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, President Trump's Inauguration Day, Trump's Day 1 Executive Orders, Melania Trump, Barron Trump, Anti-Elon Rupar-Style Hoax, Elon Musk, Biden Pardons, Adam Schiff, Jaime Raskin, Joy Reid, Mark Milley J6, Mike Benz, Anthony Fauci, J6 Committee Pardon, Trump Pacific Palisades Visit, Joel Pollak, Executive Orders Legality, People Over Fish Executive Order, Federal Work-At-Home Policy, J6 Political Prisoner Release Delays, Border Cartels, Starlink Rural Internet Access, Ukraine Peace, Vivek Ramaswamy, CA Failures Aid, AI Hallucinations, 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.
Let's call up the comments and we'll give you a show.
Boy, you're going to love it.
First full show of the golden age, if you don't count yesterday.
Alright, got your locals' comments working.
Done right there.
Perfect.
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
The beginning of the Golden Age has begun.
Yeah, the beginning has begun.
That's true.
Totally true twice.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that no citizens can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank of chalice, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Thank you, Paul.
All right.
Well, did anything happen yesterday?
I'm completely overwhelmed.
I've never seen so much happen in so little time.
My standard of how much should happen in any 24-hour day is now completely shattered.
How do you do that much stuff in any one day?
Anyway, we'll talk, of course, about the inauguration and all the politics, but while people are streaming in to find the live stream here, I want to tell you about a paralyzed man who, using some technology, has learned to fly a virtual drone with his mind using some breakthrough brain implants.
So I guess the implants read what would have been commands to his digits, his fingers.
And instead of sending it to his fingers, it sends it directly to control the drone.
So a person who's totally paralyzed can now fly a drone.
I mean, it's in the lab, but...
Oh, wait, I have an update.
The guy who is paralyzed and learned to fly the virtual drone, he's been kidnapped by the Ukrainians and sent to the front line.
Wait, I have a second update.
He's dead.
All right, well, forget about that story.
That's kind of embarrassing.
And let's move on.
Last night, as you know, last night, President Trump had three balls.
He still has three balls today, which is the only way I can explain Barron.
How do you have a child who's six foot nine?
You've got to have three testicles.
If you tell me there's another way to get that done, maybe, but I can't see what it would be.
So I think you had three balls last night, probably three balls all the time.
Totally seems normal.
It's the greatest inauguration ever, and at least that question can be put to bed.
Do you ever wake up and say to yourself, huh, I wonder who had the most entertaining and awesome inauguration?
You don't have to wonder that anymore.
This was the greatest inauguration that will ever be seen in American history.
Nobody's going to top that.
I just don't even think it's possible.
I mean, you could add some spectacle.
You could have some lions killing some Christians or something.
I mean, you could amp up the energy, but you couldn't make it better.
It was just the greatest thing I've ever seen in one day.
And the funny thing is, I watched it for hours.
I just couldn't stop watching.
I skipped over some of the musical stuff and whatever, but I watched everything that had anything to do with Trump.
And how do I do that when I can't watch a movie?
Like a two-hour movie would be completely out of the question, but I'm just like riveted to this thing.
Anyway, only Trump can do that.
So let's get into it.
You've heard most of the things, but it's still enjoyable to hear them again if you've heard them once, because they're so delicious, they're so provocative, they're so interesting, and there's so many of them.
It's just remarkable.
But let me just give you an idea.
First of all, I always talk about the new CEO move.
If you're a new CEO of a company, you like to do a big change on day one.
It's like you fire...
10% of the people and you rearrange the thing and you bring in somebody who's a superstar from the outside and you announce you're canceling one line of business and you're focusing on something else.
So whatever you do on the first day sets the stage because people are influenced by first opinions, first impressions.
So that first little period is so important persuasion-wise.
That's why CEOs start fast.
Trump is the best fast starter of all time.
It's not even worth even comparing him to anybody at this point.
He had the best show.
The best show.
Nobody puts on a show better than he does.
Now, is that an accident?
No.
Is it an accident that somebody who is famous for a reality TV show, famous for managing his brand, famous public figure, famous for being the most entertaining?
President of all time.
Even if you didn't like him, he was the most entertaining.
No, it's not an accident that the best showman in the world put on the best show in the world.
No, that's not a coincidence.
And you could see him directing things even as he was doing them.
As he was signing the executive orders, he was telling the camera people what angle to do.
I think he had suggestions on lighting at one point.
I feel like it was probably his idea.
To bring in the desk to the Capital One Center so they could actually sit at a desk and sign some executive orders and then take it to the Oval Office and sign some more while chatting and answering questions?
You tell me that could have been better.
How?
How?
Your imagination can't even think how that could have been better.
I mean, that was everything we wanted to see.
He could read a room like nobody's business.
It was the most energy I've ever seen.
I don't know how he stayed awake for those two days.
I mean, that was impressive.
For somebody who talks about energy all the time, you better deliver some energy.
Wow, did he deliver energy?
Wow.
It's the most optimism I felt in maybe forever.
It was some of the most competent execution.
That you'll ever see from any government-related anything.
Now, if you consider the temperature and the last-minute adjustments and the number of moving parts, do you have any idea how much capability you saw yesterday?
That was a lot of skill, and the skill went right down to every participant.
If you watched Carrie Underwood take the microphone to do her performance, And then find out that there won't be any musical accompaniment.
And then not even hesitate and just say, I'll do it a cappella.
And then deliver an instant, spontaneous, probably the best version I've ever heard.
And then just walk away.
The level of talent it took to do what she did and made it look easy, just off the chart.
Off the chart.
Anyway, so what else?
The other thing was when Trump was signing all the executive orders and chatting and answering questions, it was this rare opportunity to see his scope of knowledge.
He understood everything he was signing.
Compare that to...
and could talk about it.
He could talk about the context.
He could talk about why it was a good idea.
And there was nothing that stumped him.
He talked about all kinds of stuff.
And capably and competently and confidently.
Compare that to Biden, who allegedly paused the liquid natural gas shipments and didn't even know it.
When Speaker Mike Johnson asked him about it, he's like, I didn't do that.
He didn't even know what he was signing.
Compare that to Trump.
He signs it in public while answering questions and can give you context on all of it.
Completely different.
Anyway, Melania, I've never seen Melania happier, have you?
So I think Melania was enjoying the, I don't want to call it revenge, but maybe the comeback of it.
What it did to just her personal life and her reputation, that he could go from the depth of January 6th, you know, basically all that noise, and end up being the most popular president who's just changing everything.
Now, that's got to be exciting to be married to that, because you know they didn't go through good times, right?
I mean, just anybody who's ever been married, you know that whatever happened after January 6th, Probably didn't go smoothly.
