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, AGI, Rectal Cancer Cure, LeBron James, Public Worker Loan Forgiveness, German Christian Market Massacre, Taqiyya, CR, Elon Musk, Non-Republican Trump Supporters, Common Sense vs Gaslighting, Democrat Media Winged Monkeys, RFK Jr., Democrat Talking Points Technique, Debt Ceiling Removal, Childhood Cancer Funding Gaslighting, Bipartisan Gaslighting, Democrat Moral High Ground, Biden Mental Decline Coverup, Joe Scarborough, Ukraine Suicide Drones, Trump's Canadian Tariffs Threat, MIT Fusion Energy, MSNBC Conservative Voice, Scott Jennings Success, AI Teachers Alpha School, AI Scott Adams Clone, 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
The thing that makes everything better today with a little oxytocin mixed in.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
and it happens now.
If you didn't know it, this show works best if you get a warm beverage, A blanket on your lap.
Your legs are up.
And you've got one or two cats on your lap.
That's the way to watch this show.
Yes, it is.
By the way, after this show, after we're done with this live stream, Owen Gregorian will be hosting a Spaces on X where you can talk about what happened on the show or I suppose anything you feel like.
So it'll be a little add-on to the show.
Owen will be doing that on Spaces as soon as we're done.
I think he's only going to be doing this on Saturdays.
Now, one of the things I like is when I say something that disagrees with all the experts, and then I wait for people to agree with me, and I look around and go, pretty good point, wasn't it?
And nobody agrees with me.
And then I think, maybe it's the way I said it.
So I'll wait and I'll say it again, and I'll think I'm making a good point, in this case about AI. And I'll look around again and I'm like, anybody agree with me?
And I can find nobody who agrees.
But if I wait long enough, sometimes somebody smart will agree with me.
And in this case, Naval Ravikant was saying on a podcast with Arjun Himani.
I hope I'm saying that right.
I did a podcast with him.
And Naval was talking about AGI. Now, AGI is...
The AI version that comes after the current stuff.
And it's where we get to something called artificial general intelligence, meaning that the AI is not just a clever kind of tool, but that it reasons just like people.
Now, we're not really close to having an AI that reasons just like people, but the smart people say we might be just a few years away.
But here's what Naval said that agrees with something I've said.
He said, quote, there's no intelligence that can fundamentally understand something humans can't understand.
So he said that's what AGI people get wrong.
Let me say it again.
There's no intelligence, including an intelligence that people imagine we're going to invent next.
There is no intelligence that can fundamentally understand something humans can't.
So the way I said it, and this is the first time I've seen anybody smart agree with me on this point.
If we were to develop an AI that was legitimately smarter than people in just general reasoning...
I'm not talking about knowing facts or doing math because we accept that they're already better than us.
But in general reasoning, if it reasoned better than us, We would not accept it because we prefer our illusions.
And if it tried to take them away because it reasoned better than us, it would say stuff like, oh, you know your religion?
Almost no chance that's true.
Not your religion, but let's say somebody else's.
You have the right one.
You have the correct one.
But suppose somebody else with the wrong religion opens their AGI and it says, your religion is totally made up and here's the reasons.
It would be very disruptive.
And then the next thing you say is, oh, we better get rid of this AI. It got the religion question wrong.
So if AGI gets to the point where it disagrees with the smartest human on that topic...
We will still believe the smartest human was right, even if the AGI was actually right.
In other words, since we can't judge what is smarter than us, we will reject it, just like we do when other smart people disagree with us.
So I think there might be no path.
So there are two things involved.
One is, could you make it smarter than people?
That's the first challenge, and maybe you can't.
Maybe you can never be smarter than people.
But if you could, we wouldn't allow you to implement it.
So there's probably no path to it.
At least, logically, there's not.
If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.
But if it does work, we'll say it doesn't work.
Those are the only two paths.
Anyway, we'll see.
Meanwhile, according to New Atlas, there's a 100% successful rectal cancer drug.
100%.
Every single person they tested it on got fully cured.
Every one of them.
Now, this is the only kind of science I trust.
When I see a medical claim, we did a study and this drug is 30% better than if you didn't take the drug.
Will I still die?
Oh, you'll still die.
Yeah, yeah, but a little bit later.
Those are the ones I don't trust, because I think you can tweak your assumptions until you get a 30% advantage for anything.
It wouldn't matter if it's real or not.
You can always tease a 30% benefit out of the numbers just by tweaking it.
But you can't really fake 100% cure, right?
Right?
If you had, even if it's a small study, let's say, and I don't think this was gigantic, but let's say you had 40 people in a study, and all 40 of them had a deadly, incurable cancer.
And then you give them the test, and all 40 of them are completely cleared.
You don't really need to do a bigger test for me.
If you give me 40 out of 40 completely cured of an incurable disease, I don't need to see the double random trial.
I mean, I'd like to see a larger trial to make sure there's no maybe side effects we didn't know about.
But I wouldn't wonder if it worked.
If you give me 40 out of 40, I don't need a larger trial to find out if it does the main thing it's supposed to do.
But you do need to test for safety as well.
That's amazing.
Now, before you get too excited, there are two downsides here.
Number one is that It's not necessarily transferable to any other form of cancer.
So the little bit that I know about the topic is that every cancer is a little bit different.
So you could have a complete cure for it in one domain that just doesn't make any difference in any other cancer domain.
So that's probably the case.
But a bigger problem is that Scott Galloway has been saying for a while that his plan for the rest of his life was to enjoy his money and die of ass cancer.
There's a famous clip of Scott Galloway saying his plan is to die of ass cancer.
It was sort of a joke when he says it, but now apparently his plans have been destroyed and he'll have to die of something else.
So, time to pivot.
LeBron James is talking about how the NBA's failed ratings are just going straight down.
Apparently, interest in the NBA is way down.
And a lot of people were smart.
We're saying it's because of the three-point shot.
And I agree with that.
So, several years ago, Stephen Curry, one of the greatest shooters, maybe the greatest NBA shooter of all time, completely changed the game because he could stand practically anywhere within half court and sink a three-point shot.
Now, if you have one of those on your team, you're going to win, and sure enough, the Golden State Warriors won some titles.
But other people saw it and said, hey, why don't we take a lot of three-point shots too?
And apparently the statistics of it are compelling, that if you can just do a little bit better on your three-point shots, you'll beat the other teams.
