God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Grok Visual, Optimus Neuralink, Elon Musk World Benefits, Bernie Sanders World Benefits, Abrego Garcia Finger Tattoos, Andrew Cuomo, Mayor Adams, James Carville, David Hogg, Democrat 20/80 Project, Michael Shellenberger, John Kiriakou, Simone Sanders Deportation Fears, HUD HQ Building, Scott Presler, Automatic Mail-In Ballots, Global Engagement Center Shutdown, Marco Rubio, Free Speech Suppression, Venezuelan Gang Deportations, Supreme Court, Senator Murkowski Retaliation Fears, META Copyright Dispute, Drone Laser Warplane, Drone Warfare Development, Obesity Brain Shrinkage, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better day.
But if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice, 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 end of the day thing that makes everything better.
It's a special Easter sip.
And it happens now.
Go! Now we're ready.
Are you ready for the only new and interesting show of the entire day?
Because all the smart people take Easter off.
But I'm always here.
Always here.
Well, number one, the Grok AI now has a visual mode.
So if you have the app, Grok, you can put it in visual mode and it will see what you see.
In your room, and it will talk to you about it.
Now, ChatGPT said that for a while, and it is the wildest, greatest feature.
If you're trying to fix something, you can just point it at it, and it'll tell you how to fix it.
I've done that, and it's just wild.
It's like having a person with you.
It's like, hey, take a look at this.
All right, what do you see?
And it'll tell you what it sees, and then it'll tell you what to do with it.
It's amazing.
But that's not all it can do.
So Elon Musk, let's talk about Elon Musk.
We've got some Elon Musk news.
Whenever there's not enough regular news, you can always count on like six stories that are just about Elon Musk.
Anyway, he's proposed a new law requiring all bills in Congress.
To be publicly accessible for seven days before a vote.
Now, on top of that, I believe Grok can summarize bills now.
Now, is that a done deal?
I think it can.
So, get your Grok.
It can look at things.
It can summarize bills.
So, I used Grok three or four times this morning.
To help me with the context of stories that I was going to talk about, you know, like the Supreme Court stuff.
I'll read the stories, but it's always people are starting in the middle.
So it's like something already happened, and then they're talking about it in the middle.
And I'll be like, wait, wait, what's the larger context?
What's it all mean?
So I just ask Grok, and it gives me a summary of, you know, what happened and why people are upset about it.
It's amazing.
So I've used it three or four times just this morning for work-related stuff.
Speaking of Elon Musk, the Neuralink interface, apparently he's getting close to being able to help blind people see.
So they're going to attach the Neuralink interface directly to the visual cortex.
And people who are completely blind will be able to see for the first time.
Now, I don't know if it's only people who have never seen or maybe only works with people who have seen before.
But if your visual cortex is working, apparently it will give you sight.
Now, he thinks the initial versions will be kind of limited, so it'll be just fuzzy.
Kind of an image.
But then over time, it will just get better and better.
So literally, he's going to help the blind see by connecting to the visual cortex.
Is that wild?
And then separately, but somewhere related, Mario Knopfel is talking about this on X, that the Neuralink brain chip can...
Also help you communicate with your Tesla Optimus robot.
Now, you don't yet have your Optimus robot, but if he did, you would be able to just use your brain to tell it what to do.
How cool would that be?
If you needed, you know, like help all the time in your house, if you were disabled, you'd just be able to think, robot, come here, and the robot would enter the room, and then you think.
Get me a beverage from the refrigerator and the robot would just do it?
How wild would that be?
But apparently, you know, that's probably end of 2026.
You'll be able to have Neuralink and a robot taking care of you.
Wild. Now, given that Elon Musk is doing all these valuable things for people in society, What do you think the Democrats think about Elon Musk?
Well, of course, they're trying to stop him and destroy him at all costs.
And Bernie Sanders did an ex-post in which he's trying to take down Musk.
So let's look at what Bernie says, and then I'll tell you my own analysis here.
He says, he starts with, U.S. oligarchy 2025.
And then he tells us, Elon Musk owns as much wealth as the bottom of 53% of the U.S. households.
The top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90%.
Real weekly wages are $30 lower than 52 years ago.
That one's important.
And 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck.
Yes, we can do better than that.
So I agree with Bernie about the paychecks not being worth as much.
Inflation has been just devastating.
And so that part is right.
But if you're going to look at Elon Musk's, let's say, contribution to the United States, here's how you should do it.
