Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Mehdi Hasan, VP Vance, Fort Knox Gold, xAI Grok 3, AI Humor, James Carville, Dr. Birx COVID Admissions, COVID Government Lies, Ukraine Peace Talks, Zelensky & Europe Exclusion, US Training Mexico Military, Toronto Delta Overturns, DOGE, Treasury 4.7B Untraceable Payments, Social Security Database Flaws, AI Thought Readers, VAT Tax Reciprocal Tariffs, Governor Hochul, Mayor Adams, Hamas Hostage Bodies, Sports betting Addiction, Adam Schiff, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topicsto 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 civilizations.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Never been a better time.
But, if you want to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all I need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, and fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Well, I don't know what's going to happen today.
My brain's not working at 100%.
Yesterday was kind of a sick day.
But today, I'm at least barely functional.
So, back at it.
If you're subscribed to the Dilbert comic, which you can do there on X, just go to my account on X, and you'll see the button.
You'd see that the pointy air boss hired a hypnotist.
To hypnotize their AI and to teach it persuasion.
That hypnotist, you might notice, looks a lot like me.
Coincidence.
Total coincidence.
So anyway, if you're following Dilbert, look for the hypnotist who looks like me.
He causes trouble.
According to the Babylon Bee, I think the Babylon Bee was pointing to a real pole, but it's hard to tell what's real these days.
There was a poll that said 26% of Americans still trust the media.
Babylon Bee calls that a disturbing poll, that you still trust the media.
Now, of course you know, I always say that 25% of the people in every poll, 25% will get totally the wrong answer, if there's a right answer.
And this is one that has a right answer.
If you're trusting the media, You really haven't been paying attention.
So, yeah, about a quarter of every poll has exactly the wrong answer.
So there's a TV show, I think it's only on Apple TV, called Severance.
And people kept mentioning it to me and saying, hey, why aren't you watching that Severance series?
It's great.
And I wasn't interested until Michael Malice described it as He said, Severance is superb.
It's lost meets Dilbert.
And then I thought, well, I've got to watch that.
And it's also weird because one of the actors is Adam Scott.
Kind of weird, isn't it?
That somebody would be in a show that has a Dilbert-esque part to it, and his name is Adam Scott.
Well, I was all about ready to watch it until I saw some other people giving their comments about it.
And now I'm not interested.
You know, if somebody says, yeah, it's really slow and nothing happens, I'm not going to watch that.
I never watched Lost.
So being half Dilbert is good.
Being half Lost is sort of a reason not to watch it.
So probably won't watch it.
How many of you saw the put-down that J.D. Vance did on...
Mehdi Hassan, who used to work at MSNBC, but I think he got fired or quit.
Don't remember.
But here's what Mehdi said.
He said, Hey, J.D. Vance.
He said this on X. Hey, J.D. Vance.
I know you're busy lecturing the Europeans on free speech, but have you seen this?
And it's a report about the AP being kicked out of the press briefings.
And J.D. Vance answers with this on X. Now, this is the vice president I want.
His first words.
Yes, dummy.
Yes, dummy.
I think there's a difference between not giving a reporter a seat in the White House press briefing room and jailing people for dissenting views.
The latter is a threat to free speech.
The former is not.
Hope that helps.
I like how helpful he is.
Hey, dummy.
Now, do you think that a vice president...
Could have ever said, yes, dummy, to a member of the media before the Trump administration.
But now it just makes sense.
It just seems completely normal.
So Elon Musk has proposed that when he visits Fort Knox to see if the gold is really there, as part of the Doge project, that maybe they should live stream it.
Now, I don't know.
If that's a good idea or not.
Because could you tell by just looking at it that it's all there?
I guess the fun would be if there's none there.
Imagine how much we spend on security if there's no gold in there.
That would be the funniest story in all of America, that we've been spending like probably $10 million a year, I'm just guessing, to guard a building that didn't have anything in it.
That would be just the perfect ending.
Yeah, and of course, Al Capone's vault is what we're all going to be thinking about.
So I've got a feeling it's like a reverse Al Capone's vault.
So Al Capone's vault, you remember Geraldo was opening the vault that belonged to Al Capone.
And then we're going to see if there was any cool things inside.
What he found was there was nothing inside.
So this would be like a reverse Al Capone's thing.
If we find out...
That there's nothing inside, that would be the surprise.
Again, is that a reverse or is that the same?
I don't know.
My brain's not working today.
One way, Grok 3 is out.
Way better than Grok 2, and according to the metrics I saw, it would be the best AI out there.
I guess what Musk is doing right with AI is he's just built a better training Technology platform.
So he's just got a more efficient way and a bigger way of training it.