So everybody turned into this game where somebody will drive into the middle and either throw the ball up while getting fouled, Or they'll toss it out to the three-point shooter who will sometimes make it and sometimes not.
But it's sort of all that happens.
So you can watch like 20 minutes of basketball and think you just saw the same play over and over again.
And sure enough, it's not interesting anymore.
So I used to watch at least the Warriors.
I didn't watch generic basketball, but I liked to watch my team because it had some stars on it.
No interest anymore.
I've been trying to watch all season.
I keep turning it on, but indeed, it's boring now.
And I wasn't quite understanding why it was so boring, but it's definitely the three-point shots.
Because all they do is come down, the first open person takes a shot, sometimes it goes in, and that's it.
Like, why do I watch that?
So, yeah, they get a problem.
Because the strategy...
It's simply better with the good three-point shooters and they want to win.
So how do you fix that?
I have a hypothesis that all sports are terribly designed because they were designed a long time ago and then too many things changed.
Like tennis became the greatest game and then it became just garbage because the equipment got so good that the serve and everything just dominated the game and it became boring.
Boring to watch.
And then this three-point thing ruined basketball.
So I think all the sports need to start from scratch and redesign.
All right.
So as Tim Young points out on X today, that is the 20-year anniversary of Gavin Newsom's 10-year plan to end homelessness.
And it's worse than ever.
Speaking of ass cancer, yeah, San Francisco's not looking too good.
20-year anniversary of his 10-year plan to end homelessness.
All right.
Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris...
Did you know that the president is this guy named...
Joe Biden?
No, seriously, it is.
Seriously, there's a president of the United States right now, and it's not Trump.
Did you even know that?
How many of you knew we have a president right now who's actually not Trump?
His name is Joe Biden, or Biden?
Biden?
Is it Joe Biden, I think?
Joe Biden.
Yeah, that sounds right.
It's vaguely familiar.
But apparently he's still in office.
And he just rolled out a $4.28 billion student loan forgiveness.
Some call it a handout.
Fox News calls it that.
And it's only for student loans for public workers, I guess.
Public workers, and there are about 55,000 of them.
Now, here's the thing, in case you didn't know it.
This is just a tax.
There's no such thing as debt just going away.
Somebody pays for it.
You know, if you owe money to a bank and you don't pay it back, it wasn't free.
The bank paid your debt.
If the government gives away money that it doesn't have, then inflation goes up because they borrow money to pay it, and inflation takes my money away, and that's a tax.
So this should be reported as a tax without proper methods.
So if you give the government more than one way to tax you, you think they're not going to use all the ways?
So the trouble is, as long as we have this uncapped budget and they can keep approving things that can't possibly be paid for, they are paid for by inflation, which basically eats into your money.
And so it's just a tax.
So Biden and Harris just put another tax on us.
Great.
I'm so glad that they'll be leaving office.
Meanwhile, there's a report in Germany of this horrific mass casualty event where a, quote, Saudi doctor, so somebody living in Germany who He was born in Saudi and became a doctor, I guess.
He crashed into a German Christmas market.
So it was full of Christian shopping.
Killed at least two and injured dozens and it was horrific.
But the news started reporting that he was an anti-Islam activist.
So you say to yourself, hmm, Germany, Christians shopping, Saudi, and your brain automatically goes to, oh, it's some kind of Islamic terrorism.
But the news looked into his social media posts and said, wait a minute, he's actually anti-Muslim.
And so for about five minutes, we thought that an anti-Muslim person attacked a bunch of Christians and killed them.
And probably you said to yourself, I'm not so sure that's true that he's anti-Islam.
Because he is Islamic, and he attacked a bunch of Christians.
I'm not sure I can connect those dots.
And sure enough, social media debunked it pretty quickly.
And it looks like he's got stuff that maybe was harder to find that made it very clearly.
He's clearly a pro-Islam kind of guy.
So it was terrorism.
But he seems to have been using a technique called, if you've never heard of this, taqqiyye.
I don't know how to pronounce it.
T-A-Q-Q-I-Y-E. Why does anything have to have two Qs in it?
Does the first Q not do the job?
If you put two Qs together in a word, do you pronounce them?
Or just the one Q? I don't know.
But anyway, it's an Islamic doctrine that encourages, if not just permits, lying and deception.
So, if you're an Islamic terrorist and you're really You're really schooled in the Islamic way.
Apparently, there's something specifically that allows you to lie about what you're doing as long as it helps you achieve your Islamic goal.
So the observers say the news was fooled.
He's really just an Islamic terrorist.
You know, I don't mind pointing out that it doesn't seem like Germany is doing well.
Germany is not doing well.
Well, how about New York City?
Well, it turns out that the highest-ranking uniformed police officer just had to quit because of allegations that he demanded sexual favors from subordinates in return for approving their overtime.
Now, does it seem to you that all local government is just corruption?
I feel like everybody in charge in local government is just a crook.
And here is the highest-ranking uniformed officer, and he had something he could sell, basically, which is approval for overtime, which was deeply profitable.
The overtime was a really good deal.
How good was it?
Well...
The person accusing him, coincidentally, the very person accusing him of demanding sexual favors for overtime, is herself, was reassigned because she was doing some kind of massive overtime ploy in which she earned $400,000 for being a cop.
$400,000 a year.
For being a cop because of all the overtime.
And she wasn't even on the streets.
She had an office job as a cop.
Now, do you think she really worked all that overtime?
Or do you think she did some sexual favors or at least maybe he thought he was going to get them in return for approving the overtime that perhaps wasn't even real?
So we don't know if the overtime that got her $400,000 a year was real overtime or fake overtime.
But either way, it shouldn't have been happening.
Nobody should have been making $400,000 a year in that job.
So, New York City seems completely corrupt.
Don't do business in New York.
It's crazy.
You probably heard that finally our government has approved at least a temporary budget.
What they did was they took that 1,500-page thing, that monstrosity, took it down to a few pages.
It got rejected again.
They took it down to...
A deal that they could finally sign.
It was basically the country will keep running for a little while at the same levels, except that more money will be spent on farm bills and disaster relief for specific disasters, ones that already happened.
But there was some debate about the debt ceiling.
Apparently, if I have this right, the current rules say that you have to do a little more work to get past a debt ceiling, because one question is, do you want to put your budget into these categories, and is this a good budget?
And the second question is, is the budget beyond the debt limit?
Because you don't want to spend more than the law allows, but they can keep changing the limit.
So it ends up that that debt limit is sort of a negotiating hammer that gives some group in Congress a lot of power because they want to promote that limit.
