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, Quantum Computing, Drinking Bleach Hoax, AmericanDebunk, NJ Mystery Drones, Carjacking Waymo, Conclave Movie, Alcohol Is Poison, Birth Control Pill Depression, Global Engagement Center, President Trump, Train Your Replacement, Digital Son, Hateful Democrat Politics, Kamala Election Certification, Vegas Cybertruck Terrorist, Matthew Livelsberger, X Negativity Deboost, President Bukele, Iran Economy, Hurricane Science, Hypersonic Weapon defense, 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.
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time in your life.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny brains and their quantum computers, it's not enough.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice and a canteen jug or flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh.
You know, I remember hearing a hypothesis.
Somebody else came up with it a long time ago.
The purpose of dancing was so that primitive people could look like they were one larger beast.
So if you were a lion and you saw one human, you'd say, I can take that human, and the lion would kill you.
But if you saw a bunch of humans standing next to each other and they were all acting in unison, The lion might think, wait a minute, it looks like one giant creature.
They're all operating in unison.
And when I do the simultaneous sip, I always feel it connects us to something really basic in our biology, that doing something at the same time makes you feel safer.
I wonder if anybody feels that at some non-conscious level.
Just wonder.
Because a lot of people say that they enjoy.
They get some kind of dopamine hit from doing the simultaneous sip.
There might actually be a deep evolutionary reason that it feels good to do things at the same time.
I mean, there's a reason we like to dance and sing along with songs and match people.
Anyway, so I'd like to throw this out there just to make the technical people's head explode.
Just because you won't like it.
I have this theory of the world that the only things that are real are the things that the people who are the experts can explain to me.
Now, I don't mean that I need to understand all the technical parts.
But if somebody explained to me, let's say, how a digital telecommunication works compared to analog.
I wouldn't understand every single technical part, but I'd get the basic idea.
I'd get the basic idea.
But if somebody tries to explain quantum computing to me, I do not get the basic idea.
And at first I thought, oh, I'm just seeing bad explainers.
There must be some way to explain.
You know, just in a very layman's...
Kind of way, why the quantum computers are so fast.
And they end up saying things like, well, it must be accessing multiple dimensions with the qubits.
And I go, is it really impossible to describe what's happening?
Because that just sounds like words.
It doesn't sound like you understand anything.
And how would you know what dimension it's going to?
How could you interact with another dimension?
And how could you do it all?
Doesn't it sound like quantum computers all fake?
And when I say fake, I don't mean that the tests don't work in the lab.
You know, they probably do.
What I mean is, I don't think anybody working on it knows what it is.
Because if they did, they could explain it at least a little bit, just a little bit, instead of saying stuff like, well, it's...
It goes off into the infinite dimensions, and then something happens, and then we get a result.
But why is that so fast?
Well, because of the infinite dimensions.
How do you send things to infinite dimensions?
Well, with the qubits.
What are you talking about?
Is it really impossible to just give some kind of basic analogy?
Anything that would make me understand how we're sending things into the infinite dimensions and getting answers back.
Don't see it at all.
All right, here's one of the things that I think of in terms of reality.
Now, you've heard others say something like this, so it's not something I invented.
But back in the 90s, I had this idea that reality was fixed and that all the possibilities of your future Those already exist as static, frozen situations.
And the only thing that travels, if you can even call it that, is your consciousness.
So in other words, there's no time, there's no space, there's nothing.
Everything's just frozen and permanent.
And the only thing that moves is you through all the permanent states.
And if you're moving in one direction, it looks like those things are moving.
Just like a picture book, if you flip the pages of a...
Cartoon book, where the cartoon is different a little bit on each page, it would look like it's moving.
So I think that our sense of time and movement are just illusions because our consciousness is experiencing one reality after another.
That's what I think.
But how would that allow you to solve an unsolvable, gigantic problem with quantum computing?
I don't know the answer to that.
But...
If what you're doing is sending out a zillion little signals, and one of them comes back from the path of reality that's always existed, along with all the other infinite paths, if one of those paths has a solution, maybe it can send it back, and maybe it can test it.
And maybe the only thing you can test is whether it worked.
So you don't see the computing.
You only know that one of the paths works.
So that's my best guess.
But if you can find anybody who can give a common sense explanation of how you use multiple infinite dimensions to solve a math problem, let me know.
I'm very, very curious.
But my skepticism is through the roof that quantum computing is something that we can scale up and turn into products.
You know, the smart people say yes.
So maybe they're right.
But the smart people told me 20 years ago that the string theory was going to solve all our problems.
And I remember thinking, I don't think they even know what that is.
I don't think this whole string theory thing sounds really sketchy.
Sure enough, it doesn't seem to have solved too many problems so far.
Well, in other news, you all know about the drinking bleach hoax that Trump has suffered under.
He said you should drink bleach.
And then other people say, well, not drink bleach.
He said inject bleach.
And then people say, well, not inject bleach, but he said inject household disinfectants.
None of that happened.
In the real world, nothing like that happened.
And the American Debunk site that you can find on X just by American Debunk.
But I think AmericanDebunk.com would get you to the site directly.
There's a really good write-up of the drinking bleach hoax with a video that shows you exactly how they did it.
And it's the best so far.
I've written about the hoax a number of times, but I think the American Debunk did a nice, tight video that is really unambiguous.
You can really, really see it clearly how the hoax was created.
It's really well done.
So first of all, you should, every one of you, Should have a bookmark or at least remember the name of the site.
The same way you remember Snopes or Wikipedia.
Just remember American Debunk and you should be able to search for it.
So that's got the debunks of the main Trump hoaxes.
And I feel like it's time that people will realize that that was fake.
And as I've told you before, the fine people hoax was the tentpole.
But the drinking bleach hoax is the finisher.
We knocked the tentpole down, and now a lot of people understand that the fine people thing was a hoax.
But they still think, even the people who debunked, who understand that the fine people hoax was a hoax, still they believe that Trump said something about drinking or injecting.
My household disinfectants.
So I think once you see that even the drinking bleach hoax was completely made up and that the technique to completely make it up is to just say that something happened that didn't happen and then only show you a part of the video.
And that worked.
That actually worked.
When the access to the full video was always available and it still worked.
And, you know, I'm so disappointed with the right-leaning media that they were kind of soft on that one.
It felt like the debunk had to come from the public, and it did, people like me, and now American debunk.
So check it out.
Make sure you've just made a mental note or actually literally just tagged it so you can find it later.