But they stuck it out.
And Melania gets her revenge.
Because, you know, if you're married to the guy, you suffer every time he gets hit.
She suffered a lot.
A lot.
And she gets to put on the outfit that everybody's talking about.
Some people are saying, oh no, it looks like she's the angel of death.
You know, she's come to get her revenge.
Others just say it was incredible fashion.
I just was taken by how strikingly interesting it was.
I mean, I'm not a fashion person, but I loved it.
I just loved the fact it was like an unexpected look.
The hat was different.
I liked everything about it.
I think she nailed it 100%.
My favorite little moment, and I think some of you caught it, was when Trump was introducing...
Some of his special people behind him on the stage, and one of them was Barron.
And he said some good things about Barron, helping him get the podcast audiences, etc.
But Barron stands up, and of course the audience goes wild because they're Trump supporters.
And then as they're cheering, Barron has this little smile, and he puts his hand up to his ear, like, you know, give me some more applause.
Oh my God.
In that moment...
You saw Trump.
You saw the next generation of Trump.
Because I didn't know anything about Barron.
Nothing, really.
But when you see him stand up, smile at the applause, and just put his hand up like you don't expect in any kind of a political...
It was unexpected.
So it's something you don't do in a political context.
It's like, hello?
That little moment...
Just connected him to Trump in a way that you couldn't have done with words.
The physical act, it was just, you could see the future.
Like, I don't know anything else about him, but he's already at the top of my list of future presidents.
Just that little act.
It's weird how that connected him to his dad.
Anyway, so the Republicans had what I would call...
One of the best days in politics of all time.
One of the best days.
Not just because of all the executive orders and things which we'll talk about, but because of the way it was launched.
It was such a high level of skill and capability and showmanship and talent.
It just made me feel good.
But, you know, I've told you before, if I'm just saying good things about Trump and everything's bad about the Democrats, I'm not going to be very credible.
So, just to be fair, Republicans did have maybe the best night Republicans have ever had in the history of nights, if you don't count election nights.
But Democrats had a good day, too.
They launched their new Rupar hoax that Elon Musk gave a Nazi salute at, I guess, the Capital One event.
Now, you don't need to know anything about the story to know that didn't happen, right?
You wouldn't have to have seen it to know it didn't happen.
I have some...
So what he did do...
I mean, I agree with Cernovich.
I just feel like an idiot even talking about it because it's so dumb.
It's so stupid.
And yet there were dozens and dozens of major outlets who reported it as must-giving.
Maybe.
I don't know.
That might have been a Nazi salute.
Now, of course the video is a Rupar.
Do you know what a Rupar is?
So Rupar, named after Rupar, is a video that if you clip out just a little bit of it, it reverses what it is or changes it completely.
So all the clips that you saw were just his hand going up in a way that I'm not going to demonstrate.
What they didn't show, the part they clip out, is he has words associated with it.
And he touched his heart, and then he said, where's the exact words?
Thank you for making it happen, he said to the audience.
Thank you, my heart goes out to you.
So he touches his heart, and then he shows with his hands that his heart is going out to them, which is the part they clip out, the heart part.
So it just looks like he's giving a Nazi salute.
Now, do you think that dozens of major publications, Dozens.
Do you think they didn't know that that was fake?
I don't think there's any chance that they thought that was real.
But they reported it anyway.
And I love it.
I love that the creator of the Libs of TikTok account already started the hoax list on day one.
That's the first one on the hoax list.
Not only is it perfect because it's a Rupar, seeing a Rupar allows you to explain.
How all the other hoaxes were graded.
It's how the fine people hoax was graded.
Rupar edit.
It's how the drinking bleach hoax was graded.
Rupar edit.
It's how the overfeeding the koi in Japan hoax.
It's an edit.
And you just go down the line.
They're all just Rupars.
So I thought that was hilarious.
Even the ADL said...
So the ADL... Which exists to protect, primarily to protect Jewish Americans and probably Jewish people around the world and would be, I assume, pro-Israel.
That would be obvious.
Even they said, that doesn't really look like a Nazi's loot to us.
And if the ADL doesn't know, it's not like the ADL doesn't know what Nazi's loot is.
But the ADL, of course, is a ridiculous...
Democrat hit group, completely disavowed by people who've looked into it.
So even they, even they couldn't go that far.
But the news could.
The news that people think is real and isn't, they went that far.
Anyway, so as you know, Biden pardoned a bunch of people.
His family he pardoned while Trump was getting ready to speak, so Trump wouldn't be able to speak about it.
We all got to watch the greatest moment in TV since Saddam Hussein did his video where he was telling people to stand up and say something about the loyalty of the party before they were taken out.
But anyway, so here's the funny part.
People like Adam Schiff are on video record saying that he's never heard of anybody getting a pardon unless they were guilty.
And then Schiff gets a pardon.
Then Jamie Raskin, who's the funniest of all the weasels, so he's asked on an interview, are you going to accept the pardon?
Because if you accept the pardon, that's an acknowledgement that you're guilty.
Or people would see it that way.
It's not an acknowledgement that you're guilty.
It's not that at all.
But it would be seen that way.
So Raskin doesn't want to give his enemies that easy win by accepting it.
So he's hired a lawyer himself to find out if you have to accept it.
In other words, could he use it if he needed it without accepting it?
Now, I also wonder, and he said, we think it might be just a matter of public record.
That if it's just sitting out there, then nobody's going to challenge you because the pardon's just sitting there.
What I don't know is they don't expire, do they?
Does the pardon expire?
Because if it doesn't expire, and it seems like it wouldn't, it's because it's meant to be forever, so why would there be an expiration date on it?
If it doesn't expire, you don't have to accept it, right?
You can just wait until it's necessary.
And then if anybody tried to go after you, you'd say, you know, I have this pardon sitting here, which I haven't accepted, but it hasn't expired.
Why would you put a case together against me when I can just accept this pardon anytime I want?
So I have a genuine question about that.
Do they have to accept it?
My common sense tells me it would be a permanent offer and nothing would take it away because you can't undo a pardon, right?
The whole point of a pardon is you can't undo it.
So Raskin might have a little weasel escape there, which is kind of clever.
Joy Reid turned into an election denier.
I mean, this is just so good, watching the complete destruction of the Democrat Party, that all they could come up with was a Rupar hoax, Joy Reid being an election denier, and some of their strongest players arguing about whether they should or should not accept a pardon for all their many behaviors in the past.
That's as hard as you can lose.
You can't lose any harder than that.
Anyway, so Joy Reid actually said on some kind of podcast thing that she thinks that there was voter suppression that helped get Trump elected, and voter suppression would be rigging an election, according to her.
But now she also says, and this is just blowing my mind, they even talk about stealing an election, and it's making me rethink.
