God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, X Platform, Elon Musk, Solar Energy, CA National Guard, Israel Iran War, Iran Nuclear Weapons, