Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Grok Image Generation, X News Coverage, AI Doctors, Micro Nuclear Reactors, China Financial Trouble, CNN Questionable Prisoner Discovery, President Trump's Favorability Rating, Merit vs Identity Politics, 1st Time Trump Voters, RFK Jr. democrats, President Trump's Pirate Ship Success, SoftBank's America Investment, Mystery Drones, Adam Kinzinger Drone Explanation, Anti-Drone Psyop Theory, Governor Whitmer, Sean Spicer's Firing Precedent, 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. everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams because it's the best thing that ever happened to you.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a tanker, chelsea, wait, no, you need a cup of mug or a glass of tanker, chelsea, stein, a canteen, drink, 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 of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including Mondays, is called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Oh, so good.
Well, I have to start by saying that last night in the man cave that I do just for the subscribers to locals, we discovered that you can...
Make pictures of public figures using Grok, their new image generator.
And you could have those public figures appear to be very interested in each other.
Now, it's not going to do porn, but if you'd like to see a public figure making out with another public figure, apparently you can do that.
Because people were sending me a lot of images of me making out with Michelle Obama and a few other people.
So after that was done, I said to myself, huh, I wonder how well this works.
So I started putting in the images of myself and other beautiful, famous women just to see.
No, it doesn't do anything that's beyond PG. It's all PG rated, or maybe G. But it is weirdly fascinating to see how just picture perfect I can do of myself with another person I've never met in person.
It is scary.
So let me tell you.
Yeah, let me tell you the future is going to be Wild.
Meanwhile, the X app is the number one news app at the moment.
Imagine being the one that the news wants to kill, and he becomes the number one news app.
I like that.
But the problem is, as others have pointed out, isn't X only the number one news app because it's where people go to make fun of all the news?
If all the mainstream news went away tomorrow...
There wouldn't be anything to talk about on X. X wouldn't have anything.
It would just be independent people who look at the mainstream news and decide how true it is.
But if we didn't have any, there wouldn't be much to talk about.
According to the New England Journal of Medicine, if you're using AI as your doctor, it could have even worse cognitive biases than human doctors.
So they did a test, and they found that depending on how you prime the AI, what question you ask, you might get a response that's a little biased, even more biased than a human doctor.
So, well, AI seems to be an amazing thing for knowing what question to ask your doctor.
It's really good for that, by the way.
I don't think the doctors love it, but if you want to just know if you're asking the right questions and did you leave anything out, Talk to AI before you have your doctor appointment.
It really makes a difference.
It's great.
It doesn't have all the exact answers yet, but it certainly is a good way to check that you've covered all your bases.
According to the new Atlas publication, Chronic pain can be lowered by better quality diet, regardless of body weight.
So if you improve your diet, so you're not eating junk food, junk food, junk food, apparently, it makes your pain go less.
Now, I have to admit, that's not one I would have known if you had just asked Scott.
But it makes sense because a good diet will give you less full body inflammation.
And you would think that pain would be quite related to inflammation.
Depends on the pain, but mostly.
So yeah, apparently eating well makes you feel good.
Surprise.
There's a study in Yahoo Finance that older workers are the happiest workers.
You know why that makes sense?
The older workers are the happiest workers?
Because after a certain age, you're just delighted that you have a job at all.
If you're over 65 and you have any kind of a job, you're probably delighted.
Turns out a lot of people at that age don't even need the job.
It's just the only way they can have a social connection.
So they love just having their social connection.
And hey, a little extra money doesn't hurt.
So that doesn't surprise me.
But what's interesting about worker happiness is that workers are happiest when they're youngest and when they're oldest.
People are the least happy in the primer of their life.
So during those child-raising years, not so good at all.
Nope, not so good.
So before you have children, pretty happy.
After your children have moved out of the house, pretty happy.
But raising children, turns out it's hard to be happy.
There's a different kind of happiness, though, when kids are in your life, which most of you have experienced.
You have this funny experience where if you just took any parent and you say, hey, excuse me, are you a parent?
Well, yes, I've got a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old.
And you say, well, how is the quality of your day today?
They'd say, well...
Not great.
I gotta drive this kid all over, and one of them's sick, so I think I got their cold, and, you know, way too many things to do, and I've got to work late, but I also have to go to my kid's game.
It's a nightmare.
But if we ask them, are you happy?
They would say, oh yeah, I'm really happy.
So during the middle of your life, if you have kids in your life, You would find that people will self-identify as happy because they're really glad they have kids and they have meaning and they have something important in their lives.
But it's really hard.
So the reason I'm talking about this is that we have this decline in birth rate.
And the biggest reason there's a decline in birth rate, in my opinion, is it's just too damn hard to be a parent.
Now, I've been just a step-parent, which usually is easier, but I can tell you if I did not, if I hadn't entered that when I'd already made money so that I could afford things like, you know, somebody has to watch somebody or, you know, basically money makes everything easier, obviously.
But if I didn't have money and I tried to have kids or stepkids, it looks really hard.
It looks really hard.
We need to make it easier to be a parent.
I guess that's my bottom line there.
According to Global Newswire, nanonuclear energy and DGOS technology are going to get together to make a micro-reactor.
In upstate New York, you'll have 16 milliwatts of power.
Now, this is only interesting because the trend for micro nuclear reactors, which I and all the smart people think are going to be the future.
And at the same time, just more to that point, the Palantir CTO... He is saying that our fleet of ships, seagoing ships, should be powered by nukes and that it would lower inflation.
Now there's an idea.
Imagine if the only thing we did was authorize and approve and build Shipping container.
What would you call it?
The big ships that have containers on.
If you turn those into micro-nuclear, the way our nuclear submarines already work, if we already have the technology and it's been working forever on nuclear submarines, would it be that much harder to put it on a tanker?
I'd worry more about pirates then, but I suppose that's not the biggest problem in the world.
According to Unusual Whales and Fortune Magazine first reported, 55% of hiring managers notice employees juggling side gigs during work hours.
55% of your employees are doing a second job while they're on your clock.
55%.
Now, that was always true.