So I guess there's a pretty good chance it's going to stay ahead.
So I haven't tried it out fully, but I asked him some questions this morning and he gave me good answers.
Now, I understand that some people have been having conversations with it, but I don't see that option.
So am I only imagining that you can talk to it?
You can talk to it by holding down the microphone.
I found that option.
But I didn't see an option for just talking to it.
Maybe there is.
I don't know.
So we'll watch that.
On X, a user called Indra asked me a question.
Well, asked a question.
I decided to answer it.
Why do you think it's so hard to get these models, that would be the AI models, to write or understand humor?
You think reasoning would help there?
It made it worse?
Now, I don't think that reasoning helps you write humor exactly.
So I thought I'd take a stab at it.
You've heard a version of this before, but I think I did it better this time.
So this is my version of why AI can't do humor.
Number one, the hidden problem is that humor depends on the personality of the humorist.
In fiction, it depends on the personality of the character.
So Dilbert is a character.
And when Dilbert does nerdy things where he doesn't understand how things work in the social world, but he's really good with technology, that's somebody you know.
If you watched the TV show Friends or Seinfeld, you saw that each of the characters had their own unique personalities, and a joke that one character could do wouldn't work with the others.
So one of the characters on Friends was Joey, who was a famous womanizer.
He could make humor just by saying, how you doing?
You know, because it was a running gag and he said it funny.
But AI can't do that because AI is not Joey.
And AI also doesn't have a funny voice.
If you took away the exact way that Joey said it, you know, which I can't do in my impression, how you doing?
It's sort of the exact way he says it that makes it work.
Seinfeld, same thing.
If you took away Seinfeld's voice, That's just sort of perfectly designed or maybe developed it over time.
It's perfectly designed for humor.
If you looked at, let's say, the George character on Seinfeld, as soon as you know what that character is about, you know he's kind of selfish and small and just looking for an angle and stuff like that, then anything he does that's in that context is funnier.
So AI doesn't have a personality.
So if it had a personality, It could do humor within the personality, and that might work.
But there are other problems.
The personality has to have flaws.
So a personality where you're just really good at stuff, that's not really going to work for humor.
You have to have flaws.
So you have to be selfish.
That's usually the best one.
Selfish, uncaring, lacking empathy.
So basically negative.
Now, in the case of Dilbert, he's really good at technology, but he's really bad at understanding anything like dating or social interaction.
So that's a weakness.
It's a flaw.
And AI can't present itself with flaws because you wouldn't trust it.
You say, oh, it seems like you're a little emotional or something.
It would just seem too human, I guess.
So no flaws in the personality.
And then a lot of the best jokes involve a thought that people have had, something that people have thought about, but for whatever reason, nobody's ever said out loud.
That's like the holy grail of humor, is to find the thing that people are thinking, but nobody's ever put it into words before.
Now, how could you teach AI to do that?
Because AI only looks at things that do exist.
And I've been written down.
You can't train AI on thoughts.
And also, once somebody says it, it's no longer usable.
So the first time somebody makes a good joke about, you know, have you ever thought you're in this situation and blah, blah, blah?
Well, once you've done a joke about that situation, it's sort of spoiled.
You can't do another one.
So you can't train AI on thoughts.
That's a big...
That's a big problem.
And then, of course, maybe the biggest problem, well, is that AI is not allowed to be edgy or even mildly offensive or dangerous.
And a lot of what makes humor funny is that you say to yourself, oh, I can't believe he or she said that.
Oh, you're going to get in so much trouble.
Oh, I'll bet you're going to get canceled.
Oh, what is your wife going to say when you get home?
Oh.
What is your boyfriend going to say once he sees this joke?
So a lot of humor is just doing dangerous things.
But the trick is to do it in a way that's not really that dangerous, but it looks dangerous to other people.
There's a humorist whose name I can't remember, but it doesn't matter to the story, who wrote very funny books.
You'll probably tell me who it is in the comments.
And it would be about his family.
So his young family life.
And when you read it, you say to yourself, oh my goodness, how in the world does he get away with writing these hugely insulting but very funny stories about his early life and his family, about how weird they were and all that?
And I think the answer is that he'd already worked it out with his family, and they knew that it was some exaggerated version of reality, not really them.
So that's the trick.
And AI can't do that.
So AI can't be edgy.
It can't be offensive.
It can't be dangerous because AI can't be killed.
So you don't really worry about being embarrassed or fired or anything like that.
So it takes away all the danger.
So danger is important to humor.
Thinking about, let's say, Chappelle doing jokes about trans.
Now, even though the jokes may have been inoffensive, Because he's so good at crafting things that are close to the edge but not over it.
