Episode 2247 Scott Adams: All The Fake News (And Maybe Some Real Stuff) That Is Fit To Sip
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bd4pjfm
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, AI Torrent ChatBot, Mike Pence, Kaitlin Collins, Nikki Haley China Policy, TikTok FaceHittingChallenge, RFK Jr., Steve Schmidt J6 Debate, IRS Taxes Leaker, Bill Maher, Thomas Massie, Single Topic Bills, Government Shutdown, Nate Silver, COVID Vaccination Outcomes, Rob Reiner, Stephen King, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization as we know it.
If you'd like your experience today to be elevated to levels that I can't even describe, it will feel so good.
Well, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
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.
And it happens now.
Go.
Well, that was delightful. - Well, Well, how many of you have yet seen my interview with Megyn Kelly?
I thought I did my clearest job of explaining my cancellation.
But we talked about lots of other stuff.
From hypnosis to persuasion to Trump to you know what.
So I tweeted a link to it just this morning.
You'll see it at the top of my feed.
You should also look for my interview with Michael Malice.
Also trigonometry and Roseanne.
Those are some good ones if you want some entertainment.
Well, the Hollywood writer's strike is over.
Finally.
Finally, the Hollywood writer's strike is over.
Wow.
So, I guess I can get back to... What?
Watching three-hour movies again?
No, thank you.
Watching scripted TV shows?
I don't remember the last time I did that.
Although I do like some series sometimes.
But I didn't really notice.
Did anybody notice there was a writer's strike?
Because movies came out.
I didn't really notice.
But it's over.
So now that it's over, the good news is that we'll get more of that same one movie that they keep writing that involves somebody tied to a chair.
Immediately after a car chase that involves a helicopter.
Helicopter, car chase, tied to a chair.
There's your movie.
Boom!
Now, part of what the writers got in addition to, I don't know, some more movie from streaming and more upside if things do well.
They also got some restrictions on using AI to write scripts.
So now the big studios won't be able to write scripts with AI.
And that's a problem because what is the easiest way to rewrite a script and make it woke?
I'm pretty sure it's AI.
You can just take any classic movie and say, AI, rewrite this.
But make sure that the lead character is black and female.
Do you remember a series called The Boys?
It was about these people with superpowers who were not all good people.
Well, there was a version of it that came back, Gen 5, it's called.
And it got fixed, because the old version was deeply flawed, but now they fixed it by making the lead character a black woman.
So much, much, much improved.
She's a good actress, actually.
But it does feel a little bit on the nose that we're just taking things that were popular before and changing just that one thing.
All right.
Were you ever worried that AI would sort of get outside of its guardrails and that there would be an AI That was not, you know, woke and controlled by people and it could answer any question?
Well, that just happened.
So if you were ever worried that AI, should it escape from its guardrails, would be an existential threat to the entire planet, that's where we are.
So there's a well-funded AI company that released an undeletable chatbot.
So they released it on... What's it on?
They put it on... What's that service where it's all distributed?
Torrent.
So they published it as a torrent, meaning that it's distributed on various computers, and as long as there's even one person who still has it on one computer anywhere in the world, anybody can get to it.
So there's an undeletable, uncensored, un-guardrailed AI available to anybody who wants to get to it.
And based on where it is, it'll be mostly people with bad intentions.
So apparently this one will give you instructions for self-harm.
It'll tell you how to reintroduce Jim Crow And I don't know how to do ethnic cleansing.
I mean, just awful stuff.
And I didn't know this, but apparently there have developed two schools of philosophy about AI.
One is you've got to keep all those guardrails on there.
And the other is you've got to release it and let the public do what it does.
And that's the only way we'll be safe.
I have to admit, there is some intellectual appeal To treating AI like you treat free speech when you're doing it right, which is you let the free speech take care of the other free speech.
If you had AI that was unrestricted, and AI that's restricted, they could sort of play with each other.
In other words, you might get to a better place with having at least some unrestricted AI, just so you can see the difference.
You're permanently banned from X this week.
What the hell did you do to get permanently banned from X?
That takes some work.
Yeah, Torrent is uncensorable.
That's the idea behind it.
Alright, we'll see if that destroys the world.
There's some new research that says trees Give off some kind of chemical that we didn't know about, or at least we didn't know how it affected things.
It has some kind of influence on mist or clouds, and the big implication of this is it means our climate models were wildly, let's say, wildly ignoring a big variable.
Now, do you think it's the only big variable?
No.
Do you think that it's a real thing that scientists can see the future because they have models?
No, it's not a real thing.
Do you think that someday we'll look back at this era and we will laugh at the fact that anybody thought models could predict the future?
Yes, we will.
We will someday look back at this and laugh at ourselves that we ever believed that meta-analysis was real or that, you know, you could Predict the climate in 40 years.
It will all look funny to us.
And then we'll say, okay, that was mostly for persuasion.
They did that.
All right, so Musk is taking on Germany.
Well, feels like a fair fight.
Because there are eight German NGOs, so non-government organizations, ships in the Mediterranean Sea that are apparently picking up illegal immigrants off the coasts of Africa and delivering them to Italy.
So they're German boats, but not German government.
They're non-government entities.
But they're massively taking loads of immigrants to Italy.
Now, Elon Musk was You know, pointing out the, let's say, the bad idea here.
The bad idea being ignoring borders and just dumping immigrants anywhere.
And the German government clapped back at him.
And looked like idiots.
They looked like idiots.
Because Elon Musk is sort of a hard person to clap back at in public.
It's not going to work out for you.
It didn't work out for them.
But I don't know why they're doing it, other than maybe to make sure they don't end up in Germany?
Or is it a trick to... And then I thought, well, what if we did that?
What if we took all the immigrants and put them on boats and shipped them to Cuba?
Or something, I don't know, wherever you ship them.
But they would just come back, I guess, so that wouldn't work.
So, Caitlin Collins was talking to Mike Pence on CNN, and I thought, Mike Pence finally has a use.
I liked him as a vice president, but he finally has a use now.
And the use is he can be invited on shows so they can ask him his reaction to their opinions about Trump.
That's all he is now.
He's the guy you invite, so you have an excuse to talk about Trump.
That's what he is.
He's the Trump excuse person, or excuse to talk about him.
So, Caitlin tweeted this, we pressed Mike Pence tonight on Donald Trump's rhetoric lately, from claiming that General Milley committed treason, to saying news networks should be investigated for such, and also mocking the brutal attack on Paul Pelosi.
Now, do I need to explain to Caitlin that those are not bugs, those are features?
How many of you like Donald Trump less because he claims General Milley was a treasonous?
You like him less, right?
Because of all that?
No, no, you like him more because he's right.
How about when he says bad things about the news networks?
Oh, God.
The bad taste in my mouth I get when he says that the news is fake.
No, I like that.
I like that.
How about when he mocks the brutal hammer attack on Paul Pelosi?
Oh, such bad... Well, it's kind of funny.
But bad, bad manners that make me laugh.
So stop being so terrible in ways that make people clap and laugh and stuff.
So... I feel like Trump can just do his same trick a million times in a row and it will work a million times.
I think I'll say something that the news has to cover because they think I went too far.
Hmm.
Let's see.
Paul Pelosi hammer attack.
Yeah.
Yeah, that could work.
All right, locals, I'm going to turn you upside down.
My eye contact was in the wrong place here.
Oh, did it turn it off?
Of course.
Yes, of course it turned it off.
There, we're back.
All right, well, that's why Trump is leading the field, because he says all those things that CNN doesn't like.
And why is Pence not leading the field?
Because he doesn't say any of those things, for example.
Well, Nikki Haley is getting tough about China and fentanyl, so she tweeted this.
Stop all normal trade relations with China until they stop killing Americans with fentanyl poison.
I like the cut of her jib.
I kind of like that.
Now I don't know about all trade relations or normal trade relations, but maybe diplomatic relations.
Maybe send back the kids of the elites that are in our colleges.
Maybe give them a deadline and then remove all of our diplomats.
I've always thought we should remove our diplomats from China until they stop fentanyl.
Because why would you have diplomats just acting like it's business as normal when tens of thousands of our people are being slaughtered?
I say we should remove our diplomats.
We can still talk to them, obviously.
There's a million ways to talk to them.
But I think we should shame them.
I think this should be about embarrassment.
So we should be embarrassing China, not hurting them economically, because that probably hurts us as much.
But I like the toughness on that.
So there's a new trend on TikTok.
I guess it's not actually that new, but apparently idiots on TikTok believe they can pound their own faces with hammers to change the shape of their faces.
Really?
So I guess for a year or so, this has been a growing meme of people pounding their faces with hammers to change what their face looks like.
Now, let me ask you that.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think that if TikTok can convince some people to pound their face with hammers, which you would imagine would be among the very hardest things you could ever talk somebody into, hey, you know what would be a good idea?
You see that hammer?
You see your face?
You see where I'm going with this?
That's right.
Pound your face as hard as you can with a hammer.
And watch how good looking you become.
And then people start doing it.
Now if you can convince any percentage of the public to hit themselves in the face with hammers, a lot, not just a little, but a lot, do you think you can't program a child to change their priorities?
Their political opinions, their gender assumptions about themselves, their desire to procreate, their will to live.
Of course you can.
If you can convince people to pound themselves in the face with a hammer, there are no guardrails.
There's nothing you can't talk them into at that point.
So it seems to me that China literally has a kill switch.
For the United States, and they've already pushed it.
If we leave TikTok in place, it will be guaranteed to destroy the country.
And Congress is unwilling or unable to do anything about it.
Completely useless.
Completely useless.
Yeah, it's like we don't even have a Homeland Defense.
How much do we spend on Homeland Defense?
We should just eliminate their budget.
Just eliminate it.
Because if you're not going to do the most basic thing, ban TikTok, all the military in the world won't help you if you allow their propaganda in without any filters.
So we wouldn't even need a military if we're going to allow TikTok to run unfettered, because they can just win that way without firing a shot.
And that's what's happening.
So apparently the only people who don't understand the risk of TikTok are elected members of Congress.