But in reality...
Since 100% of the time, we end up raising the debt limit anyway, then that would suggest, and Mike Sermovich is sort of all over this today on social media, it kind of suggests that the debt limit didn't do us any good.
Because having that debt limit was supposed to give us some fiscal responsibility.
It's like, don't just raise the debt willy-nilly, you better, you got a limit.
But we still raise the debt.
And it just takes longer.
And that debt limit is just an obstacle.
Because when you're done, you're definitely going to raise the debt limit again.
Because we don't have a government that's efficient enough or honest enough to fix that.
In theory, if you and I got a debt limit in our real lives, here's your debt limit.
We wouldn't find a way to spend more than the debt limit.
We would do whatever we could to be under it.
But the government doesn't need to.
Because the penalty comes on you more than them.
I would love a situation where if I overspend, someone else will be punished.
Well, I overspend on my credit card.
Sorry, Bob.
But I'm going to do it again tomorrow.
Yeah, I know it's all bad for you.
But it's not that bad for me.
It's not bad for me.
I get re-elected.
So, sorry, Bob.
I could overspend my credit card.
You'll have to pay it off again.
So, we don't really have a government that has the option of fiscal responsibility.
The design of the government, the current design, guarantees that you run up debt until you all die.
Because the individual, any individual politician, We'll get more votes by approving money because the people who benefit from it say, oh, that's the guy that got me that money.
He got me my raise.
So politicians have an incentive to overspend and there's not really much incentive to stop.
We have a system that biased design guarantees our own destruction because there's nobody to stop the spending.
We don't have any system for that.
The debt limit was a try, but in reality, they could just work around it and it was just a pain in the ass, but it didn't stop them from overspending.
So, here's what's interesting.
We did see the beginning of a new form of government.
Do you remember the old days when you thought the mainstream press was the watchdog of the government?
And as long as you had that fourth estate, you know, the reporters were working as adversaries to the government and they were uncovering all of their plots and their ploys.
So as long as you had a free press, you could hope that your government would operate in good faith because they'd get caught.
The press would just call them out if they did bad stuff.
Is that the current situation?
Do you think the current situation is the press will call them out for doing bad stuff?
Well, have you noticed that the Wall Street Journal did this great expose on Biden's brain after it didn't matter?
After it didn't matter.
And Biden couldn't hurt them anymore because they didn't need access to the White House to give stories.
So as soon as they didn't need Biden to give them access to interviews, they threw him under the bus.
But if he were in office and looked like he could get re-elected or at least had any strength whatsoever as president, then the media would have bowed to him.
So you can see the exception approves the rule.
So if you were sort of new to the news, and you saw that the Wall Street Journal and now the New York Times are talking about Biden having a degraded mental situation in office, but they waited until his term was over, and he's not even showing up for work, basically.
So So the fact that they tell us now is proof that they're not a legitimate enterprise, right?
A legitimate enterprise, real watchdogs, would have said what we can see with our own eyes.
His brain isn't working, and that's a real problem.
But they didn't.
They waited until it didn't matter.
So instead, what we saw with that big 1500 omnibus looking continuing resolution, we saw a new form of government spontaneously form via X. And the way it works, and I've described this before, but it's kind of breathtaking.
The way it works is the best ideas bubble up.
So it doesn't matter who has the idea.
If they've got any presence on social media and they say something smart, somebody who has a slightly larger account and more followers probably is going to see it.
And then they might say, huh, good idea.
They repost it.
And then an even larger account might see it and say, wow, I recognize that as a good idea.
I think I'll steal it or boost it.
And the next thing you know, it gets to the million plus accounts like mine.
And then I vet them like an editor.
I look at them and say, huh, that's a bad idea or that's a good idea.
If it's a good idea, I boost it.
Now, if a million-plus account that is active in the political space boosts something, You can pretty much count on the largest accounts and the biggest people in politics seeing it.
Because the other million pluses will probably like it.
And then it keeps bubbling up.
Now, if it bubbles up enough, Elon Musk ends up commenting or reposting on it.
And then he's got how many followers?
Is it like 40 million or something?
I don't know what the number is.
But basically the news follows him and his account is so big that everybody pays attention.
So on the political right, there is a mechanism that's formed.
I would say it evolved.
Nobody planned it.
It just evolved.
Because even when Musk bought old Twitter...
We didn't know that he would be tweeting every day, like many times a day, and on politics.
I didn't know that.
I thought he was just going to sort of buy it and let the people who use it use it.
I didn't understand.
Maybe he didn't plan it that way.
But his involvement had a utility.
And the more popular he could make his own account...
The more punch you had.
And then he could take ideas that bubble up as well.
When people look at it from the outside, they say, ooh, Elon Musk is making the things he wants to happen, happen.
So it's all selfish and he's doing it for his companies.
That's what all the dumb people on MSNBC say.
They say that Elon Musk is really just doing it for his own profit.
And he's making it look like maybe it's good for you, but he's really doing it for his own profits.
Which is the dumb take.
He's very clearly doing it for what's good for America, which is also good for him and everybody else in business.
So yeah, it's good for him, but that's okay if it's good for us.
We like that.
When Elon Musk made a comment in one of my posts, I think it's up to I think 14 million people saw a post just because he commented on it.
One of mine.
And I saw Owen say the same thing.
So, yeah, an Elon Musk post goes a long way.
But here's the thing the left doesn't understand.
When Elon Musk has an impact, like he did this time, on that 1,500-page monstrosity, he's not acting alone.
The entire model depends on everything he does being completely transparent and then tens of millions of people being completely in agreement.
That's the model.
Because he's only doing things that are common sense.
He doesn't do things that are just purely partisan politics.
He just doesn't do that.
If it doesn't make sense when you look at it, he doesn't do it.
So it's not that hard for him To get tens of millions of people to be on his side.
So when you say, I don't think we should approve a 1,500-page bill with no time to read it, can you think there's even one citizen of the United States that disagrees with that position?
No.
There's not one.
There's not a single voter who would disagree with the idea that maybe we should pass bills that we understand.
Nobody.
So it's not even political, I would argue.
But his power comes entirely from saying things that we all agree with.
We see it.
We know exactly what he's doing.
And we keep saying, yes, do that.
Yes, yes, do that.
Do more of that.
So when the bad guys, the Democrats...
The world is basically now, it's not just Democrat versus Republican, because you see the type of people who are backing Trump now, and the most prominent ones are not Republicans.