First, I would measure how much wealth he has created.
Telling me how much he owns is one thing, but wouldn't you know how much he created out of nothing?
And the answer is, Grok had an answer.
The answer is it's close to a trillion dollars.
If you looked at the value of each of his companies, it's close to a trillion dollars.
That's how much he's created that didn't exist before.
Now, Does any of that trillion dollars benefit the world?
Or does it all just go in his pocket and he spends it on cocaine and hookers?
It's a trillion dollars.
If he tried to spend it all day long, he couldn't spend a trillion dollars.
So his value of the trillion or so is maybe a third of it.
And then he's created...
Well, here's what else I do.
I would calculate what percentage of that wealth he kept, and so far it's something like a third.
Then I'd figure out what percentage of it he spent on his own lifestyle versus paid in taxes.
Now, I believe he's paid in taxes tens of billions of dollars.
If you count his companies and you count his personal stuff, then you'd have to calculate all the taxes paid by the employees.
Over all the time and all the property taxes and all the sales taxes that they paid by buying stuff.
So you'd have to calculate all that because that was just added to the society.
So that's something that wasn't there until Musk added it.
So I calculate all the impact of the employees.
Then I look at the societal benefits of his companies.
And I'd say, you know, are we getting benefits?
Well, yes, we've got electric cars, and we've got neural links, and we've got satellites in the air, and we're going to be interstellar, and we have a chance of competing in space against the other big powers.
So these are some of the biggest benefits the world has ever seen.
But I'd also calculate what percentage of his wealth he spends, because it's not how much you have, it's how much you spend, right?
So if somebody creates a trillion dollars and they keep a third of it, but they only spend maybe 1% of their money, because how much can you really spend on one person?
Even though he flies around in a private jet and stuff and has lots of baby mamas, he can only spend about 1% of his wealth.
So the rest of it doesn't just sit in a pillow.
It's not in his mattress.
All money that he's not using for his own consumption, which is a tiny, tiny bit of how much he owns, it's all employed, meaning that the economy is benefiting because he owns a lot of wealth.
So some of it is in the form of stock.
Some of it is in the form of...
Probably various bank accounts or whatever, in which case the bank has more money to loan out.
There's no such thing as stranded or wasted money unless it's literally cash sitting in a box in your house.
If it's in the system, in the stock market or in a bank that's using it as part of their funds they can loan out, it's a valuable part of the market.
So you would have to look at the tiny amount that he uses on himself and then the huge amount that's benefiting the stocks of the company that he's with and choose to compensate people for a good job and all that.
So it's not unproductive money.
It's sitting there doing work.
The amount that he can spend in his entire lifetime will be a tiny, tiny bit.
And what it really does is give him, let's say, influence.
So if Bernie was talking about the influence, then he'd have a bigger point, which is, wow, you have all this money, you can influence things like politics.
And then I would ask myself, is he trying to influence things in a negative way?
It doesn't seem like it.
He's not even fully MAGA.
Because he's not on board with tariffs.
You can't be opposed to Trump's tariffs, and I think it's fair to say that Musk is opposed, and, you know, somehow in the bag.
So my take on Musk is that he's not all about supporting one side.
He just has a bunch of common sense things that he supports, and sometimes he can not support it because of, you know, He's got a different opinion on tariffs, for example.
Anyway, so that's what I do.
I compare everything that Musk has added to society in terms of wealth and taxes and everything else, and I would compare that to what Bernie Sanders has added to society, which is complaining.
What has Bernie Sanders added to civilization?
Anything? Has he probably spent more money than he's added?
I think so.
Because he raises money and it probably costs a lot to fly around and do his big events he's doing.
So Bernie's added probably nothing.
He's probably taken more from taxpayers than he's added in any kind of value.
So one of them has added something like a trillion dollars to the value of America, and the other has probably just taken some money and left us with less.
That's my guess.
Do you remember speaking of the Maryland dad, the Maryland dad who may or may not be an MS-13 guy, the one who was accidentally shipped to El Salvador?
Well... I kept hearing he had tattoos on his fingers that said MS-13, but it didn't really say MS-13, so I was confused.
But now I have the answer, thanks to Breitbart News.
So what Trump was showing when he showed a picture of the Marilyn dad's hand, there was a tattoo on his finger, and it was like a marijuana leaf and a smiley face.
And then a cross and then a skull.
And some say that the marijuana leaf would be the letter M. The smiley face would be the letter S for smiley.