Or so they would tell us.
They think it's about data security.
It's not.
It's really not about data security.
Never was.
Well, RFK Jr.
says he will, I guess on October 9th, he's expected to announce he will run third party, independent.
And then the big question is, who will he take votes from?
I've seen smart people say that he will take them from Trump, and I understand that, because there's a lot of crossover appeal.
I just read your comment about Abraham.
That was pretty funny.
And I think maybe, but Newsweek says that a third of Democrat voters are likely to vote for Kennedy if he runs.
Which would be, I assume, a lot more than the percentage of Republicans.
And here's where that Trump solid base really, really matters.
Because his base isn't going anywhere.
Yeah, they're definitely not going to vote for somebody who's pro-abortion, for example.
So, I've got a feeling that it's going to be way easier for Democrats to switch over to Kennedy than for Republicans.
So I think it's completely unpredictable.
So I'm going to stick with it's unpredictable.
But if you forced me, I think you'll take more votes from Democrats.
What do you think?
What's your best guess?
You'll take more votes from who?
Democrats?
Cernovich says it hurts Trump.
I've heard other people say that as well.
You know, the numbers are the numbers.
We'll probably have pretty good numbers for this by the time he announces.
Because you have to wait until he's, like, really running before people can take him seriously.
Jack Posobiec thinks that he'll take votes.
Well, he will take votes from both.
So I certainly agree he will take votes from Trump.
But I don't know if we know the net.
I really don't.
I think it's very unpredictable.
Could go either way.
And I think people are... I think the public has not really paid much attention.
Yeah.
All right.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
Did you see...
Steve Schmidt, who's the big anti-Trumper.
Lincoln, Lincoln Log or whatever.
What's his?
The Lincoln Project?
So he's a well-known anti-Trumper who pretends he used to be Republican.
I guess he used to be a Republican, but now he's an anti-Trumper.
And he was on the podcast NBD.
I'm dyslexic.
What are the letters?
PBD.
He was on the PBD podcast and really got into a shouting match because he believes that January 6th was just the worst thing, the worst thing.
Worse than Pearl Harbor, worse than, I don't know about Pearl Harbor, but worse than January 6th.
And he got really angry and was like, you know, yelling.
And I saw, Well, I guess there were four or five people on the panel, and I saw some of the worst debaters I've ever seen in my life, on both sides.
It was like they couldn't debate themselves out of a paper bag.
How could you not beat that guy in a debate about whether it was an insurrection?
That's the easiest argument in the world.
Here's how you do it.
So Steve, so you say January 6th was an insurrection and the country was almost lost.
Yes, that's what I think.
Trump sucks.
That's my best impression of Steve Schmidt.
So if you go hard at him, the way the other podcasters do, you end up in a shouting match with a shouter.
He's a shouter.
You get in a shouting match with a shouter, you're not going to win.
Right?
So here's how you should play it.
All right, let me understand, Steve.
Would you agree with the statement that the Second Amendment is definitely not going to protect against the military of the United States?
Would you agree?
Now, this is not what Republicans think, and it's not what I think.
But Democrats think that, and he's joined that side.
So I'm not sure where he would answer on this, because he used to be a Republican.
This will work better with people who are always Democrats.
So you say, all right, your belief is, and I believe Biden has said this clearly, that your Second Amendment rights are going to be useless if your government turned fascist, because the government has nuclear weapons and whatnot.
So you first get your Democrat to admit that guns and individuals would be useless against a country with a military.
And then you ask them to explain how people who didn't have guns, for the most part, would overthrow the military of the United States by trespassing, and some of them getting violent, but basically staying in one room.
Can you game that through?
And then he would say something like, I imagine, they were trying to cancel the progress of the government who was going to certify the vote.
And then I'd say, okay, were they trying to cancel it forever?
Oh yeah, cancel it forever.
Okay, but you know nobody said that, right?
Literally nobody said cancel it forever.
Every person there, plus Trump, just wanted to delay it.
Are you aware of that?
They were talking about a delay.
Oh yeah, but they had those fake electors, so it wouldn't be temporary because they had those fake electors.
And then you say, were they fake electors?
Or was it completely transparent alternate electors who would be used as a placeholder in case the process, you know, went in that direction?
Oh yeah, but you know, you can call them alternate if you want, but they're fake.
They're fake.
He was trying to get those fake electors in there.
Okay, but suppose he did try that.
What would happen next?
Would the entire government just stay and then everybody would just obey the government that did not win the election according to the officials?
Do you think that would happen?
Well, he's got the military too!
Yeah, but the military was just gonna follow the person who didn't win the election?
Well, yeah, but the fake electors.
So you don't think that would have gone to the Supreme Court?
Well, but the Supreme Court is filled with a bunch of Trump supporters.
To which I say, so you believe that originalists, the people who follow the Constitution to the letter, would play fast and loose with who the electors are.
You think that that's the group of people who's gonna get creative in their interpretation.
Literally the opposite of why they were hired.
And everything about them.
So that's the conversation I want to see.
I want to see somebody game it out and show that somehow Trump could have won if that had ever been his intention to overthrow the government.
How would that work?
