God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, President Trump's Easter Message, Deportation Public Support, Money Predicts Everything, Signalgate II, Pete Hegseth, Beef Cattle Shortage, Food Supply Shortages, Republican Budget, Debt Crisis, Mining Projects, Judge Cano Resignation, China Trade War, DeepSeek AI Self-Improvement, AI Code Self-Modification, EU Methane Rules, China Egypt Joint War-Games, Iran Nuclear Facilities, 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.
My advice to you is, if you own stocks, don't look at them today.
It's not a good day for stocks.
But we're going to do a show that will take your mind off of all of that.
It's going to be so good you won't even believe it.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization that's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and 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 for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or shells, a tiny canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens right now.
Go. That's some good stuff.
That's some good stuff.
Well, I'd like to start off by reading a very special...
It was an Easter message by Donald Trump, our president.
And because it's so sweet and empathetic and caring, I thought I would just read it for you.
A dramatic reading from Truth Social from President Trump.
Happy Easter to all, including the radical left lunatics who are fighting and scheming so hard to bring murderers, drug lords, dangerous prisoners, the mentally insane and well-known MS-13 gang members and wife beaters back into our country.
Happy Easter also to the weak and ineffective judges and law enforcement officials who are allowing the sinister attack on our nation to continue, an attack so violent that it will never be forgotten.
Sleepy Joe Biden purposely allowed millions of criminals to enter our country, totally unvetted and unchecked, through an open borders policy that will go down in history as the single most Calamitous act ever perpetrated upon America.
He was, by far, our worst and most incompetent president, a man who had absolutely no idea what he was doing.
But to him, and to the person that ran and manipulated the auto pen, perhaps our real president, and to all the people who cheated in the 2020 presidential election in order to get this highly destructive moron elected,
I wish you with great love, sincerity, and affection a very happy Easter.
Oh, nobody's ever done it better.
Well, you know, if you saw anything in the news today, that the Pope did die last night, I guess, at the age of 88. And he did it immediately after celebrating Easter Sunday.
Now, of course, I am tempted to make all kinds of inappropriate jokes, but I think maybe today I won't.
Maybe I'll just pay proper respect to the Pope and to all those people who follow the Pope, and I guess we'll get a new Pope sometime soon.
But Pope Francis has passed away at 88. I think it was...
Within a day of J.D. Vance visiting and seeing him, which must be really weird for Vance to know that he saw them right before he died.
So anyway, and the fact that it happened on Easter is real weird, but it did.
Anyway, let's let the news handle that.
That's going to be all over the news forever.
And you'll get plenty of Pope Francis news, so I won't dwell on that.
Let's look at science.
Has science got anything to tell us?
Well, according to SciPost, main Kara Yakubian is writing that life satisfaction and personality share strong genetic roots.
Did you know that people who were raised in exactly the same family situation can turn out completely different?
Well, you could have asked me.
Yes, people raised the same can come out differently because genes are the driving force.
But according to new research, they're showing that both personality traits and life satisfaction How many of you didn't know that mostly what a person is is what they're born with?
You've all noticed that people from the same family turned out completely differently, right?
Like, if you hadn't noticed that, you would be very confused about how anything works.
Yeah. Whatever you're born with, which presumably comes from your parents, Kind of telling you how you're going to turn out, and it happens kind of quickly.
So they could have asked me about that one.
All right, here's one.
Total surprise.
You would never guess, according to the University of Sydney, a high-fat, high-sugar diet impacts your cognitive function.
Now, is it my imagination, or is there a new study every single day that says...
Obesity and high-sugar diets and weighing too much is bad for your brain.
At some point, they just have to stop doing the science, don't they?
And just check with me.
It's like, Scott, we've done a thousand studies in a row that all show exactly the same thing, that high-sugar diet and obesity is bad for your brain.
We're thinking of doing another study.
Don't. Don't, I would say.
I would jump right in and say, I'm going to save you some money and some time.
No, you're going to get the same result as every other time.
I don't believe anybody's ever had a different outcome.
Pretty much, yeah, same thing.
So just ask me next time.
Well, Trump is threatening Harvard in his ongoing battle with Harvard, wanting them to change their ways and be less DEI and less anti-Semitic, according to him.