So to say that it's Republican versus Democrat feels a little stale.
You know what it feels like?
It feels like common sense versus gaslighting.
The Democrat Party is only gaslighting.
They don't even propose good ideas anymore, if they ever did.
They purely run ops to make you think that what the common sense people are doing isn't common sense.
It's all they do.
And I think the most devastating thing that Trump has brought to politics is common sense.
It's devastating because the opponents don't have an argument for common sense.
So they have to come up with a whole gaslighting architecture and make their winged monkeys and the media parrot it like it's real.
That's how we got Biden is perfectly fine.
The way you get Biden is perfectly fine is you ignore common sense.
We could all see he wasn't.
You ignore common sense, and then you get all your winged monkeys in the media to repeat it.
Oh, he's fine.
He might be the best Biden we've ever seen, Joe Scarborough said.
So just think about that reframe as you watch new news develop and see if it's true.
The so-called MAGA group will come up with something that's common sense.
I'll give you another example.
Here's some common sense.
You take RFK Jr., who is willing to do the work and has all the capabilities in the world, and he wants to fix our food supply.
Common sense.
Now, do you need to agree with every opinion that RFK Jr. has in order to get the benefit of him fixing our food supply if he can do it?
No.
You don't have to agree with everything he's ever said.
You just can take the good parts, also called common sense.
So what do the Democrats have to do?
The Democrats can't disagree with common sense.
So they gaslight, and they say that their own, you know, somebody from their own party, not too long ago, RFK Jr., is this anti-vax guy who wants all your children to die.
So they have to create a whole gaslight fake thing.
Enterprise, because you can't say common sense makes no sense.
Here's what RFK Jr. says that's common sense on vaccinations, let's say.
We should test them better, because there are indications that they're causing problems.
What part of that is a problem?
But the Democrats have to gaslight us and tell us that he wants to, without regard to science, he just wants to remove what's good for your baby.
So that's what the Democrats turn it into.
Because they can't argue with common sense, which says maybe we shouldn't put things in our baby's bodies if we've not tested them sufficiently.
And if we don't have enough recourse for the company that made it.
Pretty commonsensical.
I mean, you could argue, but you'd have to argue it on the common sense basis.
But they don't do that.
No, they come up with an op and they gaslight us.
So, is this new form of government?
I don't know what I'd call it.
It's like a bubble-up social media power, where the power that Elon has comes entirely from the bottom up, whereas the Democrats are pretty much a top-down organization.
Here's the new talking point.
Everybody do the new talking point.
And by the way, this is sort of an insider's point of view.
Republicans don't have talking points.
Do they?
Because it seems like if they did, somebody would have been sending them to me by now.
Nobody's ever sent me a talking point.
And I have enough of an audience that if Republicans cared about creating talking points and distributing them, it would be happening.
But People on the political right do end up having, eventually they have something like a unified opinion, but the way that forms is in the best possible way.
It evolves.
So on minute one of a new news item, I'll be tweeting about it, several dozen other large accounts will be posting about it, and we'll look at each other's work, and then we'll decide who had the best take.
And then somebody will start tweeting, oh, this is the best take.
And then other people will say, that was the best take.
And then the best frame of something just bubbles up.
And next thing you know, somebody like Elon Musk is looking at it and saying, yeah, that's a good way to say that.
And then he'll boost it.
So it's top-down versus bottom-up, and it's common sense versus gaslighting.
And the whole Democrat versus Republican thing I can barely see it anymore.
You can barely see it because the common sense people on the left just moved to the right.
Anyway, so if Trump and Elizabeth Warren are both in favor of eliminating the debt ceiling...
I feel like we should do it.
I don't, you know, my instinct was that the debt ceiling provided us some benefits because it was like a little bit of discipline on spending, but they found a way to make it useless.
You know, it's not like the people who, I think Cernovich says it best, it's not like the people who are saying, I want, this debt limit is mattering.
It's not like they're stopping anything.
You know, they end up voting for the increase in the debt limit, too, eventually.
But you could also argue that they got something out of it, which is the simplification of the bill down to hundreds some pages and got rid of some of the porky stuff we didn't need.
Now, of course, the gaslighting is that...
It's obvious that the memo went out and the Democrats are going to gaslight and say, oh, Elon Musk is the real president now.
And Trump will have to play second fiddle because he's just a puppet now.
He's a puppet to Elon Musk.
And apparently Trump, in an interview, said that Elon called him.
Before weighing in on this spending bill.
And Trump said, quote, I told him that if he agrees with me that he could put in a statement.
So Trump wants you to know that he's the boss and that Elon Musk called him and got permission.
And didn't.
Now, is that true?
Is it true that Elon called him and asked for effectively permission to take a strong stand about the bill?
I don't know.
But you know what I like about it?
It doesn't matter.
Because he did agree with Trump.
So what matters...
Is that we got a good result.
And Trump is wisely saying, I was the boss.
He called to get permission.
I'm sure Musk will back him up on that.
Because Musk doesn't want to be seen as taking the light away from Trump.
And so now they have a version which is believable.
It's believable.
But it's convenient.
I'm not sure there was a phone call.
But I don't know that there needed to be.
Because it's also true that Musk probably knew what Trump wanted and it wasn't hard to be compatible with it.
And he would have known that if he went against Trump, it would be dumb.
And if he planned to go against Trump, he would have probably checked that.
But did he really need to check to agree that a 1,500-page rushed thing with a bunch of pork in it was a bad idea?
Did he really need to ask Trump about that?
Or could he just look at it and say, nobody wants this.
There was literally nobody in the United States.
Trump didn't want it.
Nobody wanted it.
Did he really have to ask?
I don't know.
If he did, I would say that's a plus.
If he didn't, he still made the right guess and Trump backed him.
That's good, too.
If Trump had his back...
And Musk had Trump's back?
There's your perfect situation if they have each other's back.
And I think they have each other's back on this, for sure, because Musk is making clear that Trump's in charge, Trump's making clear that he's in charge, and that Musk got permission, which maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
But, yeah, this is what I want.
I want this.
I want more of this.
All right.
And I promise all Democrats that if Elon Musk started pushing hard on something that was against common sense, I would push back.
Nothing would stop me from saying, oops, that doesn't make sense to me, or maybe we need to talk about this.
So I wouldn't worry that Musk has some kind of power that is contrary to what tens of millions of Americans who agree with him want.
I've not yet once see him do anything that didn't have a solid common sense base to it.