The fact that he would make jokes about the trans community, it seemed really dangerous.
As in, this could be the end of your career.
Just one wrong word there and you're going to get so cancelled.
But he didn't.
Because he's an expert at going up to the line and knowing where that line is.
Hey, I can never do that.
It would never be able to feel what is too far.
It's a feel.
And the reason there's only one Chappelle is that there's only one Chappelle.
There's just one.
There are very few humans in the whole world who can write commercial-grade humor.
So if you look at all the humor in the world, like if you're an AI and you're training on it, 99% of it wouldn't be that funny.
Because that's what most people do when they're writing.
They think they're funny, but they're not.
So if you train it on all the humor, alleged humor, that people think is funny but isn't, that's going to be a problem.
A lot of the stories, a lot of the humor comes from stories.
So somebody will say, I went to the store yesterday and this and that happened.
AI doesn't have any stories.
So AI never went to the store yesterday.
AI never got married.
AI never had kids.
So all those things that are a story that make you say, oh, God, that happened.
That happened to me.
AI can't do that because AI has no experiences that you share.
You don't know what it's like to be an AI. It doesn't know what it's like to be you.
So if you can't make it really understand your situation, you can't write humor about it.
And, you know, AI only understands at kind of a, let's say, a top level.
But to really understand how something feels, it can't get there.
And then, lastly, when I write jokes, the way I do it, and I don't know if this is true for other people, but it might be, I'll think of the situation, and it has to make me sort of laugh before I write the joke.
So the punchline comes last.
So I'm thinking, oh, that would be funny.
I know I can do something with that.
I don't think AI could recognize that because it's literally an internal feeling.
So I'll look at a situation and I go, you know, you have that little beavis and butt laugh.
And you know that just with the right words, you can turn that into something really funny.
So AI can't do that.
Because it doesn't have the Beavis and Byad automatic reaction.
That probably is telling you it's something that's going to work.
And so when I cycle through punchlines, for example, I say, okay, maybe if he says this, maybe if he says that, what I'm really doing is checking my, I'll say gut, but my entire body response.
So if I cycle through, suppose Dilbert says this, nothing.
Suppose Dilbert says that.
Nothing.
Suppose Dilbert, uh-huh-huh.
And then I actually laugh.
I go, okay, that's the one.
So AI can't test as it goes to see if it's setting the exact mark, but a human can.
So what's that leave?
The only thing that's left for AI is wordplay and puns, that's mostly wordplay, and reheated dad jokes.
Because it has to be...
Completely inoffensive, not dangerous, not related to any stories that you've had, not related to any personal experience, just the most bland, bland, boring thing.
Just dad jokes, which are mostly wordplay.
So I don't see a path for AI to become funny.
I would love the challenge, though.
So I'll reiterate my offer.
For $1 billion...
I will help train your AI to be funny.
One billion dollars.
Now, here's the funny part of that.
And part of my offer is that if I can't do it and it's not funny, and whoever is going to pay me the billion can be the judge of that if it's not funny.
If it's not funny, you owe me nothing.
It's free.
So that's pretty good service, right?
Because if you had the first funny AI, You don't think you'd make an extra billion?
Of course you would.
If you could have an AI that was literally funny, like not the way the current ones are, that's worth probably lots of billions of dollars.
So for $1 billion, I'll offer to make yours the only funny AI. We'll see.
All right, James Carville is calling out Democrats for being super racist.
You know, Carville's one of the few people I'd like to interview.
You know, usually...
Oh, go to hell.
Yeah.
Just go to hell.
Looking at the comments.
There's some people who are so toxic that...
It's hard to understand.
It's just hard to understand the level of toxicity.
But just go straight to hell.
You know who I'm talking to.
All right.
So James Carville said that when the Democrats refer to people of color, he says that's racist because it makes the assumption that people of color are all the same.
And he uses the example, you know, are you saying that the Nigerians and the Indonesians are basically the same?
As long as they're not white, they're basically all just non-white people that are the same.
And of course he's right.
But I think it's way deeper than that.
I think he's close to the answer.
And the answer is that every single thing Democrats do is built in that identity model.
So if you start with identity...
It's going to be racist, because that's what identity is.
If you can't get rid of the identity politics, you'll never get rid of the racism that's built into the worldview.
So James Carville is probably the most helpful person to the Democrats, and I would love to know if they're paying attention.
I have a feeling that they're not, and that nothing he says matters, because he's an old white guy, which, of course...
Might be his point, too.
Well, Dr. Birx.
Remember Dr. Birx?
Here's Fauci's little right-hand person there.
And didn't you always suspect that they weren't telling you the truth?
Now, some of this might be a repeat, but the Vigilant Fox did a good thread today, putting it all together.