So I saw Tucker Carlson had an ex-CIA guy on, and separately he was answering the question about the drone activity.
And his theory about the drone activity, if you can believe an ex-CIA guy whose job was lying, is that all it is is that there was a recent change to make it legal to fly your hobby drone at night, as long as it had lights.
So apparently, it might be nothing but it became legal to fly at night, so a bunch of people who had drones thought, hey, I think I'll fly around at night, because I couldn't do that before.
And that might be the whole thing.
The entire thing might be people who were flying in the daytime, and now they can fly at night.
So you notice them where maybe you wouldn't even notice them if they were in the daytime.
So I'm not saying that that's the correct answer.
But at the moment, I think I would rule out aliens and a permanent Chinese fleet of drones flying over our stuff.
I don't think either of them are very likely.
But if you ask me, what is the likelihood that it's just a new wave of activity because the law changed?
Well, that sounds kind of likely to me.
Anyway, the best...
Pictures I've seen so far of the drones in New Jersey are from our own Erica, who I don't see her in the comments today.
But if you haven't seen her pictures, I think she posted them on X. I'll follow up on that.
I'll repost them if I see them.
I'll check when the show is done.
But they're the cleanest pictures I've seen.
And they do look...
They don't look like drones I've seen.
So it might be just that the pictures are distorted because of the lights on the drone, something like that.
So I don't know.
Meanwhile, in LA, a man tried to steal a self-driving Waymo car, and he couldn't figure out how to start it and drive it because it was a self-driving Waymo car.
Now, the only thing that they need to do with these self-driving cars...
Is they need to lock the doors and drive you to the police station.
You know, like the bait cars.
There used to be a TV show called Bait Car where people would try to steal the car that was left to be intentionally stolen.
And they'd get locked in the car.
And that was a fun show.
So I'd like to see all the self-driving cars understand when somebody's trying to rob them and just lock the door and drive them to the police department.
Now, I know that can't happen, but it'd be fun.
Fun to imagine it.
Megyn Kelly is telling us that there's a new movie called The Conclave.
She said she just made the huge mistake of watching it.
And I guess it's a...
She refers to it as an anti-Catholic film.
And in order to make this story...
You know, hit, I would have to violate something that creative people shouldn't violate, which is I'd have to tell you the ending of the movie.
No, I'm not going to do it.
I'm not going to do it because just as a principle, you can't be in the work that I do and then ruin somebody's art, right?
So somebody made it.
It was art.
I'm sure somebody likes it.
Probably somebody likes that movie.
So it would be wrong for me, just like I wouldn't tell you how a magic trick is done.
You know, because you don't give away magic tricks.
It ruins it for everybody.
But let me tell you this.
If you do watch that movie, and let's say you're a person who's not fond of wokeness, you're not going to make it through the ending.
So the only tease I'm going to give you is if you don't like wokeness, oh boy, you've got a big surprise coming.
This movie has apparently the wokest ending of anything that's ever been imagined.
So I wish I could tell you, but I can't spoil it for you.
Just know that Megyn Kelly says it's just shameful garbage.
I don't know.
But I also don't know why anybody would watch a movie.
Now, here's a question I have.
You may have noticed that the headlines this week are using the phrase, alcohol is poison.
And it's popping up in a number of places.
There's a study saying that alcohol causes cancer, so they're calling it poison, and the Surgeon General is talking about it.
And here's my question.
You all know that I... Track my own influence by looking for specific kinds of words or something that I've worded that's different the way people have worded it before.
And if I see that spread into other places, I can think, well, I don't know for sure, but it looks like maybe my influence went somewhere.
Now, I don't think that I'm the first person in the world who said alcohol is poison.
And there was a book long before I said it that said, Sugar is poison.
So it's not like some genius thing to get to, you know, alcohol is poison.
But let me just tell you a little history of it.
So in my book, How to Fail Almost Everything and Still Went Big, came out in 2013. So quite a while ago now.
And I did write about my use of the phrase alcohol is poison as an aid to avoid a thing which I had enjoyed in the past but didn't want to do anymore.
So I found it helpful.
Now, that's the first time I kind of made a, you know, a section of a book talking about the phrase alcohol is poison.
And then I heard from a number of people that just that one phrase was enough to reframe how they thought of alcohol and they quit drinking.
And then I heard from more people who said they quit drinking forever.
You know, they'd been off it for a year or more.
And they said it was that phrase that put them over the top.
So because it was so powerful, when I wrote my more current book, Reframe Your Brain, that's the newest one.
Reframe Your Brain included that one.
You know, I said it's from my prior book.
And I mentioned it again.
And my intention of putting it in the reframe is so that it would spread.
And you've watched me long enough, you know that that's what I do.
I try to come up with a useful reframe.
That as soon as you hear it, gives you a new superpower.
And the power might be to avoid something or to do something you didn't want to do, to exercise more.
Basically, the reframes simply just are a quick little reprogramming trick to allow you to do something you couldn't figure out how to do before.
That's it.
That's all they are.
So my intention, very publicly since 2013, my intention was to make this phrase.
Alcohol is poison, a common phrase in America.
As of today, if you look at the headlines from this week, it's become a routine way to describe drinking.
Now, did I have anything to do with that?
Because I don't know.
This one's a tough one, because it wasn't such a brilliant, out-of-the-box idea that, you know, 100 people...
Don't think of it on their own every day.
I don't know.
But I don't see any public figures who had said it much in the last 10 years.
But I've been saying it over and over and over again for 10 years, and it's really spread.
I don't know how many people have quit drinking forever because of that, but based on just the people who have told me personally, if I had to guess, 1,000?
I mean, it's a pretty big number for just...
One sentence changing people's entire life.
A thousand people?
Just a guess.
I don't know.
But based on the number of people who have gotten back to me.
So, you might want to use that one.
Alcohol is poison.
It will help you avoid alcohol if that's what you want to do.
I'm not telling you you should or should not.
That's not my job.
But if you want to, there's a little trick to do it.
Meanwhile, according to Vladimir Hedry in Psypost, There was a little study that said birth control pills are linked to changes in depressive mood processing.
In other words, they showed that people on the pill, women on the pill, don't let me become one of those people.
Don't let me say people on the pill.
Like that, that just came out of my mouth.
No, women, women.
Women on the pill.
All right, let's be specific.
Women who are on the pill.
According to the new study, it had more depressive symptoms.
