God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Telegram App, Trump IVF, Kamala Harris CNN Interview, Tim Walz, Unrealized Gains Tax, Anti-Trump Hoaxes, Affordable Care Act Hoax, Trump Venezuelan Gangs, Aurora CO Venezuelan Gangs, Mark Zuckerberg, Billionaire Democrat Wives, Elon Musk Cost Control, National Debt, Hitler Debt Solution, Elon Musk Brazilian Judge, Starlink Brazil, Brazilian Voting Machines, Mike Benz, AI Regulatory Body, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
If you'd like to take this experience up where?
Up to a level where nobody can even comprehend it with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
So, so good.
Wow.
Well, we will, of course, be talking about the interview with Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.
But while you're streaming in here, some other fun stuff.
Well, this one isn't fun.
There was a Wells Fargo employee found dead in her cubicle, and I think she might have been there for four days.
Denise Prudhomme, age 60.
She was found dead in her Arizona office.
Now, we're not going to make fun of a tragic event because, of course, the family should be considered in this.
So, condolences.
But it should be pointed out that there has been a Dilbert comic on exactly that topic of dying in your cubicle and being there for days and nobody noticed and nobody cared.
So, so, By the way, do you know where Dilbert was born?
He was born in a cubicle at a bank that was bought by Wells Fargo.
That's right.
So Dilbert's history is the same bank where this woman unfortunately passed away in her cubicle.
So that's a 35-year connection to that story.
Well, according to the Daily Mail, there's a study and an expert who says that you should masturbate before a public speaking event because if you're nervous, scientists say it's a great way to calm you down and it can boost your cognition.
So if I seem a little extra smart today, no, I'm just joking.
I didn't have time for that, but what a good idea.
You know, I'm trying to figure out, are there things that masturbation can't fix?
So apparently it can make you better for your presentation.
But I'm trying to think what it can't do.
Let's see.
It's good for your health.
It's good for your prostate.
It relaxes you, turns you into a nicer person.
I don't know why we do anything else.
I mean, it seems like the rest of the things we do aren't nearly as productive as that.
So mostly you should replace most of your daily activities with masturbating because it's so good for you.
Some updates on energy.
I'm such an energy nerd that every single day I want to see a story about a new energy source.
And there's a ton of them now.
But here's some things happening.
Did you know that there's a Bureau of Land Management?
Unfortunately, they came up with that name before they realized that the initials BLM would be distracting.
But the BLM, or the Bureau of Land Management, so under the current administration, they're thinking about taking a whole bunch of public land, because there's tons of public land that's empty, And using it for solar projects, so that it wouldn't cost much of anything to slap those solar panels on.
Now, of course, there's all the pollution problems and other problems you could complain about, but I like this.
I like the idea of using all that extra land and put some solar panels on there, and if If space and where you put them is one of the big obstacles, I imagine it would be.
Sounds like it could work.
So here's something I'm not going to complain about from the Biden administration.
If they pulled that off, I would say, oh, good job.
Well, what about all the progress on batteries?
Oh, well, there are three stories just today.
A new battery technology, like huge breakthroughs, three stories, independent, unrelated to each other, all on the same topic of batteries, but different projects, all just today.
There is something going on in the battery research and development area.
That's crazy.
Now it makes sense because if there are robots everywhere, Whoever makes the best battery is going to be making so much money you can't even believe it.
They're going to be making more money than the Tesla making robots, probably.
Here's an idea.
Let's see.
Let's see.
MIT has a study.
They're going to use a partially disordered rock salt cathode.
But here's the thing, they want to integrate it with their polyanions, which, as you know, are dubbed the disordered roxopolyanic spinal, or as I like to call them, the DRXPS.
And as you know, that delivers the high energy density rock or high voltage with significantly improved cycle stability.
And I think we all want that.
Now that's one study.
But there's also another one.
Well, this is exciting.
According to Yahoo Tech, there's a big game Game-changing approach and they're gonna use homogenous cathode What?
Yeah, they're gonna tinker with the cathode until they can get solid-state power back life cycles and Other things I don't understand Something coming out of a Chinese research, but then according to Tech Explorer, there's another solid-state electrolyte advance Oh, wow, and they're gonna use polymers to make a strong yet springy thin film And, uh, you can have these durable sheets of solid state electrolytes.
Wow.
Wow.
So you don't have to understand any of that.
Just understand that the battery technology world is going crazy right now.
Crazy.
All right.
I finally understand what's the big deal about this Telegram app, Telegram app, uh, and why the CEO got picked up.
Now remember I told you we will never understand the real reason behind anything.
But there's at least one that's obvious.
At least now.
It wasn't obvious until someone told me.
So apparently if you're in a battle, like a war, like let's say Ukraine against Russia, one of the things that would be really important to winning the war, especially a long ongoing kind of affair, is how well your team can communicate without getting intercepted.
So you want to be able to quickly talk to your own team if you're in a war, but you don't want the other team to be able to intercept your stuff.
Well, it turns out that the Russians, the government was concerned, the military was, that the Ukrainians could already hack their regular military communications, which would, you know, be encrypted, but might be hackable.
So what was the, and is, the Russian military using Instead of their normal encrypted military app Well, it turns out that the only thing they trusted was the telegram app That's right.
The soldiers who were actually in the thick of battle Didn't have a better option than opening their phone and using the app To say, um, you know, you should target this or you should get some supplies over here or get some reinforcements over here So
If NATO could get a hold of a backdoor, hypothetically, into the Telegram app, they would have all the communications of the Russian military, and it doesn't look like the Russian military had a really good second option.
So there's a possibility that Ukraine could win the war if NATO controlled the Telegram app without Russia knowing they controlled it.
In other words, if we had it, if we had, we meaning NATO, if we had a backdoor, but Russia didn't know it, so they kept using it, Ukraine would know everything they're going to do before they do it.
Now, I'm exaggerating, you know, I'm sure they have other ways to communicate.
But according to the Wall Street Journal, it was like the main way they were communicating was through telegram.
Because it was owned by, or at least it was housed in the UAE, which has a good relationship with Russia.
So the Russians were thinking, well, we can't use WhatsApp because the Americans are going to be all over that.
So that was the one they trusted.
So allow me to make a prediction.
You ready for the prediction?
The prediction will be that at some point the CEO will be released And you will be under the impression that he didn't give up anything.
You see where I'm going with this?
In order for NATO to have a backdoor that's useful, they've got to act like they don't have a backdoor.
So they got to keep this guy in peril until the peril forces him to give them a backdoor.