You always had people doing side gigs, but...
55%?
The character Wally in the Dilbert comic was patterned on one of my co-workers.
Who used to sit in the cubicle behind me, and he would run a second business from his cubicle.
His first business was, you know, whatever the job was.
But he'd made a mistake with some confidential information.
And they said, well, we're not going to fire you because you've been a good employee except for this one mistake, but we can never promote you.
So he had a job where he could never be promoted, and he was a young man.
So instead of doing his job and trying as hard as he could, he just started a second business, and he just ran his second business from his cubicle.
He was doing lighting and sound.
I think it was mostly sound for big outdoor events.
So I'd hear him answer the phone under the name of his other company.
That's the funny part, answering the phone as the other company.
Anyway.
Yeah, that's a pretty big problem.
I don't know how you would manage an employee without assuming that they have a second job.
Kyle Bass, who knows a lot about investing, he follows China.
He says, China's economy is experiencing its largest financial collapse since 2002. So bond yields are down and banks are, he says insolvent, leverage that 350% of reported GDP. Now I saw in the comments somebody saying that that might be a little bit alarmist and that China is a centralized economy and they have lots of tools that they can make sure their banks don't fail, stuff like that.
So they're probably not, you know, it's not like they're minutes from falling off the edge of the earth or anything.
But one more indication that China is not thriving.
There's an alarming report at the New York Young Republicans Club.
I guess a young advisor to President Trump, a 27-year-old named Alex Brusewitz, I'd never heard of, but he has apparently a good reputation.
People said good things about him.
But he was speaking on stage, and he just started slurring his words as if maybe a stroke.
And then he just collapsed and dragged down the whole lectern.
So I guess he came around backstage.
And he was, you know, alert and seemed okay.
But then, reportedly, he passed out again in the hospital, running away to the hospital.
So, we don't know what's wrong with young Alex Bruzewicz, but...
A lot of Republicans seem to like him, and we wish him the best.
So keep an eye on that.
Yeah, some are saying it was dehydration.
I don't know.
Does dehydration cause you to slur your words?
Maybe.
I don't know.
Well, CNN's getting some heat.
You know, I saw this story, and I kind of passed by it the first time.
So I remember seeing the video of CNN apparently being there when one of the notorious Syrian prisons was being liberated after the rebels took over from the government.
And it showed one particular Syrian prisoner who was being freed.
And I remember people saying that he didn't look like he was a real prisoner because he didn't look like he was, you know, damaged enough by the time in prison.
And now we find out that the alleged prisoner was actually one of the prison's notorious torturers.
So he worked for the government.
He wasn't a prisoner.
He was apparently pretending to be a prisoner for the benefit of CNN's cameras.
And so he just acted like he was being discovered in a prison.
Did that really happen?
It makes me wonder if the story that is fake news is entirely fake.
Do we know he wasn't just recently put in that prison?
I don't know.
I don't know.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
Uh, Did you know, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal, that people will change their spending habits based on whether their party is in power and won the election?
So when Democrats win the national election, they spend more because they feel more optimistic.
And same with Republicans.
So at the moment, Republicans are looking at more big-ticket stuff like cars and houses because they have optimism about Trump.
And I have two comments about the Democrats.
Number one, it's going to be tough to be a Democrat for a few more years because they hated it the first time Trump was president.
They're probably not going to like it that much better this time.
But I wonder, does this make Democrats undateable for four years?
I wasn't planning to date one, but if you're so unhappy that you're changing your spending habits, and they do seem to have genuine mental distress over this, Imagine if you're in the dating pool.
It seems like dating anybody who's a Democrat would be a bad deal right now because they're all going to be unhappy and bitching about stuff.
If you were to date a Republican, hey, how's it going, Republican?
Great.
Looks like the golden age has kicked off.
Got any problems?
None really that's worth mentioning.
Everything seems to be going great.
Have you caught the vibe?
The vibe is all positive.
A lot of unity going on.
Hey, Democrat, how are you doing?
Well, it's the end of democracy.
It hasn't happened yet, but any moment now, the big old orange monster will be stealing our democracy and our bodily autonomy, and we're all doomed.
We're all doomed.
So I'm going to say maybe a little less dating of Democrats for four years.
So, Trump, for the first time ever, his favorability ratings are higher than his unfavorability ratings, according to RCP average.
Daily Wire is talking about this.
The first time.
So, did you know that never before has he had more people favorable than unfavorable?
And you might ask yourself, why is that?
What is he doing right?
And the answer is everything.
As I said before, he ran the greatest campaign.
Even the people on the losing end are saying consistently, okay, the Republicans were really smart.
Trump ran a great campaign.
Okay, what he did was smart.
And it's just one after another.
The people on the losing end are saying, yep, They just did better.
He was smarter.
Van Jones is saying it.
I've seen Jessica Tarloff saying that it was brilliant to ship the migrants to the blue cities.
So even the Democrats are noticing that the side that looks for merit instead of identity did way better.
Let me say it again.
The team that says merit should be the thing you look at outperformed the team that says identity should be the thing you look at.
What did they think was going to happen?
As I've said before, DEI destroys everything it touches, and it destroys the fastest and hardest Whatever DEI touches soonest and most aggressively, and that would be the Democrats.
The entire Democrat Party was soon, you know, they were fast on the DEI, and most aggressive, because people are watching, and it's completely destroyed, just as the theory would suggest.
But I saw a podcast that looked like a Democrat pollster who was doing some focus groups.
And what the focus groups were saying, and that it was a focus group of people who had been non-Trump supporters, usually Democrats, and had voted for him for the first time.
So they didn't vote for him in the first two elections, but this time they did.
And so the question is, why now?
Why would you change your mind now?
And do you know why?
The reason is not surprising, but it was kind of encouraging.
Here's the reason that Democrats, at least as a focus group, so it's not a scientific poll, but several people said the same thing, which is meaningful to me, that they were a little unsure about Trump still, but they liked that he picked RFK Jr. So RFK Jr. did move votes because his credibility was And people liked his topic, especially the food and making sure our drugs are safer.