Whether I do believe, like, election machines can be hacked.
Because I've always been like, you can't hack the election machines, but they're like convincing me.
Now, Joy Reid, I don't know how fucking dumb you are, but election machines are machines.
Did you ever think they couldn't be hacked?
I mean, you could argue that they haven't been, or that you haven't seen any evidence of it.
Perfectly reasonable.
But to argue that a digital machine can't be hacked?
Who told you that?
Where did you even come up with the idea that it couldn't be hacked?
I've got a better question for you, Joy.
Can you describe why there are electronic voting machines?
Why do they exist?
Are they faster?
Not really.
I mean, in terms of the total result.
Are they cheaper?
Couldn't be.
Are they easier?
Of course not.
You'd have all the maintenance and you'd have to hire special people.
No.
There's not a single argument for why they exist except that they're hackable.
Now, I would love to be wrong about that.
So if somebody knows more than I do and they can tell me, oh, Scott, you're so dumb.
There's a perfectly good reason why machines are part of the process.
And I will tell you immediately if I hear that.
I've been asking this question for years, and not a single person has offered me any potential reason why they exist, except for the purpose of regulating the election.
But the only purpose.
Now, I could be wrong, so I can't say that as a fact, and I don't want some company to sue me.
I'm just saying that if there's no other reason, what are you left to assume?
So Joy Reid is just coming around to the real world.
That machines are hackable.
Doesn't mean they were, but they're potentially hackable.
Anyway, that's funny.
Let's see, who else?
Mark Milley got a pardon.
Now, he was a general during the January 6th stuff, and Mike Benz has been saying for some time that when the January 6th thing is fully explored, That General Milley is going to have a lot of explaining to do.
Now, I don't know the details of what Benz knows or speculates about that, but Benz has a really good nose for this stuff and a good track record, and if he says that there might be something to look at here, I'm going to pay a little extra attention, because credibility matters, and he's built a really good set of credible takes so far.
So if you're not listening to Ben, you're missing really the whole show.
But he did a little victory lap on X saying, there it is.
Why would he even need a pardon?
And the speculation is that it's not a coincidence that he needs a pardon.
Now, I think, but I don't know, that the speculation is January 6th was an engineered event.
We're partially engineered and partially chaos, and that the engineered part may have some people who are in charge of the engineering.
And if that's true, it would be hard to imagine that Milley wasn't part of a small number of decision makers who may have engineered something, if anything was engineered, if it was.
It looks like it was, but we don't know that for sure.
Fauci got a pardon?
I watched Buck Sexton on the Sean Ryan show saying that he thought Fauci is a protected guy, almost like a mafia-made man, highest-paid person in the government, highest-paid person in the government, the whole government, which is big.
I don't know if you've heard this, but the government employs a lot of people.
He was number one in pay.
But he does seem untouchable.
We don't know why.
But if it's true that he was behind gain-of-function testing in a lab, do you think that's just something he came up with on his own?
Do you think he was sitting around with some scientists and said, let's start a lab where we do these really dangerous things?
You don't think he had a little bit of intelligence, CIA, some kind of umbrella for the project?
I don't know.
I don't know one way or another, but I'll tell you one thing.
I don't think he's ever going to jail.
The pardon should take care of it.
But even if, let's say, the state of Florida, which is also going after Fauci, here's my prediction.
That if Florida succeeded in putting Fauci in some actual legal jeopardy, that something would step in.
Because if he's protected, He's protected.
It would be for everything.
So I'm going to predict that the Florida work against him doesn't succeed.
But when it's done, you might say to yourself, oh, but it was just some legal reason.
Is it?
Is it?
We'll see.
The January 6th committee, they got their pardons.
Kinzinger says he doesn't need no pardon.
Which is another example of how dumb he is.
If somebody offers you a pardon and you're innocent, you should take the pardon.
Because why would you put yourself at risk of some big legal case?
I don't know.
It just seems like bad judgment on his part to not take it.
But again, it could be that he doesn't have to say yes or no.
It could be just out there if he wants it.
So in that case, if that's true, That he doesn't have to accept it.
Then it's just good politics to say, I don't need no pardon, so I won't take it.
But he could take it later.
Nothing's stopping him.
Benny Johnson said, yes, I'll take that pardon.
I don't know if Liz Cheney's taken hers yet.
Well, here's the thing I love about the Trump administration that I think is different from every other administration.
I've said this before, but it's applicable at the moment.
The Trump administration is what I call a team participation administration.
Trump, more than any president I'm aware of in my lifetime, can read the room.
He's looking at all the pundits, the podcasters, the opinion people, and he's really just continually vacuuming up ideas.
Did he have 200 executive orders?
Was there a final number on that?
At one point he said 200, but did he reach that?
I don't know.
But he had massive numbers.
Now, do you think that those were all things he sat down and thought up himself?
No, of course not.
They would come from advisors, some from himself, some from advisors.
But probably the advisors themselves couldn't come up with 200. So probably they also were searching from other sources, other smart people, to see what things needed to be done.
So when you look at what Trump does with his executive orders, it's almost certainly bubbled up from the bottom.
None of it looks like top-down.
Every bit of it looks like populist, bubbled up.
There might have been one person who said something smart, got onto the list, made it all the way to the executive order.
That's the way it works.
And I don't think that works.
On the Democrat side, I think that's all top-down.
Three or four people decide what they're going to do, and then they tell you.
So, believing as I do that that is actually an ongoing system that the Trump administration employs better than it's ever been employed, just the best application of this of all time.
Now, partly because the technology allows it, right?
If we didn't have social media, this wouldn't be really possible.
But I've got a specific topic that applies to this.
Trump is going to be visiting the Pacific Palisades area, the Southern California fire area.
I'm a little unclear on the date because I've heard two different dates.
I may have misheard one of them, but it's either today or sometime later in the week, but soon.
So regardless of when it is, whether it's today or another day, he's going to be down there.
I don't know if he's going to tie that to his announcement of some massive infrastructure project that he's going to announce today.
It might be related to the fire damage in North Carolina, or the storm damage in North Carolina and other places, as well as California.
We'll see if the infrastructure is about that or something else.
But here's my suggestion.
So, if there's anybody on the Trump team who's reading my ex posts or listening to this, here's my idea.
When Trump goes to the Palisades, the person who needs to be on that team, obviously lots of people will be there with him no matter what he does, but probably the key person I would recommend would be Joel Pollack, senior editor at large Breitbart, because his house is there.
Which actually, believe it or not, survived.
Nobody can move in, of course.
But his house survived.
He's got some amazing stories.
He's been on the ground since the beginning of the fire.
And he knows the most locally because he's a resident.