And then they got to make sure that nobody knows anything happened.
So that they can use it to find out what the Russian military is going to do before they do it.
So the most likely outcome, if you accept these as facts, which, you know, is always a question.
Everything has a little bit of skepticism that should be naturally applied.
But I'm going to predict that we will be told that nobody got access to the Telegram app Yes, he was in lots of trouble, but he's a brave guy and he resisted all that trouble.
And life will go on.
And then suddenly there'll be a string of defeats on the Russian military.
And people will say, hey, it's like the Ukrainians know what we're going to do before we do it.
I think that might be coming.
We'll see.
Quinnipiac, the research company, they did a poll and said, That 20% of likely black voters say they would vote for Trump.
Does that seem low to you?
That seems low.
That does not match observation.
Because I've seen just tons of black citizens on TV being asked who they support.
And you've seen it both from right-leaning entities and left.
You know, even Don Lemon doing his interviews.
It sure looks like a lot more than 20%.
Or is it just that people are willing to do the interview, maybe have a certain perspective, and people who are not willing to do the interview maybe add another one?
So that, you know, you have to wonder if the street interviews are really representative.
They might not be representative.
I mean, there's a reason you do polls instead of just talking to people on the street.
Because one's not reliable.
But, as I often say, one of my BS filters, to figure out what's BS, is if your direct observation doesn't match the science.
It doesn't mean your direct observation is right, but it certainly should be room for skepticism.
So my skepticism is, 20% sounds low.
Based on observation, which is not reliable, but it should be noted that they're out of whack.
All I'm saying is they don't agree.
One of them might be right.
No way to know.
Feels low to me.
All right.
Trump has come out strong in favor of IVF, in vitro fertilization, and he says that either the government or the insurance companies should be forced to pay for it, because we basically need more Americans.
We need more babies.
Now, this is brilliant in my opinion.
I think it's brilliant, because he's fighting against the, you're going to take my bodily autonomy and You know, of course the Harris campaign acts like he didn't say it and he doesn't mean it and he's gonna lie and everything will change.
No, I think he means this.
I think he completely means it.
I think he 100% is in favor of people having babies and using a little science to help it out and making sure that America can, you know, create its own citizens.
I think he's completely down for this.
My take on this is that it's 100% genuine, his actual opinion, and that he would really follow through with it.
So that is a perfect response to the criticisms in that area.
On top of that, there's some Florida bill.
I don't know the details, but some abortion-related thing.
And Trump was asked how he'd vote just as a citizen of Florida, I guess.
And Trump reminds us that he'd always been against limiting abortions to under six weeks.
So I guess that's the current law in Florida.
And he said he would be voting for whatever, you know, something that's longer than six weeks.
He thinks he called that a terrible mistake when it happened in 2023.
Now, here's my question.
How are you going to get young people to live in Florida if your abortion thing has a six-week limit on it?
Now, if you're new to me, I do not give you opinions on abortion.
I think women need to work it out, they should take the lead, and though I don't abdicate, I don't give away my vote, it's just that I think women should be the lead on that, just as I think in some other domains men should take the lead, such as circumcision, stuff like that.
So you're not seeing my opinion, I'm just talking about the topic.
How does Florida survive in the long run?
Because Florida is going to get lots of senior citizens who don't care one way or the other about abortion, which they have.
I mean, it's a retirement place.
But can you survive if you don't have lots of young people who are willing to live there and stay there and move there?
It'd be kind of hard to have a high-tech environment if you had abortion laws that were at least to maybe 60% of the tech workers look like a place you'd never live.
Oh, I can't live there.
So, here would be the test.
The test would be whether Florida is forced, for their own demographic reasons, to loosen up on this and get a little bit closer to what young people want.
Because I don't think this is what young people want.
Obviously it's, you know, the left and the right have different opinions.
But I would think there are probably two-thirds of young people, at least, would want a more, let's say, a more forgiving set of laws.
So my question is, can Florida even survive as a state?
And again, it's not an opinion on abortion.
I'm just doing a prediction.
What happens if you discourage 60% of your tech workers from living there in the long run?
It feels disastrous in the long run, but we're not talking about the ethics of it, right?
You might prefer it, but economically it looks like a disaster in the long run.
All right, let's talk about CNN had their big conversation with Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.
Here are my takeaways.
She looked uncomfortable.
She did not appear like a smart person.
I think she would be the dumbest, maybe the dumbest candidate that the Democrats have run for president in my lifetime.
Would you agree with that?
Now Biden was, you know, before he was dementia riddled, you know, he was certainly not the brightest light, but I feel like he chose a vice president who was obviously, you know, less good than he was.
And sure enough, she seems to be the lowest intelligence candidate we've seen.
So just, just think about how smart some of their past candidates have been.
Obama, no matter what you think about him, brilliant guy.
That's my opinion.
Brilliant guy.
Even if he hated everything he did.
Bill Clinton?
Brilliant.
Even if he hated him.
Al Gore, almost.
Brilliant.
Smart guy.
Even if he hated everything he's doing.
These are really smart people.
Jimmy Carter?
Terrible president.
Smart guy.
Very smart guy.
So, I think the Democrats have given up on smart.
Like that didn't matter.
Now, Vivek?
Ramaswamy had a comment about it.
He said, Kamala's interview last night was a reminder that we're not running against a candidate.
We're running against the system.
They require a candidate they can control, which means having original ideas is a disqualification.
That's why we get Biden and then Kamala Harris.
Is that why?
That hypothesis is pretty strong.
That the system wants to do what the system wants to do, and that requires a weak candidate so they can control it.
But why did they have such smart candidates before?
Is this so different than the past, that they could have a Jimmy Carter and a Bill Clinton and an Obama, and they could be strong and brilliant, and the system was okay with them?
Or was it?
Is it you have to be either dumb or easily blackmailed?
Is that it?
So you have a choice?
Well, you can either be dumb so we can manage you or you have to be easily blackmailed so we can manage you.
Either way.
Yeah.
All right.
So I saw somebody use the word lightweight that Kamala Harris didn't even sort of look presidential.
She looked lightweight.
That was exactly the word I was going to use.
I was gonna say lightweight, but I saw somebody else use it, so that made me feel smart.
Like, oh, okay.
They saw the same thing.
So she didn't look bright.
She didn't look comfortable.
She looked kind of lightweight.
She had a little word salad problem.
Quote, the climate crisis is real.
That is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time.
That's a lot of nothing right there.
That's a whole bunch of nothing.