So RFK Jr.'s message was so strong and he was so credible that when he said, you know what, I can work with Trump as long as I can get my stuff done and then Trump helps him get his stuff done.
People love that.
And I love it too.
Because one of my biggest issues was our food supply, and I didn't see anything that was going to be done by just Republicans.
So you throw RFK Jr. in there, and I'm like, whoa.
You suddenly went from most of the things I like, but not even my top issue.
Didn't even get my top issue.
My number one issue.
But now they got it.
Now they got my top issue, food.
And they got all the other issues, too.
So you throw that in there, you throw in Elon Musk, and basically the argument is that Trump assembled the Democrats of the 1990s, because even Trump was a Democrat in the 90s.
So, yeah, between David Sachs and Tulsi Gabbard and Bill Ackman, he's not on the team, but he's switched sides.
Joe Rogan, switched sides, not on the team.
But yeah, it looks like this pirate ship idea of bringing people from more than one group together is having a modeling effect on the public.
So when the public sees that these public figures can work together, being as diametrically opposed as you could possibly be in general, but when they add something they both agree on, they could work together.
That is really unifying.
That's as unifying as you could possibly get.
I don't want everybody to agree with me.
I want people who do agree on the things that we do agree on to work on that.
And if that's the only thing Trump gets unity on, is that, yeah, for the things we agree on, we can work with that, like the border, for example.
That'd be amazing.
It'd be better than anything we've ever seen in this country, really.
So the pirate ship is working.
Meanwhile, Trump continues to do what I call the new CEO move, to make a good first impression and hit the ground running, as they say, and to make it look like he's just succeeded before he even starts.
Now, succeeding before you've started is just so strong persuasion.
It's just completely baller.
And so...
And so now the SoftBank CEO, Masa Sun, is going to visit the U.S. today and he's going to make an announcement with Trump.
So I love my de facto president.
I love the fact that the world is treating Trump like the one they need to talk to.
They understand he's de facto president, not regular president, but still, everybody's just using common sense.
And what is the Biden administration complaining about so far?
They're not.
I don't know why.
You do kind of expect them to complain a little bit that Trump's acting like a president.
But I feel like they get it too.
You know, somebody needs to act like a president and they don't have anybody who can do it.
So apparently SoftBank CEO is going to put a $100 billion investment In the U.S., focused on building out AI, thinks he can create 100,000 jobs.
Somebody was saying that's no big deal, 100 billion, 100,000 jobs.
Somebody smarter said, no, that's just the first order.
100,000 jobs creates 100,000 people to buy stuff.
So 100,000 new consumers, you know, all the supply chain that will supply these businesses.
It's big.
A hundred billion might be a multiplier to something like half a trillion when it's all done.
Let's talk about those drones.
You know you love them.
You love the drones.
So Adam Kinzinger, who you know as being famous for not really being good at anything in politics.
He may have been good in the military.
I wouldn't know.
But he's really bad at politics.
So he used to be a Republican, changed sides, became the worst politician in the world.
So he's a pilot, and he says he's spent time looking at all the videos of the drones, and he says they're all airplanes.
They're all airplanes.
So what was he looking at?
Do you think he looked at all the videos?
Or do you think that somebody got to him and said, Adam, tell him it's all airplanes?
Because they're obviously not all airplanes.
They're really obviously not all airplanes.
According to hundreds, if not thousands, if not millions of observers.
So he thinks it could be a mass hysteria.
And he points out that there's nothing illegal about flying over a military base and that anybody can do it.
Now, that's the first time I've heard that.
Do you believe that's true?
Do you believe that it's legal to fly over a military installation?
Obviously, it's going to depend on which one.
I don't think you can fly over all of them.
But are there some of them, say, in a metropolitan area where it's no big deal, it's just one other thing that's on the ground?
So I'm going to put a question mark next to that one.
I don't know that you can always fly over them, but maybe if you're...
Let's say if you're a commercial airline, you've got a flight plan, you're a trusted entity, maybe?
I don't know.
So I've got a question on that one.
All right.
So he thinks that if drones are involved at all, it's probably just some tests.
But it's way more activity than just some tests.
So I'm going to rule that one out.
I did a little research because I was trying to figure out what is the lowest height that these aircraft should be at, if they're regular aircraft.
So a regular aircraft...
If it's over a populated area, it's not supposed to be below 1,000 feet of the highest thing that's nearby.
So whatever is the highest building that's in the immediate neighborhood, they have to be at least 1,000 feet above the highest nearby building.
If they're in a sparsely populated place, they could go down as low as 500 feet.
And if they were over, let's say, an ocean, and it was a private plane or something over an ocean, they could go even lower than 500 feet because there's nobody there anyway.
Will I debate you on the thing I already agree with?
No.
But thanks for asking.
So keep that in mind.
I mention that because yesterday I drove home from walking the dog Yes, I drive to where I walk the dog, because there's a good place to walk the dog, but it's hard to walk to it.
Anyway, I look up and there was a really large jet.
It looked like a private jet, but one of the biggest ones, you know, like a billionaire private jet.
And it was going directly over my house, and I'd never seen a jet that low.
To me, it looked like it was lower than a thousand feet.
Has anybody had the experience of, let's say, a daytime jet that you thought was lower than you've seen in the past?
Or am I imagining it?
Do you think it's just my imagination because I'm sort of tuned to it and So my reticular activators are just picking it up and I wouldn't have even noticed before.
But it was a big jet and it was low enough so I could see all the details of the components of the jet.
Now that's too low, right?
For a jet?
When was the last time you had a jet jet?
Unless you were right next to an airport.
When was the last time you had one go over where you could see all the parts, like in detail?
I think it was closer than a thousand feet, but I don't know what a thousand feet looks like, really.
So I don't know what's going on there, but Robert Malone, you remember Robert Malone from the pandemic?
He was one of the Inventors of the mRNA platform.
And he became anti...
I won't say anti-vax, but a cautious person about that whole thing.
But his hypothesis is that it's a federal PSYOP. And that the point of the PSYOP is to get a law passed.
And apparently there's a law being considered that would put lots of regulations on personal drones.