And he's talked to more residents than, I would guess, anybody in the world at this point.
And he has the greatest context and understanding of the state's failures, even before the fire.
He was all over a lot of the context for the water availability, etc.
And he has some specific suggestions that are very grounded in the real world of what their problems are and what can be done with California, as well as locally, I suppose.
So that's my suggestion.
We'll see if this works.
If you're wondering why Joel is such a good person to have on it, take a look at his book.
It's called The Agenda.
This came out over the summer.
What Trump Should Do in His First 100 Days.
It was a book of just fast suggestions.
You know, just the simplest little suggestion without a ton of explanation to say, do this executive order, do this executive order.
I saw somebody this morning who said they read through Joel's book of what Trump should do on day one and compared it to what he actually did on day one.
And there's about a one-third Or more overlap.
So they're definitely on the same page.
And the number one person he needs to put on his team is Joel Pollack.
Yeah, they know how to find him.
I mean, his team can find him.
They know him.
Anyway, don't get that wrong.
That would be a big mistake to not have him on the team when Trump visits.
I have a question about executive orders.
How many of those executive orders are legal?
And do we even care?
Now, my understanding of executive orders is very simplistic, so I might be completely off on this.
But 201 executive orders?
Somebody said 49?
I'm seeing different numbers.
But I thought an executive order is applicable when there's some law in existence.
And it just needs to be interpreted.
So not quite a court interpretation, but for example, if there's a law that says boys can do this and girls can do something else, the government might just say, well, there are only two genders.
Because that's a way to simplify the law that exists.
It's just a clarification.
And likewise, if it's some national defense thing, maybe the executive order says, yes, this should be included.
And things that are national defense.
Completely reasonable.
So there's a whole bunch of executive order things that we would all understand as just normal business.
But I don't know if all of them are.
I don't think all of them fall into the clean little executive order.
And I don't think this is just about Trump.
I think there's been some drift.
Over time with various presidents about what an executive order is.
Now, I'm no expert, so it's just my non-legal, non-constitutional impression of it.
But what I saw, we'll talk about some of them, but one of them was, one of the executive orders is titled, People Over a Fish.
And that somehow, Trump wants to override some environmental thing in California.
That would limit the release of water because doing so would be bad for a fish, which apparently doesn't even exist in the affected area.
So people over a fish, first of all, can I say that's the funniest name for an executive order of all time?
And it's perfect framing because the executive order shouldn't have been necessary unless somebody put a fish over people, which is what happened.
So he's coming in as the common sense president.
You know, the unifier is the common sense part.
And he just says, people over fish.
How do you beat that?
How do you beat people over fish?
Come on.
That's the best name of an executive order of all executive orders of all time.
And I don't even want to hear the other applicants because I'm going to say, nice try.
People over fish is the best executive order name of all time.
And that was, again, to release water into Southern California.
So the question that I have is, if California is the one that ruled that this shouldn't be done, can the federal government just say, this should be done?
And then they do it?
Is that how anything works?
Or, here's the fun part.
What I wonder is, is the country so beaten up by ridiculous government?
That if Trump says anything of common sense and puts it into an executive order, nobody's going to push back.
Is that possible?
Because who wants to sue him to prove that fish over people is a better idea?
I don't.
Is there somebody who wants to take a run at that?
Now, by the way, there are going to be all kinds of lawsuits on all the executive orders, but I don't think they're necessarily going to be on the ones that are pure common sense, like people over fish.
So I wonder if as long as he stays with something that no reasonable person could argue with, he can just say, do this, as long as it's transparent.
And, you know, if it gets challenged in the courts and he respects the court's decision, I'm kind of fine with it.
So I would prefer that he goes a little too far in executing his power, as long as it's transparent.
And as long as it's challengeable in a court, and it is.
So, yeah, the leadership I want is all the common sense you can give me, and we'll work out the details later.
Let's just start moving on common sense and see how far I get this.
So, besides people over to fish, he ended DEI in government, which I hope just becomes...
Impossible for corporations to keep their DEI when the government says it's illegal and gets rid of theirs.
I just don't know how the corporations can take the risk in the long term.
So I think they're going to fold.
Trump said there are only two genders.
So it used to be that there are two sexes, which is mostly about your DNA and your stuff.
But people would say, yes, but regardless of my physicality, my mind is the other gender.
And Trump just said, nope, there's two.
Now, I have mixed feelings about this.
Mixed feelings, but a strong opinion that he's on strong territory to do it.
But my mixed opinion is, I do think there are a lot of trans folks who are in a sensitive situation.
And I don't like being disrespectful.
But on the other hand, given the total number of trans people in the world, And the massive amount of complications that having more than two sexes causes to society in general.
I'd love to see the trans people have the bathroom that makes them feel comfortable without violating the executive order.
So I wish there was a little more attention to maybe private bathrooms, at least one.
At least one private bathroom for every large.
Office building.
If you had to go down the floor to use the bathroom, it wouldn't be the worst problem.
So I do think a little bit of accommodation, which we do anyway for handicapped people, although obviously this is not the same as handicapped.
But I also agree.
I agree that the many, many different genders thing is almost certainly more about mental health.
But I wouldn't lump everybody in the same basket.
I think that's too far.
There's got to be special cases where people are just, hey, I'm unique, not like other people.
So I'd like to see some accommodation, but not the accommodation of imagining that there are lots of different sexes or genders.
So I'm on board with this one.
I'm just acknowledging that not everything's free.
You know, sometimes these are good for most of us, but bad for some of us, and I think that needs to be pointed out, even if you're sure that it's the right decision, which I am.
Trump ended birthright citizenship, which will cause a lot of screaming, and the Democrats will forget to mention that no country except us has it, and they'll say, but, but, but, it's right here in the, they're already saying, it's right here written in the Constitution.
But, of course, the constitutional scholars will tell you that's not what it meant, that the originalists will say, but that's not the reason it's there.
It's not so people can put one foot in America and have a baby and it's an American.
That's not the point of it.
So I don't know if that'll stand, but I agree with it.
The government is no longer going to be involved in censoring free speech, which would be pressuring Pressuring social media companies as well as funding external entities that are mostly to pressure the same social media and other people.
So that's good.
And I feel a tremendous weight lifted by that.
I'm pretty sure that the anti-free speech people are a big part of what took me down.
He's withdrawing from the World Health Organization, pointing out that China pays much less per capita than we do.
You might see that as a negotiation.
The way Trump set it up, I think that's just his first offer.
His first offer is, how about zero money?
And we'll do without you.
Wait, wait, wait.
We don't need hundreds of millions.
Maybe we only need 40 million from you.
And then Trump will say, huh, that's closer to what China pays.
But you know, China is much bigger in population.
And health is about...