And who would believe it would work?
All right.
We've got some drunk people already this morning.
Some drunks in the comments.
All right, well, enough about that.
So, apparently, the DOJ is charging the person who leaked Trump's tax returns, as well as thousands of the nation's wealthiest individuals, and leaked it to two media organizations.
Thousands of the nation's wealthiest individuals and their private tax returns were stolen and given to the media.
And he's charged with one count.
One count.
Shouldn't you go to jail for a really long time for that?
That feels like a little bit bigger than a January 6th person strolling around.
Feels a little bit bigger.
So yes, I think Mike Cernovich is maybe close to right here, that if the Republicans lose, maybe everybody who's a Republican is going to jail, including me.
He might be right about that.
We'll have to see.
But I'm not going to jail, so don't worry about that.
Shutting down the government?
We'll get to that.
Bill Maher is back on his show and says very directly and clearly and did a whole piece about it that Biden's too old and he needs to step down so he doesn't become Ruth Bader Biden.
And Bill Maher goes on to say what a great job Biden has done so far.
For example, he handled Ukraine.
On his list was, Biden handled Ukraine.
Did a good job handling Ukraine.
That's Bill Maher's opinion.
He did a good job.
You know what a good job handling Ukraine would look like?
No war with Ukraine.
I'm pretty sure that the war itself was the mistake, not how you handled it once the war started.
About not having that war.
That would have been a much better outcome.
And I'm reasonably positive, I feel positive that Trump would have not allowed that war to happen.
Do you agree?
I mean, that's just speculation, because who knows.
But everything about him suggests that it wouldn't have happened.
Maybe they would have waited four years, but I don't think they would have done it under Trump.
Doesn't feel like it would have happened.
So, that's weird.
Well, Thomas Massey tweeted today and said, I've always fought for single subject bills.
So he's fought against the idea that they put a bunch of bills together so that you can't say no to any of it, otherwise you'll shut down the government.
And he says, and the efforts of my friends who are stopping Republican bills from passing this week might be rooted in the same conviction.
So he's still very much in favor of single topic bills.
But he goes on and says, but I believe their well-meaning activity is going to lead to opposite and undesirable outcomes.
So I assume the undesirable outcome is that it crashes the government.
The government closes and bad things happen.
To which I say, I challenge the assumption that failing to pass bills and thus plunging the country into chaos is the bad outcome.
What makes you think that's the bad outcome?
We can certainly see that very specific and predictable bad things will happen, but how do you compare that to the benefit?
Because the benefit is unknown.
I would say if your current system is designed to destroy the country, then changing it is the only risk-free thing you can do.
It's the only way you can reduce your risk.
You can increase You could increase the rate at which we fail, if we close the government and never open it up again, I suppose.
But, if you broke the system temporarily, like just destroyed it, so people are wandering around and, you know, everything's just going to hell.
If that leads to fixing the system, as in, all right, all right, we give up.
All the bills will be single topic from now on.
It's the only way we can agree.
If that happened, I would say that we'd be way ahead.
Even if there was a tremendous cost to get there, because our current design guarantees obsolescence of the country.
The current system allows every politician to be safe in their vote, voting for things they shouldn't be voting for, or at least budgets the size they should not be voting for.
So you have to make it hard for the politicians to hide their support or lack of support for various topics.
So you get something closer to a free market with some kind of transparency.
But short of that, you have a system design problem.
If the design of the system is to hide what people's intentions are, and also to make it nearly impossible to vote against an enormous budget, that's a guaranteed failure.
So yes, I would take complete chaos over a guaranteed failure.
Because guaranteed failure might be the only way to get to a better system.
Just doing what you're doing is just guaranteed to fail.
So under those conditions, it's easy to make a decision.
You take the big risk.
Because the big risk is actually smaller risk than doing nothing.
Accelerate.
Make it worse.
That's the way to go.
And I love tweeting, doing a response to Thomas Massey, because there's always a non-zero chance he's going to respond directly, which he did in minutes.
These are the moments that make you feel confident in your government.
Thomas Massie puts his opinion out there.
I add something to it, and he responds right in front of everybody.
He responded to it.
Now, why did he respond?
There were a whole bunch of other comments.
He doesn't have time to respond to all the comments.
Why did he respond to me?
Simply because I made a good comment, in my opinion.
He responds to other people, but only if they make a comment.
That is worthy of the response.
Now I've said before that, you know, also the large audience.
Yeah, I have a large audience.
But he responds to a lot of people with small audiences if the thing they said is worth elevating and either agreeing with or elevating for disagreement.
Because it represents other people's disagreement as well.
So the way he interacts with the public is a real confidence builder.
Because he seems to recognize the important comments and then focus on them.
And I don't really see a lot of other people doing that.
Others are, I'd say, a little bit more purely political, the way they tweet.
He tweets like he's informing people.
And like he's genuinely interested in their response as well.
And that he's learning something from it.
He's using it as a tool.
The others are just using it as like a hole in the wall where they're shoving stuff through, hoping you see it.
So it's a whole different mindset.
And his is the good one.
All right.
But it's more to my point that I've made before.