Now, some of you will say, Scott, you say there's no such thing as common sense.
And I do.
So I'm using it in two different ways.
There really is no such thing as common sense, because we disagree what is common sense.
But when Musk says the risk-reward of doing this is better than the risk-reward of doing the other thing, These usually write in a risk-reward sense.
So I'm using common sense as a stand-in for if you look at the risks and you look at the rewards, it's a good bet.
That's what it really means in this context.
Anyway, so I've got some government funding.
It does feel like all the smart people are on one side now.
And if there are any smart people left on the Democrat side, whatever intelligence they have is completely disguised by the fact that they're going along with the gaslighting.
So you might have some brilliant people who are also Democrats.
But as long as they're buying into the, I'm going to promote the message that came from the top of my party, no matter how ridiculous it is, they don't look smart.
So there's no point in being smart if you can't act smart.
So I'm going to say all the smart people who are willing to act smart have already joined one side.
All right.
So here's another gaslighting example.
You probably heard that the Democrats were saying, those darn Republicans who turned down this funding bill, they turned down funding for childhood cancer.
How many of you saw that in the news yesterday?
That what was in that omnibus bill that the Republicans turned down?
Oh, first they said it was bipartisan.
That the Republicans were turning down something their own party agreed with.
It was bipartisan at first, which is a lie.
And then secondly, that the Republicans said no to a package that included funding for childhood cancer.
And that was gaslighting too.
So here's the truth.
When they say bipartisan, they mean four people were sitting in a room and at least three of them were corrupt.
The reason I say at least three of them is because if I say four of them, then there might be some good people who are in the room once in a while, and I don't want to throw them all under the bus.
But mostly, we heard that the 1,500-page one was negotiated by four people, right?
Four leaders negotiated it, and lobbyists probably wrote it, and everybody else didn't even see it, didn't even have any input, didn't have a vote.
So they're calling bipartisan something that had two people on each side.
Is that bipartisan to you?
Is it bipartisan if...
99.99999% of the people didn't even know what was happening.
No, that's not bipartisan.
That's people who have specific personal interests.
You put them in a room, and they will express their personal interests and try to sell it to you as bipartisan.
So I think anybody who's four people in a room coming up with a 1,500-page document, to me, that's just corruption.
That's just corruption.
Now, they might argue, well, it's the only way to get it done, because if you have too many people, you can't agree on anything.
Maybe.
But don't call it bipartisan.
Just say the leaders negotiated it.
If you said to me the leaders, you know, two leaders on each side negotiated it, I would say, okay.
But if you say bipartisan, it would sound like the bulk of the Republicans and the bulk of the Democrats were on the same side.
Nothing like that happened.
So bipartisan is a propaganda word, the way it's being used.
A real bipartisan would be lots of Republicans and lots of Democrats were on the same side for something.
That's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about pretending to be bipartisan because four people were in a room.
So bipartisan is bullshit.
And then the childhood cancer story, Robbie Starbuck does a good job of explaining that.
Did you know that back in March, Republicans had already passed that bill?
So the exact cancer funding bill that Democrats say Republicans are not funding, they had already passed.
So Republicans had already passed it in March.
And then they handed it off so that Schumer could get the Democrats to vote for it.
And then Schumer never put it up for a vote.
Do you know why?
Because he wanted to build it into this, presumably, wanted to build it into this omnibus thing so that if the Republicans later said no to the omnibus, which had a bunch of things that Republicans didn't want, then Democrats could say, gaslighting, They could say, oh, it looks like Republicans are against cancer research for children.
And that's exactly what they did.
The Republicans said no to the omnibus, and the Democrats immediately said, you're saying no to childhood cancer.
And that was a ploy.
That was an op.
It was gaslighting.
So again, When the Republicans decided to say yes on childhood cancer, what was that?
Well, I would say common sense, but also probably compassion, because you hear kids and cancer, your compassion kicks in pretty quickly.
So, you know, whether it's compassion or common sense, I like both of those, if they can work together.
So the Republicans said, yeah, let's do this thing.
And then the Democrats figured out a way to stop it for months, so they could turn it into a tool.
I think Republicans just said, is this a good idea?
Yes or no?
And the majority said yes.
I don't think there was anything else in their decision.
Just, is this a good idea?
And then Democrats turn everything into an op.
Everything's an op to stop the common sense people from doing what they do.
So that was pretty stark.
Of course, you know, the Biden brain revelation, The fact that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are now saying unambiguously, just unambiguously, that Biden was never, from day one of his term, never mentally competent, and his staff massively covered it up.
Now, there's a Clinton campaign advisor, Al Mutter.
He was on News Nation, and he points out that he's worried that the Democrats have lost the moral high ground.
Really?
Really?
This was the thing that cost you the moral high ground?
It wasn't the Russia collusion hoax?
So the Russia collusion hoax, no problem.
It wasn't the Biden crime family that was obviously selling access and probably something for Ukraine.
Really, that didn't lose them the moral high ground.
Running Kamala Harris for president didn't lose them the moral high ground.
Getting 51 ex-Intel people who were just pro-Democrat, I guess, to say that the laptop was fake, that didn't lose them any moral high ground at all.
The January 6th insurrection hoax, the fine people hoax, that didn't lose them any moral high ground.
Nothing?
No, it was this?
We had to wait till this to lose the moral high ground?
I think you're a little late, Al.
A little late.
But I will agree with him on one point.
Those other things really did not change the moral high ground.
I'm not sure that this will either.
So far, the media is playing another gaslight.
Here's what you thought happened.
Here's what you thought happened.
You thought that the media is coming clean now because it's safe to come clean.
If they say Biden was mentally incompetent now, it doesn't change their access to the White House.
If they had said it earlier, the White House would say, oh great, CBS News, if you can do a hit piece on us, how about nobody in our administration gives you an interview?
And then they would be, oh, well that would put us in a business.
So, okay, we'll just say whatever you want to say.
So, here's what you may have missed.
The media are playing a gaslight on you by pointing out the Trump advisors gaslighting on the country.
So what the media is trying to sell you is Is that they also didn't know that Biden was incompetent on day one.
You thought you were mad that the media was covering it up and that the administration was covering up Biden's brain?
How about the fact that the media is trying to gaslight you into thinking that they didn't notice?
That's right.
The Wall Street Journal wants you to know that until just recently, They couldn't get the scoop.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that it's only recently that they could get the scoop?
Come on.
Every person in the media knew that Biden's brain was bad.