You know, individual health.
So we should pay, you know, like a fourth of what China pays.
And then they'll be somewhere in the middle.
So I feel like this is just perfect Trump.
Am I sure that we should pull out of the World Health Organization?
Well, I'm sure I don't want to pay for it.
If there's something valuable that I don't know about that Trump can get for $40 million or $20 million instead of hundreds of millions, yeah.
Maybe revisit.
Better make a better offer.
Meanwhile, the Gulf of Mexico will be renamed to the Gulf of America.
Now, there's a rumor online that I don't believe that there was a clever way to get around the fact that there's some kind of existing ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
So the rumor goes, and I'm not buying this at all, the rumor goes that changing the name of it, Would allow everybody to drill there because then they're not drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
Now, I'm no lawyer, but I can't see that possibly holding up in court.
When everybody knows what the Gulf of Mexico means and changing the name won't make any difference.
So it's a fun rumor for people who don't know how anything works.
But the way anything works is, no, the bandwidth still hold.
It's not tied to the name.
It's tied to the location, not the name.
Trump's ordering the federal workers back to the office because almost all of them work at home since the pandemic.
Now, have you ever wondered why?
Why is he ordering them back?
So ordering them back is going to lower their take-home pay because they have to commute.
It's going to make their day terrible because they have to commute.
They might have to get...
Child care because they have to commute.
They might need to board their dog because they have to commute.
And are they necessarily doing less work at home than they would have in the office?
Maybe.
But here's what I... So Elon Musk described it as, it's only fair because the people who have manufacturing jobs and blue-collar stuff, they all got to work.
So his sense of fairness says, Everybody who has a job should go to the office and go to work.
Now, that doesn't make sense to me.
And I really don't follow that logic.
Everybody has to go to the office.
But here's what I think might be happening.
Cats on the roof.
All right, let's rank the best situation in the world to worst.
The best situation in the world would be not only to have a job, but one you could work at home if you like working at home, and apparently the federal workers do.
The best case, working at home, nice job.
Second best, nice job, but you have to go to the office.
Below that, no job.
Do you see the cat on the roof?
The cat on the roof is when you gradually give somebody the bad news.
No, what do you mean, fire you?
No, we're just saying you should work in the office like other people.
Then people will come into the office and they'll be like, I hate this job.
I hate this job.
And then you can watch which ones are productive because they're closer.
And you can figure out who to fire because you can just directly observe whether they're working or not.
So I think bringing them in the office is step one to figuring out which ones to fire.
That would be my guess.
So I think it's cats on the roof.
And let's see, what else?
So part of the executive orders were freeing almost all of the January 6ers.
There's a big controversy because some of them weren't released last night.
Now there's some question about which ones will be released today.
But I think we're in serious fog of war territory there.
My guess...
Is that it was just an MLK day, short staffing, it's nighttime, people went home.
They just had to wait till today.
So I think that waiting till today was probably the solution.
I hope, because keeping them in jail one more night after they knew that they would be freed is just unforgivable to me.
But he did not pardon 100% of them.
Which means that there was some consideration to the special damage that some people did, I assume.
But he did free two people who had very long sentences.
The head of the Oath Keepers, the head of the Proud Boys.
So they were both found guilty of seditious conspiracy and other offenses.
Seditious conspiracy.
I think one of them wasn't even at the event, but was considered a planner or something.
So let's watch that today.
What should happen today is nonstop happy stories of watching somebody get out and being reunited, etc.
I hope we're close to what looks like the end of one of the darkest periods in American history.
I don't think this is as bad as Roosevelt rounding up Japanese Americans during World War II. It'd be hard to match that.
But it's up there.
Like, it's in the same conversation.
It's not in the same level.
But in terms of dark periods in the United States, you know, you got your slavery, number one.
You know, you could list a bunch of others, but, you know, the rounding up of the Japanese-American citizens was a dark period.
And the January 6th stuff is really dark.
History will not be kind to this.
And they will be kind to Trump for...
For ending their suffering.
So, Trump shut down the app that the migrants use.
I guess that's to make sure that they're not comfortable and happy in finding jobs in the United States, and that it's sort of the first indication you're going home.
That's a little bit cats on the roof, too.
If your app just shut down, you might be going home.
So maybe you should arrange it on your own.
It'd be easier.
So Trump declared a national emergency at the border.
I think the military will be down there for some purposes.
I don't know which purposes exactly.
The cartels have been labeled terrorists.
And here again, Mike Benz has some context, and he wonders aloud on X how many...
Basically, how many CIA people will be part of who we're fighting now?
Because the cartels are presumed to be on our team, meaning the intelligence people, meaning that the elected members of the government might not even be aware of how deep the CIA connections are with the cartels.
Because if the CIA wants to control the government in some of these countries below the border, if the cartel owns the government...
The only way you're going to do it is have some kind of quid pro quo situation with the cartels.
You know, like, we'll let you do a little bit of evil, but you have to let us have a little bit of control over the government, that sort of thing.
So we might find out, we might be surprised when we start cracking down on the cartels.
And I think the first thing, yeah.
So we'll see how many surprises that turns up.
And then Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement.
Everybody expected that.
And there are a bunch of other ones.
I didn't see every single one, but those are some of the fun ones, the executive orders.
But in the midst of all this good, productive, provocative change, the Democrats, when they're not making up new hoaxes, And by the way, I have some suggestions.
If you're a Republican, from today until the end of Trump's term, I recommend that you not raise one hand alone above your waist.
So if you're going to do it, you should go like this.
Or whenever you need, if you're going to reach for something on a high shelf.
Normally, you'd just use one hand and you'd be like this.
Don't do that anymore.
Use both hands together.
Even if it's just one can.
Even if you're only in your kitchen, because you don't know.
You might have a teen who's got a phone.
Gotcha, Nazi.
So never raise one hand alone above your waist for the next four years.
After that, you're fine.
But for four years, just keep it down.
Use that secondhand, no matter how small the task is.
If you're going to wave to somebody, I recommend doing it like Tim Walz, like a weird clown.
That was my impression of Tim Walz, because that doesn't look at all like you see Kyle.
But never, ever, for four years, don't lift one arm above the other.
You'll get Rupard hard.
But, despite the fact that Republicans had one of the best days anybody's ever had in their whole life yesterday, The Hill has a climate change article that we should stop all our fossil fuels now.
It's an opinion piece.
And that climate change drove the LA and Lahaina fires.
Is it just me?
Or does that feel like traveling into the past?
You know how time gets dilated and distorted under Trump?
And I had trouble remembering that the inauguration was only yesterday because we had at least a month worth of things happen yesterday.
So I was kind of thinking it was already February.
Is this February?
So much has happened.