And the cross would be the digit one.
And then the skull has three holes in it.
I guess you're not counting the mouth.
Would be a three.
So that really it was a way to say MS-13.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think his tattoo actually was intended to say MS-13 in a clever way?
I don't know.
It's possible that people are reading too much into it.
It could be just four of his favorite things.
But it does feel like it could be.
MS-13.
I'd have to know if anybody else had used that same imagery.
If other MS-13 people use it, then obviously it is.
So we don't know.
So let's check in with Democrats who hate other Democrats.
My favorite category.
So as you know, Andrew Cuomo, disgraced ex-governor of New York.
When I say disgrace, that's usually a compliment because I'm disgraced too.
But he might be looking at running for president.
We don't know.
But he says the extreme wing of the Democratic Party can't possibly win and they're going to have to learn their lesson.
And he says that AOC is in that category of the people who are too extreme on the Democrat Party and therefore can't possibly win.
So Cuomo doesn't like the Democrats' left side.
Then, of course, there's Eric Adams, who recently became independent.
He aided Democrats so much.
And when he was talking to Laura Trump on Fox, he said, one of the big mistakes that's being made in some parts of the far-left philosophy is that ICE is a criminal organization.
And he defended ICE as a...
You know, a proper law enforcement organization.
So Eric Adams doesn't love the far left of the Democrats.
Neither does Andrew Cuomo.
Let's check in with James Carville.
Oh yeah, James Carville does not like the far left.
And he called out the DNC Vice Chair, David Hogg, who's a very young guy, specifically.
And I guess Carville...
Referred to him as, quote, a contemptible little twerp.
And that's the vice chair of the DNC.
So he's too far left for Carville.
Now, what did David Hogg respond with?
Well, he said that James Carville has not won an election since before I was born.
Which is a pretty good line.
Pretty good line.
He says these are the same ones that had $2 billion to win in an election and still lost.
So his response is pretty good.
But let me tell you what I'm hoping for.
I'm hoping that the 2028 ticket for the Democrats is David Hogg and Tim Walsh, because then the ticket would be the Hog Waltz.
And it would remind me of a dancing pig, hog, waltz.
Dancing pig, right?
So what would be better than having a dancing pig running for the Democrat presidential primary?
And they could run, let me give them an idea on what kind of a platform to run on.
I think they should run on implementing their 2080 project.
Where they satisfy 20% of the country and piss off 80%.
That seems to be the Democrat preferred strategy.
So hog waltz for 2028, running on the 2080 project.
That's what I think they should do.
And of course, you know, Bill Maher is not crazy about AOC, and he said that Bernie and AOC are shiny objects.
And it's political theater and they can't win elections.
So Bill Maher doesn't like the far left.
What about Stephen A. Smith?
He's not crazy about the far left because he thinks he wants more common sense in his world.
And then, of course, you remember Ezra Klein and was it Derek Thompson, his co-author?
They made a lot of news, basically saying that Democrats have done everything wrong.
And they need some Democrats in charge who actually know how to spend money to actually get things done.
So, we got that.
So, in the context of basically Democrats eating themselves, there was a poll, according to the Gateway Pundit, Cassandra McDonald, is writing about this.
And who ran this poll?
The Yale Youth Poll of Registered Voters.
And that says that the people polling the best, to be the next Democrat leaders, are Kamala Harris, AOC, and Buttigieg.
So that's who's polling the best.
Now, obviously, that's more of a name recognition thing.
So you're going to say to yourself, but Scott.
That's just name recognition.
It's not telling you anything.
Well, have you heard of a guy named Governor Gavin Newsom?
He's got really good name recognition.
How'd he do?
Well, 6%.
So he was way behind.
Buttigieg with 14, and Ocasio with 21, and I guess Harris at 28. But you say to yourself, Scott, the serious Democrats, you know,
they'll make some noise when it's important.
And you're waiting for Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, because he seems to be very capable.
He came in behind Newsom at 5%.
But what about Arizona Senator Mark Kelly?
He seems like a serious middle-of-the-road guy, Democrat.
You've got 4%, J.B. Pritzker and...
Mark Cuban and Gretchen Whitmer and Andy Beshear had a four-way tie for seventh place.
So, again, it's really just name recognition.
But if you have name recognition and you can't top the top three, such as Gavin Newsom can't, I would say Gavin Newsom's presidential prospects are pretty low at this point.
Pretty low.
