God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, SpaceX, Unstranded Stranded Astronauts Rescued, Owen Shroyer, Conservative Swatting, JFK Files, Trump Putin Negotiations, Russian Sanctions Package, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Schumer, Anti-DOGE Democrats, Anti-Tesla Terrorism, Billionaire Ex-Wives, Domestic Terrorism Funding, America Destroying Democrat Policies, Domestic Terrorism, Governor Newsom, Activist Judge Authority Limits, Anti-DOGE Injunctions, Governor DeSantis, Ben Shapiro, Derek Chauvin Pardon, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
You've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice, a stein, a canteen jug or a 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.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called, that's right, the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Oh.
So good.
Well, if you didn't watch yesterday, and you probably did, the astronauts have been rescued.
By SpaceX.
And they splashed down yesterday and they were healthy and happy and everything worked.
I found it unusually inspirational.
I feel like everything's been so negative lately that when you see something that is just not political, I mean, it shouldn't be.
It got politicized.
And it shows excellence.
And it shows empathy.
And it shows American know-how.
Pretty inspirational.
But do you think there was any hoaxes from the left?
Yes.
So apparently the hoax on the left is that they were never stranded at all.
That's right.
They were never really stranded.
Because there was some other way to get back.
So the reason they stayed up there for, I don't know, nine months or whatever it was, is because they weren't stranded.
Now, it's unbelievable.
I heard that yesterday and I thought, how in the world can you just even say that with a straight face?
But the outlets who have admitted they were stranded are PBS Time, Washington Post.
ABC, BBC, Fox News, Forbes, Newsweek, New York Post, USA Today.
So they all called it stranded.
But suddenly, once Elon Musk's company is getting ready to save him, well, they were never stranded.
What do you mean by stranded?
You know, technically, there was some other way to get back.
What?
Put on their little space suits and just do a big kick toward Earth?
I don't think that would have worked.
So, anyway, great job, Elon Musk and company.
Meanwhile, Apple is working on a new technology for their AirPods so that you can have immediate translation when you're talking to somebody in another language.
Now, finally, we get that Star Trek Universal Translator.
Can you imagine that?
Can you imagine just having your little earpods in and your phone is translating somebody in real time?
That would be so wild.
You can imagine that people would want to travel in places that they wouldn't want to travel before because they couldn't do the language.
But imagine being able to speak any of the main languages just by putting your earpods in.
That's kind of wild.
So I guess that will be part of.
Apple's next big upgrade, which apparently is supposed to be a big one.
It's going to have a bunch of AI in it.
Well, there was another big swatting yesterday.
The SWAT team showed up at Owen Schroer's home.
If he hadn't gotten swatted, I guess I would have been surprised because he's Infowar-related and he's a conservative podcaster-type media.
And sure enough, guess what?
It's got to be a lot scarier if you look like somebody who might be dangerous.
So this is not an insult to Owen.
It's actually kind of a compliment.
He's very manly.
He's got the beard and everything.
And he looks like he could be dangerous.
And I'm thinking that it's way more dangerous if you're a male who looks like, well, You look like you could be dangerous.
So this is not funny.
So this is, what, the 15th?
And the fact that these SWAT people are still going out with their guns drawn, I just feel like there's got to be some solution to this.
I don't know what it would be, but could it be that they don't take SWAT calls from burner phones?
Because how many people have a burner phone?
That is the thing they're going to use to call in a crime.
It seems like that would be kind of rare.
So if they can't see who the person is, or why can't you just call the person?
Because they always have the phone number of anybody in the house.
Why not just call the person, and if they have an iPhone, say, can you turn on FaceTime and just show me what's happening?
And you'd be like, okay, here's my wife still in bed.
Here's my kid, still in bed.
Here's a sweep of the house.
Everything's fine, but if you want to come over, just let me know when you're in the driveway and I'll come out.
So there's got to be some way to handle this.