So Birx has sort of been talking.
And here's some of the things we learned from Dr. Birx.
So she was the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator under the first Trump administration.
So she admitted during a recent appearance on Piers Morgan that the government botched the COVID response by overlooking early treatments.
Early treatments, which would have been ivermectin?
I don't know.
But didn't we all know that?
I feel like every single person in the public knew that something less than a vaccination, which was not really a vaccination, something less than a shot probably would make sense.
It's amazing.
I can't tell if they lied about it so that they could get the shots in it to everybody.
It looks like that's what happened.
Or did they actually not know?
Or is it a motivated ignorance where they're sort of motivated to say there's nothing else that could work?
I don't know.
It's kind of a gray area.
And then she said that the claims from the Biden administration that the jabs of efficacy were based on hope, not science.
So the idea that the shots would stop the transmission was never based on any science.
And Birx actually says it was developed specifically to keep the most vulnerable people alive.
It wasn't even designed to stop the spread.
Imagine finding that out now.
This is the...
Well, I would go further.
So if they developed it not for people who are, let's say, young and healthy, and then they forced it on people that are young and healthy, I actually think the death penalty would be in order.
I think you should be murdered.
Well, no, not murdered.
I'd have to go through the legal system.
But if you lied to the public about something that's definitely going to kill some of them and provide no benefit whatsoever, and they knew it, Because they developed the thing not to be necessary for young, healthy people.
And that's what Birx is saying.
She's basically saying they knew it wasn't for young people.
And they also knew it wasn't going to stop the spread.
And then they told us it was going to stop the spread, so you better give it to young people.
That should be the death penalty.
And the only reason it's not...
I guess.
It's because we're not used to treating medical stuff like a crime.
But this is way more like a crime than a medical treatment.
To me, the domain is crime.
If you say the domain is healthcare and sometimes you get some wrong, well, I don't want people to be punished for a good-faith healthcare opinion that ends up being wrong.
I don't want people punished for a mistake.
That's not what we're being reported on.
That's not what's reported.
What's reported is they knew exactly what they were doing and did it anyway.
I would imagine that there are at least 20 people who should be subject to the death sentence for that.
That would depend on what it stayed and what you would call it.
But this is murder.
It's murder.
Isn't it?
If you know people are going to die.
And you do it anyway, and you know that it was not even meant for the purpose that you told everybody to do it?
Isn't that murder?
I don't know.
So, I'm not sure how much of that is new.
Most of you knew that.
But to hear Burke say it out loud, that's the new element that they knew.
Because I was still open to the possibility that it was a fog of war situation, and maybe they didn't know what they were doing.
They just hoped it would work.
And she actually says that the thought that it would stop the spread was based on a hope.
They could have mentioned that to us.
How about they tell us next time if it's just a hope?
Anyway.
Meanwhile, over in Saudi Arabia, I guess some of Russia's top people are meeting with some of our...
Top people to talk about Ukraine.
The fun part is that Zelensky and Europe were not invited.
The parties which would have the most, you know, the most, you think, the most interest.
But then separately, I saw a note that Zelensky was invited, but not till Wednesday, tomorrow.
Is that true?
Was Zelensky belatedly invited?
I'm seeing a yes, but I don't know if it's to that question or not.
So, I saw a report that said that, but I don't know about that.
And one of the Russians says, the main thing is to begin a real normalization of relations between us and Washington.
Now, I saw Ian Bremmer saying that if you don't invite Ukraine to the conversation about what happens in Ukraine, that can't possibly work.
I'm paraphrasing, but that...
I think that was the essence of it.
That it's sort of a non-starter if Ukraine is not involved in the discussion of what happens to Ukraine.
But one of the ideas that's being floated is that there would be an election in Ukraine.
Do you invite the guy who canceled elections so he can stay in power to help you decide whether there should be an election to remove him from power?
I feel like I feel like Trump is just being practical, meaning that if you put Ukraine in the middle of this conversation, Ukraine will, I think, I think Ukraine would sabotage it.
Because if you put Zelensky there, Zelensky is going to say, okay, I can't be out of power because then people will figure out what I did and I'm not going to survive.
So you don't want the person who doesn't want...
The war to end and doesn't want to be removed from power to be deciding how the war ends and how he is removed from power.
Because I'm not sure he would get elected.
But the funniest thing about this is that either Russia or the United States believes that there would be anything like a fair election.
Do you think the United States is pushing for the election because we know we're going to rig it?
So it doesn't matter if there's an election or not.
I don't know.
It feels like it.
And do you think Russia could rig the election in Ukraine?
Do you think they have that much reach at this point?
Maybe.