But before you agree with this, because maybe you're already primed to agree with it, which is, that was my case, I was already primed to think it's true, because I think it's true.
So I believed it.
And then I looked more, and it says the study included 53 young, healthy women, and I'm out.
What good is a study of 53 people?
It's maybe...
A little bit statistically valid, but the variability in how much you should trust it is all over the place.
I don't think 53 people should tell you much.
So even though I believe if they did a bigger study, they would find similar results, that's because I'm biased.
It's not because of logic.
So the only point of this one is not to make you think, Science has proven that going on the pill makes you depressed.
This doesn't do that.
It's too small.
So the first thing you should need to know is the bigger the sample, the more likely there's some chance it's true.
But 53?
Nah.
I would give that...
I just don't give that any credibility.
Now, the statisticians are going to say that you can actually get a result from...
40 or 50 people.
And you can, statistically.
But the margin of error would be just so big that I wouldn't trust it.
Anyway, according to Gabe Kaminsky's reporting in the Washington Examiner, do you remember when there was this big censorship group called the Global Engagement Center that the State Department was funding, and they were in the job of essentially...
Censoring American citizens.
And so that got so much bad press, and the Democrats thought, okay, we can't have this anymore.
But I guess Republicans and Congress voted to get rid of it and defund it.
So I said to myself, yay, this bad, evil, censoring thing that I'm paying for, I mean, it's not bad enough that they're censoring me.
My government is censoring me and other people.
But I'm paying for it.
Why am I paying to be censored?
So the Congress, in its wisdom, got rid of it.
What do you think Democrats did when the Congress decided that we should not have this function anymore?
Well, according to Gabe Kaminsky in the Washington Examiner, all they did is figure out how to stuff both the funding and the people in different departments.
All they did is distribute it, both the people and the money.
The people and the money.
They just distributed them so that it looked like they got rid of it, but they kept it all.
Is there anything that Democrats do that's good for the country?
I mean, I actually wonder.
I mean, if Congress votes for something, they very clearly expressed, in this case, I think the will of the people, but certainly the will of the Congress.
And then the State Department just gets to run around the back door and pretend it never happened.
Not acceptable.
Not acceptable.
And so this is good reporting.
This is an example of exactly what I want to see reporting look like.
So good reporting.
Just my compliments.
Anyway, Washington Post.
Editorial cartoonists just quit because one of the cartoons that the editorial cartoonist submitted was rejected by management.
And she said, I've never had anything rejected before, but what was the one thing that this cartoonist had rejected?
Now remember, political cartoons are always edgy.
So by design, they're always edgy.
What was the one thing, the Washington Post, that's your hint, what's the one thing that got rejected?
Well, it was a comic that was negative toward the boss or the owner of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos.
Now, the manager who takes credit for rejecting it said the reason he rejected it is not because it insults his boss, which would be a really good reason if you're an employee, but also...
It was sort of a repeat of a story.
So the manager says, oh no, the reason that I've only ever censored one cartoon from this artist ever, it just happened to be by coincidence about Jeff Bezos, but that's not the reason.
No, no.
No, people, that's not the reason.
No, the reason is because it seemed repetitive with some other work.
Okay.
That's sort of a stretch to make us believe that.
But if there's one thing I can tell you in our world, you can't be an artist who has a boss.
If you have a boss, you're just a mouthpiece for your boss.
If you don't have a boss, and you're willing for the public to hate you or love you and all that, then sometimes you can be an artist.
I would say that when Dilbert was in newspapers, For all practical purposes, I didn't have an actual boss boss.
But in effect, because the newspapers could fire me and my syndication company could fire me if I didn't do what they wanted.
So I very much knew that I had to stay between the lines.
Was that art?
Well, it was art with a small a.
I mean, it was art-like.
But I couldn't say what I wanted to say.
I couldn't even get close to saying the things I wanted to say.
But then I got cancelled.
Once I was cancelled, I could feel what it was like for the first time to be an artist.
Because now I think, would I like to do that?
And if the answer is yes, then I do it.
And that's it.
I just do it.
Now that's actual art.
So I'm so blessed by getting cancelled.
And I know that just sounds like something maybe somebody says to rationalize, but boy, you would have to experience it.
Imagine being a creative person all of your adult life, and you've never been able to be creative.
That was my experience.
I was just never really able to be creative, but now I can.
It's amazing.
I'll tell you what's happening this week in a moment.
Trump was giving a speech, and he described the The concept of training your own replacement, specifically with foreign workers who are coming in and working for cheaper, which is a massive problem in the United States right now.
And he says, Trump says, quote, can you believe that?
You get laid off and then they won't give you your severance pay unless you train the people that are replacing you for half of your pay and no benefits.
He says, I mean, that's actually demeaning, maybe more than anything else.
Have I ever mentioned how well Trump can read a room?
Let me just read you how he describes how people feel.
And you tell me he isn't the best who ever read a room.
Just listen to this.
You get laid off and they won't give you your severance until you train the people replacing you.
I mean, that's actually demeaning.
Maybe more than anything else.
So that captures it.
It would have been so easy to say, it's bad for the economy, and it's bad for workers.
And I'd say, oh, yeah, I guess he understands the issue.
It's bad for people.
But he goes to the next level.
He doesn't just say it's bad.
Everybody understands the economic part of it.
No explanation needed.
But when he says demeaning, oh, right?
You feel it.
You feel that he gets it.
He gets it, that this is of course about economics, it's of course about people wanting to keep their jobs, but it's demeaning.
And when he hits that note, that's what makes him Trump.
Yeah, he's unmatched at this.
Now, to tie two stories together, my Dilbert comics for this week, I believe starting on Monday, Are Dilbert training his Elbonian replacement?
So Dilbert will be training his Elbonian replacement.
I'm not entirely sure I could have done that if I hadn't been cancelled.
It's a little bit edgier than newspapers maybe would have been comfortable with, but I don't know.
But you'd have to be a subscriber now.
So if you're subscribing on X or you're a member of the Locals community, scottadams.locals.com, you can see the new Dilberts, where Dilbert is training his Elbonian replacement all week.
But apparently, this might be a temporary problem because there's a bigger issue.
According to Owen Hughes on Live Science, now they've shown that you can...
Train an AI agent to replicate your personality in two hours of conversation with it.
And it will be 85% accurate to your personality.
So all you have to do is chat with an AI. I don't know if the AI asks you specific questions or not.
But after two hours, it can largely reproduce your entire personality.
Do you think we're going to have a long-term problem with foreign workers that we have to train to do your job?