Well, the JFK files, or at least some of them, are out.
I guess it's 30,000 of what would be 80,000.
And do you remember what my prediction about the JFK files would be?
Nothing.
That it would be just the stuff we've already suspected or seen or been hinted at.
That's largely what happened.
So it could be that maybe the good secrets are in the second batch, but I doubt it.
Now, if you've had time to see what people are saying about the existing files, take a look at the big insights we're getting, which is not a lot.
And then compare that to Trump allegedly saying that if you saw what I saw, you wouldn't release them either.
Does that sound like anything you saw in the JFK files?
So I guess the most damning things are the things we already knew.
And the things we already knew were that there was a CIA connection to Oswald and there was a...
There was a mafia connection to Ruby, and we do know that the CIA and the mafia were working together.
That was also confirmed when it came to Cuba.
So that's in the files.
So it doesn't say who killed JFK, but it does suggest that the CIA was all over everything.
And we do know that...
JFK wanted to dismantle and just completely rip up the CIA.
Now, one of the surprises was I didn't realize that in the 60s, the CIA was already enormous and maybe controlling the government already.
So that part surprised me a little.
I mean, it doesn't surprise me when an intelligence group takes over a country.
Because that's what they're trained to do.
So if they didn't take over their own country, you know, it'd be surprising if you waited 50 years.
Sometime in that 50 years, the people who are experts at overthrowing countries are going to overthrow your country.
It just seems like that's inevitable.
So I guess that's the main thing.
So lots of mafia and CAA.
Then there was this one document from Gary Underhill, who allegedly worked for the CIA, and he revealed to friends that he thought the CIA was behind the JFK assassination, and then he was found dead soon after that.
Now, that doesn't prove that he knew, and it doesn't prove that it was the head of the CIA.
Also, coincidentally, worked with the CIA.
But he said it was a small clique within the CIA was responsible for the assassination.
But that is not any kind of confirmation of anything.
That was just one guy saying that he thought that was true.
I guess six months later, he was found dead.
So it wasn't the next day.
It was like six months later.
There was, interestingly, a letter from Schlesinger warning Kennedy at the time that the CIA had become a state within a state.
And it was Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
He was one of Kennedy's advisors.
And he said the CIA has grown too powerful, too reckless, and it's running its own foreign policy.
So it sounds like the CIA was overthrowing other countries.
Without the president being involved.
Does that sound even remotely possible?
I think yes.
I think that does sound possible.
So just imagine that.
Imagine that the CIA was running its own foreign policy that the president was not only not in agreement with, but didn't even know.
So that's how bad it was.
Let's see.
And he said that...
All these secret wars like the Bay of Pigs and stuff happening in Vietnam and Algeria and the Philippines and said they will bleed you to death, meaning all these CIA efforts in other countries will bleed you to death.
And apparently Schlesinger thought that the British intelligence, MI6, were operating under strict controls from the government, whereas the CIA was running unchecked.
Does that sound like a lot of our government?
Didn't the Doge people find that the USAID, which apparently was closely tied to our CIA operations, was completely unchecked?
So since the 60s, the people in charge have known that the CIA was running unchecked, and they just kept running unchecked.
Nothing really changed.
Anyway, so Kennedy was warned about this in June of 61, and he was assassinated in November of 63. Are they connected?
Don't know.
We don't know.
The only thing I would say for sure is that whatever it was that Trump saw, we have not seen.
Now, you could kind of imagine that maybe Mike Pompeo, because he was head of the CIA at the time, didn't want the CIA to get a black eye or anything.
But this is stuff we already knew.
Anybody who looked into it already knew there was some kind of a CIA connection, at least to the alleged shooter.
Well, meanwhile, Trump and Putin had a call.
And I think Wyckoff and even Trump are still characterizing it as positive progress and they're really doing well and peace is coming.
But nothing that came out of that meeting sounds like that to me.
So here are the things that Putin wanted and he agreed to.