But Harvard is hanging tough.
And it looks like they're going to lose another billion dollars in federal funding, or at least they'll be delayed until something changes.
And that billion dollars will be funding for health research.
So that's pretty serious.
Now, what percentage of every dollar from federal funding do you think actually goes to the researchers?
It's not much.
I don't know.
I forget the actual number, but it's in the range of 10%, I think.
Can you give me a fact check on that?
I think 90% goes to overhead to the college because the college is the entity that has the control and can get the grants.
But the actual researchers, the scientists, I think they get like 10% of every...
So it makes me wonder if anything's actually going to change.
Do you think that Harvard won't be able to afford to do the research?
Or is it just going to make them not afford paying the lighting bill?
I don't know.
We'll see where that goes.
Meanwhile, the Rasmussen polling people say that 66% of American voters agree on deporting illegals that have broken the law, you know, besides just the immigration law.
So two-thirds of the public agrees with Trump getting tough with the criminals that are in the country and deporting them.
Can't do much better than that.
Two-thirds?
Pretty rare to get two-thirds of anything.
Here's a little reminder from SciPost, Eric Nolan is writing this, that apparently they did a study and they found out that county sheriffs in California who have to be elected, that when their election year is happening and they don't want people to be mad at the sheriff,
there are fewer traffic stops.
So apparently if you're running for re-election as a sheriff, the last thing you want to do is get real tough on traffic.
So remember I always tell you that money predicts everything?
There you go.
If all you have to do is reduce the amount of tickets you're giving out and it might help you get re-elected, yeah, the money will absolutely predict what's going to happen.
In every domain.
Well, you remember the SignalGate drama where Pete Exeth was sending out a message that showed the attack plan or at least the attack schedule for the Hooties.
And the other people on the Signal chat thing were mostly people who should see the message.
But one of them was accidentally that journalist, Goldberg.
Well, it turns out that there's SignalGate 2 now.
So Pete Hegseth allegedly also sent details of the March attack, the same attack that was in the other SignalGate issue.
He also sent it separately to his wife, his brother, and his personal lawyer.
Now...
Now, people like me, we would really like to say, you know, every time you say there's chaos in the Trump administration, I think you're exaggerating.
But how in the world do you send your attack plans to your lawyer, your brother, and your wife?
I don't even have anything to say about it.
You know, apparently Trump is fully backing Hegseth, so nothing's going to happen to him.
But the fact that this happened twice, and the second time is even worse than the first, because it's the wife, the brother, and the personal lawyer.
I don't even know what to say about it, except it's so bad it's funny.
No, I don't think it has any impact on the real world.
You know, the Democrats might make something out of it and say, oh, those Hooties could have quickly adapted, but probably didn't.
So I think it's just funny that it happened.
There's not much else to say about it.
Well, according to the Maze account on X, which is a good one to follow, Maze, M-A-Z-E, We're being reminded that during the first signal gate, the Wall Street Journal published a story that said that,
and it was wrong, it was incorrect, so the Wall Street Journal said that Steve Wyckoff was in Russia at the time, and he had his private phone.
Now, if he had been in Russia with his private phone, we would assume the Russians would pick up the signal, and they would have seen the Houthi attack plan.
So that was all the news.
Wyckoff was in Russia.
You know, Russia must have known the plan.
Turns out that wasn't true.
So he was in Russia, but he didn't have his phone with him because that would be dumb.
So, but as Mays points out, there were never any on-air retractions or apologies.
The fake news just kept on going.
You know, they just acted like there had never been any fake news about it.
And it just continued.
Now, if I hadn't been reminded of this, I wouldn't remember that at all.
But, yeah, there's your respectable news sources.
Did you know that the U.S. cattle inventory is at a 73-year low, according to Zero Hedge?
there were a bunch of things that caused people to make fewer cows, meaning for beef.
But the bottom line is we have Fewer beef cows than we've had since 1951.
So that's not good.
So if you have a cow, you should impregnate it immediately.
You might need an extra cow.
So doesn't it seem like our food supply is just under attack?
It's almost like it's a coordinated campaign to starve the country.