They are the enemy.
Every person who didn't tell you that Biden's brain was bad are your enemy.
They're your enemy.
Now, you shouldn't, you know, don't do anything bad to them, of course.
No violence, no violence.
We're just talking with hyperbole.
But, you know, I will give credit to lots of characters on Fox News and probably Breitbart and a lot of other places.
But on Fox News, you could turn it on and find out that Biden's brain was bad.
Am I right?
Is that true?
If you watch Fox News from any time from 2019 on, prominent hosts and opinion people, the opinion people, not the news people, but the opinion people were very clear that he obviously had a mental decline.
Very clear.
But, you know, only the people who were agreeing with Fox News watched it anyway, so it didn't make enough difference.
So now the people who acted like they never noticed are trying to convince you that the reason they never noticed is that the staff hid it so well.
They didn't hide it so well.
It was super, super obvious to all of us.
Anyway.
So it's the cover-up of the cover-up.
And then it gets worse.
So after this story comes out that Biden was always mentally degraded from day one, there's a press conference, and Corinne Jean-Pierre did not get one question about the revelation that her boss was mentally incapable from day one.
Nobody in the press corps asked the question about why they all lied about Biden's capability.
Why did they do that?
Well, they wouldn't have gotten any kind of a good answer, so maybe there was no point in even asking.
But usually the press events are about the press grandstanding with a question.
You never get a good answer.
The answers are irrelevant.
But at least ask the question.
Anyway, Ryan Saavedra pointed out that Jean Corrine never got that question.
It's amazing.
And now we're hearing that, who was it that noticed this?
Was it Breitbart?
That Biden met with his own cabinet less than he met with Hunter Biden's clients.
So apparently we have confirmed evidence that the President of the United States met more with his crime family business than with his own cabinet.
Now, everything's exactly as bad as you suspected it might be.
So, at this point, everything about Biden was true.
His brain was gone.
True.
He was the head of a crime family.
True.
He was the worst president of all time, which I've been saying for a long time.
True.
He picked an incompetent VP. Which I've been saying for a long time, and we all saw that that was true.
However, I would like to say that although Biden will have a few blemishes on his legacy, is that fair to say?
Biden will have a few blemishes on his legacy?
But he did accomplish one thing that I think you have to appreciate.
The complete destruction of the Democratic Party.
He absolutely destroyed the Democratic Party.
Not intentionally, but in their support of him, I do think they did lose the moral high ground on this issue more than any other issue because we all understand it so easily.
I don't think they could ever forgive him.
I feel like even Democrats are going to say he was the worst president of all time.
Because they're going to see how much destruction he caused.
And while he was in office and before he was running for office, it wasn't obvious.
He got a few things done, so you say, oh, legacy.
But once he's destroyed the entire party by being party to this big lie of his mental capabilities...
Speaking of that, Breitbart gave Liar of the Year 2024 award to Joe Scarborough for his famous statement.
I just have to read it because no matter how many times you hear it, it never gets less entertaining.
You've all seen the video a hundred times of Joe Scarborough saying, start your tape right now because I'm about to tell you the truth and F you if you can't handle the truth.
This version of Biden, intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever, not a close second.
And I've known him for years.
The Brzezinski's have known him for 50 years.
If it weren't the truth, I wouldn't say it.
I think that little soliloquy explains everything about the Democratic Party and their winged monkeys in the news.
It's all you need to know.
Anyway, apparently the military's new budget is going to ban health care funds for sex changes for minors, as well as cuts to DEI. According to the Daily Mail, that feels like a step in the right direction.
Cuts to DEI. Of course, many Democrats were in strong opposition to the cuts to DEI, but they did get enough bipartisan votes to pass it.
So what does that tell you?
So they cut DEI, and there were still enough Democrat votes to pass it.
That's like the best news you've heard in years.
By a bipartisan vote, DEI got caught in the military.
Bipartisan.
I didn't feel we'd ever get there.
That felt like something that could never happen.
But there are Democrats who are willing to say that the DEI is clearly a failure.
Now, we don't know if Biden will sign that budget, but I guess he will.
Some Amazon workers who are basically contract employees are going on strike, but they're Teamsters.
So 10,000 Amazon workers in the Teamsters union are going on strike, but Amazon says it won't affect the holiday gift deliveries.
How in the world can 10,000 people involved in delivering go on strike without affecting deliveries?
Do you think that's true?
If it is true, all 10,000 need to be fired immediately, because if they don't do anything that helps the deliveries get there and their job is delivering, maybe they just prove they're unnecessary.
They're probably unfireable for some reason.
Well, there's news that the Ukrainians have sent suicide drones to blow up seven different targets in Russia's fifth largest city, Kazan.
So it's 700 kilometers east of Moscow.
And there's some videos of a drone hitting a building that a lot of people on X are calling fake.
It does look fake.
I don't know that it's fake, but in our world of deep fakes and AI, it kind of looks fake.
I'm going to come in on the side of people who say that it looked fake.
It looked fake.
And it would be kind of surprising if somebody had their phone on just in time to catch the drone hitting a building that they didn't know was targeted in the first place.
So maybe, maybe it's true.
No, I think it's probably true that the suicide drones hit the city.
I just think that maybe that one video that's making the rounds, there are four buildings hit with drones, I'm hearing.
Four buildings.
Yeah.
Keith Olbermann said to Elon Musk, you also suck at politics.
LOL, FU, racist, fascist.
And Elon Musk replied, you elevate Tourette's to poetry.
You elevate Tourette's to poetry.
That's funny.
Anyway, so my question is, why would Ukraine attack that city in Moscow now?
Why would they do that?
Are they trying to tie Trump's hands by making sure that they deepen the conflict?
Or are they trying to help him by giving Russia more things to worry about?
I don't know.
It doesn't feel like it's a great plan to attack residential areas inside Russia at the moment.
But maybe they know what they're doing.
I don't know.
Byron York had a great article on how the Democrats are worrying about Kash Patel using the FBI to target political enemies.
He points out in a satirical way the things that Kash Patel might do as head of the FBI if he gets all the way there.
Would he open investigations on presidential candidates?
Now you'll recognize, if the satire doesn't come through of my telling, that these are all things that the Democrats did to Trump.
So would Kash Patel be as bad as all the things that Democrats did to Trump?
Well, here's the list of things they did to Trump.
Open an investigation on him while he's a presidential candidate.
Deploy undercover agents and confidential sources to spy on the candidate's advisors.