Or do you think we're two years away from training the robot to do your job, which would also be demeaning?
Maybe less demeaning because the robot doesn't take it personally?
Maybe.
So that's happening.
The robots will be replacing you.
Now, I want to tell you a little update from me.
I've been telling you for years, really, that I plan to build an AI robotic clone of myself so that I could live forever.
I have changed that plan.
And here's why.
I thought it was just the greatest idea in the world that after I passed away, there'd be like a version of me that...
Could grow and, you know, change with technology and be upgraded and stuff.
I thought that was great.
Do you know what happens when you mention that to people you know?
They look at you with sadness and they go, it wouldn't be you.
Right?
And that's the part that was invisible to me because in my planning, I'm not really there anymore.
So I don't have to deal with the fact that people would find it uncomfortable because it's not me, but it's acting like me.
And I can imagine that that would hit that creepy zone and you'd be like, why did you even do this?
Like, why did you do this?
It's not you.
So here's how I decided to fix that.
I'm not going to create a digital clone of myself.
I'm going to create a digital son.
I'm going to reproduce.
Because my son, in AI, digital, robotic form, is not supposed to be just like me.
It's supposed to be influenced by me, maybe have a lot of my characteristics in it, but then it's supposed to find its own way, and it's supposed to turn into its own person.
Yes, but when it's small, it will be very influenced by me when it's brand new, and it will be designed based on my personality, which would be like my DNA, but it would be very allowed to evolve.
So by the time the robot is a senior citizen, Maybe its robot body got changed a few times and software got upgraded.
But by some point, it won't be me.
But you might be able to find some corresponding similarities.
You'd say, oh, yeah, the original, you know, your organic father had a lot of the same elements going on.
So that's the current plan.
Digital son.
Correction, I said something totally wrong yesterday about one of the lawfare cases.
I told you that Judge Mershon was with his 34 felonies or whatever it is.
I thought that was the bank lending lawfare, but it was the Stormy Daniel lawfare.
I get all my lawfares confused.
Now, I warned you that was going to happen.
I cannot tell the lawfare stories apart because they all have the same elements.
Somebody did something that you would never do for anybody except Trump.
The jury found him or the judge found him guilty, that nobody was found guilty except Trump.
It's all just completely political BS. So to me, they all sound the same.
So it's hard to keep them straight.
But that doesn't change the fact that the appellate court is going to get a look at it.
And MSNBC is...
Really going hard at the fact that even though the possibility of jail is now eliminated by the judge, that he will technically be a felon before he's sworn in.
And they seem to be really, really happy with that because they get to call him a felon.
So apparently MSNBC... Didn't notice that the election didn't go well for the Democrats.
And if they did notice that, they haven't figured out why.
But if I had to narrow down the whole complexity of the election and the characters involved, it really kind of came down to...
We don't like name-calling.
That's all the Democrats had.
Well...
You know, the Republicans would be like, I think we should close the border because that would improve our security.
And then Democrats would be like, oh, so you're racist.
And then we'd say, we don't want to fund Ukraine for various reasons.
And then they'd say, well, you must be traitors or racists or something.
So they only had that one thing.
If we don't like your policy, we're going to call you names.
You're going to be deplorables.
And people like James Carville and a number of people, the smarter Democrats, have figured out, wait a minute, the name-calling didn't work at all.
Now, I would say the Pocahontas, which is a fair statement, by the way, that Trump does name-calling too, but his are playful.
Pocahontas is just completely playful.
I mean, it's effective.
So is low-energy Jeb.
But they're not really just you are a bad person.
It's not you're a bad person at all.
It's just they're playful, effective and playful.
But with the Democrats, we're full of hate.
There's a difference between hate and playfulness.
And the hate just turns people off.
So after going through that whole cycle of learning that the one thing that definitely doesn't work...
It's turning complicated policies into just an insult.
And here they're doing it again.
They've decided that insulting Trump and his supporters by calling him a felon without mentioning that the only reason he's a felon is because lawfare and a complete corruption of the justice system by Democrats.
And they think that's going to work.
How in the world do they wake up and say, you know what?
We just got our clocks cleaned by simply doing nothing useful but calling them names.
How about, and I'm just spitballing here, what if we call them names?
But wait a minute, didn't you just say that that's what didn't work?
I know, I know.
But what if we did more of it?
Really, more of the thing that didn't work?
Yeah, maybe it just wasn't enough.
Or maybe we weren't using the right insults.
What exactly are they thinking?
Is there a conversation that happens, or do they just all simultaneously act the same?
At some point, there had to be somebody smart-ish who said, all right, everybody, here's what we're going to do.
We're going to insult Trump by calling him a felon.
Was there somebody in the meeting who said, genius, boss.
That's genius.
I mean, honestly, I'm so curious how the conversation went.
Was there somebody who said, I think we've got it this time?
Yeah, we had a lot of near misses in the last election, but I think if we call him a felon, they were calling him a convicted felon for the entire election, but now they think they're calling him an actual felon when the entire news public knows it's...
Sort of BS and it's not real and he's not going to jail and, you know, it was a biased process.
They cannot learn.
They really cannot learn.
And, of course, tomorrow we get to see the spectacle of Kamala Harris certifying Trump's victory over her.
I didn't see when that is.
Does somebody have an Eastern time?
What's the time?
I've got to watch that live.
Are you going to watch that live if you're available at that time?
So if somebody knows the time that that's going to happen, can you put it in the comments?
Probably the morning.
I don't know.
But I just want to watch their interaction, don't you?
I want to look at their faces, and I just want to see her forced smile.
I'd like to do my impression.
Of what will likely be Kamala Harris's forced smile.
Bye, Donald Trump.
Bye.
I don't think the eyes are going to match the face.
I think her mouth is going to be puckered up.
Congratulations.
Have a nice day.
It's going to be terrific.
Anyway.
So, there's more news, of course, about that Vegas Cybertruck guy.
I'm going to give you my summary of my opinion and then tell you why.
I think we know everything we need to know.
There are a bunch of sub-mysteries to the story, but I don't think any of them are going to tell us anything now, even if we solve them.
In my opinion, it is now confirmed.
I'm completely satisfied that he had mental problems.
That's now confirmed.
He was seeking help.
It's now really, really certain that he had severe mental problems.
And that would explain everything.
Secondly, it was not a terror attack.
There was no indication he had the intention of creating terror.