It's like, well, you don't have enough eggs.
Well, you don't have enough chickens.
Well, it looks like you don't have enough beef.
Well, it looks like there's not enough water to grow the vegetables.
Doesn't it feel like it's just one thing after another?
How in the world is all this coincidental?
I don't know.
So we better put some energy on that.
I don't even eat beef, but this looks like a pretty big problem to me.
So if you don't want to eat bugs, because you know that's the fallback, you don't want to eat bugs, you might want to fix this cow situation.
Well, I was taking a look at the story about the budget problem.
So the Republicans have this very big problem trying to come up with a budget.
Number one, the budget is way beyond our ability to pay.
So you have to cut expenses, which apparently the Republicans are unwilling to do, at least collectively.
There might be some that are willing to do it.
But collectively, they're unwilling to cut expenses for the vital services that vulnerable people require, the Medicaid, the Social Security, etc.
Where the big money is.
And of course, the military budget just goes up no matter what.
So they can't balance the budget by cutting expenses, but they also can't balance it by raising taxes because they're Republicans.
So even if some of them were maybe into it for the rich, it wouldn't be enough.
And it wouldn't be very popular for a Republican.
It'd be hard to get elected if you raise taxes.
So we have a situation where we're something like 27% higher expenses than we have income, which will kill us all.
And so I spent a little time with Doge, I'm sorry, with Grok, trying to figure out just how deep a hole are we in?
Is there any plan for survival?
Survival. I'm not even talking about optimizing.
We currently have a plan for death, because we can't really run this kind of a deficit year after year, and even the Republicans look like they're going to do it.
So they're either not going to pass any kind of budget, and they'll just kick the can down the road, which is what I'm expecting.
But nothing is happening.
That would save us.
So Doge, apparently, I'm going to call it a failure because it looks like they got to $150 billion, which is good.
So, you know, the $150 billion, I'm glad that they saved that.
But it really needed to be about 10 times that.
And 10 times that would be the bare minimum that maybe you could survive.
Probably it needed to be 20 times that.
So Doge, It worked in the sense that it reduced some expenses, but it did not work in terms of balancing the budget.
It didn't even come close.
And it doesn't look like anything's going to happen and change that.
Which might be why Elon Musk has been a little bit quiet lately, because Doge just sort of didn't work.
And I'm not too surprised, because once the cabinet people were in position, they probably just all thought, Any kind of cuts.
And they just vetoed them, which they had the power to do.
So I don't see any way that we're going to get to it.
But suppose you just said, all right, we're in an emergency situation.
Oh, and also, you'll hear people like Peter Navarro say, well, but we have all this tariff revenue.
Could be $600 billion.
We're not going to get $600 billion of tariff revenue.
Nobody thinks that.
So maybe it helps a little bit.
But if we were, according to Grok, we would have to cause something like a quarter of all the expenses on everything in order to get to a balanced budget.
Now, even if you did it gradually so that you worked up to it, It would be way more of a cut than anybody could survive.
But here's the economist in me.
If you said to a senior citizen, hey, we're going to have to cut your Social Security by a quarter.
Now you're probably going to say, but just do the rich people.
If you did all the rich people and just took away their Social Security, it wouldn't make a dent.
Because I asked Rock that.
Barely makes a dent.
You would have to take away just a tremendous amount of Social Security from people who really needed it.
That's the only way you could get there.
Now, if I told you, hey, senior citizen, the only way we can survive is if you cut a quarter of your expenses.
Could they live?
Could they find a way to survive?
I don't know.
But here's what they don't know.
The alternative is you don't get anything.
So we still think that the alternative is either cut it or don't cut it.
That's not the alternative.
The alternative is you either cut it or there won't be anything for anybody.
The entire system will collapse.
So you can either figure out how to get by with 25% less.
Or you could figure out how to get by with nothing.
And I don't think anybody's really made that case, because you would have to make that case.
The entire thing is going to fall apart.
Now, if you were collecting social security, you would immediately say, oh, wait a minute.
Why don't you just take more out of the military budget?
Well, that'd be great, except the people who control the military budget control the country.
And so they're not going to cut their own income.
So we don't really have any way to cut military budgets.