If Russia allegedly interfered with American elections, although I think in a very minor way, couldn't they have some influence on Ukraine?
Probably.
They must have lots of spies there by now.
So I wonder how much of that is just for theater.
To make it look like there was a change of leadership, but really it's, you know, orchestrated from behind the curtain.
Anyway, we'll see where that goes.
Harry Enten at CNN was talking about the drop in support for Ukraine.
And I guess since 2022, the percentage of the U.S. says that the U.S. is doing too much to help Ukraine.
It was only 7% in 2022. So only 7% thought we were doing too much to help Ukraine.
And now it's up to 41%.
And among the GOP, it's higher than 60%.
So if you're President Trump and over 60% of the people who are your base say we're already doing too much, he needs to do a little less.
And that's what he's aiming to do.
You know, not including Zelensky sort of makes sense to me because he seems more like a puppet than a player.
But not including Europe is funnier because Europe is such a mess that what is Europe?
What exactly is Europe?
Is it every country?
Is it the European Union?
Would they do a good job of representing Europe?
Or would it be...
15 new opinions thrown into a negotiation which couldn't possibly work.
So here's something that Trump knows that I'm not sure everybody else knows.
You can't negotiate with lots of people in the room.
That's not a thing.
Two people can negotiate.
And then maybe if they come up with something, they can sell it to other people.
But you can't put Europe and Zelensky and Russia and the United States in a room and come up with anything.
You would come up with nothing.
Guaranteed that wouldn't work.
I apologize, I'm still recovering from a cold.
So, I think if Russia and the United States can make a comprehensive deal that includes Ukraine, but maybe it includes other interests of the United States and Russia, so that we've got something bigger, you know, something about the long-term relationship between the two countries.
Then we've got something to present.
Then you go to Europe and you say, how about this?
Now, if at that point, Europe says, no way.
Well, maybe they have some good points.
Maybe you learn something.
Scott loved himself some Zelensky.
I love it when people hallucinate opposite of my opinions.
Can you tell me one time I was a Zelensky supporter?
Not once.
And yet somebody over in Rumble, oh, Scott loves Zelensky.
Have I said anything like that?
To me, he's obviously corrupt.
Obviously corrupt.
So, fix your act.
Byron York had a good summation of why the European leaders might not be invited.
This is from his post on X. He said, European leaders are angry.
They're not included in Ukraine talks.
They feel there are no ideas, no agreement on how to proceed, but plenty of platitudes perspective would be a valuable part of the negotiations.
Yes, we don't need platitudes.
What would Europe say that we don't think is obvious?
We need to support Ukraine, otherwise Russia will overrun us.
Okay, got it.
How about we have the meeting without you now that we know everything you have to say?
Well, you know, got to fight for democracy.
Okay, platitudes, platitudes.
We get it.
We get it.
So they don't really have anything to offer that I can see.
Anyway, here's, according to some breaking news, the Mexican Senate Has approved the entry of the United States Special Forces into Mexico?
Now, when I read that headline, I thought to myself, oh, oh, I'm surprised.
Because I thought there's no way that our Special Forces would be at least invited into Mexico.
And then I realized what's really happening.
When you first heard that U.S. Special Forces were going to fight the cartel, did you think that was real?
I think it was a real intention.
I think when Trump said it, it was real.
I also assumed that once he started to implement it, there would be some, let's say, internal counterpoints that would arise.
And so let me tell you what I think was the worst-case scenario.
The worst-case scenario is if we wanted to send in our special forces to crush the cartel, but instead, Mexico talked us into training their own military.
With our special forces to go attack the cartels.
And that's what it is.
So the special forces are invited in not to fight.
That's not approved by Mexico.
But rather to train the Mexican military to be better at fighting the cartels.
Now, you all see the problem with that, right?
That's the worst case scenario.
Because if you train the Mexican military how to fight the cartel, They can go get a job with a cartel that's way better than what they're getting paid to be in the military.
And some say that that's what happened with the Zeta cartel.
It's people who were trained by special forces and then just became cartels.
If you believe that the Mexican military was independent and meant to do, you know, intended to take out the cartels, well, then it might make sense.
But given that the Mexican military doesn't seem to have any ability or even desire to take on the cartels, I kind of have to assume that the cartel already owns the military.
So my worst-case scenario seems to have come to pass.
We're training Mexico how to resist military attacks.
I don't think this could be worse, honestly.
So I'm 100% opposed.
To training the Mexican military to be better.
100% opposed.
And this looks to me like a gigantic mistake that probably started down as good intentions, but then when the real world got in the way, like, well, maybe the best we can do is train the Mexicans and then it will look like we're doing something, but really just making everything worse.