So I wouldn't bet on him.
We might be surprised that somebody like Josh Shapiro wins a primary just by being good at it.
So once the primary begins for 2028, all bets are off.
According to the Post's millennials reporting on what Trump says about his tariff deals in China, so Trump believes, or let me say it this way, Trump says, I don't know what he actually believes because I can't read his mind.
He says, quote, I would think over the next three or four weeks, I think maybe the whole thing would be concluded, meaning a tariff agreement or a free trade, not free trade, a trade agreement with China.
How many of you believe that within one month there will be a trade agreement with China that both China and the United States accept?
Does anyone think that's going to happen?
I think the odds of that are kind of close to zero.
So Trump says that Chinese officials have been reaching out and there's been a lot of back and forth at the top level, you know, not quite President Xi level, but close enough that he thinks he's got a deal.
Now, I'm going to predict against it.
I don't think there'll be any deal in a month.
I don't think there'll be a deal in two months.
And three months is when that's the 90-day period, right?
So that's when he's trying to get everything done.
I don't feel like he's going to have it done in three months either.
So I like his optimism.
And maybe the optimism is well-placed.
I don't know.
But I don't believe any of that.
I would bet against it.
Because I don't think we're close.
It's not like you can imagine a deal where you say, oh yeah, China will just open up everything and stop stealing our IP.
None of that's going to happen.
I don't even think they're close.
And I don't think they'll be close in three months.
So I don't know what's going to happen.
But what I don't expect to happen is that in 30 days he's going to wrap up an agreement that China likes and we like.
I don't know.
I just don't believe it.
Well, Michael Schellenberger and his publication Public is talking about there's a former CIA fellow named John Kira Kow who I've mentioned before.
So you've seen him probably a lot on social media, John Kirikow.
So he used to be in the CIA, and he's got lots of sort of context and background stuff.
And he believes, I don't know what his evidence for this is, but he believes that it wasn't so much the FBI that started the Russia collusion hoax that really the Clinton campaign started.
And the way it's been reported, it seems like the FBI was kind of, you know, pushing it a little bit.
But ex-CIA guy John Kirakow believes that John Brennan of the CIA was responsible for the origin of it.
Now, I don't know his evidence for that, but if anybody ever looked more like they were guilty...
John Brennan has the guiltiest face you've ever seen in your life.
And it's hard for me not to be influenced by that because he just looks like a bad guy.
Like if you were going to cast a movie, you would cast him as the ultimate bad guy because his face just looks like a hundred years of bad business.
So I don't know.
This is one person's opinion, but...
It agrees with my hunches that the CIA was very involved in that.
According to the Daily Wire, there's an MSNBC host, Simone Sanders, who says that black American citizens will be next in line if deportations are allowed to continue.
I love how crazy the Democrats have gotten.
And by the way, I think Simone Sanders is much like Eric Adams.
I think she decided to go independent because even she couldn't support Democrats.
But she says that it's a slippery slope and that the next thing that will happen is black Americans will get deported.
Now, I think the odds of that are exactly zero.
But do you think anybody believes that?
Like, how many viewers of MSNBC hear that and go, huh, I think they're going to start shipping black people back to Africa.
Where would you even send anybody?
You deport them to where?
So no, you don't have to worry about black American citizens being deported.
That's not going to happen.
I will help you march in the street, black Americans, if anything like that happens.
So don't worry, we'll be on your side.
It's not going to happen.
Well, the Housing and Urban Development Headquarters, a HUD, It's for sale because it's falling apart.
This is funny, too, that the group that's in charge of housing, housing and urban development, they couldn't maintain their own building.
So their own building is barely habitable.
It's just falling apart.
So the Trump administration is just going to sell it because hardly anybody was coming to work anyway.
They were working from home.
So they don't need that big building anyway.
But the fact that the housing and urban development couldn't even keep their own building habitable is hilarious to me.
Well, Scott Pressler reminds us that there are eight states that automatically send out mail-in ballots to every voter, meaning you don't have to request it.
You just sit there and it shows up.
Now, as you might imagine, that increases the odds of fraud.
And a lot of people would say that's why they're doing it.
It increases the odds of fraud.
But here are the states.
Of course, they're all blue states.
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington.
So every one of them sends out...
All the ballots to everybody.
And I don't know how many of them are in favor of not having ID or in favor of not requiring it, but I'll bet it's most of them.
Now, it's really hard to imagine that there's any other reason for this than fraud.