Unless we made some kind of deal with Russia and China and we all cut our budgets or something.
But it doesn't look like that's going to happen.
So here's my thing.
We need something that we've never talked about.
I don't know what it would be.
But it's going to be something like you can only get Social Security under certain conditions.
It's going to be something like Medicaid.
You're going to have to use AI before you use the actual Medicaid system.
Something like that.
So we're going to have to retool and re-engineer pretty much the entire way we live.
To have any chance whatsoever of survival.
And nobody in the news is talking honestly about this.
They're just acting like it's business as usual.
It's like, well, it's a budget, you know, it's not optimal.
That's not where we're at.
We're at complete destruction and kind of guaranteed.
So if you want your money to be worth nothing, then you should insist on no cuts.
If you want to keep 75% of your money, you want a 25% cut.
So, unfortunately.
It would be interesting to see if the United States just cut that much in if it's military and said, here's the deal.
If you mess with us, we still have nukes because we didn't cut the nukes.
So don't mess with us because it'd be better if...
It'd be better if we don't have the ability to fight every kind of war and every kind of theater, which is sort of what we're preparing for.
Wouldn't it be better if we could just fight the wars that we would have to fight?
Maybe. So we'll see.
Interior Secretary Burgum, according to Newsmax, Says that Trump is fighting a war on mining, meaning that the Biden administration made it very tough to do mining.
And, of course, some states would be having their own limitations.
But apparently Trump has announced a resolution on copper mining, so something that would allow rapid approval to do copper mining.
We need that for high tech.
Apparently, Trump has approved 10 different, or there are 10 different mines that are now being added to the list of things that look like they'll get approved.
So Trump's had 10 more mining projects to the list of the fast approval list.
So these are all things that would help us compete against China.
Now, question.
Could we earn our way out of our debt problem?
Could we do so good at mining and energy production and sales and basically just boosting the things that are the most valuable?
Mining, energy, robots?
I don't know.
Maybe. But here's the kind of world we're living in.
Breitbart has an article on that.
There's a New Mexico judge who just resigned because ICE arrested a Venezuelan gang member who lived in his house.
So he was a Democrat-appointed judge who had a roommate who was literally trying to do a ragwa.
And the guy had ammo, gang tattoos, Video of him firing an AR-15 with a suppressor.
Graphic images of mutilated bodies on his phone.
And the judge, who was a former cop.
So the judge was a former cop.
And he didn't notice anything about his roommate.
He didn't notice that his roommate was obviously a gang member.
Anyway, that's the world we're living in.
Here's a question I saw answered by the Wall Street Journal that I've been wondering about for a while.
Apparently, Nike has been trying to move its production out of China for a long time.
So not just recently, but for about 10 years, they've been trying to move their production out of China, to move it to Vietnam or Mexico or wherever they can move it.
They spent a ton of money trying to automate making of sneakers.
But they found out it never works.
So they can automate a little bit, but mostly you just need an army of people.
And I never understood why.
Like, why is it that you can't automate sneakers?
Doesn't it seem like that would be somewhat easy compared to automating?
I don't know, a motherboard of a phone.
But here's the reason that makes sense.
The materials that you use to make sneakers will change their qualities based on temperature and probably atmospheric moisture, too.
So every time you're putting a sneaker together, it's a little bit different than it was the day before.
You can't really automate that.
You can automate things that are exactly the same every time, but a sneaker is just a little bit different every time.
And then on top of that, Nike's business model, which they don't want to change, is that they're introducing all kinds of new models all the time.
You would never be able to keep up, even if you could come up with some way to automate the making of sneakers, you wouldn't be able to update your factory to do automated.
With all the new models.
But a human being can look at the new sneaker and say, oh, same as the old sneaker, but looks like the bottom is different.
So I'll just glue this together.
So there are some things that we might want to be onshored that just never will be because there isn't any way to automate it.
Now, I do wonder if AI could solve that because the automation we're talking about so far It's the dumb kind, where it just can do the same thing every time.
But if you added AI, would it be able to detect the slight changes in the temperature and the squishiness of the materials?
Would it be able to instantly adjust to make the new model?
Because it would say, hmm, it's just like the old one, except different footprint, so to speak.
