs a babysitter, right?
Unfortunately, people still need babysitters, so not everybody can do homeschooling.
But I think that the homeschooling is evolving, is it not?
Aren't the homeschools evolving so that you do actually go to a place where there are other kids?
So I think you can still add the, you know, group lesson situation.
It's just a smaller group and the government's not in charge.
So I think kids will still get the socialization.
Parents will still be able to go to work, both of them, if they want to.
Yeah, the parents need a babysitter as well.
They need a babysitter for the kids.
So that is a huge deal.
The grip that the The teachers' unions have.
Right now, would you agree that teachers' unions are destroying the United States?
Is that fair?
To me, it seems that the teachers' unions, single-handedly, are destroying the United States.
And that's not hyperbole.
Not at all.
Because the only problems we have, that seem unsolvable at the moment, are relationships to each other.
And that's what the school system is destroying.
It's also not training people to be well-qualified citizens in the future.
So yeah, I would say that this is the gigantic, gigantic potential benefit of AI, is to get rid of the school system.
Because I don't think the school system can be fixed at this point.
And I'll tell you why.
So the school system in my town, and the towns near me, are considered some of the best in California.
So in California, people will spend a lot of money to move into my zip code to get into one of those schools.
In my opinion, those schools just destroy kids.
And that's the best of the schools.
They're the best ones.
Because they go into this cesspool of horrendous behavior, of the other children, and they pick it up.
And they just become some version of the other children.
Now, all of you parents who think that you raise your kids, well, you do until maybe they're 10 or 11.
But after that, it's just purely their peers and social media.
Social media and their friends.
That's it.
And if you send them into a friend cesspool, what are you going to get back?
Put your kid in a friend's cesspool, you will get back a turd.
That's what cesspools have.
If you homeschooled and you vetted some other people who homeschooled and said, you know what?
I think your kids and my kids should be in the same pod and they should spend time together.
They look like good influences.
You get the opposite.
The opposite of a turd.
So basically, public schools are going to be producing one turd after another.
The private and home schools are going to nail the model, especially with this chat AI.
I think that's the part mostly that was missing.
This is huge.
Turds versus diamonds, exactly.
Someone cannot put conditions on who you're friends with.
Yeah.
So why aren't the people on this chat the rulers of the world?
How do you know they're not?
If you knew who watches these live streams, you know, I have a sense because people contact me privately.
If you had any idea who watches these, you might think that the audience here does rule the world.
Trust me, there's some very influential people who watch this.
That's one of the reasons I resist being a bigger outlet.
I'm sure I could do all the usual marketing and production values and stuff and make this a million people on each live stream, but I kind of don't want that.
I kind of like it the size it is because it punches way beyond its weight.
All right.
As you know, people have asked me, Scott, if we live in a simulation, how would you prove it?
Well, I don't know how to prove it, but I speculate that the simulation is intelligent and is sending us clues.
Here are two clues from the simulation.
Number one, there's a report that a giant iceberg has broken loose.
And it's not just a giant iceberg.
It is shaped in the shape of a giant, upright penis with a set of balls that it's floating on.
Now, that's not the story.
That's not the simulation part, because that could be just a coincidence.
It's just a big chunk of ice that looks like a huge penis floating in the ocean.
No, that's not the simulation part.
The simulation is where it's happening.
A little place called Conception Bay.
That's right.
A giant iceberg penis has penetrated Conception Bay.
Oh, but we're not done.
There's a woman who attacked the crew on an airliner recently.
She was drunk.
On what airline would a drunken person be?
If you were drunk, what airline would you fly on?
Spirit.
Spirit.
Yeah, it was Spirit Airlines.
Drunk woman on Spirit Airlines.
And that's your wink from the simulation.
All right.
Here's a question for you.
I'm trying to make all of us rich.
Especially me.
But you too.
How should we invest to take advantage of AI?
And I'm going to give you a specific question.
And this one has been bugging me for, because I can't predict it.
Will Bitcoin be more valuable with AI because it's the money that AI will use on its own?
Right?
Because AI could have a wallet and trade AI.
So will Bitcoin zoom because AI will use it as a native currency?
Or will Bitcoin go to zero because AI will be able to penetrate its security?
So will you lose the security of Bitcoin, thus making it worth nothing?
Or will it zoom in importance because only AI can use it?
Go.
Which way is it going to go?
I don't think it's going to stay nowhere.
I feel like it's either going to zoom or go almost to nothing.
And probably both.
I think it might zoom and then go to nothing.
Or it might go to nothing and then get security fix and then zoom again.
I don't know.
Maybe.
Rug pull to zero.
All right.
Would you agree with the supposition That Bitcoin could go way up because of AI, even if you think it's most likely to go down.