So it looks like making everything worse to me.
That's what it looks like.
Also, apparently CNN's reporting.
That the CIA has been covertly flying these Reaper drones over Mexico.
Now, the Reaper drones are not weaponized in this case.
Maybe ever.
I don't know.
But they're not weaponized.
They're just observing.
And I guess they've been doing that for a long time.
But observing them doesn't seem to help, does it?
And I feel like we probably already knew this.
Some drones were doing some surveillance there.
Did you see the video?
The horrifying, shocking video of the Delta Connections flight that had a crash landing in Toronto at the airport.
But it looks like it came in too heavy and just ripped its wings off and ended up upside down.
And the amazing part is that 80 people were aboard the flight, but possibly only 18 got injuries.
So there was a huge fireball.
But it looks like the fireball kind of stayed mostly away from the cabin.
And then there were images of the people getting off in the emergency.
And it was pretty impressive.
So the good news is, even though it landed upside down, when it was done, it was upside down.
So were all those people strapped in upside down?
In other words, by the time they had to get out, were they literally trying to figure out how to get their seatbelts off?
Because it'd be pretty hard if you're upside down.
So, if that happened to me, I would never fly again.
There's not a single chance that I would ever get on an airplane if I had been on that flight.
My goodness.
Unless you want to play the odds.
If you play the odds, you would say, well, what are the odds I'd be in two plane crashes?
Which actually is a good point.
All right.
I wasn't sure if I was going to talk about Doge today.
Partly because I'm having Doge dreams that are really unpleasant.
And the Doge dreams go like this.
There's a big claim by Doge that they found some fraud or some waste.
And then some other people say, no, you're reading it wrong.
You just don't know how to look at the data.
None of it's true.
And then in my dream, I kept trying to figure out what was true.
But of course, you can't because it's a dream.
And I'm getting a little bit tired of it.
Do any of you have Doge burnout yet?
Or is it just because I follow the news too much?
I have complete Doge burnout.
All the stories have the same feel to them.
We found some big problem, followed by other people saying, no, you didn't.
You're being mistaken.
You're looking at the wrong thing.
And then I say, well, how do I know the difference?
So here's the big one.
The big one is that they found, let's see, $4.7 trillion in payments that are untraceable.
Now, if you hear that there's $4.7 trillion in untraceable payments, the first thing you should say is, over what period of time?
And it wasn't in the article.
You really need to say every single time you talk about numbers, you have to say, is that for this year or over 10 years or over 20 years?
Otherwise, it's meaningless.
So the first thing I hate about the Doge stuff is I keep mixing one year of expense with multi-year.
And then you don't really know what happened.
So I'm really pissed off about that because it makes what would be useful stories not useful.
The claim is that because it's untraceable, it is certainly some big source of fraud.
That's not the claim.
That's, let's say, the implication.
But is it?
Or is it something that's just poorly coded?
Are we going to find out later that there was a way to track it, but it was in a different system or something like that?
So all of these have the fog of war problem.
Where you think, ah, Doge really got it now.
They got the good stuff.
And then you hear that somebody else says, no, they just read it wrong.
I don't know.
And then there's also, let's see, there's also the thing with the Social Security numbers.
There's some Social Security database that has death field set to zero, or false, set to false, meaning that there's no Death that would be measured, even if the person died, which would suggest that people are using, I don't know, maybe expired, not expired, but social security numbers of dead people.
But you don't know.
Maybe?
Because over at Reddit, they're saying, no, Doge is just reading the files wrong.
They don't know how to look at a COBOL database, which seems unlikely that they don't know how to do that.
So I'm getting these gigantic, really important-sounding stories.
But I can't tell if any of it's true.
And I'm getting a little worn out by it.
So I might take a, let's say, a breather from reporting all the Doge stuff, because I just don't know what's true.
I do like that they're reporting everything they find as they find it, even if it's not 100% accurate or on point, because it's transparent.
So I like the transparency, but it introduces all this error, which is, okay, that's your first take.
What do the people who run that system say?
I mean, are the people who are in charge of the system, do they say, yeah, you know, you got us.
That's $4.7 trillion that we didn't track whatsoever.
No idea where it went.
Or would they say, you fool.
There's a different code that we use for this kind of stuff, and it's right there.
You just were looking in the wrong place.
Could go either way.
So, I don't know.
And then there's the question of whether we could find enough to balance the budget.
My take is not even close, and I think Thomas Massey might be on the same page, because the Congress is looking to increase our debt by $25 trillion.
Is that over a year, or is that over time?
Well, it's over time.
Ten years, I think.
But I'm having trouble believing that the Congress is so useless.