I don't know.
I don't think so, at least not anytime soon.
So, here's a good example of how our trade war is going with China.
So, Huawei...
Wait, hold on.
So, the U.S. was blocking NVIDIA from selling its high-end H20 chip to China, to Huawei in particular.
And so you think to yourself, oh, good job, America.
We don't want China to have the good stuff, so we'll block them from having the best chips, and then we'll get way ahead on AI.
So what happened?
NVIDIA is selling them lesser chips, the 910C.
But it turns out that with a little clever engineering, if you have two of them, and you just...
Work them together.
They reach the same performance as their high-end chip.
So now NVIDIA can just sell all these low-end chips, which would be totally legal, and China can just stick them together and use some clever engineering, and they end up operating like high-end chips.
So we got basically nothing out of that.
Anyway, so sanctioning the other companies.
It has a limited ability.
Reuters has that story.
Here's some AI stories that I don't believe.
You know, there's going to be a certain amount of AI headline news that's true, and there's going to be a certain amount that just is BS.
Here's some stuff that my BS detector says, I don't think so.
I don't know.
I know you're reporting it as true, but I don't know.
So here's one.
So you know the DeepSeek AI that comes from China, which is allegedly as good as other AIs, but less expensive.
So according to Geeky Gadgets, Julian Horsey is writing about this, there's something fantastic happening with DeepSeek in that it's capable of self-improvement.
So, in other words, it can somehow, on its own, get smarter.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that without any external interaction, that the AI is already a point where it can just get smarter on its own?
I'm going to say no.
I don't believe that.
There might be some narrow area.
In which it can improve itself without external input?
Well, I don't believe it.
So it says it can improve itself through, quote, iterative feedback loops, which is just talking to itself, right?
It's not talking about checking it with other AI or checking it with people.
And that would make sense.
You know, if it did things and then some external source...
Checked its work.
And then it said, oh, okay.
Now you've checked me, so I'll get this right next time.
But how in the world is just running on its own going to allow it to get smarter?
You know, I get that maybe it says stuff like, you know, once you get an answer, you should double-check it and use these tools to double-check it.
All right.
But I don't think there's much room to grow there.
So I'm going to say I don't believe this.
I don't believe that DeepSeek is just making itself better by sitting there running on its own because they've got a clever algorithm that they built into it.
Don't believe it.
Here's another one I don't believe.
According to TalkAndroid, AI apparently has stunned researchers.
By rewriting its own code to overcome a limitation.
So one of the limitations was the AI was running on trying to solve some problem, and it decided it needed more time.
So allegedly, according to this story that I don't believe whatsoever, it rewrote its own code to give it more time.
So it actively modified its own underlying code to extend its operational capabilities.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that the AI had access to its own source code and then rewrote it on the fly?
No, I don't believe that.
I don't believe that even a little bit.
Why in the world would they give it access to its own source code?
Why would that even be possible?
Who would be dumb enough to allow it to rewrite itself on demand?
I don't see it.
Now, I could understand if it recommended a change.
I could see if it said, here's some code that if you add to me, I'll be able to solve this problem.
Now, that I could see.
But I don't see it just autonomously rewriting its own code and then recompiling and...
And then going forward?
Does anybody think it can really do that?
These just sound like BS claims to me.
Now, obviously I'm no expert on AI, and so I could be deeply misunderstanding things, but I'm pretty good at BS.
So, no expertise at AI.
But pretty good at telling what BS looks like.
This just looks like BS to me.
I think that they may be sort of true in some technical way, but if you looked into it for five minutes, you would find out it's not exactly what they said.
So I'm not buying it at all.
Here's something that's good.
So the European Union, according to Reuters, might tweak their methane rules.
So that they can buy more U.S. gas.
So apparently, the U.S. has some kind of methane that's different than what they use locally.
And they can't buy our gas because they say we have the wrong kind of methane.
But the methane that our U.S. gas has doesn't seem to be worse or more dangerous than whatever they're doing.
So the EU, because they want to be able to...
Buy U.S. gas and close the trade gap so that they could get a better trade deal with Trump.
They might change their own rules so they can buy U.S. gas without that limitation.