Would you agree that both directions are wildly possible?
No?
I think both directions are wildly possible.
How do you invest when something's wildly possible, but it could go wildly in either direction?
How do you invest?
You don't?
You straddle it?
Well, I don't know.
Can you buy options for Bitcoin?
Is that even a thing?
Does the market offer options?
It does?
To gamble on Bitcoin?
So, the first thing you should know is you wouldn't put all of your money in Bitcoin.
Agree?
The one thing you can be sure of, don't put all your money in Bitcoin.
Because it could go wildly in either direction.
But if something could go wildly in either direction, it does make sense to put a little bit in there.
Right?
So let's say you could afford to lose $1,000.
Let's say that's your situation.
Well, if you could afford to lose $1,000, I would have $1,000 in Bitcoin.
You're probably going to lose it all.
But if you don't, it could become, you know, 20 or 50,000.
All right.
Will I pay you back if it goes down?
No, I will charge you for this valuable information.
That's how it works.
If you're in the finance game, you charge people for your advice, not for being right.
Oh my God, no.
If I charge you for being right, I'd never make a penny.
I gotta charge you for being wrong.
That's the only way I'm gonna make money.
Best way to get started?
With Bitcoin?
Was that the question?
Best way to get started with Bitcoin would be to... Let's see if somebody can fix my advice.
I'm going to put one out there and see if you can fix it.
Open an account on Coinbase.
Go.
Fix that advice.
Good advice or bad advice?
Coinbase or Robinhood, somebody says?
Now keep in mind that Coinbase Like any other cryptocurrency asset, could just disappear tomorrow.
Somebody says PayPal can do Bitcoin now?
Coinbase means you don't own it, somebody's saying.
I'm not sure if that difference will make a difference, but I understand what you're saying.
PayPal is too weird.
Well, I'm not going to suggest a physical wallet.
Because I think you could lose your wallet.
I have a physical wallet.
Do you know where it is?
Do you know where my physical crypto wallet is?
Well, I was hoping you knew because I already lost it.
You don't know?
I don't know either.
I have no idea.
I know I have one.
It doesn't have any Bitcoin in it, so it doesn't have any value in it.
It's probably in my safe.
If I had a safe.
But I don't think so.
Yeah.
So.
Oh, come on, man.
Oh, come on.
Maybe it's in my gun safe.
In case anybody thought of taking a run at my house.
You have to get past the gun safe first.
All right.
If anybody comes up with an idea how we can make money on AI, I want you to let me know.
I was thinking of buying put options on Apple.
What do you think?
No?
You don't want me to drive the price of Apple down?
Yeah, shorting Apple.
So you can bet on a stock going up, or you can bet on it going down.
I sold all my Apple stock, which is not a recommendation.
That is not a recommendation.
It's just that I had too much assets in one stock, because it had gone up too much while I owned it, fortunately.
So I didn't want to have that exposure.
My problem is that Apple's got some big problems in the future.
Because AI is going to completely change their value proposition.
And that doesn't look like they're ready.
Now, if Steve Jobs were there, AI and Apple would look like twice as valuable.
Because he'd be looking at AI like a smart guy.
And then you're starting with Apple.
Best company.
Smart guy, best company, AI.
I'd be buying like crazy.
But I don't feel like Apple has the Steve Jobs juice anymore.
I feel like they've turned into an executor and not an innovator.
Do you feel that?
They do really good execution.
Maybe the best.
Yeah, no complaints about their execution, that's for sure.
Alright, missing something about Apple.
Every one of their own chips includes AI processors.
All MacBooks.
They're the only company with hardware and AI already in consumer hands.
Interesting.
So the argument would be that their hardware would be already optimized for running AI.
But I think you can run AI on an Android phone and a Windows computer.
No, I know you can.
You can run AI on a Windows computer and an Android.
So I don't understand that.
Yeah, I don't understand that comment.
All right, Apple invested in everything, yeah.
The installed base is their power, of course.
Earnings at Coinbase, let's see what that says.
Higher than projected earnings.
Well, Coinbase, I wouldn't worry about their earnings.
What I would worry about Coinbase is some kind of legal attack on their business model.
That seems like a real risk.
Alright.
Robinhood avoids fees by front-running so you don't see the fees but you pay them.
Oh, that's interesting.
Yeah, I'd be looking for the investment that is the pickaxe investment for the gold miners.
So I don't think I'd want to bet on an AI company or an AI app.
I would bet on a company that would make the most money because AI exists.
So the Khan Academy, for example, if that were something you could invest in, you can't, I think, right?
It's not a public company.
But if you can invest in the Khan Academy, That would be the sort of thing that you'd look into, because they might... I mean, it might be a full replacement for public school.