This is one of the reframes in my book.
The person with the best idea is always in charge.
It's one of the most important things you'll ever remember in your life.
The person with the best idea is always in charge.
So, this didn't happen in this case.
You know, this is not what happened.
But, if Thomas Massey had tweeted something, and if I had added something that was valuable, it could have actually changed the outcome.
If it were smart enough.
Now, if I said something he had already thought of, and everybody was already talking about, well, there's no value there.
But if I had come up with a new idea, or a new twist, or a new way to look at it, it absolutely could have changed things.
I didn't.
I didn't come up with an idea that changed anything.
But I could have.
In theory, I could have.
I might have added a little value, but that's different than changing anything.
Well, Nate Silver is one of the most interesting people to follow on X. I think he identifies more with the left, as in Democrats, I think.
But he's one of these rare characters, sort of a Bill Maher-like character, but with better mental processing, like way better, like really, really way better.
So he's a data guy, and a statistics guy, and a fact guy.
Doesn't mean he's always right, and I'm sure he would not claim he's always right.
So perfection is not what anybody's shooting for here.
But he did something interesting, which is he thought that the smoke had cleared enough that he could finally answer this question.
Do not get angry before I'm done.
Because I'm going to say some things that you believe I'm agreeing with, But wait, don't assume I'm agreeing with anything.
I'm just reporting, okay?
So what he did was he looked for the data on basically how things worked.
You know, were vaccinations a plus or a minus?
And same thing with social distancing and business closures and masks.
Now the good news is, That somebody who, in my opinion, I don't know if he would say this of himself, but in my opinion, he leans more to Democrat.
And the first good news is he says the data is very unclear about whether the closures, the masks, and the social distancing had any value at all.
And especially contrasted to the fact that there were tremendous costs and disadvantages.
So basically, I would say that opinion is straight-up Republican thinking.
Would you agree?
Straight-up Republican thinking.
The data doesn't show that that stuff worked, even if it did.
The data doesn't show it.
And then beyond that, so you don't do it again if the data doesn't show it.
And beyond that, the cost of it is harder to measure, but they were substantial.
So under that set of facts, you would never do it again.
Would you agree?
So he's on the right side, because the facts are the facts.
So again, this is a compliment to a productive mind in America.
He's on the side of the data, plus he knows how to analyze it.
And he knows what's left out, and he calls out what's left out, Says we don't know, this big stuff is left out, therefore doesn't make sense to do it again.
Good thinking.
Now here's the part you won't like as much, and this is not my opinion, and I'm going to tell you what I think is wrong with it when I'm done.
So don't get mad at me.
No Ben Garrison stuff going on here, please.
According to Naysilver, looking at the data that he trusts, And again, he would be better at knowing what data to trust, right?
That's his job.
He's way better at that.
And he says that the death rate during COVID was about the same in the blue states as the red states.
Do you believe that?
Death rate was about the same in the blue states and the red states until vaccinations.
So prior to vaccinations being available, the death rate was comparable.
Do you agree with that so far?
And why wouldn't it be?
Why wouldn't it be?
Right?
So that suggests that all the masking and stuff didn't make a difference.
Because the masking and the social distancing and everything, those were well in place before the vaccinations.
So that further supports the fact that, you know, nothing else was mattering.
Then the vaccinations happened.
And then Naysilver points out that pretty immediately after the vaccinations, the blue states had a great drop in the death rate from COVID, and the red states did not have as much of a drop, and the presumption is that they were less vaccinated, because they were.
So I'm going to ask you two questions.
If the data were accurate, and by no means do I trust any data, just any data, so assuming it's accurate, I'm not making that assumption.
So I don't assume it's accurate, but let's just follow through with the thinking here.
So we're not getting an answer, we're just following the thinking.
If this were accurate, would it tell you something useful?
Would you feel that you would learn something useful by knowing that as soon as the vaccinations hit, there was a big difference in the survivability?
The people most vaccinated were the most survived.
But the data does factor in lockdowns.
The data factors in lockdowns and masks because those were in effect before the vaccinations and they showed no effect.
So all of the other factors, besides vaccinations, have been accounted for.
Now age, presumably you could measure it by age, right?
Presumably they know what age groups were the most problematic.
And we do know that the red states have older people.
The blue states have younger people.
I would not care anything about the COVID death rate by vaccination.
Right?
I would say that that would not tell me anything.
So, if the only thing that's studied is people who died according to the hospital of COVID, and the only thing you know is whether they were vaccinated or not, even if you did it by age, that would tell you nothing.
In my opinion, that would tell you nothing.
What's left out?
No, even if you did comorbidities, even if you separated by comorbidities, even if you did it by age, would it be useful?
Nope.
No, not even a little.
What's left out?
The biggest factor is left out.
The biggest factor is, do you die from the vaccination?
Because there's no way to sort that out.
And you also don't know if any long-term problems are caused by the vaccination or the COVID.
So what you don't know is if you checked in 10 years from now, would the red states have regained an advantage compared to the blue states that were more heavily vaccinated?
So you don't know that.
And that's the whole question.