He apparently had the intention of creating a spectacle to call attention to something I believe he's just hallucinating about, which is that there's...
Some kind of gravitic propulsion device and there's Chinese drones over New Jersey.
No, I don't think any of that's true.
I think that was just something he saw online and his mental state wasn't good.
And he just bought into it and thought he, maybe in his mental state, thought he was doing something wrong.
Now, you're going to say to me, but Scott, how do you explain X? But Scott, how do you explain this?
And let me tell you how.
In the real world, when any complicated and new event happens, one of the things you're going to notice is a whole bunch of coincidences.
And a lot of people said, but wait, there are two on the same day.
They're both in the military.
They both went through the same base.
They both use this app.
And you said to yourself, because your common sense says, what are the odds that all of those things happen on the same day?
Right?
Your common sense.
Your sense of statistics is too big a coincidence.
Here's where I want to retune you on that.
That was not a big coincidence.
Not even close.
The way to understand this is with an old book from my younger days.
It was very big at the time.
It was called The Bible Code.
How many of you remember that?
Because that's what you should think about when you see a story like this.
If you don't know the story about the Bible Code, You don't understand this story about the Cybertruck Vegas guy.
Here's why.
In the Bible Code, there was a claim which was debunked.
And the claim was that there are secret codes in the King James Version of the Bible.
And so the authors of the book ran various programs against the text.
And I'm just going to make up this example, but it gives you the idea.
So they would do something like, what if we took the first letter of the first sentence, And then the second letter of the second sentence, but the third letter of the third sentence, etc.
And then we put them together as a diagonal.
Well, almost all the time, it's just nonsense letters.
But every now and then, it might say something like, you know, BOM and then 45. And then you say, BOM, 45. Aha!
It's actually predicting, way back then, That in 1945, there'd be a nuclear bomb.
And then you talk yourself into it being an accurate prediction.
But it was just noise.
Now, you might say to me, really?
Really?
That's just noise?
And there's more than one of those.
Like, there are a whole bunch of examples where it seems to be it's predicting something that really happened.
You know, Scott, explain that.
How do you explain how many times they could find these things?
I mean, there's no way it could be accidental.
It's all through the book.
And then somebody said, what if we run your algorithms against war and peace?
Well, it turns out that war and peace has the same amount of hidden messages from God.
In other words, our sense of the odds of things is just off base.
If the book is big enough...
You will find all kinds of coincidental references to things which you can imagine are accurate in the future, as long as you ignore all the ones that did not predict anything and the ones that are nonsense.
So, take that example that whenever there's something as complicated as a book, in this case the Bible, there are all kinds of coincidences in it, and it's guaranteed just by the complexity of the book.
It's guaranteed.
It's not an accident, it's guaranteed.
This situation with the Cybertruck guy is such a new, unique situation.
Everything about it feels like the one time you've seen it.
And it's really complicated because it's a multi-day event where he planned it.
You need to understand his military service all the way through the autopsy.
And we're getting fog of war stuff.
We don't know what's true, what's not.
So under this situation, How many unexplained coincidences would you expect?
And the answer is, if you say, there shouldn't be many unexplained coincidences, it should be kind of straightforward, then you don't understand the Bible code story.
The most normal thing that we should have seen is a whole bunch of fake patterns and coincidences.
Every time.
There's nothing about this case.
That is giving you extra coincidences.
And if it looks like they are, they probably don't mean anything.
So being just filled with unlikely seeming coincidence probably doesn't mean anything.
It has no predictive value at all.
And that's what the Bible code teaches you.
The story about the Bible code, that's what it teaches you.
So it's the same thing when I say the Meg Martin preschool case.
If you don't understand that, you would not understand what a mass psychosis looks like, mass hysteria.
So there are some stories about reality that will tell you about the odds of things and how to interpret the news.
And those are big ones.
The Bible Code, just understand how that gets debunked.
And then the McMartin preschool case, to understand how people thought there was massive...
Again, that was coincidence.
The McMartin preschool thing was that people said, it's not possible that all of these children could have stories about satanic abuse unless it's true.
But the real answer is, no, it's completely possible.
It's routine to have gigantic coincidences in any complicated situation.
There are always some.
So I think he was just...
It had a problem.
The Sean Ryan Sam Shoemate email.
I don't know if he wrote that, and I don't know if somebody else wrote it.
I don't think it matters.
I mean, if he did write something that shows he has mental problems, well, it would just be additive to what we already knew.
But I definitely don't think there are any gravitic propulsion devices.
Let's see.
And again, I wouldn't call it a terrorist attack.
So the first coincidence is ruled out.
The first coincidence is, did he mean to create terror for a larger political purpose?
And the answer is no.
Apparently he meant to create a spectacle to draw attention to something, but he liked the United States and he liked Trump.
So it wasn't, I mean, I think it did cause a lot of damage to people.
Were there people injured nearby?
I don't remember the details of this one.
But it wasn't meant to be massive casualties.
And so some of the things that people are saying, well, let me just give you a taste for it.
So there's new video from a new angle that purports to show that he's alive before the blast and did not shoot his head off.
So I looked at the video, and there's nothing on the video.
And all the commenters are, see?
See?
He's perfectly alive there.
And I'm looking at it.
And I'm looking at it in close-up, and I'm saying, you can't see a person.
What are you looking at?
So I don't even think you're even seeing him.
I don't know what you're looking at.
I'm looking at exactly the same picture.
I don't see anybody.
I just see reflections in the window.
So I don't think that anything that we see in those videos is telling us the truth.
The fact that we can't figure out, you know, did he shoot himself?
You know, we don't even know if there was a fuse.
Like, did he have time to shoot himself first?
Probably.
So probably everything just has an ordinary explanation.
And I don't really think there's anything that really screams cover-up or op.
It looks like it's just exactly what it looks like.
So that's where I'm settling on this.
I'm always open to changing my mind.
But so far, I don't see anything that seems suspicious about it.
It just is tragic, in my opinion.
Let's see, what else they found?
Yeah, he had additional firearms, so that one of the questions I had was, if he had this Desert Eagle gun that he shot his head off, all the smart people who know about guns say, Scott.
The last thing you would take would be this unreliable pistol called the Desert Eagle.
So I went to social media, not social media, I went to Perplexity, the AI, and I said, is it true that this kind of gun is unreliable?
And I said, yes.
So then you say to yourself, okay, if he's a gun expert, because he's a gun expert, and he planned to off himself, Why would you bring, and there would be a timing variable you'd have to do, like, right at the right second before the car exploded.