So there was some kind of agreement to stop targeting each other's energy infrastructure.
As of this morning, I believe that that's already been broken.
I saw one report, I don't know if it's true, that Putin already targeted some energy infrastructure.
So probably even that wasn't true.
But that's one thing that Putin seemed to be agreeing to.
What I don't know is if they agreed that it would start immediately, or if it's something he was willing to do, but they hadn't agreed to do it.
So maybe there's some difference there.
Then Trump was saying that there was some kind of agreement for deconflicting the Black Sea, so not attacking ships in the Black Sea.
I don't know if that happened or if it's going to happen.
And then there was some hand-waving about maybe cooperating with Russia for events in the Middle East, but that's kind of nonspecific.
And that they both agreed to...
Work toward an improved bilateral relationship, which is pretty generic.
But here are the things that Putin wants that seem like they're going to be a little tough.
He wants a complete cessation of foreign military aid and intelligence sharing for Ukraine.
So in other words, he wants to keep his entire military while telling Ukraine to get rid of theirs, just completely get rid of it.
Essentially, they're military, because if they don't get foreign aid, there's not much military left.
He wants Ukraine to be not part of the talks, and he wants to only deal with Trump.
Okay.
I don't know how you could make the Ukrainians not part of it at some point, but maybe not in the first point.
Russia wants sanctions relief.
I don't know what kind of sanctions are on there right now.
Apparently Putin's asking to not only keep the stuff that they've conquered, you know, the zones that they've conquered, he wants more than that.
So he wants some entire provinces that they've never even occupied.
Okay, the odds of that are about zero.
So, and then Lindsey Graham said he's putting together a package for Congress to...
Implement some more crushing sanctions on Russia's economy.
I don't know what that would be, so we don't have details of that.
And then, just embedded in one of the articles I was reading about this, was this little factoid.
Apparently Russia has been helping the Houthis determine what ships to fire at, which means our ships.
Is that true?
That Russia is the one who has been telling the Houthis what to target?
Because that's not cool.
So that obviously would have to end.
So I'm going to say that as long as the Land for Peace deal includes provinces that they have not occupied, there's no way that anybody's going to agree to that.
Yeah, we froze some oligarch assets.
That's not much.
I mean, we can't completely freeze it.
So, I don't know.
To me, it looks like we don't have anything that would make Ukraine feel comfortable.
So there's no guarantees for Ukraine.
That seems like a non-starter.
And if Putin wants more territory than he's even occupied...
That seems like a non-starter.
But maybe there's still room for negotiating?
I don't know what it would look like.
So I'm going to be a little more negative.
I do think that if Lindsey Graham puts together a strong package that Russia really, really doesn't want to experience, a package of sanctions, that that might give Trump,
an excuse to walk away.
Now, remember, in negotiations, there's usually one walk away, at least, where somebody says, nope, can't do it.
There's no way this will ever happen.
I'm going to quadruple your sanctions, and good luck.
We're just going to let the Europeans keep arming these Ukrainians, and good luck.
Your army will be ground to pieces eventually.
So, I don't know.
I'm not super optimistic, but at the very least, it's not going to happen fast.
So if I had to guess, a few months, maybe a couple of months, to work out details, if they can do it at all.
And then it seems like there are a whole bunch of Ukrainians in Kursk who've been surrounded and are going to get wiped out.
And then I saw other news that says, oh, they've already escaped.
Really?
Was that ever true?
That there were some people surrounded and going to be wiped out by Russia?
Yeah.
Well, I realize that Putin is asking for, if he's smart, he's asking for more than he thinks he can get.
So he's got something to negotiate away.
But still, but still, doesn't look that close to me.
Seems doable, but maybe in a month or two.
We'll see.
Chuck Schumer was on MSNBC reminding us why Democrats are so pathetic.
And have you noticed that the Democrats, when they talk about Republicans, they always just hallucinate, and they hallucinate what the Republicans are thinking or what their secret ambitions are.
