All Episodes
Previous Next
March 9, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
18:39
Part 1 of 2: Episode 2408 CWSA 03/09/24
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Don't know what's going to happen today.
We're using the Rumble platform for all four platforms, YouTube and Rumble and X platform and local subscribers, my special favorites.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand, hey, Paul, All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gel, some styrene, a canteen, sugar, flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee!
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope bean-to-the-day thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens right now.
Oh, that was good.
Sometimes I have to pretend the coffee tastes delicious.
But today?
Absolutely delicious.
All right, look at all those comments.
It's not frozen on my side.
Everything's looking good here.
Oh, comments are scrolling, too.
Look at that.
Look at that, all working good.
Or working well, as you like to say.
All right.
Yes, we're not... Locals is not getting rid of comments.
They will just move to the Rumble Studio, so your comments will all be here.
And then they're working on the technology to get them to be a little faster, if that's possible.
Might not be possible.
But I think there's a six to eight second delay in the comments.
Anyway, let's jump right into it.
The fake science.
I like to start with fake science.
NBC News reports there's a study that says you might be able to slow your biological aging by eating less.
How many times have you heard this story?
I feel like this is the millionth study that showed us maybe for the last 30 years, 40 years.
Haven't we been hearing the same study just repeated every year for 40 years?
I'm not alone in that, right?
But here's what's left out and why I consider this fake science, fake science.
It's because the thing that they say they're measuring is that you eat fewer calories.
So they have a control group that eats what they want, I guess, and another group that has limited calories.
And then they measure their biomarkers, and they find out that the people who ate less food have better biomarkers.
Now, there's an obvious point to this, which is obesity is not good for you.
But if you're doing a short-term study, it seems weird that, you know, that you'd see a big difference in the short term.
But here's what's left out.
I'm pretty sure that our food supply is largely poison, meaning that the more food you eat, it's not just more calories, it's more poison, it's more additives, it's more pesticides, it's more everything.
So they did a test to see if eating fewer calories made you healthier, but they never tested.
To see if eating less poison makes you healthier.
Don't you think if you were eating at McDonald's and you just did less of it, it's not just the calories that you got less of.
You got less of all the stuff you didn't want in your body.
Of course it makes you healthier.
Of course it does.
So that's the weird science.
And there's not even a mention to the fact that the food itself might be bad for you.
All right, here's some more fake science.
I guess the Biden administration is trying to come up with a new climate forecast model that would take into account what they want to do in terms of reducing aircraft contribution to CO2.
So they're trying to figure out how to model just what would be different if they get a greener type of jet fuel.
So here's something that's embedded in the story, that if you didn't notice it, you wouldn't know that it debunked all models.
So within the story, saying how they're going to create a model, is a paragraph that debunks all models.
They don't cowl it out that way.
You just have to notice it.
All right?
Here's that paragraph.
It says, the rumor has it that those involved with the modeling process Can't find common ground regarding the actual impact of corn usage in the synthesis.
Some believe that it should be weighted with a higher penalty since carbon generation occurs during the harvesting phase.
The ethanol industry wants to see its carbon impact as low as possible in order to blah blah blah.
Alright, did you catch it?
In that was the debunking of all climate models.
How many of you saw it?
All right, here's what you should see.
The climate models are completely dependent on the assumptions.
The model's not even important.
The assumption they make about how important it is to, let's say, just using their example, to consider or not consider, I don't know, the time of the season when you're picking the corn or something like that.
So you can simply make an assumption that would completely change the outcome.
Now, is this a special case?
Is this the one time somebody built a projection model in which the assumptions really drove the output?
No!
It's the only way it can be.
There's no other way it can be.
In the real world, the assumptions that the study people put into it determines the output.
That's the opposite of science.
It's the opposite.
You can't be more opposite than the people sitting in a room debating what assumptions should be in your model.
That's the least scientific thing anybody ever did, ever!
But we still have this little fiction, like the models could predict the future.