But it also distorted my sense of the ridiculous.
Because when everything's just sort of percolating and, you know, there's a ridiculous thing every now and then, but then there's some real things and stuff.
But after watching a solid, packed day of Trump just nailing everything and just having the best day ever, opening up the Hill and seeing somebody write about climate change closing the fires, which is totally debunked.
I don't think any smart people believe that.
It doesn't just seem wrong anymore.
It seems dated.
Doesn't it?
It just doesn't seem like something you should say in 2025. Because it's so debunked, so dumb.
I didn't read it, of course, because it's ridiculous.
But I'll tell you, my mind has changed about what's a reasonable argument and what should have been retired 20 years ago.
And this one should have been retired 20 years ago.
All right, we don't know what Trump's going to do with his big infrastructure announcement today.
He's going to announce some big set of plans.
Like I said, I hope it has something to do with the recovery in the areas in the country that need some recovery right away.
But I wouldn't rule out that he's going to offer, through Elon Musk, full internet access to everybody who doesn't have it.
So if you really wanted to dunk on Biden, Biden refused to use the much cheaper and immediately available Starlink to get rural access to the internet, which is one of Biden's promises.
He had a solution, way cheaper than what they were planning.
And instead of using that, he just couldn't take help from Elon Musk.
But Trump can.
So Trump can solve rural access to internet in one day.
Now, the implementation will take as long as it takes them to get a Starlink device and just hook it up.
Now, if it's for rural people who are low income, that might require the government buying them, but that budget should already exist from Biden's days.
Anyway, so that's happening.
The big question will be, how can Trump pay for his big ideas?
So I do like the external revenue service, but the numbers still don't add up.
He's not going to be able to put a trillion dollars into the infrastructure when we don't have a trillion dollars.
So a big question for me is, how are you going to pay for that?
Can you make it pay for itself?
So let's talk about Trump and Ukraine.
Putin says he's happy that...
Trump seems to be interested in having direct dialogue with him, because I didn't even know this, but the Biden administration had cut off contact with Putin because of the war.
But Trump won't.
War or no war, he's going to say, you want to meet?
As only Trump can.
And Putin's already said, yeah, I want to talk.
Now, here's what to look for.
If there were an obvious way to end the war, It would have already happened.
So whatever it takes to end this war will be a non-obvious thing.
That's what Trump does best.
Trump is the king of non-obvious, outside-the-box thinking and unusual solutions.
And sometimes the outside-the-box unusual stuff is just to get all our heads spinning until he tells you what we're going to do.
So sometimes it's persuasion.
Sometimes it's just brilliant negotiating.
So here's what's on the table.
And I think this is from the...
So, I think there was some talk that there would be an offer coming that as long as...
that Ukraine would agree to not join NATO for at least 20 years.
Now, I've told you that sometimes the way you solve these big unsolvable negotiations...
Is to put something off.
So the thing they cared about was the NATO thing, and the offer is to put it off for 20 years.
Now, I don't think anything will be the same in 20 years.
It's actually a better offer than it looks like.
Now, it's possible that Putin can't accept it, because it would look like he's agreeing to NATO and Ukraine, and there's no way that's going to feel right or sell right in his country, and there would be a risk he doesn't need to take.
If he could make it go some other way.
So here's what I think.
I think it was a good offer.
It was a good negotiating ploy to say, what about 20 years?
Because that gives you a sense of where his head is at, the way he responds.
But let me add a kicker to it.
Now, this is more by way of explaining what outside the box looks like.
This is not a real suggestion, all right?
So this is not a real suggestion, just an example of outside the box.
Suppose they said, all right, how about instead of 20 years, Ukraine joins, in 20 years, either Russia or Ukraine will join.
Now, what did that do to your head?
Imagine Trump saying that.
He's not going to say, I don't recommend it.
But what if he said, all right, how about this?
Instead of in 20 years, Ukraine becomes NATO, in 20 years, it will be either Ukraine or Russia, because if Russia can show in 20 years that it would be a good addition to NATO, and I don't know why.
I don't know who they'd be fighting, right?
If Russia joins NATO, that's so outside the box that I don't even know how to think about it.
It's like, well, then who are they fighting?
That would be the same as dismantling NATO, wouldn't it?
Like, what would be the point?
Do they really need some protection against China?
I mean, I don't think so.
They seem pretty happy with their border as it is.
So, anyway, I think you're going to see, here's my only prediction about that.
I think you're going to see the Trump team get more creative than you expected.
There's going to be something about the offer that comes out of Trump or his team that you're going to say to yourself, Whoa.
Okay.
Didn't see that coming.
So the creativity is going to be through the roof.
That'll be the fun part.
And I think you'll get it done.
Vivek is definitely out of Doge.
He's going to go run for governor of Ohio.
As I said before, I think that's a good decision for a person with a young family who's got roots in Ohio.
And I hope that works out for him.
Does it hurt Doge?
Well, if the reason he's leaving, and this is rumors, I don't know what is true here, but the rumors are that it was just hard to have two bosses.
It's hard for Vivek and Elon to be co-bosses.
You can see that, right?
It doesn't matter how capable either one of them is individually.
They're not really the two guys who want a co-boss.
And you can imagine that Elon has such Completely unique approaches to things.
You can't really merge that with anything else.
Because anybody else you ask, no matter how smart, is going to say, maybe you shouldn't do that.
Take, for example, when Elon went to old Twitter and got rid of, what, 80% of the staff.
You tell me what normal person of any intelligence would have heard that and said, that's a good idea.
Yeah, just get rid of 80%, like just do it in a week or so.
You tell me that any normal person would have said yes to that.
I don't think so.
I think no person would have said yes to that.
But he got it done.
And you could go right down the line.
Tell me the smart person who told him it was a good idea to start a rocket company to Mars.
Probably nobody.
But it worked.
Same with the car company.
You know, you can go down the line.
So if you have somebody whose main benefit is that he's operating on a level where even smart people can't tell that he's doing it right or wrong, you can't really have another smart person in the mix because they're just going to be friction to what Musk seems to do that seems magic to us, but there's a consistency to it where you trust that you can figure it out on your behalf.
So, at first, I was quite disappointed that Vivek would be off Doge, because I think Doge is the number one most important thing.
And I think that you want your best people on it.
But I think Musk will probably create a structure in which the best people is him and the people he's personally picked.
That feels like that's going to be the only way to get it done, maybe.
All right.
I heard this yesterday.
So, a user on X called Matthew Kobach.
He said, I have a co-worker who coaches high school girls volleyball, and this weekend she showed all the girls were crying.
He said all the girls were crying over the TikTok ban, and then when it was reinstated, she heard them say, I don't know anything about politics, but I know I like Trump.
Now, I say this because one of the things you just assume...