So, I saw Greg Goffeld do a great job on this the other day, yesterday maybe, how the things that Republicans don't like about Democrats are things that are actually happening.
Hey, you opened the border.
Hey, you're doing domestic terrorism at Tesla.
Real things.
But when you listen to what the Democrats complain about Republicans, it's about their secret thoughts.
And they're not even smart secret thoughts.
So Schumer's on there on MSNBC.
He's like, Elon Musk and the Doge, he's only doing it to save taxes for himself.
Does anybody think that Elon Musk is only doing Doge to save taxes?
Does Schumer not understand that without Doge, we're all dead?
We're all dead.
Because the debt is completely an existential threat.
If we don't take a huge bite out of that, we're all dead.
And instead of focusing on the, we're all dead and there's only one possible way out, and thank goodness somebody that talented and that determined is working on it, he says, no, he's just trying to save taxes.
You stupid.
Piece of crap.
And it was going to be a constitutional crisis.
Constitutional crisis.
So then Schumer mentions oligarchs because they still think that that's moving the needle.
How about oligarchs?
He wants to save on his own taxes and be an oligarch.
And then he pumped his tiny fists.
So I'm going to do my Schumer impression.
Of exciting the crowd.
And it goes like this.
I'm pumping my tiny fists.
Because that's how hard we're going to fight.
Because he wants to save on taxes.
And I didn't mean for fireworks to go off behind me.
That's just automatic.
How am I even doing that?
Must be the fists.
So that was uninspiring.
And then he talks about how...
If they keep working on it, they can damage Trump politically.
You know what was missing?
There was not a single positive, forward-looking plan.
There was not one part of what Schumer talked about that was, you know, we want to accomplish this thing that would be good for the country, but maybe the Republicans are stopping us from doing it.
The only thing they wanted to do...
Was damage Trump.
That is so sick.
I mean, and the fact that you would go on a show and essentially not offer anything of value.
It's just made-up stuff.
Well, if we damage Trump, we can keep Musk from saving on his taxes, and we can avoid a constitutional crisis.
Now, you know the definition of a constitutional crisis.
Anything they don't like, that's a constitutional crisis.
Anything you don't like.
So that's not real.
Not even real.
So as you know, the Tesla protests are now clearly in the domestic terrorism category.
People are getting their individual cars keyed and people are spray painting them and damaging them.
Different ways.
Dealerships are being, you know, attacked.
Some sat on fire, some of the charging stations.
And according to the New York Post, one of the people funding this fake grassroots rage, because there's nobody who would do this individually.
This is completely funded and organized by somebody important.
So allegedly, there's a top Democrat donor.
Who used to have a rich husband, but now she's divorced.
And she's taking her money from that, I guess.
And she put a half a million dollars into the Indivisible Action.
It's a political action committee that's linked to the protests.
So basically, we have yet again the ex-wife problem.
How many times are we going to see this?
So we've got Steve Jobs' widow, who's funding all kinds of bad behavior on the Democrats.
We've got Jeff Bezos' wife, ex-wife, who's doing all kinds of bad things and funding him on the left.
And now we've got, what's her name?
Carla Jurvetson, who is funding the domestic terrorism against...
Tesla.
Now, she would say she's funding protests, but I think everybody knows it turns into the domestic terrorism in about a second.
And here's the thing that's hard to ignore at this point.
When I hear Republicans talk, they say things like, we're going to make America the leader in energy.
We're going to stop a war.
We're going to do America first.
We're going to lower inflation.
Like actual real things that are positive.
But look at the list of things that Democrats did.
And let me ask you this before I read the list.
Does this sound like they're even pro-America?
Or does it sound like their intention is to destroy America?
Now, I realize how crazy that sounds.
But just listen to the list.
So we had the whole COVID mandates, one of the most destructive things that's ever happened in America.
We had the open borders.