Huh.
What do you think?
Do you think it's a PSYOP so everybody in the country says, no, we can't have drones running around uncontrolled, just at the same time that the government is considering, I think it's extending something that's already there, But the government is considering the question of how much to regulate drones that are owned by individuals.
So as they're considering how much to regulate drones, we have a drone crisis all over the country that's scaring the public.
Could it be that the entire thing is a psychological operation to make sure that the military has clamped down on any drones that they don't own?
So it's easier to protect the country.
Because you wouldn't want to say to the country, hey, we're going to take your drones away because they can be turned into weapons.
And then all the people who like guns are going to say, you're not going to take my guns and you're not going to take my drone that I can weaponize.
Why?
In case I need to weaponize it.
That's why.
In case I need to weaponize it, I want to be able to.
Because, you know, the government.
So, what do you think?
Do you think that it's a major psyop?
I see my YouTube is down, but it looks like it came back up.
Do you think it's a major psyop, and that the military or the government is trying to make us afraid of drones, so we'll favor our government banning drones, or at least banning anything that would look dangerous as a drone?
I'm going to say maybe.
But it doesn't really match my experience of life.
It doesn't match it.
It's not impossible.
It's not impossible.
But it doesn't really match what I think.
Here's what I think.
I think if it were a PSYOP, it wouldn't be so extensive.
And it also wouldn't be in every country, because we're getting reports from all over the world about too many drones.
So, I don't know.
I would say I'll put that third or fourth on the list of possibilities.
But I'll tell you my current drone theory, if you haven't heard it, I have updated it.
I have abandoned the idea that they're looking for radiation or chemical weapons.
Now, the radiation part I abandoned because I just happened to know somebody who worked in that field.
And the person who worked in the field, Tom Sauer, says, you know, trust me, I have experience in the field because apparently he searched for WMDs when he was in the service.
And there are ways to look for radiation, but without giving too much away about the way we do things, I'll just say it wouldn't be this way.
So, in other words, if you had complete access to the ground, you know, it's America, so they have access to the ground.
The last thing you would do is try to fly over it to get the radiation signal.
You might fly over it, but you'd mostly have stuff on the ground because you want to really get close to the source.
So it's very unlikely that these drones have some kind of souped-up radiation detectors at the height they are.
So if you're going to be 1,000 feet in the air, your detecting isn't going to be that great.
So probably not.
It's probably not about detecting anything.
So here's my current theory.
I'll start with my assumptions, see which ones you agree with.
By the way, the thing I'm going to read to you, I posted, and last I checked, I had 800,000 reposts, and Marjorie Taylor Greene said, Said it sounded like a good hypothesis.
And I've never seen more positive comments.
So almost everybody who reposted it said, oh, this is very feasible.
This might be the answer.
And it might be.
So this is based on my personal talent stack, which I improved by 5% by listening to somebody who knows about how you search for radiation.
So I had zero knowledge about how to search for radiation yesterday.
And now I have a little bit.
Just a little bit.
Enough to deal with this question.
But I'm also the Dilbert guy.
So I'm really tuned in to just how any big organization gets anything done.
So I'm going to use my filter.
As the guy who knows how any big organization does any big thing.
And it's going to explain everything.
Okay?
So, here's my assumptions.
Number one, the future of warfare is drones.
Everybody agrees, right?
The future of warfare is drones.
Also, it's going to happen really fast.
Well, it is happening.
It's happening right now.
And whoever can most quickly...
Increase their drone assets is in the best shape.
The United States always is running fast to be the best military power in the world.
So, if you know that drone warfare is the future, and you know it's right now, like when I say the future, it's like now, now, now, now.
Really, really urgent.
You know you've got several hotspots You've got the Ukraine war.
You might want to have some leverage there.
The Middle East is a mess.
Iran is a big question mark.
You really, really want to have lots of drones, and you want to be the unambiguous leader in the good ones.
Now, we also know that we have a drone pilot shortage.
So what happens if you know you need lots and lots and lots of drones, but you don't have enough pilots?
Obviously, you do massive training of pilots, and you do it as soon as possible.
Now, I'd like to make a comment for the NPCs.
We're going to be piling in to make a comment.
Go.
NPCs, this is where you shine.
Say the most obvious thing that you say in this situation.
I know it's going to appear.
Who's the first NPC? You're going to say it.
Wait for it.
They're trading pilots to run the drones.
Go.
Come on, I'm disappointed.
There's got to be at least one NPC watching this.
All right, I'll do it for you.
The NPC says, Oh, Buzz Scott, don't you know that the drones are autonomous and they don't need any pilots and they're run by the AI and stuff?
That's what you're supposed to say.
It's the most obvious thing to say, to act like you're a little bit smarter than me.
You're so dumb.
You don't know they don't need pilots.
Nobody needs any pilots for their drones.
Okay, here's what's true.
There's not one kind of fucking drone.
There are lots and lots of different kinds of drones.
Some are only piloted by humans, such as if you're an infantry person, you had a little handheld drone and you just wanted to see the enemy on the other side of the hill, that would not be an AI drone, that would just be one you operate, it would be completely piloted by a human, but that's not what we're talking about.
Secondly, there would be, of course, some drones that are basically fire and forget, meaning that you might put in the coordinates, but then once it goes, it's just going to do its thing and maybe be a suicide drone.
But that still requires a pilot in the limited sense that somebody had to pick the target and Program the drone, know which drone they were dealing with, make sure it was safe to launch, and then probably at some point make some human decisions when the drone reaches its target of whether that's still really a good target or maybe they need to jog over and do some other thing before they get there.
Who knows?
So my presumption is we're not anywhere near getting rid of pilots for drones.
How many of you will agree with me so far?
What does Musk say?
Big drone wars are coming.
Yeah, so Elon Musk was saying that we haven't seen how big the drone wars are going to be.
It's going to be epic.
We know we need pilots.
We know we don't have enough.
We know we're going to need massive drone buildup.
And we know there's no such thing as having enough drones.
No such thing as having enough drones.
Because whoever has the most wins every drone battle.