That's just a given in politics, is that California could never turn red.
It could never turn Republican.
I mean, it was Republican under Reagan.
But we think at this point, there's no way it's ever going back.
I disagree.
I disagree.
If Trump did something, and I'm not saying he will, but if he did something to make sure that California had energy and water and we had fire insurance, And he's already done something that gives us more water, people over a fish.
He probably has a take on how to handle the insurance that we haven't heard yet.
I hope so.
I don't know what it would be.
And maybe it's a national urgency to have nuclear power in California.
Maybe there's a way he can make the federal government just force it and force California to have sufficient energy when we're managing ourselves to have insufficient energy.
Do you know that Simi Valley has had six extended power outages because of fires?
Six of them in three months?
Can you imagine living in just a modern American suburb and you lose power six times?
And I'm talking about all day and multiple days.
Six times in three months.
Now, it's not all year round, right?
But this isn't even fire season.
It's not even fire season.
Six times in three months?
Come on.
So, here's what I think about most things.
We often think things are really locked in, like, you know, no way California will ever be red.
Under normal circumstances, that would be right every time.
But Trump is not a normal circumstance.
If there's any way he can help us, and what I'd love is to have some kind of czar to figure out how to solve our hardest problems.
You know, how do you rebuild and get approval?
How do you get enough water?
How do you get enough energy that works when the wind blows?
Real basic stuff.
If Trump can help on that, you're going to be real surprised.
Because I think California is going to be like these volleyball girls, and they're going to say, I don't know much about Trump, but he kept the lights on, and he got me fire insurance, and we have water.
If he does those three things, and I'm not predicting he will, by the way.
I'm not predicting he will, although he's already done something with water.
There probably is more that needs to be done.
But if he could do those things, I predict California could go red, because I think we're done.
I think the state just said, We like being Democrats, but forget this.
You're going to have to...
And I don't know that we can vote out the people in there, because I think California is too corrupt to fix it with voting.
So something needs to happen, almost like a federal takeover, to just correct things and then step back.
I don't know if that's ever been done, but if you want to know what the locals feel like...
I'd love to see a survey on that.
If there's anybody in the surveying business, polling, I'd love to see, would you be in favor of the federal government just taking control to just fix the intractable problems and then return control?
Because I don't think there's any risk.
There's no risk that the federal government wants to turn a state into the next D.C. where the federal government has some control.
I don't think they want it.
So I don't think there's any risk, oh, it'll stay federally controlled forever.
No, it won't.
Because nobody wants it.
The federal doesn't want it.
Trump doesn't want it.
California doesn't want it.
But we desperately need an adult to come in and fix what apparently our politicians can't fix.
So if you think California can't turn red, I would agree with you 99 out of 100 times.
Trump is the one.
He's the one.
So we'll see.
Anyways, according to SciPost, article by Eric Dolan, according to TikTok research, somebody did some research on using TikTok, short videos are linked to lower academic performance.
So there was a Chinese Academy of Sciences, they did this study.
So short video content gives you more difficulty.
More difficulty paying attention.
And then related to that, there was a school that tested getting rid of the phones, and the kids who agreed to get rid of their apps and their phones, at least during school, they didn't get rid of the whole phone, but they didn't have it with them in school, and they didn't use the apps at any time, so they just deleted the apps that drive you crazy, that they got substantially better grades.
But I have to wonder, is it a little bit backwards science?
Is it?
Do you think that the lower IQ is correlated with more use of video?
And do you think that the high agency people, the people who can succeed no matter what obstacle you put in front of them, don't you think they're less impacted by the videos than the people who are low agency and just get hypnotized after the first one?
I don't know.
So there's a little bit of a...
Selection bias there.
And with a school that got rid of their phones, it wasn't everybody.
So you had to volunteer to be in the group that would voluntarily delete their apps and voluntarily have their phones locked up during the school day.
Don't you think the group that volunteered for it are already the smart ones?
But that doesn't explain the full effect because they measured the average of the school and it went way up.
So, that argues against it being backward science, that if the average went up, it doesn't matter that some of them were selected, self-selected, because the average went up.
So, if it really went up, and apparently it went up a lot, that's a pretty good argument.
Pretty good argument for getting rid of phones in schools.
Meanwhile, according to Fox News, Landon Mayan is reporting that the Coast Guard Commandant, I assume that's the The top position in the Coast Guard was terminated over poor performance, but also focusing too much on DEI. I don't know how much the DEI part mattered, but it's part of the story.
So it looked like she didn't get things done that she was supposed to get done, but on top of it, you've got the DEI focus.
Which makes that look like it could be one of the reasons she didn't get things done, but it's not directly linked.
She was 61. Still is 61. Meanwhile, in a story that doesn't seem that important, but it is, there's a robot-making company, UB Tech, that's partnering with Foxconn in China, and their robot is going to start assembling iPhones.
So, I don't know what that means exactly, because assembling an iPhone is a whole bunch of people doing different steps.
So, I assume the robot would do the simplest parts.
You know, maybe restocking the parts at the assembly line or something.
What I don't imagine, because the story's a little vague, I don't imagine the robot's little fingers are putting the things together in the phone, the part that the human usually does.
I don't feel like they're there yet.
So they might be doing everything except that last stick these two things together and put them in this little case.
Just guessing.
But to me, the big thing in robots and manufacturing is when the robot itself can design and build a manufacturing plant with other robots.
You might know that the reason the United States doesn't have manufacturing is not only because it's cheaper in other countries and we exported it.
That's how it got there.
But if we tried to build a manufacturing plant in the United States, who would you call?
Who would you call to design a manufacturing plant?
Turns out that in China, that's like a whole college discipline.
So they've trained just tons of people who, if you went to them and said, engineers, if you went to them and said, we need a factory that builds a robot or a drone or anything, that engineer would say, I can do that.
And they would get together with the other people who know how to build factories, and they would build a factory for something that's never existed before.
And they could do it over and over again because they have a whole industry trained to do that.
We don't have that.
So if we're going to get it, I have two suggestions.
We either steal all the people from Germany who know how to do it, because Germany's...
In bad shape.
There might be a lot of German engineers who want a better job.
Just take all the German engineers who know how to build a manufacturing plant and just say, I got an offer for you because we need that skill over here.
And if you speak English and we speak English, you've got a job.
So, at least until we build that industry up ourselves.
If we can't do that, then I'd love to see the robots be able to design it and Put together a robot force and construct that thing.
Because if we can get to the point where we can manufacture anything, and we can put together the manufacturing plant kind of quickly, that'd be quite a superpower.
All right.
I also think we need a manufacturing zone in the United States.
Has that ever been kicked around?
The idea would be to pick one area that's underutilized, so there's not much there.