That's hard to understand, except in terms of destroying the country.
They seem to be anti all forms of energy.
And we know that the more energy, the more successful you are.
So that's anti-civilization.
We know that the teachers unions, in my opinion, We know that they're doing the Tesla protests and trying to take down one of the most innovative,
forward-thinking, pro-climate companies.
In the United States, not one of, maybe the greatest company in the United States.
Now, how in the world do they justify that when not long ago Elon was a hero to them and it's the same car company?
And it's like, oh, well, at least we got this one car company that's going to save the climate, according to them.
Then you've got these activist judges, we'll talk about that, creating a constitutional crisis.
Then, of course, you had DEI.
Which Trump is, thankfully, unwinding.
But DEI, on paper, will destroy your country because it's a move away from competence and a move toward identity.
There's no way that could work in the long run.
And now we have all these swatting attacks.
These are all insanely destructive.
And it seems to be all they have.
All they have is, let's see if we can destroy Republicans by calling them domestic terrorists.
Let's see if we can destroy Trump and his entire family and his entire business.
Let's see if we can destroy everything.
Everything they do has this characteristic that it would destroy the country.
And it's hard to look at all of those things on the list.
These are the major things.
They're not the minor things.
These are the major things they're doing.
It seems like they don't have any instinct for survival, and they have a great instinct to destruction.
And if I were running for office, I would never let the voters forget that they were destroying a great American company.
Now, the Democrats would say, well...
But what about that Bud Light thing?
Well, that's a little different.
That's just people deciding to buy other beer.
And even that didn't last long.
I think Bud Light's doing fine now.
But if you're actually, you know, vandalizing people's product and creating a danger, physical danger, if you're going to be around the Tesla building or the Chargers, that is a whole different.
Deal.
You can't compare those.
So Robbie Starbuck was making this point.
He said that Democrats could condemn terror attacks on Tesla with a simple statement released by the party.
And elected Democrats could release individual statements about it, and they haven't done so.
Any decent person...
Would, but they refuse.
Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know?
Just think about it.
If Republicans were behind a bunch of sabotage of an American company, like actual physical sabotage, don't you think that Republicans would speak out and say, all right, that's way too far.
Pull it back.
We don't want to support any physical...
You know, risk against anything like that.
But instead, they're just going to say, well, what about January 6?
What about January 6?
Well, there were plenty of Republicans who condemned January 6. So that's more to Starbucks' point, that Republicans are willing to condemn violence when it's, you know, domestic violence.
But just think about that.
And I think Trump should actually publicly call for the leaders of the Democrat Party to condemn the violence and condemn the swatting.
They should do both.
They should say, we do not support swatting.
We do not support any of these, not the protests, but the damage against any of these assets.
I don't think they're going to do it.
But certainly from a political point of view, I think Trump and the other leaders should say, here's your chance.
Here's your chance to say you're not in favor of this.
Otherwise, we assume you are.
And I do assume they are.
Well, in California, Gavin Newsom, Joel Pollack of Breitbart News is writing about this, needs another $2.8 billion loan to pay for the Medi-Cal for illegal aliens.
Now, does that sound like something that's good for America?
Or does it sound like they want to run up the debt of Americans and bring in people to take our jobs and give them health care?
All of it, just everything the Democrats are doing, looks like it's designed to destroy the country.
Let's talk about these activist judges.
So we've got three situations now, and I think there have been...
Just dozens more.
So you got that Judge Boesberg who tried to get the airplanes with the Venezuelan gangs to turn around.
He was like, "Oh, you can't do that.
We're going to put a pause on that.
So turn those jets around."
But they didn't turn around because they were already pretty close to their destinations and therefore the argument is that they were out of the jurisdiction by the time the ruling came.
But I think it was Justice Roberts We've got another district court judge who ordered the US military to reverse its policy about enlisting trans members.
We've got another one who's Who's trying to get USAID either put back together or not completely dismantled?
So we got that.