So it looked to me like she had the questions in advance.
Now, I don't have proof of that, but I'll tell you what made me think she had the questions in advance.
There was one point where she would look down and she would be using her fingers to say points like, you know, this point, this point, this point.
I think that's a memory device.
For somebody who knew the question was coming and had said, all right, if you get this question, say these four things.
And so she was actually counting them off on her fingers with their physical fingers, like she was trying to recall them from memory.
So it didn't look like somebody who had her own opinions and could easily speak to her preferences.
It looked like somebody had to memorize the test.
That's not a good look, but I'll tell you the real tell.
The real tell was, uh, Harris was asked a question that involved a little girl that I think was her grandniece or something.
And she was watching Kamala Harris accept the nomination in a historic, you know, female, person of color way.
And the idea is that the iconic photo captured a young person of color and female being inspired by Kamala Harris.
So she was asked about this, which is the ultimate softball question.
They only had 18 minutes that they showed.
Imagine out of the 18 minutes that one of the questions should be about somebody's photograph.
But, to her credit, Kamala Harris did not say, Oh yes, you know, it was a special day for us, blah, blah, blah.
Without first saying, and here's the part that tells me she was prepared for that specific question.
She said, when I ran for president, I ran to be the president for all people.
And I said, that is a suspiciously good way to start the answer to that question.
Not just good, it's perfect.
You know, you can talk all day long about how, you know, there's something special about the situation, and it won't bother me at all if you start that way.
I ran to be the president of all the people.
I go, okay, well now you can call out that there's also a special interest in it.
But if you start with a special interest, I'm not even going to hear you if later you add in, but I'm really the president of all the people.
I'd be, well, why'd you start with a special part first?
Like, sounds like you care about that more than you care about, you know, just doing the job.
So to me, that sounded like she was well prepared for that specific question.
Was she actually told the questions in advance?
I don't know.
There was also the question she was asked about, uh, Trump's comments about whether she was really black or had always identified as black, you know, the real red meat.
Let's get into this.
And, you know, certainly it's a place that she wins some points.
And instead she did an uncomfortable smile and said, next question, and refused to deal on the, the sort of personal racial part of it.
Now, is that because, She was prepared for the question.
She sure looked prepared for the question to me.
But that doesn't mean that she was given the questions in advance.
Because you could pretty well guess what the questions might be.
Anyway, she did her best to avoid questions that were good to avoid and avoid really a whole bunch of stuff.
So it was basically her stump speech.
A lot of memorized stuff that you could tell was memorized because she was looking down.
So she did a lot of looking down.
Like her eyes were down toward the table, but there was nothing there.
Or was there?
Is it possible that the wide shots showed the table with nothing on it?
But is it possible that when they did the close-ups where you could see her from the chest up, that there actually was a piece of paper down there?
Is it possible that, you know, since there was an edited event, Is it possible she had notes?
I also saw a part where, uh, if you replay it you'll see, maybe in the first third or so of it, there was a point where she started to say an answer and then she did a hand gesture toward Tim Walz that was sort of the, you know, don't jump in hand gesture.
It was like she was giving him the, you know, stand down hand gesture.
That didn't make any sense.
Unless there was an edit we didn't know about.
Did he say something that got edited out?
Because it was out of context that she was waving him off when he wasn't doing anything.
He wasn't even in the picture.
He wasn't even in the frame.
So what was that?
I mean, it suggests there was an edit there, but I can't know for sure.
Maybe she expected him to jump in and she was... I don't know.
I don't even know what that was about.
She also had what I call liar eyes.
So most of the time she was looking down and her eyes were in a normal mode.
So they were either a little bit closed or they were looking down.
But every once in a while she had the big lie.
I was watching in the man cave last night pointing out the big lies.
Her eyes would widen and then the little lines would form on her forehead when she's doing the thing that she knows you're not going to believe.
But if she says it with her eyes wide open, you might.
Because look how honest I am with my eyes wide open.
It's called Liar Face.
If you play it back with the sound off and then you find the Liar Face, then turn the sound back on and find out what she was saying at that moment.
Once you learn to spot Liar Face, it's hilarious because the politicians use it all the time.
It's just so, so obvious when you're trying to sell you something they know you're not believing because you shouldn't.
All right, what else?
The physical arrangement of the people at the table has been questioned reasonably, because they had Walsh on one end of the table, opposite from Dana Bash, and then Kamala was between them on the far side of the table.
Now, because of the dimensions of the perspective of the shot, plus the fact that Walsh is just a bigger human being than she is, he looked huge.
And in charge.
If you were just looking at the pictures, you'd think it would be an interview with him and his secretary came along to take some notes.
Sexist?
Yes, because the country is sexist.
We're, you know, so it's worth mentioning.
It's not my opinion.
It's, it's just what one imagines people are going to think in their little sexist brains.
So she was tiny and uh, Looked unimportant, just visually.
And the visuals are kind of a big deal.
She also made all kinds of weird, funny faces.
When Walsh was talking, she wanted to show how proud and smiley she was.
So she does the, I ate a lemon, but I enjoyed it face.
You know, I'm doing it now.
If you're just listening, you're missing the best part of the show.
Yeah.
I ate a lemon, but I'm really happy about it.
Nailed it, nailed it.
You're laughing at home, I can tell.
Let's see, yeah, she basically voided most questions.
When Tim Walz was interviewed, you really got the sense that there was no reason for him to be there.
I felt CNN was slapping him down, because they didn't ask, or it didn't make the final edit, anything about policy.
They asked him about his son's reaction at the convention to his speech.
Okay, interesting human story, but you only had 18 minutes.
You only had 18 minutes.
That wasn't in the top hundred of anybody's interest.
Then she asked about the stolen valor, especially the part where he had used some words that indicated he'd been in a war zone, but he had not been in a shooting war zone.
He wasn't physically in a war zone.
And his defense was, well, you know, somebody points out, you know, my grammar isn't perfect sometimes.
So he kind of made it sound like it was just a poor word choice and then moved on.
But because this was not any kind of a real news event, this was just a puff piece, he was asked no follow-up questions.
Harris was asked no follow-up questions.
Or actually she was, on the question of whether she had changed her opinions on things.
Because fracking, for example, she changed.
And even Daniel Dale came on and fact-checked her as lying about her fracking opinions.
Because she said, I clearly said in 2020, That I was, you know, okay with fracking.
And then Daniel Dale checked and said, nope, you never said that in 2020.
You did say that your boss, Joe Biden, was in favor of fracking.
That's different.