In the context of we have to cut our expenses, Doge is working as hard as possible, that in that context they would be adding more expenses than I think Doge is even cutting.
So, unbelievable.
We have a system where our elected politicians can only say yes to expenses.
If they say no, they can't get elected.
So we need to revise our system so that somebody...
It's making decisions that can stick, and somebody can make some cuts, but our Congress can't.
There's no real hope of that.
So we'll see.
So apparently AI now has a brain decoder that can read a person's thought with a quick scan of an almost no training.
So this is according to Live Science.
Skylar Ware is writing about this.
I assume this means they put sensors on your head, and they try to read your thoughts, and then they can turn it into text.
Now, when you think about that, your first thought is, wow, so cool.
Imagine if I could just think what I want to type, and it appeared.
And I'd say, that would be cool.
Maybe if you had just some little hat or glasses or something, they could do that.
I know COBOL's language.
You don't have to explain it to me.
I know there's no such thing as a COBOL database.
You don't have to be dicks about it.
Yeah.
I think everybody on Rumble is toxic.
I think all the worst people in the world are on that fucking platform.
Anyway.
So here's my question.
Do you think if we have that technology and we refine it a little bit more, do you think that's what it's going to be used for?
Do you think it'll be used for typing really quickly without using your fingers?
I don't.
I think it's going to be used for job interviews and lie detectors.
Imagine having something that could turn your thoughts into text while you're being interviewed by the police or a prospective employer.
And they say, all right, could you wear this hat?
And I have some questions to ask.
Have you ever done anything that's super racist?
And then the person says, no, no, I've never done anything super racist.
And then you're watching the text.
I did this once thing.
I was like, oh, my God.
So I got a feeling that our thoughts are now in play.
And I don't know how you get back from that because it's going to be so useful.
If someone were lying to you in a job interview, knowing that would be worth a lot of money.
If somebody's lying about what crime they committed, knowing that makes a big difference.
You know, it's somebody's freedom.
So yes, the economics of it guarantee that your brain will be read by censors.
Let's talk about the price of eggs.
You know, I've been avoiding this price of eggs thing.
Because I just figure it takes care of itself, you know, supply and demand plus time.
It takes care of itself.
Now, it's bad while it's happening, so I'm not minimizing it.
It's a big expense for a lot of people.
But doesn't it take care of itself?
Why would this be the one time it doesn't?
Is there some great barrier to entry for having a chicken?
So the question I wanted to ask was, how long does it take a baby chicken?
To have its own eggs.
So apparently a baby chicken can have eggs in six months, as soon as four and a half, depending on some conditions.
So in theory, we could take the eggs of the, well, the fertilized eggs of the current chickens, and in five or six months, those new chickens would be laying eggs.
So we should be maybe...
Two or three six-month cycles away from being back to normal?
Actually, that's the way I'd like to see the information.
I'd like to see somebody say, yeah, in one cycle where we have new chickens six months later, that would be maybe a third of the problem taken care of.
We need another cycle and then a third cycle to get enough chickens.
Now, that assumes you don't have avian flu and murder chickens or some other problem.
But wouldn't you like to know?
That it just solves itself in 18 months.
Because it might solve itself in 18 months.
I just don't know.
So, could be a problem that's not a problem in the long run.
I saw user Eric Cook say this on that topic.
He said, we have plenty of eggs in rural Tennessee.
Every neighborhood has egg boxes.
Take the eggs, leave the money.
They're running $3 to $4 a dozen right now, though.
I guess that's high.
And how much do you love that?
That, you know, you're in the civilized part of the world and, you know, you don't live next to a chicken farmer and you think you're all doing good.
It's like, yeah, I'm living in the good part of the world.
I got grocery stores all over the place.
And then in rural Tennessee, they have egg boxes where they trust you entirely on trust.
Take an egg and leave some money.
I just love that.
I just love the fact that in rural Tennessee this could even exist.
Isn't that sort of encouraging, isn't it?
That there's anywhere in the world that somebody's selling eggs on the trust basis.
I won't even be there.
Leave a dollar.
If you don't have any money, just take the egg.
I love that.
Well, Trump has added to his tariff program.
That he'll have reciprocal tariffs for everything.
So these will be in addition to some tariffs that will be targeted for specific industries.
But in general, he's just going to say, if you charge us this much, we charge you that much.
But then he added an interesting wrinkle.
He's treating the VAT tax, the value-added tax that applies in Europe and maybe just Europe, I don't know.
He's saying that that's the same as a tariff.
Because if in order to sell into your country, where would it be buying?
I'm confused about the VAT because we don't have that.
If you're going to tax us or tariff it, we're going to treat it like a tariff.
A tax is a tariff.