Can you imagine that?
Oh, now I'm jealous of the other Scott.
Can you even imagine that?
What would be the other reasons?
I think they argue about, oh, otherwise there'll be suppression of the black vote because they can't get IDs and somehow they wouldn't know how to request a ballot or something.
So they have some super racist reasons why they need it.
But as Scott Pressler notes, all of them have a mechanism to...
Defeat that rule by amendment or statute or veto, except for, I guess, Hawaii and Vermont.
So he thinks the GOP should be doing more in those states to try to defeat it.
But I think, you know, that's tough because the GOP would have a minority in each of those states.
Well, the Global Engagement Center has been closed.
How many of you would even know the importance of that?
If I said to you, the Global Engagement Center is completely going to be shut down and defunded and everybody's fired, would you think that was a big deal or does that sound like a minor little thing, bureaucratic thing that means nothing to you?
Well, this is one of the problems with some of the biggest stories in the news.
Is that if you don't know the complexity of the full backstory, it wouldn't mean much to you.
But here's what we know.
And Natalie Winters and the War Room are talking about this.
And Mike Benz did an interview with Marco Rubio talking about it because Rubio and the State Department was in charge of the Global Engagement Center and has closed it completely.
Apparently, there was an earlier attempt to close it, and all Biden did was change the name of it.
But it's the same entity, so they're going to close it.
So here is the problem.
According to Grok, Rubio claimed that the global...
What's it called?
Global Engagement Center.
Originally, their goal was to deal with misinformation or disinformation coming from countries like Russia and China.
Now, if you heard that we had something that was dealing with the disinformation coming in from, let's say, non-allied countries.
You'd say, hmm, that sounds pretty important.
Something like something we should do.
But eventually it was misused to suppress the free speech of Americans.
So we were paying taxes.
They were going to fund the Global Engagement Center.
And some of our taxes were used to suppress our own free speech.
Really. And in a massive way.
Not once or not one person or a small group of people, but massively to completely censor and remove our ability to have freedom of speech, basically.
And he said the office, quote, spent millions of dollars to actively silence and censor the voices of Americans they were supposed to be serving.
Now, Elon Musk had once called the GEC the, quote, worst offender in the U.S. government censorship and media manipulation.
So, yeah, this is one of the most evil entities in the government.
One of the most evil entities in the United States.
Because anything that is doing a direct attack on freedom of speech...
That's the most dangerous thing happening, because if you lose that, everything else falls apart.
So it was initially closed, as I said before, in December of 2024, after Congress, which was Republican-led, decided to defund it.
So even defunding it didn't kill it, because the Biden administration rebranded it as the R-FIMII office.
It retained the same staff and mission.
It didn't even change.
And so Rubio finally got full control and he's just ripping it up by the roots.
So there won't be anything left.
They can't rebrand it because it's just going to be gone.
All right.
Then there's the Supreme Court decisions and those Venezuelan gangs.
Now, here again, I have to go to Grok, as I did for the last story, to try to figure out...
What's the deal?
So here's what the...
I'll see if I can do that.
I think I'm going to do this wrong.
So all the lawyers watching are going to be slapping your heads and saying, no, he's got this wrong.
But I'll do my best.
And maybe the lesson here is that it's too complicated for the public to follow.
If I screw this up, trust me, you're not going to have much better luck because it's complicated.
But in early April, the Supreme Court made a decision that they didn't rule on the constitutionality of using what Trump is using, the Alien Enemies Act to get rid of the Venezuelan gangs.
Instead, he said that the detainees must receive notice of the removal within a reasonable time and in a manner allowing them to seek habeas relief.
Now, do you think I had to look up what habeas relief is?
Yes, I did.
So this is a double grok.
First, what were they saying?
And then what does any of that mean?
So habeas relief means just that you have a legal remedy.
You have the ability to go to court and challenge whatever is happening.
So every single gang member, according to the Supreme Court, Should have the right to have their day in court so that they can't just be deported as a group.
They would each have to have their day in court.
Then, on April 19th, so just yesterday, in a rare overnight order, The Supreme Court blocked Trump from deporting these Venezuelan people who were in a specific detention center,
so the Blue Bonnet Detention Facility in Texas.
And this followed an emergency appeal by the ACLU saying that they did not get their due process, which was that habeas stuff.
So that's where we are.