You know, if they have good ones.
So we should be absolutely in a panic mode in the military, manufacturing drones as fast as we could manufacture drones.
So far, do you follow the assumptions?
Assumption drone wars are for sure.
We need them right away.
We must be manufacturing them like crazy.
And we need a lot of pilots, even if the pilot is just putting in the coordinates.
Somebody needs to do it.
So, put all that together.
Where would you train if you had new drones with new technology and you had to quickly train lots and lots of people?
Well, NPCs go.
This is another NPC place.
So if you're an NPC, and I say these might be training missions, you say, Scott...
Let me tell you with my vast NPC knowledge that if you're going to have a training facility, it's not going to be over the densest populated place in the country.
It's not going to be there.
It would be in a remote location, and then you could test all day in your remote location.
Here's why that's not smart.
That would be if you need to do a little bit of training for a few drones.
Yes, I agree with you.
If you were going to do a little bit of training for a few drones, and you weren't in any hurry, you would find a nice remote location and you would do all your training for your handful of pilots in that one place.
However, if you decided that drones are the future of warfare, there's no such thing as too many drones, you're making them as fast as you can and you don't have enough pilots for them, what do you do then?
Do you wait until you've got a nice remote place and move all of the assets that you need for testing, which would include a battleship, or not a battleship, but some aquatic military asset that they can launch it from, because most of them are launched from ships.
So you need someplace that's close enough to the coast, so that rules down a lot of your remote locations.
Ideally, here's where my Dilbert experience comes in.
You've got brand new drones, let's say a new class of drones, and people are being trained on them.
Who has to be there for the whole thing?
The manufacturer.
The manufacturer of the drones is It has to be wherever they're being tested, in a big way.
It's not like, just send a guy.
It's not like, well, we sent one of our engineers to your remote location.
Just ask Bob if you have a problem.
No.
They would put massive staff anywhere there's being testing and training.
They would be doing the training, actually.
And they would do it not just in a remote location, But NPCs, here's where you get your minor win.
Yes, they would test some drones in remote locations.
But what else would they do?
If they have massive need for training and massive need for drones, what else would they do?
They would train right here because it's the fastest and everything's here.
If you train on the drones in New Jersey, what do you have?
You've got the fleet, so you can fly from ships and ocean, because the ships are here, and it's their home base, I guess.
You have military bases that you can fly back and forth to, which is very much what you'd be doing with a drone, sometimes transporting, but other times just finding a target.
And you would be going over lots of residential areas.
And it would be easier, it would be probably far more beneficial to train where there's a lot going on in the ground so that you could recognize things at night.
You would also probably train at night because most of the missions would be at night because if they turn their lights off, they're hard to see and therefore hard to shoot down.
Now, if you're only 1,000 feet up, so give me a fact check on this.
If you're 1,000 feet in the air and you're a drone, Can you be hit by small arms fire?
Can somebody just put their machine gun in the air and just start shooting in your general direction if you're a drone and you're only a thousand feet in the air?
So it seems to me that they have the option of turning on lights if they're operating in America, and they have the option of turning off the lights if they're in a danger zone.
So, they would train at night, because that would be the best time to do missions.
And they would train in the United States, even in populated areas, because that's where all their assets are for training.
That's where the manufacturer is, it's where the base is, it's where the Navy is just off the coast.
So, what you should see is on both coasts of the United States, lots and lots of drones in the air.
Because the coasts are where you have all the assets and you can kind of test stuff fast if you're doing it massively.
And again, if you only had a few pilots and a few drones and you weren't in any big hurry, you would go to some remote desert location and train as long as you wanted.
We're not in that situation.
We need as many as we can get right away.
Training is critical.
As fast as you can, you would do that in the coast because that's where all the assets are.
More importantly, if one of these drones goes down, you don't want it to be on a foreign country because they're going to get a hold of it first and they're going to reverse engineer it because you can't trust the other country.
Even an allied country, you couldn't trust them totally.
So everything makes sense for training.
And then you're going to say, but why would you do it over in an urban area?
To which I say, have you noticed that when people say they're hovering, it's never over their house in an urban area?
But if they're passing by, it is often over an urban area.
So my guess would be that the drones are as, let's say, as good a quality...
As all the other aircraft that can fly over your city.
So if a regular aircraft can fly over your city and a drone has the same, let's say, reliability, and it's not in war and it's not doing any maneuvers, it's just flying over, that that would be allowed.
As far as I know, that's completely legal.
To fly over a city with a drone that's obeying all the rules, it's high enough and low enough, it's got the lights on, and maybe it registered its flight path or whatever it has to do.
So, when you hear they're doing things like hovering, which might be misidentified, by the way, sometimes it might look like it's hovering.
It's only because it's coming in your direction from a distance, from a great distance.
It would look like it's stationary.
So some of it might be misinterpretation.
But my guess is, If what they're doing is training, they might be doing the dangerous stuff over the ocean, just like you would want them to do.
You know, see if you could do figure eights and whatever.
But if you need to just go back to base, let's say to get charged up or deliver something, you're just going a straight line at the height you should, and maybe that's what people see in the cities.
So no real danger, as far as I can tell.
Because they're not sending up experimental Drones over the city.
They would be sending up things that are really, really, really well flight tested and not in any specific danger.
There's nobody shooting at them.
All right.
So we're ruling out sniffing for radiation because it's just not the way you would do it.
It wouldn't be optimal for that.
And the other thing is we've heard that the flights seem to stop around 11 p.m.
every night, but they've been going for months.
What possible thing would you do that you would do massively as soon as it's dark, but you'd be done by 11 p.m.?
That really suggests training, because if they were sniffing for, if they were looking for terrorists or looking for something, they would do it after 12. If it were such a national emergency that they would put this much energy into it, They would work after midnight, because it would be something existential to at least New Jersey.
If they're taking you off at 11, saying, all right, looks like it's quitting time.
I'll see everybody, not in the morning, not in the morning, but rather when it gets dark again.
That sounds like business as usual to me.
So, and even if you look at the theory that it's a PSYOP, Even a PSYOP, you could save a lot of money compared to what they're doing.