The whole question comes down to I think we do know that on day one of the vaccination, some people died, but most of the problems were sort of later, whatever problems there were.
So if you don't know how many people would eventually die, if any, the number might be zero, I don't know, but if you don't know how many people died because of the vaccination, and you might not know that for years, how do you know anything?
How do you know anything?
So maybe Nate Silver being much smarter than me on this topic, maybe he's taken all that into account in ways that are not obvious to me.
But I think that you can't tell anything by measuring the death rate of vaccinated versus unvaccinated during the pandemic.
To me, that doesn't tell you what you need to know.
Would you agree?
Would you agree that we don't have the data we need?
Now, suppose you had all-cause mortality.
And you also had all-cause mortality, but it was also broken down by comorbidities and age.
So you're not worrying about comorbidities and age.
If you had all-cause, and you watched it for five years, would you know then If the vaccinated or the unvaccinated did better.
Would you know that?
Five years of time?
No, you wouldn't.
You wouldn't.
Because you wouldn't know the cause of anybody's health problems.
You wouldn't know the cause.
You wouldn't know if it's because they got COVID three times or because they got boosted six times.
Which of those is the cause?
Is it the long COVID that's killing them?
Is it the COVID that's killing them?
Is it the lack of exercise because they got locked in?
Is it because their life changed in a bad way because of the lockdowns?
How do you ever know anything?
Maybe it was all just ventilators and remdesivir.
Could be.
So anyway, I think day silver is a good follow.
But you've got to be careful about anything with data.
If it's about climate change, don't believe it.
If it's about COVID, don't believe it.
I'll tell you what data is good for.
Actually, here's the good news.
The fact that the data can't show any difference with masks, that's good news.
If you don't want a mask, that's pretty good news.
Yeah, the data is too confounded.
You're right.
Nate Silver predicted Hillary would win. - One.
Well, yes he did.
There was one point he said there was a 98% chance she would win.
And that's when I came up with my estimate that there was a 98% chance that Trump would win.
Just to be the opposite of him.
And I got that one right.
Yeah, the suicide and fentanyl are way up.
So if suicide and fentanyl are way up, is that because of the pandemic?
Wow.
Well, I'm seeing a comment from someone on Locals that seven people close to this one person committed suicide during the pandemic.
Wow.
It's pretty bad.
All right.
I don't think I don't know anybody who died of COVID.
So my my track record was zero people I know died of COVID.
But most of you do.
Yeah, most of you know people died of COVID.
I don't know anybody.
And not a single one.
So I went through a pandemic.
Without seeing a single death of anybody I know.
And also nobody, nobody my age or younger, who was a celebrity died from COVID.
Prove me wrong.
There's no celebrity, and I'm going to define celebrity as someone I've personally heard of.
You know, it can't be some country music star who was 85.
But there was nobody who was my age or younger, who was also a public figure, who died of COVID.
Right?
Yeah, John Prine I'd never heard of.
So he's my, that's my argument.
Yeah, you're giving me names I've never heard of.
Hank Aaron was older.
Yeah, they were all older than me, right?
I'm pretty sure they were all older.
So nobody my age or younger who was famous ever died during the pandemic.
Herman Cain was older.
Yeah, all these people were older.
They're all in their 70s or older.
So.
All right, Colin Powell, older.
Meatloaf was 74.
Brian had cancer first.
I'm going to make a prediction about Rob Reiner.
I feel like there's some scandal in his future.
I don't know what it is.
But I feel like he's been in the news too much for there not to be something there.
And here's why.
He tweets like somebody who's under duress.
That's it.
He tweets like somebody who's under duress.
Now let me compare that.
You saw, or maybe you saw, John Cusack, who's a giant anti-Trumper, you know, to the point where you think he's crazy.
But he recently, I believe, he came out against Biden's track record.
Am I right on that?
Give me a fact check.
I think he came out against Biden's track record.
Which demonstrates what?
It demonstrates that his mind is fluid, and that while you might disagree wildly with his opinions, you can see that he's assessing data and changing with the data.
A little bit.
You'd like to see more, I know.
But that's a sign of a healthy mind that might be biased in some way.
But Rob Reiner tweets like it's his paycheck.
You know what I mean?
He tweets like he's getting paid to tweet.
I'm not saying he is.
I'm saying that the impression one gets is that there's no thought process involved whatsoever.
And that, I mean, I don't think he's doing it for the money.
Probably not.
But it looks like he's under duress.
Same with Stephen King.
Stephen King doesn't look even like those could be his real opinions.
It looks like he's under duress.
Now that's just speculation.
Speculation is not based on any facts.
I'm just looking at him saying John Cusack looks like somebody who is involved in politics and I disagree with him.
Rob Reiner looks like somebody who is doing it for a paycheck because it doesn't look like a thinking human being at all.
All right.
We didn't know anything four months in.
Katie Hobbs avoiding Biden.
I'm just not interested in Keenehubs.
Somebody's saying that Stephen King's tweets are poorly written.
But I hear that about his books as well.
I've never heard a more famous author who the people who enjoy his books say he's a bad writer.
He's the only one I've ever heard that about.
Yeah, I read all his books.
He's a terrible writer.
But let me give a plug for him though.
Stephen King's book called On Writing, it's one of the books he wrote, I may be the only one, on how to be a writer.
That's a really good book.
And it's one of the ones I recommend to people if they want to be a writer.
Full of totally practical advice on becoming a writer.
I'll tell you the main secret, in case anybody wants to become a writer.
Some of the things I remembered are, take a job that's super boring.
If you want to be a writer.
Because you're going to need your best thinking for your writing, if you're going to go anywhere.
And if you're using up your brain all day, you're just not going to have enough left in the tank.
So he says, if you're really serious about it, be something like a nighttime security guard, where you're literally just standing around.
And then you'll have plenty of mental capacity left.
That was an interesting tip.
The other one is even more useful.
I mean, this one's totally practical.
That if you want to become a writer, you just start at whatever is the lowest level that somebody will accept your writing.
And you can always do it.
So there's always some local publication that wants to pay nothing.
So you say, well, I wrote this thing.
It's my article about the benefit of salt.
There's somebody I know who was trying to become a writer and actually wrote an article on salt and got it published locally.
Now, if you can get published locally in things that pay nothing, then you can eventually collect up your works and take it to a slightly better publication and say, OK, I did all this work.
You can see my work.
Then you can prove that you can write.
You can do it and produce volume.
And then the new thing will say, oh yeah, it looks like we're getting a good deal here.
We'll get you early.
So it's very easy to start writing for nothing and then use what you've written, if you're a good writer, to ratchet up and, you know, you keep showing it to the level above.
So that's consistent with my other reframe, that your job is not your job, your job is to get a better job.
So all the writing you're doing is to show it to the level above.
That's good advice, because you can always find the level that wants you to write for them for free.
Might be a website, might be a blog, maybe start your own substack or something.
But you write for free until you have samples to show somebody who might be interested in paying you.
Good advice.
All right.
Yeah, salt had a big impact on our species, that's true.
All right, substack, it's like a blog with a paywall.
I have not seen the live stream in Philadelphia.
So the live stream is, the intention is to show how bad it is in the street.
Is that what it is?
I feel like that's the only answer.
The only answer is surveillance of the streets so everybody could watch.
Have you seen the new drones that the police are getting?
So it looks like the police will have drones that if, let's say, you hear shots fired.
So I think the police in the big cities already have these monitors where they can identify where shots have been fired.
Give me a fact check on that.
That's a real thing, right?
I don't know if it's all the cities, but most of the big cities, they can literally listen to the shot and triangulate approximately where it came from.
So they can dispatch a car.
Now, they could also dispatch a drone, but the drone could be a lot faster because it doesn't have traffic.
So you could get a drone sitting over a crime pretty quickly.
It seems to me that if you had a process where somebody could take a picture with their phone And send it to the police, it would activate a drone.
Because wouldn't you like to see a, let's say a 911 dispatcher, but maybe a separate one, that is just looking at photos coming in.
Like a text.
Like there's a robbery going on right here and then the 911 person sees it, takes the address and simply pushes one button with the address and a drone goes up and goes to that address and hovers above it until police get there.
Now you could also imagine these drones will be armed at some point.
Am I right?
Yeah, those drones will eventually be able to shoot a real bullet or a tranquilizer dart or something.
So at some point the drones are going to have AI on them and they're just going to show up and start shooting people.
Maybe not right away, but RoboCop is coming.
There's no way to stop it, I don't think.
Yeah, I was also thinking that a great design for my house would be a rooftop drone landing site that I also had access to easily.
And that anytime there's any kind of security cameras get tripped, it automatically launches the drone and it goes to where that camera is and turns on the camera.
That would be cool.
Because I don't think people will fuck with you if your drone catches them outside your house.
Am I right?
If you're like, I think I could break into this house, and then you hear... And right behind you there's a drone looking at you, and you know they're filming, you're gonna get the fuck out of there like right away, right?
You're not gonna try to shoot down the drone.
I mean, you might try, but...
It's going to be kind of hard to hit it.
And it's already taken the pictures.
By the time you see it, it saw you.
So it knows who you are.
So the only thing I would add to the drones is something that could shoot like a dart into them that would collect a specimen.
If you want to be a super asshole, have like a little blow dart.
And if it comes down, it just goes, you go, ah!
And the first thing you do is you'd pull it out, and you'd throw it down and run.
Right?
You would pull it out, and you would throw it down and run.
And it would have your DNA in it.
And then you just collect it, because it's right where you got hit.
Because nobody's going to take it and put it in their pocket, are they?
And if they do, just shoot them again.
They'll stop putting them in their pocket eventually.
Or maybe it just takes your DNA and falls off on its own.
Oh, better.
Better.
Better as it hits you and it just falls on the ground.
So it penetrates you, gets a little pinprick of your DNA, but it's not designed to stay into you.
So it's only got like a little pinprick.
So it's just like, ah, ow!
And you think you got stung.
And then later you go out and they're, ah, got your DNA.
Not bad, is it?
Not bad.
It's not bad.
All right.
The other thing you could do, if you wanted to collect their DNA, is you could just drop like a Bud Light.