So the only record we have of her in the past is she's a hundred percent against fracking.
Later, she said Biden's in favor of it and he's not going to change.
And then she said, well, I told you that, you know, I changed a while ago.
Just not true.
Not true.
Anyway, oh, I would compliment Ahiris just to get back to that thing where she said next question about the black identity thing.
I do think that that was a good way to handle it, because I don't think that issue worked in her favor.
If that issue worked in her favor, she would have certainly brought it up and wanted to talk about it.
But I think that the more she talks about the question of, is she black, the more black citizens catch it.
And they go, wait a minute.
Wait, what?
You're not?
Oh, I thought you were 100% black.
Now, do black voters care about her identity being, you know, as black as the blackest you could be versus living a life as a black woman?
And my guess is probably some do.
You know, if the entire game is identity politics, and it has been for years, if that's their game, doesn't it matter if you got the identity right?
That feels important.
If you're going to play identity politics, you can't make up your identity.
So my take on this is that I'm not the person who gets to say whether somebody is black or not.
But what I observe is that there's nobody like her.
She's the only one.
I would love to see her say that.
That would be a strong message, by the way.
Say, you know what?
Instead of saying whether I'm black or Indian or one-quarter black or whatever anybody's saying, how about we agree on this?
There's only one of me.
Bam.
That would be a home run.
It's just that sometimes identity politics works in her favor, so she doesn't want to run from it too hard.
It's better just to skip it.
And let people make up their own minds.
That probably works in her favor.
So I think her advice was good.
They probably advised her to stay away from that.
Also advised her on the picture of the little girl.
So there's two situations where she could have gone identity politics and she ran for both.
Probably, probably well advised.
I liked it.
You know, it felt More like a legitimate candidate for president by avoiding it.
To me, avoiding the identity stuff is, it's got to be number one.
You know, right up there as your most important personal quality is that you're not focused on identity.
And so basically, yet again, she's finding a Trump point of view where that shouldn't have been important.
The fact that Trump brought it up is because they think it's important.
That's what makes it funny.
So, it could be that Trump just ruined identity politics as a good strategy for running for office.
He may have ruined it, forever, just by bringing up the question of, well, maybe aren't you more of an individual?
I'm not sure that you fit into this category everybody else says you fit into.
Just adding some doubt into that, I think was brilliant.
As much as Trump will be forever criticized for bringing up identity and black identity and stuff, things he shouldn't be talking about, you would think?
I thought that worked.
Because it entered, it created the conversation.
It wasn't what he said about it that mattered.
What mattered was you talked about it.
If he could get you to talk about it, well, I think she is.
I think she's not.
I think she's partially.
He wins!
So, avoiding it was her best strategy, yes.
I think.
All right, what else happened?
There were no questions on her taxes, on her tax proposals.
Just imagine that.
The number one thing that everybody says is a horrible idea, you know, her unrealized gains on taxes especially, Didn't even come up.
It's the number one bad thing that she recommends didn't come up.
Or, or did it?
Because we don't know how much got edited out.
Is it possible that since she could have no good answer to that question, especially if there was any follow-up to it, that they just cut it out?
What do you think?
I'm going to double down on my assumption that when there's a lack of transparency, and it's not individuals, it's organizations involved, that I think it's appropriate to assume they edited it out.
Because what would make you think they didn't ask?
How in the world would that not be one of the Top 20 questions.
And you'd probably get to 20 questions if you did talk to him for an hour.
So I don't know how much they talked beyond the 18 minutes.
I'd love to know that.
And then Harris apparently was coached that when she was asked about her flip-flopping, so to speak, on topics, her answer was, my values have not changed.
And I saw somebody smart say, OK, you just gave Trump the kill shot.
Trump wants you to believe that her old socialist views are still in play.
She's just hiding them.
She just said he's right.
Now, she didn't mean to say that.
What she meant to say is, maybe my policies have changed, but they're all coming from the same place, which is absurd.
And stupid and obviously not true.
So it's a stupid thing to say, but it could convince stupid people.
And since most, most of our voters, you know, are stupid, it could work out fine.
But, uh, my values have not changed gives Trump the ultimate weapon, which is show what she said and then play my, my values have not changed.
Then show what she said again on another topic, and then go right back to, my values haven't changed.
You do that on like five different super socialist, stupid ideas she had in the past, and then you make sure that she said today, today, my values haven't changed.
Nobody in the world is going to think that means that she's got different policies than she used to have.
And by the way, as misleading as that might be, It's directionally true.
You know what I mean?
It is directionally true that if you're willing to say over and over again, my values haven't changed, we as voters get to say, well, those other policies were based on those values, were they not?
It seems like you're trying to not answer the question why you changed your mind, which makes it sound like you haven't, which makes it sound like you're some kind of Trojan horse.
You know, once you get inside the gate, Lord knows what happens then.
So, that could actually have taken her out of the race.
Just think about the impact that would have if you saw her dumbass, you know, no fracking, et cetera, followed immediately by, my values have not changed.
There's no way you would think she would have a different policy, even if she does.
Well, here's some other things we learned.
I feel like we learned why she doesn't do debates, or doesn't want to do many, and I think we learned why she doesn't do interviews.
I would rank her performance as poor, and I can't imagine that she would do better on a debate.
So, I guess the reason we haven't seen much of her is exactly why you thought it was.
She's just really bad at this, this being, you know, being a presidential person.
All right.
She, uh, she was asked about, uh, Bidenomics and she said it was good work, which also sounded like a prepared answer.
So as if she knew what the question was going to be, uh, Bidenomics was good work.
Anyway.
So then Daniel Dale came on and did a fact check on her fracking claim, and as I said, showed that she had lied about having said in 2020 that she was in favor of fracking.
Because she didn't.
She only said Biden was in favor.
But is anything missing?
Was there anything that you thought, logically, should have been part of that interview?
And yet it was completely missing.
What was it?
Huh.
Well, how many of you watched any of the DNZ?
You didn't have to watch a lot.
The Democrat National Convention.
You didn't have to watch a lot.
All you had to do was turn it on for a minute and you would hear a hoax.
You'd hear the Project 2025 hoax.
You'd hear the fine people hoax, you'd hear the drinking bleach hoax, you'd hear the suckers and losers hoax.
Now, that was so pervasive during the convention that it was practically the decorations.
It was pretty much every speaker, every time.
So, if any of those things were true, wouldn't that be a question the CNN would want to ask her?
Like, do you believe that these things are true?
Do you believe that Trump called neo-Nazis fine people?