If what you wanted to do was a PSYOP, where you've got lots of drones in the air, did you need 50?
Did you need 50?
No, not really.
You could do a psyop with three drones, and you just have those three drones buzz one city that's near enough to D.C.
that somebody hears about it.
I see your question, ex-boss man, but I'm not going to repeat it.
It is funny.
All right, I'm going to repeat it, because it's funny.
In the comments, somebody used the impolite word for people who are shorter than average, but said that there seems to be a shortage of little people.
Are we sure that the little people that we saw more often in public have not just become drone pilots?
Which is actually, it's like funny, but the more you think about it, the more you think, well, why not?
I mean, if jockeys, if you pick jockeys because of their weight and their height, wouldn't you also pick drone pilots if you had a tiny little drone?
Wouldn't you also pick them by their height and weight?
And if the little person was, you know, fully functional in every way except height, And you've got a 10-foot-long drone?
Maybe.
I don't think that's the thing, but...
All right, so if it's true they're really stopping at about 11 o'clock every night, I would think that that's pretty good evidence that it's a training mission.
So the only thing that seems unusual is the quantity of it.
And I disagree with Kinzinger.
I had the same experience as Kinzinger, and I want you to hear this clearly.
Because later, if I get something wrong and later you attack me, I want to make sure you hear this part.
I have personally seen no video that looked like anything but an airplane.
Some video I've seen that clearly were not airplanes, but were far more likely an artifact of how it was filmed, or sometimes they came from years ago.
Sometimes you can't tell what the source is.
But everything that had a source I can identify, they looked like normal aircraft to me.
Now, what people say is, no, Scott, what you're noticing, what you're not seeing is, How many of them there are acting strange and how low they are and they're loud, etc.
But I'm not there in person.
So my belief that these are not regular airplanes is based on credible people.
In one case, somebody I know personally, who say, no, I stood there.
Trust me, they're definitely not airplanes.
So I don't believe any of the videos because I personally have never seen any credible video of anything that looked anything but a commercial airplane with a person running it.
Now, there might have been some hobby drones that look like hobby drones, but that's not what the problem is.
So as clearly as I can, let me say, I haven't seen anything that looks like a drone.
I've only seen things that look like airplanes to me.
But I do trust, I do trust the reports because you saw the reporter for News, I think it was News Nation reporter, said, oh, I was poo-pooing it myself until I saw it myself.
Like, oh, I'm completely convinced there's something going on here.
So those are the people that I'm choosing to believe at the moment.
Could all of those trustworthy people be in some kind of a You know, mass hysteria?
Yes.
Yes, they could.
I think it's unlikely, though.
I'm usually the one who's the first one to say mass hysteria.
If you've been following me for a while, you know that.
I jumped to mass hysteria right away for stuff like this, but I'm not there on this one.
I wouldn't say I would never be there.
It wouldn't take a lot of To push me into mass hysteria, but I'm not there yet.
I think it's just training.
But it does suggest that there would be a big battle that we're expecting, and I expect that that might have something to do with Iran.
So we'll see.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney had some good things to say about Trump's success.
Mitt Romney was on some...
He was talking to Grace today on CNN, and he said...
That the Republican Party is basically the MAGA Party.
He said that Trump succeeded in making the Republicans the party of the middle class.
And that's the kill shot right there.
If you're a Republican, and you can acknowledge, which I would agree is true, that Trump has successfully moved what is middle class over to the, at least enough of it, over to the Republican side...
You can't take that away from him.
And you can't be Republican and say that sucked.
You just have to say, we always wanted to do this.
Nobody did it except Trump.
Trump gets the win.
And I like that Mitney, who has plenty of reasons to be anti-Trump, because they haven't gotten along, he has plenty of reasons.
He decided that under the current situation that he's going to be pro-success.
So he didn't say he's pro-Trump.
He said that Trump has succeeded in ways that are important and that probably J.D. Vance will be the 2028 nominee because he's well-spoken and he's worked with him.
Apparently, Romney had had some really bad words about J.D. Vance in the past.
And I loved what Romney said about that.
So when it was brought up that he had said some really pretty bad stuff about J.D. Vance, he said, that was long ago.
He said, it was long ago, and since then I've worked with him.
Good.
That's a good answer.
I like the answer, it was long ago.
Because that shows me somebody who can get over something.
If you tell me that, yeah, I was not happy with this, but that was long ago, I just think, oh, you have a workable brain that when new information comes in, you can change your mind.
I like that.
Yeah, long ago I used to think this, now I think that.
No more questions.
I have no further questions.
If it was long ago, you'd change your mind.
Okay.
And so he says Trump deserves legitimate credit for expanding the party.
He says that the Republicans are maggot now, no question.
And then he went further.
He said that the Democrats are in trouble.
I don't know how they recover.
Now, that mirrors what I said.
So I've been saying it's not just that the Democrats are down, but normally when a party is down, it's obvious how they would recover.
Oh, well, just tweak your policies, get a better candidate.
You'll be fine next time.
It doesn't look like it this time, does it?
It looks like they've destroyed the very structure of everything.
And so Mindy says, yeah, they lost their base, union members are leaving, and now people see Democrats as college professors and, quote, woke scolds.
I love those two words together.
Woke scolds.
It's okay to be woke, and sometimes it's okay to be a scold.
But if you're scolding me about wokeness, we're not going to be friends.
I can take a scolding and get over it.
And, you know, some wokeness I can even accept.
But nope, don't be a woke scold.
That's as bad as you can get.
Meanwhile, Governor Whitmer, Democrat, She says she's willing to work with President Trump.
She said, quote, I know Donald Trump cares about Michigan, Fox News is reporting.
Now, people are talking about this in ways I've never heard people talk about it, meaning working with the other side.
Who says it this way?
Who says, I know Trump cares about Michigan?
Isn't that...
A sort of extreme for politics.
I mean, extremely friendly.
Normally you would say something like, well, I don't like anything Trump's doing, but it's my job to work with him, so we'll do as well as we can.
Isn't that usually all you say?