National Pulse is reporting on that.
So you got three cases, but how many of them are there?
According to Real Clear Investigations, 67% of all injunctions, and most of these court actions are injunctions, meaning Meaning that Trump tried to do something,
and then the court says, stop, you can't do it.
That would be the injunction.
So 67% of all injunctions for this entire century have happened in President Trump's, in his first term, and 92% were imposed by Democrat-appointed judges.
Does that tell you the whole story?
92% were from Democrat-appointed judges.
And almost all of the injunctions that have ever happened, like a solid majority, are just against Trump.
So that's about as out of control as you could possibly get.
But what is the remedy for that?
Well, according to Ron DeSantis, governor of Florida, he thinks that, and I don't know if this is completely going to pass the legal scrutiny, but he would know.
I mean, DeSantis would know the law.
He says he's calling on Congress to strip the jurisdiction of federal courts to decide the cases dictating Trump's executive policies.
Is that a real thing?
Do you think Congress can tell judges you can't make rulings in this domain?
I don't know how that works.
I guess I'm skeptical that that would fly.
But apparently, according to DeSantis, and again, he would know more than I do, so the fact that I don't think it's a thing doesn't mean anything.
If DeSantis thinks it's a thing, it's probably a thing.
I think Mike Cernovich was advocating for some kind of action in a similar vein, and he would know too.
According to DeSantis, Congress has the authority to strip jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide these cases in the first place.
Now, I'm surprised if that's true, but I will accept that they know more than I do.
Anyway, so we'll see if that happens.
You know, the one that just jumps out at me is when Trump was deporting the Venezuelan gangs.
And he was doing it under the banner of commander-in-chief.
And then a judge comes in and says, you can't do that.
And I say to myself, where is the limit to what a judge can do to stop the commander-in-chief from doing commander-in-chief things?
For example, if the commander-in-chief ordered an attack, let's say a defensive attack because somebody attacked us, Could a judge stop it?
Well, where's the limit?
If a judge can overrule the commander-in-chief, do you have a commander-in-chief?
And is it only for like marginal stuff where, well, we're not sure this is a war, you know, maybe it's not that domain.
But I thought the whole idea of a commander-in-chief is that we accept That when it comes to defending the country, we want a strong executive, and we don't want anybody messing with it.
We don't want Congress saying, oh, no, you can't do that, because you need fast action.
So it's hard for me to believe that these judges can get in the business of a commander-in-chief.
Maybe the other stuff is easier to believe, but the commander-in-chief?
How do you get in that business?
There's no situation in which I want to see a judge do anything when it comes to defending the country.
That's just got to be the commander-in-chief.
Nothing else works.
According to the Daily Caller, Nick Pope is writing, that they've got an exclusive that says the Biden administration intentionally buried...
An inconvenience study to justify major energy crackdowns.
So the Biden administration wanted to do less liquid natural gas export projects because their thinking was it was bad for the climate.
But apparently, prior to making the ruling, their own study showed that wasn't the case.
And then they did it anyway, and they just suppressed the study.
Does that sound like they're trying to help the United States or destroy the United States?
Well, if they have a study that says this isn't going to help anybody, and they did it anyway, and all it did was damage the energy industry in our own country, that's just damaging.
I mean, the pattern here is so freaking clear that they just want to hurt.
They want to destroy.
They don't want to build anything.
They just want to make everything worse.
Pretty consistent.
Well, another good news, according to the National Pulse, Jack Montgomery's writing about this, you know that...
Ben Shapiro is doing a series on Derek Chauvin and the George Floyd thing, and he'd like to see if he can get a pardon, at least for the federal part of the crimes, that wouldn't absolve him or get him out of jail because there's still state charges.
But Shapiro is quite bravely wading into this total third rail situation.
And, you know, I've said it two or three times, but I'm so impressed.
I'm just so impressed that Shapiro would put his reputation on the line for this cause, which I agree with completely.