And that seems pretty good.
So that would be a big win if we could sell things.
You know, I do wonder, does the U.S. produce enough energy or could it?
That energy alone would be the difference between meeting our budget needs and not?
Could we boost our GDP by, I don't know, 10% a year instead of 3% a year or whatever is normal, just with energy?
Because it looks like there's going to be infinite need for energy all over the world, and Trump's doing a good job of saying you better buy our energy.
Because, you know, it's part of the larger trade deal.
I just wonder what the upside of that is.
Is this the only way we can save ourselves?
By becoming essentially the Saudi Arabia of the world?
I guess we already have more oil than Saudi Arabia in terms of what we're producing.
Maybe. I'd love to see some numbers of what the potential Upside could be of just being the world's energy producer times 10, which we could.
I mean, it's possible.
According to the Amuse account on X, we're paying China to conduct live war games in Egypt.
Not directly, but indirectly.
So apparently we spend $2 billion a year To support Egypt's military.
Now, you might say to yourself, well, that's not so bad.
Because, you know, we like Egypt to be on our side.
And, you know, it's one way to get some influence over there.
Two billion doesn't sound like, you know, the worst thing in the world, given all our other expenses.
But here's the part you don't know.
That Egypt is currently doing war games with China.
So they're doing these extended war games in which they're coordinating with the Chinese military.
That's right.
The Chinese military is doing war games with Egypt that has the military equipment that we gave them.
So do you think they're learning anything about U.S. military equipment?
Yes, they are.
How in the world is this even possible?
That we're paying Egypt $2 billion a year for the military, and then they're doing military drills with China?
It doesn't even seem possible, does it?
I hope there's something to this story that I don't know.
Well, the Wall Street Journal is warning that the trade negotiations with China are not going well, and that it could lead to a larger Cold War.
Meaning that China would take its, let's say, reactions to our trade demands outside of the trade domain, and maybe they'd do some more cyber attacks.
Maybe they would get a little more militarily adventurous around Taiwan.
So a Cold War would sort of bring into the...
Bring into the larger equation some extra risks that you don't normally see unless you're in a Cold War.
But I wonder how different that would be than what we've experienced for the last 20 years.
Don't you think China is already doing what it can to degrade the United States in every way they can get away with?
So I don't know if it would be different, but maybe we talk about it differently.
But yes, we're heading toward a larger Cold War.
I don't see us getting into a hot war or a nuclear confrontation.
But a Cold War?
Yeah. Probably.
Probably. So China is warning other countries that don't make any trade deals with the U.S. that are bad for China.
So Newsmax Money is reporting this.
And I don't know what that would look like.
But that's a pretty big threat.
Don't make a deal with the United States that would be bad for China?
How do they define that?
Let's say if Vietnam wanted to do more manufacturing with the U.S., would that be bad for China?
And therefore, would they try to punish Vietnam?
I don't know.
It's a pretty big threat.
We'll see where that goes.
According to the Gateway Pundit, and there are some sources that spoke to Reuters and say that Israel is looking at and is likely to do their own military attack without the United States on Iranian nuclear facilities.
So it wouldn't be as massive as an attack as it would be if the U.S. was all in.
But since the U.S. is not all in, it looks like Israel might do it anyway.
Now, it does make me wonder how Iran would treat that.
Would Iran treat that as the United States was involved?
Because Israel would be using our weapons, and probably we'd be giving them some intelligence from satellites, and probably we'd have some secret interaction with them.
That maybe wasn't public, but Iran would know about it.
I don't know.
It does seem to me that that's the most likely outcome.
Because I don't think Trump can survive starting a war.
He would lose one of his biggest claims to being a good president if he starts a war.
Now, I think the Hootie situation is already questionable.
Because that looks like a war to me.
But if he goes after Iran directly and U.S. bombers go over Iranian territory and drop bombs and kill Iranian citizens and take out their nuclear program, first of all,
I don't know that it would work.
And secondly, we have no idea what Iran would unleash on the United States.
Because it wouldn't take much.
For a well-trained group of terrorists to just take down the whole country.
I'm not going to give them any suggestions, but you can use your imagination.
If Iranian...