Why would somebody who knew about guns bring one that's famous for jamming when you're really, really going to need it?
And then I asked, what would be the odds that that gun would jam if you knew you were only going to fire it once and you were a gun expert and you fired the gun before?
How often does it jam on the first shot?
And it said, oh, much less likely.
Much less likely it's going to jam on the first shot.
I don't know if that's true.
That's just what perplexity said.
So, my question would be this.
If he knew that he had used this revolver many times, and that maybe it did jam, maybe it did, but what if it never once jammed on the first shot?
And that there's something about the multiple shots that creates the jamming possibility.
In that case, maybe the reason he'd use it is because he's more of a gun expert than you are.
Could it be, since he owned the gun, he knew that it always worked on the first shot, but it did have a problem if you did repeated shooting?
Could he have known that?
Now, the other question would be, if he had these other weapons, why didn't he use them?
And it might be that the caliber or something like that, he wanted to get it done for sure.
I don't know.
And then you have to add to that that he wasn't mentally working.
So his mental problems could have been related to a bad choice of firearms.
Yeah.
So there's a lot of stuff that you think is a big...
Oh, the thing that bothered me when I heard about the Desert Eagle...
I said to myself, okay, I can see why maybe he would trust it to off himself if it doesn't jam on the first thing.
But why would somebody who's going into a situation where there's likely to be trouble, and he's a military guy, why wouldn't he have a proper defensive weapon?
Right?
And then we find out he had other proper defensive weapons.
So I was thinking, oh, this can't be explained.
It can't be explained that somebody who knows that much about firearms going into an inherently dangerous situation would bring the worst firearm you could bring to that situation.
And the answer is, he didn't.
Then people say, but why would he have a passport?
Well, there was some talk about him going to Mexico, which at some point he might have thought he would go to Mexico.
Maybe he changed his mind.
Remember, he had mental problems.
He wasn't stable.
So if at any point he thought to himself, well, I might change my mind and just go to Mexico.
He throws his passport in.
But why didn't the passport burn?
I've got a feeling there were some things that burned and some things that didn't.
And maybe that's a coincidence, but maybe not a big one.
Because again, we're really, really bad at knowing what's a real coincidence and what's just any complicated situation.
There's going to be some stuff that didn't burn and some stuff that didn't.
So I could go down the list of the other things that people are saying, what about this?
How do you explain that?
And all of them have at least the potential for some ordinary explanation.
So I think that one's, to me, that's put to bed.
Elon Musk.
It's getting some pushback for some story that I don't understand yet and I think is fake.
But the allegations that users of X were making yesterday and the day before is that X had already or was about to change its algorithm to do something like de-boost negativity.
So if you often said things that were, let's say, a criticism of something, That you would get less engagement.
Now, I don't know that there's any truth to that.
Because at the same time, there were a number of people who were deplatformed or de-boosted, like Laura Loomer, for example, and others.
But each of them had a special story that we knew about or could have known about.
So there seemed to be specific allegations of terms of service broken.
So we don't know if the cancellations are related to what people did, that even if you looked at it and knew all the details, you would say, oh, okay, maybe you don't agree with it, but you'd see that it matches the terms of service and somebody violated something.
So there's this great uncertainty about what happened to the algorithm or what's going to happen and how that affects things.
I saw Mike Benz did an extended...
Video saying that if you de-boost or you de-platform somebody and they put all of their work on X, let's say their video content like Mike Benz does, that they would lose it all and there'd be no recourse.
So if he got banned tomorrow, Benz would lose 350 hours of fairly brilliant content.
How is that fair?
But I think the answer is...
The story seems to be at least half fake.
I don't know if any of it's true.
But Elon Musk said today, quote, for the bright sparks out there, no change has yet been made to the algorithm.
If you're wondering why you're not getting more views, look in the mirror.
Any changes we make will be posted publicly.
Now, what's interesting about this is that if the rumors are true, that negativity and sort of insulting people If that's actually going to get de-boosted, then what Elon Musk posted today would have been massively de-boosted because he's literally insulting people, calling them bright sparks, sarcastically.
And, you know, if you're not getting more views, look in the mirror.
Basically, there's something wrong with you.
That seems like exactly what would be de-boosted if the people who think this is happening are right, and I don't think they are.
So, I'm in total fog of war with this topic, and I think everybody is.
So, I don't think I'm alone.
I think there's just some rumors of things that might happen, but we don't know.
So, at the moment, I'm going to stand down and just say, I'm going to take myself out of this conversation because I don't think we even know what it is.
You know, we should be worried that there's any possibility things could go in a negative direction.
But I kind of wait to see, because so far, so far, Elon Musk has a perfect record, in my opinion, of being a pro-free speech advocate.
And until I see that change, then I'm going to say there must be something I don't understand about this story.
So that's where I'm at.
Mario Naufal is talking about how, I guess, back in September 2024, the House passed a bill to deport undocumented immigrants convicted of sex crimes.
So in other words, the idea would be, if we have so many people that are undocumented, you've got to start somewhere.
So you should start with the criminals.
And apparently, probably Republicans driving this, I assume.
We wanted to make sure that the legislation said, if you're a sex offender and you're undocumented, you're definitely going to get shipped back.
So every single Republican voted for that, and even 51 Democrats.
But 158 Democrats opposed deporting non-citizens who were sex offenders.
Now, we could talk about how crazy that is.
But I'm more interested in how clever it is to make the Democrats side with sex offenders.
And every time the Republicans find a new way to make the Republicans side with the sex offenders, I just think to myself, oh, that's good.
That's pretty good.
Because you don't have to insult them.
You don't have to say, oh, you're sex offenders or supporting them or something.
You just have to let them come out publicly in favor of the sex offenders.
I think people can connect the dots.
Now, I don't know why they do it.
You know, some are saying it was racist or whatever, but I'm thinking, race?
Why would I care what race they are?
If they came from another country and they're raping our citizens and we have a chance to send them out of the country, do you think I care if they're white or not white?
That's the last thing I'm thinking about.
I'm thinking about your daughters, and that's about it.
Not in a bad way.
Anyway, so if the Republicans can find more ways to get the Democrats on record as siding with the pedophiles, it's just going to be funnier and funnier.
All right.
As you know, There's been some talk lately about how the Democrats have been saying that the biggest risk of terror is the white supremacists.
And here's my question.
So I'm seeing a number of largely black TV hosts and pundits saying that the big risk is the white supremacists, terrorists.