So he's adding the tax, adding what they're tariffing us to what they're charging us in VAT and making our reciprocal thing based on that.
I like it.
I was at first thinking, why don't we just do that for everything?
But sometimes, you're really just trying to protect an industry.
So if you have to protect an industry, then yeah, maybe you have to have some special ones on things like steel and cars, or I don't know.
I'm not sure which ones we're protecting.
But the rest, I kind of like the idea that...
We're just going to do whatever you do.
And if you raise it because we raised it to your level, we'll just match you.
We'll just keep matching you.
I like that.
That's pure Trump and pure common sense.
I like it.
Well, over in New York State, Governor Hochul is at least floating the idea of removing New York City Mayor Adams from his job, Eric Adams.
And the big question is, how is that legal?
I asked Grok if the governor can remove a mayor, and Grok says no.
I'm paraphrasing a long answer, but no, the governor cannot remove a mayor.
So what exactly is she even talking about?
How do you remove a mayor?
They were both voted.
The mayor doesn't report to the governor.
If it's not your boss...
How could she remove him?
Is there some kind of weird impeachment thing I don't know about?
Anyway, so we'll keep an eye on that.
Over in the Middle East, Hamas is going to release the bodies of four dead hostages this week.
And I say to myself, and I guess that would be in return for women and children being released from Israeli detention.
Is it just me?
Or do you also believe that they wouldn't be releasing the bodies of dead hostages unless they had already released all the living ones?
What do you think?
Doesn't this mean that they don't have any living ones left?
Now, we can't be sure of that.
It could be that the ones that are living are in such bad shape.
That it would be worse than not releasing them, at least from Hamas' point of view.
Like they wouldn't want you to see how bad the living are.
So whatever is going on here is just the deepest evil.
Whatever that is.
Anyway, so we'll keep an eye on that.
According to the New York Post, gambling addictions have soared since sport betting was legalized in most of the U.S. How many of you knew that sports betting was legalized?
I didn't know it until I read that article.
Sports betting is legalized in most of the United States?
When did that happen?
Under what?
Administration.
I don't remember that happening.
And why would it be legalized?
Wouldn't you know for sure that the gambling addicts would be taken down by that?
Of course the gambling addiction has soared.
The gambling about sports, I think, is the most diabolical.
Because everybody has that Dunning-Kruger thing, where you think you're smarter than you are, where you can look at the sports teams and you think you know who's going to win.
I'm not sure that's a thing.
Do you think your expertise will be like, well, this pitcher pitched a game three days ago, but...
He's not so good in hot weather.
So you think you know something that other people don't.
That's the most dangerous gambling.
Because that's going to, even if you're down to your last penny, you're still going to bet it because you think you know more than other people.
It couldn't be a worse situation.
If it were pure gambling, then it might even make more sense.
Because nobody would think they have a good chance of winning.
That's what pure gambling is.
So something like a slot machine, some people would still be addicted to it, of course, as they are.
But at least you would know that you couldn't use any skill to get an advantage.
So the same problem with online poker.
Online poker players think, oh, I have more skill, so I can get into this and it'll pay off.
Man, that's your worst combination, is thinking you know something and also it's gambling.
You don't want to pair those two.
That's just like asking for trouble.
Well, in my last item here, the director of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, was saying on, I think it was on Fox, that Adam Schiff has tried to impeach the president.
He's now in his third try.
Now, some would say that it'd be the same as trying to overthrow the elected government.
I think in this case it is.
I don't think all impeachments are that.
But in this case...
It's very clear that the Trump impeachments are all meant as just overthrowing the government.
And it's kind of amazing that he's not in jail.
There's something going on that is the weirdest thing because, like I said, the people who pushed the COVID shots, to the extent that they knew what they were doing, That should be jail, but I don't think it ever will be.
And with Schiff, to the extent that he was doing it just to remove the president and not because he thought the grounds of impeachment were especially important, like a phone call to Ukraine.
Who cared about that, really?
Nobody.
It does look like treason, but it will never be treated that way.
And you could probably come up with 10 other examples where you say to yourself, that's not illegal?
You can't go to jail for that?
I don't know.
I think sometimes we just get used to stuff.
So we just don't think of it as a crime when obviously it is.
So anyway, that's all I got for today.
I'm not operating at 100% today, so I apologize if this was not your usual incredibly entertaining live stream.
I expect to be back to 100% really soon.
And I'll tell you, you never want to have a bad cough at the same time you have an untreated hernia and asthma.
You don't want those three things at the same time.
That's the one thing I can tell you.
That is a really tough 24 hours.
But I'm over the tough part, I think.
We'll see.
All right, I'm going to say a few words privately to the locals people.
The rest of you, I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place.