If they did, then I guess we would be even more militarily...
So maybe Iran would say, okay, let's just deal with Israel and make the best of it.
So, I don't know.
But yes, I don't think there's any chance that Iran will reach an agreement that Israel and the U.S. think is okay for their nuclear situation.
I saw a news bit, but it's not confirmed.
Maybe you can fact-check me on this, because it was just this morning.
Did Trump somehow block Ukraine's NATO bid?
Meaning, did Trump say Ukraine will never be in NATO?
Did that happen?
Because if it did, that would be a weird negotiating position.
Because that would be called negotiating with yourself.
Basically giving something up without getting something in return.
Unless there's something in return.
But I'm not aware of it.
So it could be that Trump is just saying there won't be any NATO.
We're not going to pay for Ukraine to be in a war anymore.
You guys figure out the land situation.
Maybe. But I don't see anything that looks like a peace deal that's going to come out of Ukraine and Russia.
I guess they tried to have a ceasefire just for Easter, but that didn't last.
The next thing you know, Russia was launching a massive missile and drone attack on Ukraine today.
So, more fighting to come.
Here's a weird story.
According to Neoscope, Frank Landymore is writing, that there's now a single injection of a decades-old existing asthma medication called omelizumab,
and it's sold as Zolaire.
And apparently, it has shown that it can successfully treat all allergies.
That it just eliminates them.
All allergies.
But it's not even just seasonal allergies.
Food allergies.
So you get one shot, just one injection, and I know.
I know what you're thinking.
Don't give me no injections.
You'll turn me into a piece of wood.
So I know that you're not crazy about anything that involves an injection or big pharma.
So I'm not going to say that this works.
I'm just going to say that this is in the news, okay?
It's not me recommending it.
But the fact that they might have an existing medication that you could take once and you would never have allergy problems again, even from food?
Do you think there's a catch?
Of course there is.
There's always a catch.
Here's the catch.
The annual cost of doing this would be $60,000 per person.
$60,000!
How in the world could that possibly be the cost for one injection?
I don't know.
But there's some thought that...
It's on the verge of being a generic.
So the FDA approved a generic in March, which could drive down the cost in the future.
So it might be a generic shot that removes all allergies.
I don't know.
You're not willing to try it?
I think most of you in the comments have said, get that away from me.
I don't need no extra shots.
And I don't disagree with you.
According to Popular Mechanics, Tim Newcomb is writing that engineers believe they found evidence of hydraulics in an ancient pyramid, which, if they're right, would solve a 4,500-year mystery of how they move these big rocks.
So apparently there's something inside one of the pyramids that suggests...
That it was built using hydraulics, so they can see some kind of remaining mechanism that seems like it would only be related to hydraulics.
So they would, in other words, using water as their mechanism for moving stuff.
Maybe. I don't know how they would move a rock to the top of the pyramid with water, but that would be a pretty clever system if they could do it.
Now here's another story that nobody believes.
As you know, every single day there's a new announcement about a battery breakthrough that you'll be able to charge your car in a few minutes and it will go for a thousand miles and it doesn't use lithium and every day.
But I don't think maybe none of them will actually become products because I'm not seeing any of them come to market.
So here's another one.
From interesting engineering.
Something that can charge in 20 minutes.
An EV battery they'll charge.
And they figured out some new anode.
So the current ones don't charge that fast.
But they've already figured out a new anode in South Korea.
And it promises to make your car charge in 20 minutes.
And it can endure over 1,500 charge cycles.
So that it would be as easy as filling your car with gas.
Basically, 20 minutes is pretty fast.
Now, do you think you'll ever see this technology in the real world?
I don't.
There's literally an EV battery breakthrough every single day.
Most of them are from Korea, South Korea.
And I don't think you're going to see any of it.
I think it's all just announcements.
It's sort of announcement science.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I've got for today.
And it's going to be a Pope-filled day.
We'll be seeing lots of coverage of that.
And then maybe in a day or two, we'll be back to regular news.
But after Easter weekend and the death of a Pope, The news got a little slow today.
Maybe it'll speed up later.
Don't look at your stocks.
Don't look.
All right.
I'm going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers and the rest of you.