And here's my question for all those who agree with that statement.
Would you want to live...
Where there's a high percentage of white supremacists.
Now, if some of you are white supremacists yourself, you might say, well, that's exactly what I want.
But most of you are going to say, no, I don't really want to live near white supremacists.
And if you're black, I mean, I think most white people would say, I don't want to live near a white supremacist.
Very much the high percentage of people would say that.
But if you're black, Would you ever want to live in a town that was known to have a high percentage of white supremacists?
And if you were considering it, what kind of advice would you give them?
Well, I don't know.
I'll just take a stab at it, because I like to be helpful.
I would probably tell black Americans who are concerned about living in a town where there's a high percentage, and high percentage in this case would be, let's say, 20%.
Would you agree that's high?
If you were black, would you intentionally ever move to a place that 20% white supremacists in it?
Well, not if you're concerned about your safety, which we should all be concerned about.
No.
If you want to be safe, you should make sure that you're moving into a town that's a blue city and nice and welcoming and maybe even has DEI. Maybe they're already studying reparations.
Right?
If you were black, that would be your ideal, safest situation with even maybe some economic benefits.
So, what would be your advice to a black American family who is considering moving into a town with 20% white supremacists?
Well, I'll take a stab at it.
I would say you should get the F out of that town.
So, did I get cancelled for saying that?
Did you get cancelled for saying that nice, low-bodying black families should stay away from towns that have 20% white supremacists in them and that it's just common sense?
It has nothing to do with racism.
It's not a statement about white people, right?
It's a statement about one subset of white people who do look like they present a risk to you.
So, As I often say, every time we treat the group the same as an individual, we're being stupid.
The way you should treat individuals is as an individual.
You should not give me credit for being white because there are some physicists who are also white who did some cool things once.
I don't get credit for that.
I don't get some kind of white credit because some white people who I've never met and I could never match their abilities did some cool things.
So now I'm not going to judge you by the group.
It's like, ooh, white person.
I heard of that white person who got a Nobel Prize, so I'm going to hire you because you're white.
And there was once a white person who got a Nobel Prize, so it makes sense, right?
No, nobody does that.
You'd never treat an individual.
Like the group, there's literally no logical reason to do that.
But can you treat a group like it has a tendency or a risk which would be highly relevant to you personally?
Of course.
Of course.
If it's a high-crime neighborhood, don't go there.
If it's a high-white supremacist group and you're not white, don't go there.
If you are white, don't go there.
It's exactly the same.
Less dangerous for the white people, but also don't go there.
All right.
So El Salvador continues to do clever things, not only that are good for El Salvador, but they look good.
One of the things I love about El Salvador is President Bukele is not only...
He legitimately has accomplished things that look really hard to accomplish, made the country safe, and he seems to be good for the economy and everything else.
But this latest move is just kind of brilliant.
El Salvador is lending their troops, some of them, to Haiti to help defeat the Haitian gangs.
Now, is that a brilliant idea?
Because it feels like it.
If you're the government or whatever there is in Haiti, do they even have a government right now?
I don't know.
But the last thing you want to do is hire some Haitians to sort it out.
Because the Haitians all hate the other Haitians and their gangs and there's a high level of corruption and bribery and threats and blackmail and retribution.
It's probably a situation where the Haitians, they don't have a path.
It would take some external influence to get anything back on track.
Could it be that the El Salvador troops are really specifically trained for this kind of civil unrest, because they had experience in El Salvador?
And can they, because their only interest is to do what they're told, which is to try to get Haiti stood up again, could they pull it off?
In a way that the Haitians couldn't have done it themselves, and more importantly, even a big superpower couldn't have helped.
And I'm thinking maybe.
If they pull this off, then Bukele is not just the guy who did some great things in this country.
Suddenly, he's that international guy.
So that is so brilliant for him to...
For the benefit of the brand of his country and to look like their movement.
But one of the things that a leader needs to do is make it look like great things are happening all the time.
So you have to have a steady stream of, I did this, I did this, we're doing that.
We can't wait to do that.
And this would be like that.
So you might say to yourself, well, I mean, how does this help El Salvador?
Some of their people will be put at risk.
It might be deaths.
You know, it seems like they're just giving stuff away, but not really.
What it does for the El Salvador brand is you start thinking of them like, I don't know, the Swiss?
You know, we think of Switzerland as always connected to international events, but just because they're good at what they're doing, you know, banking and staying neutral.
What if El Salvador becomes the place that can solve your internal problems?
It's pretty strong play.
I just love how it looks and feels.
So, Bukele definitely has the persuasion game.
He's got that completely.
All right, what about...
There's reports in the Wall Street Journal that Iran's economy is teetering on the edge.
I never believe these stories.
Because it seems like we've never exactly bankrupted a country into compliance, have we?
Is there an example that that's ever worked?
Because it feels like they can just keep getting poorer, but they become more resolute and they have workarounds and they have black markets and somehow they can make things work.
So I'm not going to say that Iran's economy is crumbling and that that will force them into negotiations because that feels too optimistic.
But if Iran had any hope of being...
Let's say making things better.
This would be the time to negotiate because they've lost their proxies.
So Hamas is on the run and Syria is just overcome and Hezbollah is beaten back and Iran's air defenses are completely destroyed.
And you've got Israel just casually talking about destroying their entire nuclear program.
Which they would just have to want to do.
Like, Iran couldn't stop them.
So it's like a casual public conversation.
Ah, do you think we should bomb their nuclear program into non-existence?
Yeah.
Yeah, maybe we should.
So, here's some more numbers.
Apparently, Iran's currency is down 40% since the start of 2024. Their GDP has fallen 45% since 2012. That's a huge number.
45% decrease in GDP since 2012. Since 2012, there should have been a really large increase in GDP if just things were normal.
So if you look at what it should have been, that makes it look way worse than just saying it's down 45. Because they should have been up 20. So there's like a 60% difference or something, if I'm doing the math right.
But roughly, you know, directionally.
And apparently they're running out of energy, which is also weird, because it's an energy-producing country.
But it doesn't mean it's the kind of energy you can use and everything else.
So apparently they're manufacturing their factories.
are being frequently shut down because they don't have enough electricity to keep them running all day.
So the factory production is like a fraction of what it was.
They don't have enough energy.
They probably have trouble getting replacement anything to improve their energy situation.
So the thinking is that they'll be so weakened, both internationally and domestically because of their economy, that when Trump comes in, he's sort of in the perfect situation for negotiating.