The President of the United States, who should have total domain control over who's in the country and who's not, has been totally kneecapped by the Supreme Court saying, oh yeah,
you can do all those things you say you can do, but you can't take away the right of every single person to have their day in court, even though they're not even citizens, but they're residents.
So residents get their day in court too.
Bill Ackman has a comment on this.
He says, a nation in which one administration can allow millions of unvetted illegal migrants into the country, but requires that a court vet each deportation decision in an individually adjudicated case will soon lose the values of our democratic system was intended to preserve.
So basically, it's a doom path.
So the Supreme Court has created a situation that we can't fix a really bad problem.
Because if we can't deport them as a group and say, hey, here's a bunch of gang guys, if every single one of them gets a day in court, it just will be impossible.
So I guess that's going to be a challenge, too.
And then the Supreme Court is also going to hear a birthright citizenship case.
So I wouldn't expect that to go the way you think you want it to go.
I suspect the Supreme Court will uphold the current situation, that if you're born on our soil, you're an American citizen, and there's nothing that will change that.
So I don't expect good news on that front.
All right.
Republican, there's a story that in Reuters, David Morgan Reuters is writing, that Senator Murkowski is worried about threats from Trump to retaliate if she doesn't do what he wants him to do.
And she said that the threat of political retaliation from Trump is real enough.
To make her anxious about speaking out about his tariffs, executive orders, and stuff like that.
She said, quote, we're all afraid, she told the Summit of Nonprofit Leaders.
It's quite a statement, but we're in a time and a place where I certainly have not been here before, she said.
And I'll tell you, I am oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real, and that's not right.
I'm not a big fan of retaliation, but I would say it's probably been a feature of the government since the government began.
Do you think there's ever been a time when you could go against the leaders of the government and not have a pushback?
I don't know.
So I'm not going to say it's good or bad or moral or ethical or legal.
You can make your decision on that.
I'll just make a persuasion observation.
Which I've made before, but you can see it really clearly in this case.
One of the things that Trump does best, persuasion-wise, and again, you can judge whether the outcome is ethical or moral or not.
You can make that decision.
But just in terms of technique, you should make the biggest gap between pleasing you and not pleasing you.
And this is a technique I first noticed In my corporate days, it was somebody I worked with who was really good at making sure that if you did what she wanted, she would tell your boss that you should get a promotion and maybe a raise.
Sometimes she would bring you flowers.
She would sing your praise to other people, like, wow, what a great person, best in the whole office, blah, blah, blah.
So if you did what she wanted, No matter what it was.
And she wanted a lot.
She wasn't a top leader.
She was an engineer.
Actually, she was the engineer that my character Alice in the comic strip is based on.
But she was really good at persuasion.
So if you did what she wanted, you would actually just get promoted and she wasn't even your boss.
She would literally call a meeting with your boss just to tell your boss how awesome you are.
So imagine what effect that has on your career.
Pretty good, right?
And she would do it consistently.
But if you didn't do what she wanted, she might also call a meeting with your supervisor to say that, you know, if you would get rid of this person, everything would work better because,
you know, this person is blocking all progress.
So that is a big difference.
In both cases, she would talk to your boss, guaranteed.
In one case, she would push for you to get promoted or a raise.
And in the other case, she would push for you literally to be fired.
And then she would trash talk you to anybody who would listen.
And it was super effective.
So it was this gigantic gap that everybody came to understand between making her happy and not.
And so she got so much done compared to other people.
But that's what Trump does.
He creates the biggest gap between making him happy, in which he will sing your praises and be loyal to you forever, and being what he would call disloyal, I guess.
And he would advocate for you to be fired and sidelined and retired.
So, again...
You can make your own decisions about how moral or ethical that is.
I'm only talking about effectiveness.
Super effective.
Super, super effective.
So I don't think it's great that there's a sitting senator who's on the same side, at least sometimes, who's afraid of acting.
On the other hand, there needs to be some kind of responsibility.
There needs to be some kind of There needs to be some kind of a response if you're not helping the system.
And given that most of what Trump is doing is 80 /20 stuff, meaning that it's stuff the public wants, maybe the people who are preventing Trump from doing something that's an 80 /20, maybe they should be afraid.
Maybe they should be quaking a little bit.
Now, if the issue were closer, and let's say Trump was trying to do something that was actually not popular, well, then I don't think they should be punished in any way for opposing something that the public also opposes.
But if the public really wants something, let's say they support immigration or deportation, if the public wants it, And you've decided that for whatever reason, you're going to try to go against the public.