And they have 50,000 people who signed a petition to pardon Derek Chauvin.
So it definitely shows that there's a lot of people who feel the same.
To me, it's obvious.
That he was convicted because he's white.
And so I'm 100% in favor of doing whatever can be done to lessen his punishment.
There's another study, according to the Daily Signal, the Vijay Jayaraj.
There's a study that debunks the idea that if it gets warmer, agriculture will suffer.
How many of you already knew that?
Most of you, right?
If there's a little more CO2 and it causes a little bit of warming, is that good for agriculture or bad?
It's good because the CO2 is good for the plants and warmer temperatures are almost always good for agriculture.
So this study showed you could go up as much as five degrees Actually, 9 degrees Fahrenheit.
And it would not reduce crop eels.
9 degrees.
Now, it might make a difference of where you can grow stuff.
So it would basically turn places that were not good for growing into good growing places.
There might be some places that got too hot.
But overall, it would just give you more food more cheaply.
So pretty much everything you've been told about climate change is sketchy.
And I like to end any story about climate change by saying this.
Wait till they find out about climate models.
Wait till the Democrats find out about climate models.
And by the way, is it my imagination, or have they almost completely shut up about the risk of climate?
Do you hear that dog not barking?
Right?
Am I wrong that it seemed like every other day there'd be another story about, oh, climate change is going to kill us all.
And it just stopped.
Now, do you think that's because almost all of the new information coming in and the new data shows that it's not going to be much of a problem?
I think that might be it.
But, you know, it also seems to me that...
It didn't look like much of a problem before, and they were still pounding on it like a rented mule.
So, I don't know.
We'll see.
I do think climate change is getting ready to just completely dissolve as a major issue.
Meanwhile, the firm Anduril, Palmer Luckey's company, They made drones and missiles and real high-tech new kinds of weapons.
They're going to build a gigantic factory in the UK.
So that will be their big European weapon-making facility.
But that makes me think, at what point does Ukraine just use robots for their defense?
Because don't you think at some point in the future, the military will be...
Pretty much just robots and drones.
We're almost there.
And nobody's closer to that than Ukraine, because recently they did an entire battle in which there were no humans on their side that were engaged in the battle except operating the drones.
So what would happen, just hypothetically, if Trump says, all right, we will not put any human, no human peacekeepers?
But we might want a lot of robots and drones just to feel a little bit safer.
And then you just pack Ukraine with all kinds of defensive drones and stuff from Anduril.
I don't know.
I don't think Putin would love it.
But he might like it a lot more than boots on the ground.
So we'll see.
According to Eric Dolan and Cy Post, The people who use ChatGPT, the AI, is highly skewed toward males.
There's a lot of activity going on outside my window for some reason.
Better check on that.
Does that surprise you?
That there's a new technology and men are using it more than women?
Now, why do you think that is?
you.
There's a conversation like right outside my window.
There shouldn't be anybody out there.
Am I getting swatted?
I don't know what's happening.
Yeah, maybe I am.
Better check on that.
I'm not surprised.
So I'm going to give you a hypothesis.
My hypothesis goes like this.
Men like tools and men like weapons.
And if I were in the, let's say, traditional workforce, you know, working for a big company, and somebody said, hey, there's this new tool, I would say, you mean a new weapon?
So that I could fight my way to the top of the corporate ladder by learning it faster than other people and employing it more efficiently.
So if you say to me, there's a new technology that could make you, you know, leapfrog the competition and Be a superstar and have more success.
I'm going to be all over it.
And I think that's a very male thing.
So that's just my sexist hypothesis.
We like tools and we like weapons.
All right.
That is all I've got for today.
I'm going to keep it a little bit short.
I'm kind of tired today.
Because I better find out what's happening outside.
It doesn't sound good at all.
All right.
I'll see you tomorrow.
Same time, same place.
I'm going to talk to the people on Locals privately, if my technology allows me.