Do you believe that he suggested drinking bleach?
Do you believe that he said in front of a general that soldiers are losers and suckers?
Which is absurd.
And just make her answer those questions.
But instead, not a single Trump hoax was ever mentioned.
So how could it go from The primary message of the entire Democratic National Committee conference, whatever it is, how can it go from the biggest, most important stuff to not worth asking?
Let me tell you how.
Because CNN knows none of it's true.
And they've got a guy who's a fact checker.
And they're going to trot his ass out.
And he's going to have to deal with the fact that all she said was a bunch of hoaxes.
What's he going to do?
So instead, he focuses on fracking because the questions were never asked.
So was any of that ever real?
Because if any of the accusations made by the Democrats during the convention, if any of that were real, CNN would have asked about it.
Because if any of it was real, it really, really matters.
I mean, those are big deals, if they were real, which they weren't.
So, do you have proof that CNN knows these are hoaxes?
Yeah, you do.
Yeah, you do.
I would consider this proof that CNN knows those are hoaxes and doesn't want to say it out loud.
Especially since half of their pundits repeat those hoaxes on the air.
All right.
So CNN making most of the news disappear as if by magic is kind of sweet.
Meanwhile, Harris is back on the campaign trail with a new hoax.
And she says, quote, she just posted this on X, if given the chance, Donald Trump has made it clear he intends to end the Affordable Care Act, taking our country backwards.
We're not going back.
We're going forward.
Well, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
How many of you know what Trump says about it?
Do most of you know what Trump says about it?
Does Trump say he's going to get rid of it?
No!
No.
He says it under one specific context.
He says, we won't change anything unless we can come up with something better.
Better.
What, do you think he's going to come up with something that covers fewer people?
Would that be better?
No!
Is he going to come up with something that costs less?
Well, if he does, who's going to bitch about it?
Are you going to bitch about it?
Oh, he got rid of the Affordable Care Act and replaced it with something that's exactly the same but costs less.
Nobody's going to bitch about that.
So there is no world in which you say, I'm not going to change anything unless we can find a clear way to make it better?
Why would you worry about that?
That's almost a generic statement about what every leader should do about every topic.
Don't change it unless you have something better.
The most basic common sense of all time.
Again, this is Trump running a common sense campaign.
That in so many ways, I don't recognize it as either left or right.
How is that left or right?
Don't you think the people on the left would be equally willing to, you know, change or modify the Affordable Care Act if it were something better?
So it's just a lie, but the newslets are doing it.
Well, The Blaze is reporting that Trump said at a Wisconsin town hall, he was with Tulsi Gabbard, he said, uh, I had the safest border in the history of the country.
Uh, they have the most unsafe border in the history of the world.
And then here's my favorite part.
He says, uh, they had a group of Venezuelan people with lots of machine guns taking over a building.
This is just the beginning.
Now, remember, I tell you that Trump is the master of visual persuasion.
Now, visual persuasion is not just showing you a picture, it's describing a visual image with words as well.
So, if Trump had just said something generic like, there's too much crime coming across the border, you would say, oh, that's a statistic, okay.
But if he tells you that Venezuelan people with machine guns are taking over a building, which is a real thing, by the way, I don't think they're machine guns, I think they just have weapons.
You can see that.
Like, in your mind, the picture forms perfectly.
And it's scary.
Because you see people with machine guns, even though I don't think they had any, but guns, knocking on your door and saying, this is our apartment now, or else you're paying us rent.
That is some scary, scary stuff.
So Trump, again, perfectly visual, perfect description, perfect summary on that topic.
So good.
Did MSNBC like Kamala Harris' performance?
Do I even need to tell you?
Yes, here are the things they said were just masterful, that she decided to make it about the country, not herself.
Did she?
I don't know, just sounded like her stump speech to me.
Somebody named Jeremy Peters on MSNBC, Really?
What was the bringing the country back together part?
I don't recall that at all.
Rather than saying, this is about me, this is who I am, you already have one candidate who's doing that quite well.
That's so just trying hard to write a college essay on an assigned topic.
It really is trying as hard as you can to just use words.
If I combine words in just the right way, this is going to look like a good thing.
It's crazy.
All right, so anyway, so somebody also on MSNBC, Ellie Vitale, talked about her, Kamala Harris, defending her switches and policy preferences.
He said, quote, I thought she was smart to explain her policy positions as not a change in values, not a change in her deep inner mooring, but instead something almost situational in terms of taking in more information.
In other words, MSNBC is adding word salad to her word salad.
I feel like I'm at, what's that restaurant that has infinite salad?
You want a salad?
We'll talk about salad with some more salad.
What does it mean that she's going to keep her values, but instead it's something about situational in terms of taking in more information?
That would be everything.
Everything is situational and we're always taking in more information.
That really doesn't explain anything.
Anyway, they tried hard.
Polling, as you know, is ridiculous at this point.
But the Wall Street Journal says they've got a poll that Harris is up 48 to 47, but if you throw in the third party candidates, why wouldn't you?
She's up two points, but that's within the margin of error.
Nate Silver still says Trump has a 52% chance of winning the Electoral College versus Harris at 47, but that will get Updated soon.
So basically, we don't know anything about anything.
We just know it's close.
All right.
Apparently, CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed somewhere this week that he didn't realize that the $400 million he spent on that whole getting out the vote thing in 2020 primarily benefited one party.
So he's acting surprised.
That his $400 million was spent to make things more biased instead of a more fair election.
$400 million he wasted.
Because what he wanted, he says, is a system that was just a better system for all people.
What he got was he changed the direction of the election toward Biden.
Maybe he wanted that too.
But it wasn't planning to do it.
So here's the thing you didn't know, that the Chan Zuckerberg initiative, so that's where the 400 million was that got spent, it was led by his wife, who gave most of that money to some groups that are so obviously left-leaning that you should have been able to know very easily that you were going to bias the election outcome.
So, let's put this in a little larger context.
Imagine what would have happened if Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg had never gotten married.
Just those three billionaires.
Imagine they'd never gotten married.
Well, if Steve Jobs had never gotten married, then he would not have left his fortune to Lorena, who bought the Atlantic and turned into a Democrat activists and propagandists.
Who is doing a good job at it?
So Steve Jobs, getting married, fought this pretty hard.
How about Jeff Bezos?
Well, his wife got many millions and billions, many billions, and she's spending it to make sure Democrats win.
So if Jeff Bezos had never been married, you wouldn't have that problem.
How about Mark Zuckerberg?