Hire a campaign opposition researcher under the guise of intelligence gathering.
Present false opposition research to a court as a basis for wiretapping a candidate's advisors.
Use false opposition research to brief the president of the United States.
Ambush the president-elect with false opposition research.
Seek to include false opposition research in intelligence community products.
Ambush the national security advisor with wiretap information on the pretense of a Logan Act violation.
Mislead Stonewall Congress on the investigation of the President.
Mislead the President about the investigation targeting him.
And then Byron says, sarcastically, can you imagine the FBI doing something like that?
Yeah, I don't think Democrats have any idea.
What their own party did.
I don't think they have any idea.
If they did, the list I'm reading from is from a post on X by Byron York.
So go to Byron York's X feed and you'll see the list.
Or you can, I reposted it so you can see it on mine.
All right.
According to Zero Hedge, half of Canadian manufacturing companies are planning for layoffs if Trump enacts his tariffs.
So Trump has threatened tariffs against Canadian companies, and now they believe the threats and they're making plans in case they happen.
So he threatened a 25% tariff on all Canadian goods.
Now, I'm going to say this again.
I said it yesterday, but maybe I haven't made my point well enough.
Trump's tariff negotiations are just about the most brilliant thing I've ever seen.
And I'm only talking from a persuasion point of view.
If you're talking from a fact-checking point of view, not so good.
Not so good.
But he's not operating on a fact-checking plane.
He's operating very obviously on a persuasion.
You know, nobody would doubt this.
He's negotiating with the world.
So Trump is already negotiating, but he's in the priming phase.
So he's simply getting people ready for the serious negotiations, which I also called negotiating, when you're just priming them for later.
And the priming goes like this.
That Trump believes that tariffs are an amazing, amazing tool that make money for the United States.
So he definitely wants to use them.
He wants to use them big.
He'll use them everywhere that people don't give us what we want.
And it's going to be a great, great deal.
So we win if we tariff.
And we win if we get what we want in a trade deal.
So he's got two ways to win.
He wins if he gets the tariff.
He wins if they cave and give him what he wants.
Two ways to win.
Now, what did the fact checkers say?
Scott, I don't think he even understands how tariffs work.
No, really?
Really, you don't think he understands how tariffs work?
And then they would say, because the American company pays the tariff.
He knows that.
He knows that.
Of course he did.
But what he's doing is brilliant because he created an asset out of thin air.
The asset is that he loves tariffs and he can't wait to put them on you.
That was created out of thin air.
Do you know what every other politician would have said?
Well, the last thing I want to do is put on a tariff.
But if I have to, if I have to, I will.
And then you've told your negotiating partner that you don't want to put a tariff on.
And then they say, well, he doesn't want the tariff, so we don't have to negotiate too hard.
We don't have to give them what they want.
They're not going to put a 25% tariff on every good.
That would be terrible for American consumers.
And he must know that.
So therefore, we can ignore his tariff threat.
But can you ignore Trump's tariff threat when you believe that he believes that the more tariffs he puts on you, the better the United States will be, and so will he?
That's what makes 50% of Canadian companies make a plan for 25% tariffs, because they believe that Trump believes tariffs are the greatest thing ever.
Now, When I say that he created an asset and a thin air, every other politician said, tariffs are terrible.
It's a last resort.
No tool.
They took their own tool away.
Trump says, tariffs are wonderful.
I would like to bathe in them.
I can't get enough of them.
Just give me any excuse.
I would love to cover your little country with tariffs until you can't sell a single thing in the United States.
Oh, I love tariffs.
Oh, there's nothing you could do to talk me out of it.
Wait, what?
Oh, you'd give me all the concessions that I've asked for in the trade deal.
Huh.
I still love...
Yeah, but I still love tariffs.
Tariffs are awesome.
I appreciate your offer.
That's the best offer we've ever gotten.
But I love tariffs.
So...
Okay, okay, okay.
We can sweeten the deal.
That was the best offer we've ever made for a trade deal, but...
We don't want the tariffs.
So, all right.
All right.
We're going to give you what you want.
Then Trump will say, well, you know, in the interest of good relations, I really wanted these tariffs.
But all right.
He created an asset out of nothing.
And then he's going to trade it.
Nobody ever did that before.
He's the only person in the world who could pull this off.
So even I, even I, in the beginning of this, said, this doesn't work because the tariffs are bad for Americans.
How can you use this as a weapon?
And then I find out how I can use this weapon.
He has convinced the world that he's not rational about tariffs.
And you know what?
There's nothing I can say that would ever change that.
You know, you think to yourself, but Scott, you're giving away the game.
No, I'm not.
Because no matter what I say, Canada's still going to think he's going to do it.
They're not listening to me.
And by the way, He would do it.
This is the beauty of it.
It's not a bluff.
If it were a bluff, I don't think he'd get away with it.
But he would actually put a 25% tariff on every Canadian good.
He would, right?
So it's not, even though he's created this in a thin air, he would still do it.
So that's the beauty of it.
He would still do it, even though it's just a created asset.
Anyway, the level of brilliance in this, negotiation-wise, he's not just a good negotiator.
He's just creating things that didn't exist before.
I mean, we've never even seen this.
That's a level you've never seen before.
It's amazing.
Anyway, normal politicians just can't do that.
Remember I talked yesterday, there was a story about a fusion energy plant that was going to be built by Commonwealth Fusion Systems.
And it was all approved, and it was an MIT spinoff, and they had all the state approvals, and they were going to go ahead and build this thing.
And I said, wait a minute, is this a typo?
Because there's no such thing as an economical fusion reactor.
How could we have one that's been approved and they're building it when it doesn't exist?
So you remember that I was skeptical that maybe they'd literally just written down the wrong word, like a typo.
Like, do they mean fission?
But they said fusion because they got the two reversed.
So today I have my answer.
There's an article in Futurism by Victor Tangerman, and he points out that, indeed, fusion has not been invented as scale.
They've done lab tests where they can do it at a tiny, tiny scale, and it works at a tiny, tiny scale.
But the technical obstacles to go from the tiny, tiny scale up to a grid-sized full deployment would require breakthroughs and innovations that are unimagined so far.
Meaning that they don't have a plan to build a thing.
They have a plan to figure out how to build a thing.
And figuring out how to build it might require building it.
You might have to build it to find out if it works.
And then if you're lucky and something doesn't work, maybe you've built enough that you can tweak it until it works.
So, you know, billions of dollars are on the line.