And that ends up being against Trump at the same time.
And then Trump does something to retaliate.
Who's he retaliating for?
Well, you can say he's doing it for himself.
But he would only do it if the public wanted him to do it, to remove this obstacle.
So, as long as Trump is on the same side as the public, I don't really care how afraid other people are.
If he wants to make the people on his own team Republicans, if he wants to make them afraid because they're going against the will of the people, maybe they should be afraid.
Maybe that's the most natural state of things.
And maybe he's just the only one who has the balls to...
To make it overt and obvious and just bring it into politics completely.
So I guess that's where I stand.
As long as Trump is on the same side as the majority of the public, which he likes to be, then if he's scaring people who would disagree with him, he's scaring people who would disagree with the public, and they should be a little bit afraid.
They should be worried about their jobs.
And they've got a lot of explaining to do.
So I don't mind it at all.
Well, Meta is in legal dispute about copyrights and the training of its AI.
And apparently Meta's argument is that it's okay to train its AI on copyrighted books because they have no economic value.
This is according to Frank Landy Moore writing for Futurism.
Now, do you believe that?
That copyrighted books have no economic value?
Now, what they mean specifically is no economic value for the training.
So that's not no economic value to readers.
It's no economic value to the training.
And there might be something to that.
Because if you were looking at any individual book and you looked at all the training that an AI does, you couldn't really pick out any value that an individual book had.
They would all get lost into meaningless nothing if you were trying to figure out, all right, what did this one book add to this AI?
Almost nothing.
But I would argue, since I'm an author, That there are some books that do actually move the needle.
I would argue that my books add economic value to the AI.
So, for example, the AI, thanks to me, would understand what a talent stack is.
The AI, thanks to me, would understand that systems are better than goals and why.
And if somebody asks questions about their...
You know, how to organize their future.
There's a very good chance that the AI would use some of those ideas because they're proven to be effective and popular.
Now, would you say that my books have no economic value to the AI model if it actually becomes the opinion of the AI?
I'm pretty sure if you asked for advice...
There's a pretty good chance that some of my book advice would end up in the AI's mouth.
But most books would not.
Most books just don't have any, you know, lasting value that way.
But mine do.
They're written to have lasting value to lots of people.
What about my book on reframing?
I'm pretty sure that there are some reframes in my book.
That if the AI knew all of them, it would, at one point or another, give as an advice.
And it would be something only that came out of that book.
It wouldn't be anywhere else.
What about my book on, my book, Win Bigley, that teaches about Trump's persuasion?
A while ago, I told you this already, I asked Perplexity, which is one of the AIs, I asked it what my contribution to politics was.
And it said that I had changed politics from being about policies to being about persuasion.
Now, that's because of my books or other things that AI can train on, such as videos on YouTube or whatever.
So, do I really not contribute anything to what AI can add?
I would argue that some books are way different than other books.
And I wouldn't be the only author who's, you know, saying things that are useful.
But I don't think you can say all books are useless, or at least not useless, but rather that they're, you know, just a tiny little bit of the training.
So if you look at any one book, it doesn't make much difference.
I don't think that's true.
I think that there are a small number of books, I don't know how many, that have an unusually large impact and will have a ripple effect probably for a long time.
So we'll see how that goes.
Meanwhile, according to interesting engineering, the U.S. now has a drone, basically an airplane without a pilot.
It has a 7,000-mile range and has a pretty nasty laser.
So the laser could be scalable up to 300 kilowatts in the future.
So it seems to me, and obviously the idea is that this thing will be shooting down other drones for the most part.
It seems to me that we're in a weird situation because we need two completely different militaries.
So, you know, I'm hearing a lot of talk about decreasing the military budget, and I'm all for that.
But I'll bet if you dug in, what you would find is that you need a certain amount of money just to maintain the military we have.
And then you need a whole bunch of new money to build this completely new military.
There will be nothing but drones and lasers and robot dogs with machine guns.
So it's a completely different military.
So for a while, we're going to have to fund two completely different military concepts.
One is our traditional stuff that we have, because you don't want to lose your submarines and your nuclear triad.
You know, at the moment, you still need your long-range bombers and, you know, you probably want to keep your tanks just in case.
But in all likelihood, the future of warfare is the new stuff.
So we're going to have to fund two completely different militaries.
One making drones like crazy and robot dogs with machine guns and laser-based things.
At the same time, we keep the old stuff running just until the new stuff can do everything.