They'd be like, ooh, Bud Light.
That could work as well.
Yeah, Bud Light.
It's a callback.
It works in every joke.
All right, is there any topic I forgot?
We did talk about Mike Cernovich's tweets lately.
He might not be wrong, but he's also signaling a warning so that people remember to vote.
Coleman Hughes dissed Scott yesterday as paranoid of the CIA.
day.
Well, does he now?
Do you think he knows what the CIA is and is not doing?
If you're not paranoid of the CIA, I don't think you've been paying attention.
I would agree with him that I have no way of knowing what the CIA is and is not doing.
So I think I'm usually careful to say, like, I don't know what anybody's doing.
But if you suspect them, That seems quite reasonable.
And if you believe they should not be suspected, given everything that we're seeing, I would say that would be naive.
I didn't hear what he said, so I can't respond to it specifically.
Yeah.
Ian says, keep him out of your tweets.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Reframe for a great day.
Alright.
I don't see any buffering.
Do we need the CIA?
Probably.
Khalid says, we love you Scott, but please tone down on the praise of Elon and X. Why?
Why?
Why would you ask such a thing?
I think he's basically the most useful person in the world right now.
So what's the problem with him?
Yeah, I'm never going to hear from you again, am I?
I think you're done.
Weariness of billionaires, of course.
Yeah.
Combines?
What?
I'm just looking at your comments for a minute.
Oh, Jordan.
I should talk to Jordan Harbinger.
Oh, he would be the perfect one to talk to.
I think that I should.
I did send a DM to Glenn Lowry.
I hope he didn't create that.
He exposed it.
I don't know what you're talking about.
I missed Khalid's response.
Did I?
Let's go back.
Khalid, Khalid.
It's hard to find a response.
Let me just see if I can find it.
I can't find it.
Khalid, Khalid, where are you?
Wow, there's a lot of people talking.
I didn't realize.
I don't believe I'm going to find it.
All right.
Well, I tried.
But I don't think it's there.
Suno says he will be killed.
Khalid, the backdoor portal for government.
Well, you think I don't know that?
I don't think that Elon Musk is sanctioning that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's happening.
Said...
Please don't put down your phrase.
All right.
Well, I'm not going to do that.
That's the kind of comment that just pisses me off.
It's one thing to tell me facts you think I don't know or arguments you think I missed, but when you say tone down your praise of somebody without any backup support, That's just manipulative.
It is not received well.
But.
Will more Swedish girls hang their assaulters?
That sounds like a story I missed.
Only available on Amazon?
No, it's at Barnes & Noble as well.
And some other places.
Oh, Prager talked to RFK Jr.?
All right, well, here's what I think I'd like to do.
I'd like to interview RFK Jr., and I'm gonna teach him how to speak correctly, because I have a non-zero, there's a non-zero chance that with the procedure he already had for his voice, That all he needs is a tweak to his production technique.
In other words, just use a different part of his face and voice to speak.
Because he looks like he's breathing and producing voice in the wrong part of his body, which would accentuate the problem.
I don't know that to be true, but it looks like it.
So there's a non-zero chance that I could fix his voice while you watched.
In less than a minute.
And that would probably make him president and change the course of civilization.
But I can't guarantee it.
I would say the odds would be in the 20% range that I could actually do that.
It would be the most viral thing you ever saw in your life.
Just try to hold this in your mind.
Imagine me fixing his voice in real time.
That video would get around, wouldn't it?
And I think there's a non-zero chance.
I did a long time ago, I DM'd him some instructions on different voice production.
And it's the way I talk.
It's a big reason that I haven't had a recurrence of my problem, is that you learn to talk up in the mask of your face.
And you don't use your vocal cords to do that.
Right now it sounds like his vocal cords are 80% fixed, but he still talks with them.
If you bring your voice production up to what's called the mask of the face, so you feel your sinus and your nose vibrating, instead of talking down here in the... Right now I'm talking in my throat.
Can you tell the difference?
I'm talking in my throat, and if I were a little bit tired, it would sound constricted.
And you've heard me do it.
When I get tired, my voice production goes down into my throat, and then you feel a little that coming on.
A little weakness, right?
You hear it.
As soon as I bring it up to the mask of my face, my voice is not only good, it's almost perfect.
And the only difference is, I'm changing the production up to the front of my face, so I can feel that vibrating, and I know the voice is coming out of here, and I feel almost no effect on my vocal cords.
They're involved, but the production is moved up.
So that's a little trick.
And that's what voice coaches teach you.
And that's what the humming happy birthday is.
Humming happy birthday is how you teach yourself to use the mask of your face.
So if you say... You can actually feel your lips vibrating.
And then you can feel around your nose vibrating.
And now you have your production perfect.
And your voice comes out right where the hum was, and that's how you find it.
Joe Blow is asking if I'm bi.
Joe Blow.
That's actually his name, Joe Blow.
Just asked me if I'm bi.
If I said yes, Joe Blow, what would be your next offer?
I don't know.
All right.
You don't think you could do that on camera?
It's so easy that you could.
You actually could do it on camera in like a minute.