Probably billions more.
I'm sure there'll be overruns, there always are.
So it's a multi-billion dollar bet that this particular group of cats that come out of MIT can conquer so far unconquered problems and big ones.
Now, did I mention it's an MIT spinoff?
If this were anyone else, except for an MIT spinoff, meaning I assume it means that it's staffed with a bunch of MIT people.
I don't know if you quite understand what MIT is, but that's our smartest people.
Those are our smartest people.
Engineering-wise, they're our smartest people.
If an MIT spinoff says they can make this work, or it's at least worth the bet, Nobody knows the future, but if they say it's worth the bet because they can kind of smell it and they feel it and they think they can conquer it, I'm all for it.
I'm 100% for this.
Even if it doesn't work, because imagine if it did.
This is sort of a leapfrog play.
If China is building, I don't know, dozens and dozens of nuclear power plants, they're going to get ahead of us on energy.
And whoever has the best energy program usually rules, because energy equals economics, economics equals military, military gives you power.
So, energy, economics, military.
That's the order of things.
If you get energy right, which the US has for most of its existence, then you get the economy and then you get the power.
So, having MIT, the best of the best, trying to leapfrog regular fission and go all the way to fusion, From a risk-reward perspective, perfect.
It's perfect.
If you said to me, Scott, let me just presume some overruns.
The United States wants to bet $5 billion.
That a group of MIT nuclear engineers can solve the remaining steps to get to grid-scale fusion.
Would you bet $5 billion in 2024 just in case it works?
Yes.
Yes.
Because fusion, if it works, and therefore would be reproducible, changes everything.
It changes everything.
So yeah, if we get there first, this is like everything.
It's our military, it's our economy, it's our quality of life, it's It's America's reputation as getting there first for the important stuff.
It's everything.
This is one of the best bets you'll probably ever see.
And it's funny to watch the United States place basically a casino bet, except the odds are they're the house in this case, I guess, because the odds are with the house.
I like the odds.
I like the odds.
So, you know, maybe if I had a deeper knowledge, I'd find something that I didn't like about it.
But on the surface, a two to five billion dollar bet that we can leapfrog the entire world on fusion?
Oh, I love that.
I mean, I love that.
That is exactly, that's common sense.
There you go.
That's common sense.
There's no politics in this.
That's just good risk management.
I would love to hear Elon Musk and Sam Altman's opinion on this, because they both have deeper knowledge about fusion.
MSNBC says, according to their new boss, they're considering to be more news-oriented during the daytime and maybe had some conservative voices.
Do you think MSNBC is going to succeed by adding some conservative voices?
Well, that's not as risk-free as they think, because if they add conservative voices, they have the risk of being Jennings'd.
I just came up with a new word, Jennings'd.
Do you all know what that means?
So if you've been watching Scott Jennings, who is associated with the political right, Republicans, and CNN hired him to be the lone voice of the other side.
But what they didn't count on, apparently, this is me reading in between the lines, so I assume what they didn't count on is how good he would be at it.
And unfortunately, most of the clips I see on social media involve Scott Jennings making the rest of the panel look like clowns.
I think there were at least three of them this morning.
And every time I wake up, there's a new Scott Jennings makes CNN's panel look like clowns.
And that's a big risk because he's debunking the gaslighting, which is the entire left.
And he does it really well.
Now the other way to do this is the way I always tease Fox used to do this under the Roger Ailes world.
So remember when Hannity was Hannity and Combs?
So it was a partner group.
So Combs showed the Democrat side of things and Hannity did the Republican side of things.
And you look at Hannity and he was handsome and he just had the whole package.
And then you look at Combs, and he looked like he wasn't fully formed.
He just didn't have the movie star looks or charisma.
So you had one person with the looks and the charisma and the strong voice and the strong mind.
And then Combs, which was plenty smart, but he always looked like he was just getting beaten up by Hannity every day, and eventually he passed away.
So you can do it that way.
And my guess would be that the MSNB staff and hosts would only allow that to happen.
So here's what I would ask you to look for.
If MSNBC adds a conservative voice, wait for it to be the least capable person on the right.
It will be the least sensible person because then they don't have any risk of their gaslighting being unraveled.
So the post-millennial was reporting on that.
So apparently there's a school that's going to use AI teachers.
So it's a private school.
It just got approval.
Where is this?
It's in Texas.
So it's called the Alpha School.
And it's going to have two hours of lessons taught by AI. But, you know, it could be different AIs, but AI. So the two hours of lessons will be on the core curriculum that you learn in school.
But then the rest of the day will be, they'll spend less time in the traditional curriculum, and they'll use the extra time for workshops that cover financial literacy, public speaking, goal setting, entrepreneurship, critical thinking, and creative problem solving.
How awesome is that?
Now, I think they got it wrong on goal setting.
I think that should be systems instead of goals.
But teaching them practical life skills and minimizing the time they're learning how to do the stuff that nobody needs to do, and it got approved, and they're really going to do it?
Man, I'd want my kid to go to that school.
The only thing I'd worry about is if this prepares them for college, For the ones who want to go to college.
So I'd worry about that.
But otherwise, hmm.
So I'll give you an update.
My AI clone that I plan to build, I don't think AI is quite there yet.
But when it gets to the point where it can actually reproduce me and knows what I tell it to know about me, which it can't do yet, as soon as it can, My plan is to make that available in part to homeschools.
So I would like to, when they're teaching this other stuff like goal setting, It'd be great if the so-called helpers, they would have humans who are not teachers that would help them with this other workshop stuff.
But I would love if they used my AI to teach systems better than goals and basically the techniques of career success.
And my plan at the moment is Would be to make that available for free to anybody who's in school.
Maybe.
I don't know.
Maybe have some small fee for access if it's somebody who's an adult and just trying to get some extra adult education.
Not sure about that part yet.
Might not need the funding.
But yeah, I plan to be part of this.
Yeah, my AI could teach hypnosis, in theory.
Again, AI is not at a point where I could teach you things and then it could teach you.
It's not there, but it will be.
It will be.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I had for you today.
After I'm done, Owen will be hosting a Spaces, that's an audio-only event, And I think you'll fire that up as soon as I, you know, almost as soon as I close down here.
And anybody who wants to Continue with anything that they saw here or anything else.
That would be the place to go to do it.
So don't miss that.
And I'm going to talk to the people on Locals privately for a moment, my subscribers, and I'll see the rest of you tomorrow, if not on Spaces.