If Mark Zuckerberg had never gotten married, do you think he would have allocated that $400 million the same way his wife did?
I doubt it.
I think no.
There's no way to know, but my instinct is that they're not exactly on the same page.
We've heard him say he regretted the censorship that was pushed on him by the Biden administration, primarily.
And we've heard him say that Trump was the most badass thing when he said, fight, fight, fight.
Now, that doesn't make him a Republican.
But I'll tell you what Zuckerberg does understand.
Business.
He understands business.
Do you think that he thinks that Harris is better for business?
I doubt it.
I doubt it.
In a private moment, I would be amazed if Zuckerberg is really super anti-Trump.
I'd be amazed.
I mean, he might be neutral.
But I'd be amazed if he thinks Trump's gonna be a big ol' problem.
So, if those three billionaires had never gotten married, we wouldn't be in so much trouble.
Do you think there are any other wives that are doing similar things?
Well, interestingly, Trump is benefiting also by the widow of Sheldon Adelson.
Adelson, right?
So there's another case of someone who, she's not the one who made the money, But if Adelson had never been married, there probably wouldn't be somebody there who's funding the Trump campaign.
So, why is it that we designed this system a few hundred years ago, and we thought it was all about, you know, representative government, and turned out to be basically billionaire cocks?
So billionaire cocks, and what they wanted to do with it, is determining our system.
You know, describe the system to your grade school child.
Well, so you got these people who are billionaires.
Got it.
They've got cocks.
Okay.
Most of them.
Most of them do.
And when they want to put them in something, they have to get married because, I don't know, the system kind of requires that.
So, they got these cock holsters.
And then the cock holsters take half the money and leave, or sometimes all the money if somebody dies.
And then the cock holsters become the ones who decide who the next president is.
And then your sixth grader says, what's a cock holster?
And you say, well, maybe you're not ready for this.
We'll get back to you in a few years.
So no, don't talk like that to a sixth grader.
That would be terrible.
I can't even believe you were thinking about it.
That's terrible.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
So, that's the real world.
Billionaire cocks decide who's president.
Indirectly.
Elon Musk warns us that at the current rate of government spending, he says on X, America is in the fast lane to bankruptcy.
And he says government overspending is what causes inflation.
Wow!
Do we want him to be in charge of driving the government?
Imagine what you could do if you took an Elon Musk engineering approach to how much government do we really need and how should it be organized for the most efficiency.
It would look completely different than what we have.
So I don't know how much he could get away with or whether he really will be, you know, Trump's, uh, helper to figure out how to streamline things, but you'd have to take off a massive, a massive part of the government spending, not just the employees.
You know, it's not, it's not really about the employees we're paying.
It's about what the employees want us to pay for other stuff.
So here's my take.
I think that all government borrowing is theft.
Once you know you can't pay it back.
If you know that you're borrowing an amount that you can easily pay back, no problem at all.
That would just be people entering into a transaction they all understood and had mutual benefit.
Yay!
Yay, mutual benefit.
But today, every dollar that the government spends comes out of your pocket with inflation.
So they just write checks and you pay them and you didn't vote for any of it.
All they have to do is not do their job of balancing the budget.
Just not do their job.
And then you get robbed.
So basically inflation is a tax.
They're just doing it by printing money instead of passing a law.
Why can my government take my money without a conversation?
How's that?
How's that coming up?
Well, I mean, I get that the Congress passes the budget, so I guess there is a conversation in that way.
But they need to tell us what that is.
Every time they pass a budget that is, you know, going to add to the debt, what they should say is this budget will cost each of you $10,000 in lost buying power because your dollars will be worth less.
That's what they should say.
But they don't.
They act like it's free.
Like it's free.
Oh, yeah, because we'll pay it back.
We're not going to pay it back.
Let me say this as clearly as possible.
You know that $36 trillion we owe?
We're not paying that back.
I don't know what will happen.
I mean, maybe we'll go full Hitler.
Didn't Hitler just renounce all the debt Germany had?
At one point, he just said, no, we're not paying it back.
And that was actually the key that put Germany on like a very rapid economic improvement.
It was one of the big keys.
Now, unfortunately, they used their economic improvement to fund their military and didn't work out.
I would love to know a little bit more about what happened when Hitler just said, well, how about we're not paying back the rest of the world ever?
So we're just defaulting.
We're going to create our own money.
We'll just act like that never happened.
Somehow that worked, didn't it?
I don't know my history well enough to know if I'm talking crazy.
Am I talking crazy?
How many of you are aware, again, if somebody sees this out of context, they're going to say I'm praising Hitler.
No, I'm not praising Hitler.
I'm simply looking at one historical precedent of debt ignoring and asking you, didn't that work out really well for Germany?
Or is it because they invented their own currency but we wouldn't really be able to do that?
Is there something that would prevent us from doing the same thing?
Now keep in mind, defaulting on your debt to every reasonable person sounds like the worst case scenario.
But it's not, because it's not worse than having a debt you can't pay back.
At least Germany gave itself a chance.
I mean, it squandered its chance by starting a war and the Holocaust.
But I think we're rapidly going to be in a situation where some politician is going to say out loud, we're never paying this back.
And then what happens?
I don't know.
There's some possibility that all we have to do is not pay it back.
Let me say this again.
If you have your money, if you have any of your money in government debt, that was extra money.
Do you know what I'm saying?
I have a lot of investments.
I have a little bit in the state of California of bonds, just a little bit, like maybe 2%.
Now, the 2%, suppose California just said, you know what?
We're not going to pay back any of our bonds.
I'd be like, what?
Are you kidding me?
I put some serious money into those bonds.
But then I would look at my total portfolio and go, oh, well, this is serious money, but it wouldn't change my life if they never paid it back.
I would just go on.
I wouldn't even notice, really.
Now, who exactly are the people who have invested all that money in government instruments?
Who does that?
Well, you don't do that with your important money, do you?
Except very short term to make sure it doesn't disappear.
It's not any kind of a long-term investment that makes sense.
Except as a small part of your portfolio.
So I just have a sort of a curiosity.
Don't assume this is a recommendation.
So let me soften it a little bit.
I'm not saying we should do it.
I just have what I think are reasonable questions.
About what happens if we get to the point where it's just obvious it can't be paid back, and we can't even afford, and we can't afford the interest on it.
If we could afford the interest, we'd probably just keep going, but we're close to not being able to afford the interest.
At some point, we're going to have a choice between two awful choices.
Not paying back the debt, or what?
Just becoming a third-world country with no money?