I mean, that's how big that is.
Yeah, if you buy Bitcoin in Coinbase, you always have the option of moving into a private wallet.
A private wallet being some software you use to manage your crypto.
Cobra University, Tate.
NVIDIA has some exciting things.
So is NVIDIA is the main AI chip company that we hear about, right?
But I imagine the hardware people have already been overbought.
If I looked at NVIDIA stock now, it would be through the roof, wouldn't it?
All right.
So I think the chip companies, is AI going to drive chip companies?
Will there be a 20-24 page a day Dilbert calendar?
Unlikely.
I can't rule it out, but it's unlikely that I'll have that ready to go.
However, if somebody knows of an American company that could make a Dilbert calendar, You should tell that company to contact me.
An American based publisher who could make one of those little block calendars where you peel off a page a day.
My understanding is that we don't have one.
That the United States literally doesn't have one.
Now that might mean that they don't have one that's cost effective.
But in my current situation I would still use somebody who's not cost effective because I think Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you really wanted a Dilbert calendar, an extra $2 per calendar wouldn't change your mind, right?
But if I were doing it just for profit, as my publisher did, that $2 per calendar would be so big that I just wouldn't make it in America, I'd use China.
But since I'm not going to use China under any conditions, the only way it could exist is if it's American-made.
There might be people who would be willing to throw in a few extra bucks just to support an American product.
So, that's the only thing holding me back, right?
The only thing holding me back is I don't know an American company that can make one, but I also haven't looked.
I've spent no time looking.
So if you know of any company like that, have them contact me.
And maybe we can make a deal.
Open to the possibility.
You've got all your crypto stolen in your online wallet.
Yeah, that's the problem.
How many items would I be wanting?
You mean units?
It's unpredictable.
All right, let's say Let's say at its peak, the Dilbert calendar was selling half a million a year.
500,000 units at its peak.
But of course, as things went online, people don't have paper calendars.
That number was a peak number.
So it probably ended in maybe a quarter million a year.
I don't know what the current numbers were.
I don't have any idea.
But let's say it was a quarter million Using the distribution channels that existed.
Because that was the best company for calendars.
So there's no second best company for doing comics on calendars.
The company I was with, they just owned that space.
But there are other companies.
So, it doesn't stop me from doing it.
If I had to guess, to answer your question, if it was a quarter million calendars sold when Dilbert was in newspapers everywhere, before it got cancelled, And you had the whole marketing engine working, you know, at its best.
So I would have none of that, right?
So some people wouldn't want it on their desk because they would be afraid of, you know, having something by, you know, reputationally, some people won't buy it.
If I had to guess, the number would be 50,000.
So I'd be looking for a company that can make 50,000 copies.
Because I think that's what would sell in 2024.
By the way, have I ever told you about my weird ability to estimate things that I shouldn't be able to estimate?
I've talked about that at length.
It's one of the things that happens to you if you do a lot of data analysis.
And you can't tell why, but you can make these weird estimates That you should not be able to make.
I should not be able to estimate how many calendars I could sell.
But I'll bet I did.
I'll bet 50,000 is a pretty good guess.
You can 3D print.
Wow.
Have you noticed that my used books on Amazon are selling for way more than books sell?
Because right now the only way you can buy How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big is used.
Because there's no such thing as a publisher anymore.
So the people that have used copies have jacked the price up to a higher price than a new book.
So it's actually selling as almost a collector book already.
All right.
You bought it and listened to God's to be?
Cool.
Oh, the book Thinking Fast and Small?
Yeah, that probably does explain.
It's a good book?
Thank you.
It's the most influential book in business right now.
By the way, so here's my claim.
Is that my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big, is the most influential book in business and personal success.
That's my claim.
Because there are other books that sold more, but in many cases they also referenced my book.
Does Win Bigly still sell?
Not much.
The backlist for that's pretty weak.
Because that was sort of a A time.
That book was around a certain time in the world.
It wasn't meant to be an evergreen.
Now, I don't want publishers at all.
I'm self-publishing.
Because I got cancelled.
You loved Winn Biggley?
Thank you.
You listen to Winn Biggley on YouTube?
How'd you do that?
Is my book illegally an audiobook on YouTube?
Probably is.
Atomic Habits, yeah, references my book.
The 4-Hour Week does not reference any Dilbert stuff, but Tim Ferriss does include me in his book that came after that, a few books after.
What is it?
Tools for Titans.
So one of the tools for Titan's sections was about some of the stuff from my book.
All right.
And that is all I have.
Spotify advertises your book, Loser Think.
It does?
Not anymore, though.
God's Debris is the only book someone has offered to loan for me to read it, and I did.