And is close enough to all good transportation.
So maybe that means, I don't know, being near the water, being near airports and water.
But you pick the place and you say, all right, this, I don't know, 100 miles by 100 miles area, we're going to not have the same level of government, bureaucratic stuff.
So if you want to build a factory here, You can get the whole thing approved in one day.
Something like that.
Because it's going to take a long time to fix the existing systems.
I think we'd better off just creating a manufacturing zone.
Now the risk, there's a big one, is if we ever had an attack on the homeland, the manufacturing zone might become like an easy target or something.
If there's an attack of that kind on the homeland, we've got bigger problems in manufacturing.
So I'm not sure that we should design around that.
All right.
In other scary AI news, according to Computer World, AI can now predict how well you do in your career by looking at your face.
That's right.
AI can just look at your face.
And it can determine with unusual precision, not 100%, of course, but way better than guessing, it can determine whether you'll be successful.
Now, how many of you could do that?
Most of you.
Most of you could look at a face and determine how successful we'll be.
I'm pretty sure I can.
Now, I'm not going to get everyone right, right?
If I looked at Joy Reid, I would never guess she would be a host of a major TV show.
So I would get that one wrong every time.
I would look at her and say, oh, she's crazy.
She'd be lucky if she could get any job.
But no, I would not have guessed that she could do so well.
Which is good for her, by the way.
Good job on her part.
But we're in big trouble.
We're in big trouble if AI can tell you who's going to succeed by looking at faces.
You know what I mean?
Do you have any idea how much trouble that would be?
Because somebody comes in for a job interview and the AI decides that they're one of the people who probably can't succeed because of their face.
What are you as a human going to do when the odds are 75% that the computer's right?
I don't know.
I think we're going to start relying on faces to determine who's going to be successful.
But it might work.
That's the weird part.
It might work.
You might actually hire better if you're just determining it by their faces.
But that would create a situation where some people would do plastic surgery just to beat the AI. So if AI saw people the way their faces naturally looked, would it make a different decision?
Than if it saw how they looked before they got the nose job?
Maybe.
So people would try to beat the system with plastic surgery.
That's coming.
Anyway, apparently Trump officials, according to the Telegraph, Matthew Field is writing, that the Trump administration is going to get some kind of briefing on the upcoming super agent AI, you know, the advanced intelligence that we don't have now.
You know, it's about what's coming that ChatGPT says is coming.
Sam Altman, I think, is going to be doing the briefing.
But this would be the secret behind the curtain stuff about what OpenAI knows is coming really fast, but we don't yet know.
But it's so important that the government needs to know right away because there's a homeland security issue that's enormous.
We'll see how that goes.
Meanwhile, Amazon, you may wonder why its agent, which I call A-L-E-X-I-A, but don't want to say it and activate your devices, that that device is still sort of dumb, so it doesn't have AI worked into it yet.
And the reason is they can't make it work.
And the reason they can't make it work is that there's something about AI that's unsolvable so far, which is hallucinations.
So we've talked about this before.
But if you're Amazon and somebody says, can you give me a link to buy a clothes hamper?
It can't give you a link to the wrong thing because you'll just stop using it right away.
So the hallucinations, even if you can get them down to not that often, it's still going to be way too often for a proper user interface.
So I like that Amazon, and I've said this a million times, but Amazon is the most impressive user interface.
Software development company I've ever seen.
You know, there was a time when I would have said that was Apple, but I think Apple's lost a little bit of their user interface magic.
And Amazon, because you don't ever think about the interface, is unbelievably good.
The fact that you can just go on there and you know it'll work and you can buy something in 10 seconds.
It allows you to say, I have 10 seconds, so I'll buy something.
I mean, you can't beat that.
That's like as good as an interface could be if you say, I can get in and get something done in 10 seconds.
And you can.
It's amazing.
So given the level of talent at Amazon, which I think might be the best in the world right now for non-AI stuff, but you know they're going to have good AI people too.
If they say it's not good enough, that's interesting.
Because they're also saying they don't know how to solve it.
But there's a bigger issue.
It's bigger than AI. Because have you noticed that the reason we have a word for what the AI is doing, the hallucinations, is because it's something that people do.
People have hallucinations.
Certainly the people who think that Elon Musk gave a Nazi salute are hallucinating.
They're experiencing a reality that's not happening in your reality, certainly not happening in mine.
So humans hallucinate, or you could call it a false memory, or you could call it a narrative or a false interpretation.
But we do it all the time.
We just are so used to it that we don't notice it.
And if you asked, hey, how often do people hallucinate?
Meaning every kind of false memory and misinterpretation.
Most people would say, well, I mean, it happens, but I mean, not often.
It's never happened to me, but it's the opposite.
It happens to all of us every day, all the time.
It's our most common, your most common experience is a hallucination.
Your false memories, your memories are not real.
They're just artificially generated when you need them.
Speaking of which, are you aware that the Nobel Prize winner Got the Nobel Prize by proving that things don't exist until they're observed.
Do you know what that means?
Things don't exist until they're observed.
That's considered now a scientific fact.
Nobel Prize winner.
Just recently.
If things don't exist until they're observed, what happens if you start digging a hole in your backyard where nobody's ever observed what's in the hole and you keep going down further and further?
And literally nobody's ever observed what's there.
According to science, it appears for the first time as you're digging your hole.
That's actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's established science now, based on the Nobel Prize winner.
So, you know what's in that hole is your history.
And if the history is created on demand, there's no such thing as history.
It's literally just created as a hallucination, but your brain keeps them consistent enough that you think you actually learned something about the past.
So, I believe that our reality as human beings, the hallucinations are required because there'd be no way you could keep all of our histories consistent.
It would be impossible.
To take billions of people and have all their memories the same as all the other people, all their interpretations the same as other people, but only sometimes.
Only sometimes it glitches a little, which is what you think is happening.
Only sometimes.
Kind of a rare thing.
I'm sure it's never happened to me.
No.
It's all the time, everywhere, all the people.
Your history is being created on demand.
We know that.
You're living in a simulation.
And the reason that...
The reason that AI hallucinates is it's based on human beings.
As long as the base reality of human beings is hallucinating all the time, if you train a machine to be like a human, it's going to hallucinate, and I don't see a way around that.
I just don't see a way around it.
So, I don't know, maybe there's some way to tie together a separate program that checks the AI's...
The AI's output for a hallucination?
Maybe.
You know, but that's a hack.
You know, it's a workaround.
So, I don't know.
I don't think you're ever going to get rid of them because it's based on people and we live in a simulation.
And that's exactly how I'm going to end the show.
Keep you thinking.
All right.
Golden Ages.
On track, I'm going to say hi to the local subscribers separately now.