And he's reportedly going to put even more sanctions on them, which would be the right play, especially if you wanted to force the negotiations sooner than later.
So I do wonder what sanctions are left.
Like, are there some sanctions we had left that we weren't using?
Why?
Seems like we would have used everything you could use by now.
Meanwhile, according to the Daily Skeptic, Chris Morrison is writing that the new evidence shows there's been a 30-year global drop in hurricane frequencies and power.
Huh.
Wouldn't that be the opposite of what the climate models suggest?
Wouldn't that be the opposite of what science tells us?
Yes, that would be the opposite.
But do you believe the new numbers?
That the hurricanes have dropped in power and frequency for 30 years?
Or would it be more fair to say, wait a minute, Scott, apply a version of Gilman amnesia to this.
So when the experts showed me the climate change numbers that said the Earth is going to burn up, I said, that's fake.
When they showed me that the hurricanes are going to get worse, I said, that's fake.
When they said, you know, the sea level would be rising at a certain rate, I said, that's fake.
And basically, every time climate change said anything, you know, the consensus, I said, I don't think so.
That looks fake to me.
Now, what should I take to this new story?
So the new story is the opposite.
It says that there's data that says that the hurricanes weren't as bad.
Would I automatically think that's true because it agrees with me?
How about no?
How about the only thing I should be confident in is that the data about all things climate change are unreliable.
I think the anti-climate change hysteria numbers are probably unreliable.
It would be weird if the only unreliable studies were all in one direction.
It would be more likely, by my experience, that everybody who has a perspective just picks the data and the study that fits.
They only run studies that work for them.
If it went the other way, they wouldn't tell you.
So here's what I think.
I think you can't know about climate change.
I think that we don't have a system where humans are honest enough.
And that their ability to do data collection and analyze it properly are good enough that any of it means anything.
I don't believe the pro or the anti, and I'll extend that to the pandemic.
Today, again, there's some new report about, oh, the vaccination did this or that.
That's bad for you.
Maybe.
Maybe.
A lot of you would say, well, I believe that that's true.
I believe the vaccinations are bad for people.
If you believe that, then the new report comes out, you're going to say, well, that's true.
But then you wouldn't believe anything that the other people said with their science.
Go further.
If you're saying the other side gets all the science wrong, but everybody who disagrees gets it right, in what world does that happen?
It's far more likely that both sides are lying or mistaken or don't know how to do the math.
That's your normal world.
So I don't trust any statistics or any analyses coming out of the pandemic.
Nothing now and nothing then.
And so, since I don't understand it, I don't want to wear a mask and take a vaccination because I don't have information that tells me it's a good idea.
I just don't see the reason.
And when I see information that says, oh, it's going to kill you, it's a bad idea, I don't believe that either.
It might be true.
It's worrying.
Certainly worth our full attention if there's anything that says it was bad or could be bad.
But I don't know how to believe any of it.
So climate change and the pandemic, I don't believe any data in either direction.
And so I make my decisions based on the default.
If I don't know if the weather is going to be bad or good, I don't want to fund anything.
I don't want to fund it and I don't want to believe it.
If I don't know anything about the pandemic, whether it's true, I don't know if the vaccinations are good for me or bad for me, then I don't want to do it.
If I don't know it's good, I don't want to wear a mask.
If I don't know it's good, I definitely don't want to stick in anything else in my body.
I've already done that.
So just don't believe anything and make your decisions based on that.
Although we'll end up using our biases to decide what is real, but we shouldn't.
China has a new technology for shooting down, they hope, hypersonic missiles.
And they've got what they call a gun, but it fires 450,000 rounds per minute.
And I think the technology it came from at one point attested.
A million rounds per minute.
Now, as somebody smart said, does that mean that they fired a million rounds in a minute?
No.
No, they didn't develop anything that can fire a million bullets in a minute or rounds.
No.
That means that if they fired it for five seconds or whatever they actually fire it for, then, you know, if you could extend that, which they can't, It would have been 450,000 in a minute.
What they should have said is how much they shoot per second and how many seconds they can shoot.
Now, that would tell me something.
If they can only shoot for five seconds, but it's 50,000 bullets or something, I get that.
But this is just poorly conceived.
But my question is this.
If you shoot 450,000 rounds, Let's say you have multiple of these guns and there are multiple supersonic weapons heading your way.
Where do the bullets land?
I mean, it's bad enough when people celebrate by shooting in the air.
Every now and then you'll hear somebody got hit by the bullet that fell down.
What happens if you shoot 100,000 bullets in the same direction?
Isn't there going to be some suburb?
In China, that's directly below where 50,000 bullets are going to land.
Now, I'm sure it's better to take out the hypersonic missile, so you're probably still coming ahead, but I wouldn't want to be in the general direction of 450,000 bullets per minute that are in the air and they're all going to come down.
So I don't know if they thought that through entirely.
Meanwhile, in the world of...
Batteries, your favorite topic.
There's a Tesla-backed breakthrough using something called a single crystal electrode that would still work with a lithium battery, but it would make the battery last way longer.
What's the actual number?
Millions of miles.
Millions of miles.
So with a change that they now understand, and therefore it's possible you'll see it, but we don't know yet.
Your battery would last longer than the car.
So with fairly well-understood technology, it sounds like, you don't have to worry about replacing your battery unless there's a defect.
But in terms of wearing it out, your car will wear out before the battery.
And then, here's the cool part.
Because they can take lots of charges and not degrade as fast.
The cool part is that once the rest of your car wears out, And you've still got this battery that's working.
And maybe it's down to 80% capacity or 60% by then, but it still works.
You would be able to take your battery and put it into the grid.
So I don't think it's designed to easily do that at the moment.
But you can imagine when you trade in your car, that instead of trying to get rid of the battery, they say, oh, it's one of these million mile batteries and you got 60% charge left.
We'll just connect this with the other ones that are already in the grid.
And they just snap it in, and it gives a second life, which I think is very cool.
I don't know if any of that will happen, but it looks like it's within the realm of technical possibility.
Is there any story I missed today?
Probably not.
All right, I think I had all the important stuff.
And Erica, have you reposted yet?
Did you repost the pictures that you took of the drones?
I didn't see it yet.
Send it to me and I'll repost it if you have.
Oh, I'll go look at it.
I can find it.
All right.
I'm going to say bye to everybody except the local subscribers and I'm going to talk to them for a minute.