So, here's what I'm introducing into the system.
You better start thinking about what's going to happen.
Because something's going to happen, and it'll be the biggest thing that's ever happened, not counting wars, I guess.
Yeah, there won't be much bigger that will ever happen than whatever the heck we do with this debt.
It will be really, really big.
Probably we'll be fine.
But whatever it is, it's going to be big.
So get ready for it.
All right.
Still waiting for the first economist to endorse the Harris tax plan.
Has anybody seen it yet?
Has anybody seen MSNBC with an economist, just happened to be a Democrat, saying, oh, this is a good plan, this tax stuff will work out?
I haven't.
Have any of you?
Even one?
Can't find one economist to agree with Harris?
Not one?
How many economists are there in the country, do you think?
20,000.
Depending on how you count them as professional economists.
Now, I'm not talking about people who just have a degree in economics like me.
I'm talking about somebody who's a working economist.
They're getting paid to be an economist.
20,000 of them.
And MSNBC can't find one?
That can go on the air and say, you know what?
You've been looking at this wrong.
If you look at it in a smarter way, this tax plan is great.
Not one?
Not one out of 20,000.
And why is that not a story in its own?
Why isn't the story?
Well, we've got 20,000 professional economists and we don't have one that's willing to come on and say, this is a good idea.
That is a story that you can't get one.
How is that not a story?
We shouldn't even be talking about the tax plan.
we should talk about the fact that there's not one economist out of 20,000 who can come on the air and give you a positive idea about it.
All right. You're following the story of that Brazil judge.
Thank you very much.
Who keeps going after Musk to try to get, he wants to get control of X, basically, to make sure that X can be censored the way Brazil's corrupt government would like to censor it.
And Musk, unlike the other platforms, is resisting, and so the pressure is on him.
And they're going after SpaceX's financial accounts in Brazil.
So basically, SpaceX won't get any more money from Brazil, even though they have all these customers using the satellite Starlink.
So SpaceX owns Starlink.
So Musk says that he's going to keep the service up and just make it free.
So he doesn't have a mechanism to collect money from the people buying Starlink.
But he's not going to turn it off.
And the government can't turn it off because it's just plug in, plug in and go, right?
So that's a pretty baller decision by Musk that he'll just keep it on because he probably assumes that better communication is bad for the government of Brazil and good for him.
And he's right.
So they can harm him financially.
And as he said, Often.
So you're gonna threaten me financially?
Fuck you.
Did he not say that directly?
On a different topic.
So, yeah, and it's smart, it's smart of him to make sure that's his brand.
He's got to be the fuck you brand.
Because otherwise everybody will try to pressure him in every way they can.
He's got enough businesses that there's always some lever they can put on it.
But it gets better.
You ready for the good part?
Two good parts.
Number one, how does the United States government let this pissant judge in Brazil fuck the United States and citizens within it and their companies?
Biden administration, this is one of those situations where you need to be a fucking president of the United States.
This is not about left versus right.
This is Brazil.
The Brazilian government is attacking a U.S.
citizen, very publicly, and some U.S.
companies that I consider quite important.
If the United States can't protect us against this, by threatening the fuck out of Brazil, like we'll surround you with warships and take away your economy, you can't take our freedom of speech indirectly, or even in your own country, if you want to deal with the United States.
What is going on here?
Am I wrong that the role of the United States government largely is to protect U.S.
citizens from outside assault?
This is a completely inappropriate assault by a country that should be one of our, you know, favorite countries.
Totally unacceptable.
This is a complete failure of the U.S.
government.
And this has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican.
This is just an attack.
This is an attack on American business and American citizens.
It's an attack.
And no response.
Not a legal response, not a threat, not a fucking statement.
We should have a real president who stands in front of the country and says, look, here's the deal.
Brazil, we have a lot of levers.
We're going to press them all.
Back off.
And that's not happening.
Not only is it not happening, again, why is that not the story?
The story is not just Musk against a judge in Brazil.
The story is that the government of the United States took a fucking pass.
They're taking a pass.
While an American citizen is being attacked by a foreign entity.
Threatened with jail.
And our government's taken a path?
Too busy with Ukraine?
Too busy at the beach?
Outrageous.
Gets better.
Mike Benz is reminding us.
Well, I didn't know it, so I'm not being reminded.
So I'm hearing it for the first time.
That the U.S.
State Department was very involved in making sure that Brazil had access to voting machines.
Hmm.
Why would the U.S.
be so concerned that Brazil had access to the voting machines?
And apparently the U.S.
intervened with at least two different manufacturers of microchips to make sure that the voting machines for Brazil went higher on the priority so they could get chips for their voting machines.
Hmm.
And then the CIA, according to Mike Benz, And he shows the documents, by the way.
This is not Mike Benz making stuff up.
In his post, he's showing you the actual documents and the current reporting at the time.
So this is just documented.
That the CIA warned Bolsonaro, the last leader of Brazil, not to mess with or cast doubt on the new U.S.
State Department secured voting machines.
So they threatened him not to cast doubt on the voting machines while making sure that they definitely had some voting machines.
Now let me ask the question I've asked many times.
By now you have a good answer for me because I've been asking it for so long and you thought about it and then you researched it and now you have a good answer.
What's the advantage of the voting machines?
Is it because they're more credible?
The public will trust them?
No, no evidence of that.
It's the opposite.
Are they to save money?
No, no evidence that it saves money.
Are they to make things easier?
No, they obviously make it harder.
Is it to get a faster result, so you don't have to wait?
No, probably it's the other way around, or at least as fast.
So why was the United States trying so hard To make sure Brazil had voting machines.
Can you think of a second reason?
Because we can speculate about one potential reason, you know, without evidence.
I don't have any evidence of this, but it looks exactly like the United States tried to install their own leader.
A preferred leader via the mechanism of having voting machines that maybe they had some backdoor to.
I don't know that that's true.
In other words, there's no hard evidence of anything.
So I can't point to any evidence for it.
But why would the United States care so much about another country's voting machines?
So much so that they would get involved.
Can you think of a second reason for that?
I can't.
What would it be?
Is it because we're so kind to other countries that we get really deeply involved in all of their affairs, whether at a political angle or not?
No, we don't do anything like that.
In the comments, Lemon Minty says, voting machines are to make you think voting is real.
Well, I don't know.
I mean, I think a paper ballot with lots of observers would make me think voting was real.
I don't think there's any other reason than the one that you suspect.
Now, but I'll soften that again, because I don't want to get sued.