Nope!
Never have, never will.
Um, there's a company that I still have a subscription to called iStock, where you get stock photos that you could use, you know, with a license approval.
And every now and then I'll use one of those for my posting on social media.
So I wanted to look for a picture of a moron, because I was going to do a post in which a dumb person, you know, would be a good picture for it.
So I went there and I searched within iStock, and this is a Getty, Getty company, they own it, and I looked for moron.
Do you think there were any issues with The diversity, the way they handled the diversity.
So it was a page of morons.
And, uh, but they weren't all the same.
Now, I hope this doesn't kick me off here, but, uh, let me show you some, uh, some of the moron pictures.
See if this works.
Um, first of all, it was almost all white people.
But there was one black person on the page.
And you think to yourself, how'd they handle that?
How are they going to have diversity in a moron result?
It's going to be pretty hard.
But here's how they handled it.
There were a bunch of white people shown, and I think a few Asians.
And here's a white person.
Here he is, you know, drinking, has crazy eyes and he's got weird teeth and everything.
He's like, ah, not doing too well.
Now this was typical.
There were lots of white people looking like morons, but then here's the, here's the sensitive part.
They also have a picture of a young black man that comes up in the moron search.
Now, how did he, how do you think they handled that?
So here's, here's their image.
Of a black moron.
Which is funny, because he looks more like a scientist or a lawyer.
He's got a smart expression, well-dressed.
The difference is hilarious.
I mean, if I had to guess, I would say almost certainly college-educated.
Looks like he's doing pretty well.
Good-looking, smart-looking guy.
Smart eyes, smart face.
All right, well, just pointing that out.
I don't think iStock images is going to last more than a year because AI should pretty much put them out of business.
And maybe it should.
There's a school district in Aurora.
The state where Aurora is?
I don't know.
Where's Aurora?
Somewhere in the Middle West somewhere?
Aurora?
Anyway, somewhere in the United States.
The superintendent says This is actually in a document.
You may not implement or adopt any program that does not prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Now, what does prioritize mean in your worldview?
Colorado?
So, Aurora, Colorado.
Thank you.
So, what does it mean to prioritize DEI?
Wouldn't that mean that you sort of had to put it in front of, oh, I don't know, everything?
That's what it means, right?
If you prioritize it, you push it above other considerations.
What would be the other considerations?
Good ideas, things that work, things that are good for the world.
As soon as you throw in prioritize, it's just racist.
There's no other way to look at it.
There's no second way to look at this.
If you say in writing, it's our policy to prioritize it, there isn't any way to prioritize it unless you give up other things.
So what are you giving up?
They should tell us what they're de-emphasizing.
What are you giving up?
All right.
So, as I told you, our food supply is very dangerous, but getting more dangerous every day.
Apparently, there was a food airdrop in Gaza in which one of the parachutes didn't open and five people were killed by falling food.
Big pallet of food.
Now, I don't know how you get five people with one pallet of food.
That's Like the worst luck I've ever seen in my life.
Not only, as Glenn Greenwald points out, not only did these poor people survive the bombing and the famine, and God knows what disease and deprivation they're going through, and then they get killed with a pallet of food.
Now, that's just about the worst thing I've ever heard, but It certainly gives you this weird feeling that if your time has come, your time has come.
You ever feel that?
This is like the reverse of that joke.
You know the old joke, I tell too many times about the flood, and God says, I sent you a car, I sent you a boat, I sent you a helicopter, and you just didn't take them.
But this is like the bad, evil, backwards version of that.
It's like, You know, God, I tried to kill you with the bombs.
I tried to kill you with the starvation.
None of that worked.
So I'm just going to drop a pallet of food right on your heads and kill you all.
So yes, it's just the worst thing I've ever heard in my life in terms of bad luck.
Jeez.
So I do believe that you can hold two thoughts in your head, which is that what's happening over there is horrific on a scale that we hope we would never see again in modern society.
At the same time, what else are you going to do?