Normally you just say, I'll do the best I can, it's my job.
But she went so far as to say that Trump cares about Michigan.
That is not a gift you'd want to give to your enemy.
Now, it could be that because he can't run for office again.
But she's clearly setting him up for success.
Since when do the Democrat governors set up Trump for success?
At least in the wording.
Anyway.
So, to me, that was remarkable.
And then you probably know the story about there's a Democrat megadonor...
Named Lindy Lee, who's kind of turned on the Democrats for wasting a billion dollars and not getting elected.
And she's getting a lot of attention lately.
Gateway Pundit is reporting on this.
But she says the Democrats now have, quote, a stench of loser hanging over the party and that people are pissed at Obama.
Now, that's funny.
The stench of losing is so heavy that people are mad at, like, They're so mad that they're mad at a guy two presidents ago, and they're pissed.
And they want their billion dollars back, I think.
So that's worth noting.
But I heard some...
Some idea that maybe Lindy Lee would run for governor of California, and if she did, she might be running, at least in the primary, against Kamala Harris.
Now, others have said that, now Kamala Harris has not shown direct interest in running for governor, but everybody thinks it's sort of a The most natural, best thing she could do.
I heard somebody say that if she entered the race, it would clear the field.
Meaning people would just say, oh, she's going to win.
There's no point in running.
That might be right.
She might clear the field.
And the Democrats might say, you know, we just need to prop her up, and that's all you would need in California.
You would just need the Democrats to say yes.
Anyway...
So if you've got Mitt Romney saying, I'll give him a chance.
You've got Whitmer saying, I'll give him a chance.
You've got a DNC mega-donor saying, wow, the Democrats ruined everything.
She's not quite saying, I'll give Trump a chance, but she gets it.
She understands why he won.
Meanwhile, Daniel Baldwin, brother of the other Baldwins, was on the PBD podcast.
And he claims that, I guess it's common knowledge in Hollywood, that the celebrity inner circles are saying that LeBron James does have a ditty tape and that it was already purchased on the black market.
So that somebody already owns LeBron James because they own the blackmail tape that LeBron James would really like to own.
How much do you think LeBron James would pay for For a diddy party tape that showed him doing, we imagined something he wouldn't want them to see.
How much do you think he'd pay?
Well, it would depend, of course, on what was on the video.
Because it could range.
It could range from, oh, we don't like that you do that, to, um, why aren't you in jail?
So we don't know what it is.
So I won't, I guess I shouldn't speculate.
Um, But this would be a massive story.
Can you imagine?
Can you imagine if these were really for sale?
Imagine if you were Elon Musk.
You're sitting there and you read the news.
You see that the LeBron tape is for sale.
And you say to yourself, if I just make a post on X saying I'm willing to buy it, I wonder what would happen.
Because he wouldn't care about the cost, right?
He could just pay whatever he wanted.
But he could own LeBron.
If you see LeBron start to back MAGA, it means that Musk is the one who bought his blackmail tape.
Now that would be funny.
Now here's the way to do it.
If you end up buying LeBron's blackmail tape, and let's say what you want him to do is, you know, back Republicans, let's say, you don't want to be illegal and say, LeBron, I will blackmail you if you don't do what I want.
That's illegal.
You go to jail for that.
So you go the opposite way.
Say, LeBron, good news.
I bought the tape, so it's off the market.
And LeBron might say, oh, good, so you'll destroy it, right?
And then you say, well, I didn't want to destroy it, but I've taken it off the market.
You don't have to worry about it.
But you could just change your mind and show it to somebody anytime you wanted, right?
I could, but I wouldn't do that.
Because I like you, LeBron.
You and I are good friends.
By the way, I'd like to chat some more, but I'm going off to a Trump rally.
My good friends were all in MAGA. They say hi.
And you'd be very close to LeBron becoming a Republican.
Just to make sure the video didn't get out.
Now, to be clear, I don't want to malign LeBron.
I personally have no knowledge that he did anything wrong or that even any tape exists.
So I'm not confirming that there's anything he did wrong or any tape exists.
And I'm hoping that there is none.
I hope they use a perfect law-abiding citizen and it will always be that way.
But I'm just telling you how to blackmail somebody.
You don't say the words.
You just own the tape and say, you know, I own your tape.
I sure like Trump.
So don't take my advice for it.
If you become a blackmailer, it's probably illegal no matter how you do it.
Mike Davis, who's a Republican attorney type, we see in social media a lot.
He says, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and his team illegally conspired to violate the constitutional rights of Americans.
He said, so did Jack Smith, Fannie Willis, Tish James, Chris Mays, Matthew Graves, their offices.
He says, they must face a federal criminal probe under some law.
And then they said, I like that Republicans are...
Ironically or jokingly, sarcastically saying no one's above the law, you know, because I say it a lot too, because I think it's funny now.
But as much as I don't like lawfare, and I would not want to be associated with anybody who pursued it, I think the names that he named have done enough in public that looks sketchy enough to me That if these particular ones get, I don't want to say law-fared, but investigated, that would be appropriate.
My sense of, you know, what is right and ethical and moral and gives enough freedom to the country but not too much, yeah, they should be investigated.
It does feel like there were crimes there and big ones.
Like, we're not talking about jaywalking.
If it were jaywalking, I'd say, eh, who cares?
We're talking about something that was going to change the very nature of the country forever and maybe destroy it.
They were an existential threat to the entire country, in my opinion, because a few more years of Democrats, I think, would have been the end of us, just in terms of national debt, if nothing else.
Here's the funniest story of the day.
Back when Biden took over, when he first got elected, he fired some 4,000 Trump appointees.
One of them was Spicer.
What's his first name?
Why am I forgetting Spicer's first name?
Who worked for Trump.
And he was one of those people who has...
Tell me Spicer's first name.
Sean Spicer.
Yeah.
Thank you.
So, Sean Spicer.
So, he was one of the people who got fired by Biden.
So, he took it to court to try to get it reversed.
Or did he?
So, he took it to court that he got fired by Biden and he argued that Because the appointment had some kind of a term to it that he couldn't be fired until the term was over.