I'll soften it to say, does anybody have a speculation of what a second reason could be?
I can't think of any.
I have a pretty good imagination.
I can't even imagine a second reason.
Can you?
I mean, honestly, can you think of any reason that the U.S.
would be so incentivized, especially the CIA, to make sure we got those American-driven machines in there?
But I remind you, our elections are pristine.
Nothing to worry about in our elections, because it's not like we've seen any bad behavior anywhere.
So our elections are fine.
They're fine, everybody.
They're fine.
All right.
Two AI companies, OpenAI and Anthropic, they've reached some kind of AI safety agreement with the US government.
And what it involves, I don't know what else it involves, but Key to this is that the government would have access to the models, presumably before the public did, so that they could test them and look for AI problems.
So, do you feel better that there's an effort to have a regulatory body that will be overseeing AI?
I was worried for a moment that there wouldn't be a regulatory body.
Regulating AI.
Now, let's leave that world of imagination and go to the real one, shall we?
In the real world, we know that the time it will take for the AI industry to totally own the regulators would be... now.
Yeah, I think we're probably already there.
How hard would it be for the AI industries to Totally own the regulators.
Well, let's think it through.
If somebody's job for the government is to check on the AI and tell you if it's safe, they know what the company wants, and they know maybe what the government would want.
So suppose they know that the company would want them to not clamp down on that thing.
And then suppose they get their paycheck from the government, And they open it up and they go, huh, well, it's not bad, but I'll bet you open AI would pay about three times this.
Should I be ever interested in increasing my exposure to the AI field of which I'm already in, but I'm working for the government, which would be the very cheapest, worst place you could ever work on AI.
Now, suppose you have a, have lunch with one of these regulators and you're from one of the AI companies.
What do you have to say to them to get them to do what you want instead of actually regulating you?
Well, you don't say, if you regulate me right, I'll give you a job later and you'll make a lot of money.
No, don't need to.
You just say, so, uh, halfway through lunch, you say, so, uh, what's your plans?
You plan to stay with the government and just work on this AI regulation?
Uh-huh.
You know, we're always looking for people.
So, if at some point you get tired of the regulatory thing, here's my card.
You don't have to actually offer them a job.
You just have to remind them that if they ever wanted to make twice as much money, it would be real easy.
They just gotta go light on the regulations.
Now, in the real world, does stuff like that happen?
Yes!
Yes, that's the real world.
So, in the beginning, you might get some regulators who are kind of tough on the companies, but I wouldn't even trust them, because they would be government regulators, so I'm not even sure that's a good thing.
They wouldn't know what danger looked like.
And I don't think AI regulation, regulating will be any better than any other regulating.
So, it's not going to save the world.
But it might be a way for some people to make some money.
All right, here's some science you might like just because it's good news.
There's an ultrasound device.
The University of Utah was testing it.
Apparently it makes your pain go away almost instantly.
So it's just like miraculous.
So they just use ultrasound at the right frequencies and your pain just goes boop, turns off.
I saw Brian Ramelli in a post just yesterday, and it wasn't about this.
But just separately, he was saying that science already knows for sure that certain sound frequencies will cancel pain.
And I read the post, and I like to repost a lot of Brian Ramelli's content, because he's great, especially with the AI stuff.
And I thought to myself, I'm not sure I believe that.
Like, I was a little skeptical that science knows how to turn off pain with, you know, just three frequencies or something.
But here it is.
There's an actual study in which they're using frequencies to turn off pain.
I don't know if it's the same thing that Brian was talking about, but now I have two sources that are strongly indicative that it's worth doing some research on.
Here's another thing.
How many of you suffer from regret?
How many of you have the feeling, oh, I regret that thing I did?
Do you ever feel that?
Because I don't feel it.
Clearly, I've done things that didn't work out.
But I've never had any sensation that I could identify as a feeling of regret as an adult.
As a young person, I think I did.
Yeah, I'd be like, oh, why did I do that?
Why did I ask Gina maybe if she wanted to dance?
And she told me she didn't want to and it ruined my night and I felt bad for two years.
I regret asking her to dance.
But as an adult?
Nope.
Yeah, and I got canceled.
Yeah, about as hard as you can get canceled a year and a half ago.
And people ask me if I regret it.
And I'm actually confused by the question.
Regret?
What is that?
Why would I even have that?
What's the function of it?
It's like I don't understand it.
But there's a study that explains why I have that feeling, that it doesn't bother me at all as an adult, and also why it did when I was younger.
And it's called the gambling Framework so phys.org Talks about this.
I guess there's some science.
They did had some participants and If people thought about a specific decision and of context They might have regret But if people thought in a portfolio manner That there are lots of things they did in the past some work and some don't and that's the way the world is supposed to work Cause we all know that you don't sign up to do everything right.
Nobody thinks that.
Everybody knows your life is a series of wins and losses.
And so if you see it as a portfolio, just like the way I would invest, you know, I'll buy an index fund.
So I'm diversified.
So if your life is likewise diversified, you did a bunch of things, some worked, some didn't, then you don't see it as regret.
The same reason when I look at my index fund, I don't feel any regret if some members of the index fund went down, as long as the average went up over time.
It doesn't even occur to me that I should have a feeling about regret if one of the stocks of my 500 stocks in the index went down.
So that's how I see my life.
I can certainly say, you know, doing this thing led to a bad result, but I never regret it.
It just doesn't come up.
It's never part of my thinking whatsoever.
So if you have anything that you recognize as regret, the reframe is look at your life as a portfolio of decisions, some good, some bad, but if your average worked out, you nailed it.
If your average of decisions worked out, you're doing better than you used to be.
Let's say you're taking care of yourself and maybe some other people.
You nailed it.
Regret?
Forget it.
Well, there's also, the Guardian reports, a mask that can detect all kinds of diseases from your breath.
And it's a pretty big range of diseases.
So that's some research from the California Institute of Technology, Professor Y. Gao.
And you'd have to use a different mask so far for different things you're testing.
But here's the question I have.
Do you have to wear a mask all day?
Are you telling me that there's not like a breathalyzer that's a better model?
Can't I just have a breathalyzer and blow into it and that tells me if I have a disease?
I don't need to wear the mask all day, do I?
So I don't really understand the mask part.
But they'll be able to diagnose diseases from your breath, which is kind of cool.
All right, those are the stories I had for you today.
I've talked way too long.
It's time for you to get to your Friday.
So I'm going to talk a little bit to the subscribers and locals, but the rest of you, thank you for joining, and I will see you again tomorrow, same time, same place.