If somebody had a better idea, I'm sure they would have suggested it.
There's a study that says that a lot of Americans can't buy cars.
So you need an annual income of $100,000 to purchase a car.
I assume that means a new car.
So on average, if you don't make $100,000, you can't get a car.
But most of the average American household is closer to $80,000.
So buying a car in today's world, pretty hard.
What they don't say is that even if you have money, you can't buy a car.
It's almost impossible to buy a car.
Has anybody tried to buy a car?
I won't bore you with my whole story.
But let me tell you, there's a quick version of buying a Toyota truck.
So I wanted to get a Tacoma.
So I go to the Toyota dealer, I look around, I think, oh, they must have closed this dealership.
There's no trucks, no Toyotas.
But I go inside because they're actually open.
And it turns out they don't have almost any inventory.
And the reason they don't have any inventory is that it gets purchased before it arrives at the lot.
They can't make them fast enough.
So if you want to buy a truck, you could buy one that's in the pipeline, but the pipeline ones are all random combinations of features and colors that are very unlikely to be what you want.
But if you're lucky and you can get one in the pipeline before all the other people who are also looking at the same pipeline, before they grab it, Well then, and only then, you can have a Toyota truck.
Literally, you can't buy one.
So I tell the salesperson, well, if you get a truck that meets, you know, these criteria, which weren't that restrictive, you know, give me a call and I'll come right down and buy it.
No call.
Say when I tried to buy a Ford truck a while ago, you know, they didn't have any I could drive.
And I've never owned a truck.
I've driven them, but I've never owned a truck.
And I thought, I'm not going to buy a truck.
I can't even drive one that's in the same general idea.
So I couldn't buy a truck and I couldn't buy a Ford.
I couldn't buy a Toyota.
And so there we are.
Anyway, I can see why.
Um, and then I thought about the process of negotiating for a car and I thought I would almost rather do anything than spend a whole day negotiating.
Has anybody brought their laptop to a car purchase?
Because remember they used to use the trick where they'd say, I'll talk to my boss and be gone for an hour.
And what they're really trying to do is make you stay there as long as possible.
So you're too invested in the process to ever say no.
That's why they do it.
So they're trying to wear you down physically.
They'll try to physically exhaust you.
So has anybody brought their laptop and say, Hey, take your time.
I got a lot of work to do.
And they just start happily doing your work on your laptop while they think they're sweating you out, but you're actually getting a lot of work done?
Hey!
I think I'll send some posts.
If you haven't done that yet, you need to do it.
Because it ruins their whole game.
Because you know they're back there like peeking out to see if you're still there.
So they can run out.
In case you leave, they'll run out and grab you and bring you back.
So you know they're watching.
So just make it look like you're really having a good time on your laptop.
Getting a lot of work done.
Anyway, there's a... Oh, we hear that the X platform is going to compete with YouTube.
So they're going to have a big video platform that will play on some smart TVs.
That's a big announcement.
And it will look very much like the YouTube interface.
So Musk is going big for video, which is the smart play.
There's a little garage startup who's made what would be an $80,000 robot.
They print the parts and they put little motors in it.
Who's it called?
I think it's K-Scale Labs.
And the funny part is that the founder of this little garage startup, as soon as I saw him talking, I said, my God, that's Elon Musk too.
It looks like Elon Musk.
He looks like him and talks like him.
And then I looked in the comments and somebody else said the same thing.
I thought, oh good, I'm not imagining it.
So yeah, there's somebody who reminds you of Elon Musk who just made an $8,000 robot that you could just have running around your house.
Now, I'm assuming you just load it with, I don't know, one of their AIs.
But here's what I would like to suggest.
If somebody could tell me who makes the best little motors for robots, because each of the, you know, the arms and legs of the robot are going to have a number of motors and servos or whatever they're called to activate all the body.
Shouldn't we be investing in little motors that go into robots?
Is there a company that owns that like NVIDIA owns the chips for AI?
▲
Export Selection