But the court, the judge specifically, he ruled that the president could fire him.
So Sean Spicer challenged Biden, but Biden won.
So it turns out that Biden could fire him even though Trump had put him in a position that had a term.
Now this is important.
Because there might be people that Trump wants to fire that also were appointed by Biden and also have terms Here's the funny part The reason that Sean Spicer challenged it was not because he wanted his job back in the Biden administration He challenged it so he could lose the case Because in so losing,
you would know that the next Republican who came in could fire all the Democrats in those jobs.
And so they will.
So the claim, and I'll put it in a quote from Sean, what no one ever understood was that this was not about actually getting back on the board, meaning the job he had.
Because my term had been expired for months.
It was forcing them to argue in the affirmative that they had the ultimate authority to fire anybody at any time, which they did.
And the court accepted it, so basically Trump has that power now.
4D chess.
Right there.
That's 4D chess.
By the way, there is probably still time...
To get your Dilbert calendar, if you go to Dilbert.com and follow the link to the sales page.
It's the only place you can get it.
Can't get it from Amazon.
Can't get it from a store.
Only from that one online source.
So we have, what, nine days till Christmas.
The odds of getting it in nine days are not 100%.
Not 100%, but you'd almost certainly get it before January 1st.
So if there's somebody you know who just can't live without a Dilbert calendar and you don't absolutely have to have it wrapped under the tree, you've got plenty of time.
All right.
And I've also got a number of books.
The one that will change people's lives that they haven't seen is Reframe Your Brain.
This one is on Amazon with my other books, like Win Bigly is re-updated.
That's the one that tells you how Trump uses his persuasion.
And then How to Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big, the second edition, the one with the blue cover.
People love it, I guarantee.
That and also God's Debris, the complete works.
If you look at all my books, you'll find something for everybody.
So, something for everybody this Christmas.
I guarantee if they're readers, they'll like them.
Democrats are not.
And I guarantee if they're ever liked Dilbert, they'll like the calendar.
You can't lose.
And I would like to give you two Christmas recommendations that I have no connection to, okay?
So that I have no financial connection to them.
These are just things that I like a lot.
Number one, you may have noticed I often wear this back warmer in the morning.
I love this back warmer.
If you've never experienced wearing a back warmer, It feels really good.
So I started wearing it because I had just a back strain a few weeks ago.
It's all good now.
My back is great.
But I keep wearing it because I like it.
I just love how it feels.
It makes my back feel better.
The other thing for the same purpose was I got one of these incline tables where it holds you upside down by your ankles.
Now, you probably say to yourself, I don't think I want to try that.
That sounds dangerous.
And what if I can't get back up?
Well, the one I got has an option to go back 60%.
So you're never really, you don't feel like you're out of control and it doesn't stretch your body too much.
But it feels great.
It feels great.
So I think it's helping with my back because my back has never felt better.
Literally, it's never felt better in my entire adult life.
And it's called a teeter.
So that's the model.
Now, I only know I bought one and I'm really happy with it, but it's spelled T-E-E-T-E-R. They have several models.
You can see them on Amazon.
So I recommend them if anybody has any kind of a back problem for which that would be indicated.
But I'm no doctor, so don't use it unless you're sure that it would be safe for you.
Then my last advice is, this is a weird one, if you do any Any kind of video, like Zoom, or you do podcasting, there's something you need really badly.
And you see behind me in my back shoulder?
It's a printer stand.
So if you went to Amazon and you said, search for printer stands, it would be something that sits above your keyboard, I guess, or something.
You could put something under it.
You could put paper under it.
But it turns out it works perfectly for raising your computer to eye level.
So right now, if you're looking at me on video, you can see that I'm the perfect level.
If I took this away, Which people make the mistake of doing.
I gotta talk to Alan Dershowitz.
He needs one of these badly.
So this is without it.
So you're looking up.
The looking up is not so good, and the looking down is even worse.
So there are different heights, so depending on the height of your table and the height of your chair.
So I got two of them.
One is a little taller than this one, so I use one in the man cave and one here.
So watch how much better it is when I raise it back up.
There you go.
There you go.
Perfect.
Now here's another one.
I got a, I don't know what they're called, like a desk pad or something?
Desk pad?
But I'll show it to you.
So it's sort of a soft, long thing.
It just sits where you're working.
I don't know if you have this problem, but do you have a cold elbow problem?
Anybody have that?
Like you want to work on your kitchen table or something?
You want to work on the kitchen table and you put your laptop there and then you put your arms on the surface and it's too cold?
Well, this will keep your arms warm, but also it's soft.
So if you're doing a podcast, it removes this whole area of echo, because my microphone is just above it, so it removes the echo.
And it looks kind of good, and it just feels good leaning on it and using it.
So I have two of them, and they're awesome.
The other one, if you know somebody who's into drawing, but they can't afford a big Wacom 27-inch thing, which would be, I don't know, $3,000, something like that.
If they want something that's under $1,000, but they're serious about drawing, so it's not a kid's toy, get the Move Inc.
That's the little drawing tablet that I use now.
And it's also sold by Wacom, but it's M-O-V-I-N-K. So if you go to the Wacom site, W-A-C-O-M, and search for the MoveInc device, it's really cool because it's really light and it works really well.
If you need Scott Adams merchandise, And you don't know the link.
Just search for Coffee with Scott Adams merchandise.
And it will pop up with the The mugs and the hoodies and the shirts and the hats.
I don't recommend that gift for anybody except consumers of this content.
All right, so you got enough ideas?
So you got the Dilbert books.
I guarantee one of those Dilbert books will be Make somebody really happy.
You just have to pick which one makes more sense for that person.
The Dilbert calendar, the inversion table, the desk pad, And then what's called a printer stand, but it's better for your zooming, getting your computer to the right height for zooming.
Those are the things that might make people happy.
Some of my favorite, favorite possessions.
They work really well.
All right.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately.
For a minute.
Thanks for joining everybody on the other platforms, Rumble and X and YouTube.
Even though YouTube had some problems today, I hear.