So it's a double military.
I don't think there's any way we can get around it.
In my book, God's Debris, The Complete Works, that includes my book, The Religion War, a key component of it, and this was a future prediction.
Part of our world.
I predicted that there would be laser platforms.
And that the platform would be sort of like a battleship or an aircraft carrier is today.
So it would be basically a platform for other weapons.
But in this case, it would be a platform that you would just put off the coast of the United States, you know, near the coast.
And it would be this just gigantic laser system that would be able to laser anything that came within 100 miles of it.
So that you'd effectively build a protective dome that's a gigantic platform that just floats in the ocean, and mostly it's just a giant laser, and probably nuclear-driven.
But it would have to be so good that it could literally just shoot anything that got near it.
Because otherwise, you know, you don't want a hypersonic missile to take it out on day one.
So I think you're going to see that.
I think you'll see lasers on ships, and you'll see lasers on all kinds of drones.
But if you want a really, really big laser, one that really can protect, let's say, all of Washington, D.C., I think it's going to be something like a gigantic, just floating platform that doesn't have anything Except a little bit of human,
maybe none, maybe no humans, and gigantic laser capabilities.
So that's my prediction.
According to science, I saw this in a Mario Knopfel post.
I guess it comes from Nature Mental Health and SciTech Daily's writing about it.
There's a huge study, half a million people.
That for people who are obese and stay that way for years, their brain actually shrinks.
And they have memory loss and weaker thinking skills, and their brain area literally shrinks.
Now, I'm not sure I would have guessed that if they asked me.
So I'm not going to say just ask Scott next time.
But I wonder if that's sugar.
I wonder if the obesity per se is the problem or that you only get that way if you eat too much sugar and it's the sugar that eats your brain.
I don't know.
But I do believe there's probably something to this one.
So if you look at half a million people and the people who were heavy and stayed that way, had smaller brains and memory loss and weaker reasoning.
I feel like that might be real.
So, if you have a chance, you might want to take off the pounds.
According to Tibu Pui, I don't even know what that is, researchers looked at 10,000 studies and found that cannabis could actually fight cancer.
Now, it's not proven.
It's just highly indicated by 10,000 studies.
And they're talking about not just helping the symptoms, but actually stopping tumor growth.
Now, my guess is that if it stopped cancer completely, we would know that by now.
Somebody would have smoked their way to health.
So I don't think it works that well, but maybe it works a little bit.
Who knows?
This is fun.
According to...
Martin Luther University, Hallie Wittenberg, there's a study that says that you can stimulate the brain with sensors.
You know, you put little sensors on people's head, and you can stimulate the brain just right, and it could speed up decision-making.
Now, it's not a gigantic difference, but they're pretty sure that they can speed up decision-making by putting sensors on your head.
Electrodes on your head, on your scalp.
Now, my idea is that the Cheesecake Factory could get these sensors, and they would pass them out with the menu, so that if you're a quick decision-maker, and you're somebody who's not a good decision-maker, and they're looking at the cheesecake menu with 10,000
choices, that you could just turn on the electrodes, like, here, here you go.
You turn on the electrodes and they'll be like, whoop, I'll have the pasta.
That's my hope.
If you could speed up the decision-making on the Cheesecake Factory menu, we'd all be happier.
And just in, and this is a big surprise, the Pope has called for a Gaza ceasefire.
So believe it or not, The Pope is against war.
I wonder what the Pope thinks about Ukraine and Russia.
Hmm. I'm going to guess that the Pope would call for a ceasefire.
I'm wondering what would the Pope think about the situation with the Houthis?
Hmm. Hmm.
I'm going to guess he would be in favor of a ceasefire.
I think the Pope only has one speed.
We don't like war, so you should cut out that war.
But at least he's consistent.
You don't want a Pope that sometimes...
You wouldn't want a surprising Pope, would you?
He's boring, but in exactly the way he should be, which is, he's just against war.
Are you against war today?
Yes, I am.
Were you against war yesterday?
Yes, I was.
I'm going to take a chance and say that you'll be against the next war.
I'll bet he will be.
Or she, whoever is the next pope.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for you on this Easter.
I'm going to say a few words privately to the people on Locals and the rest of you.
I hope you enjoyed the hour of the only new creative stuff you're going to see today, probably.
Except for the basketball playoffs that are later.
And so I'll see the rest of you tomorrow, same time, same place, if you're on X or YouTube or Rumble.
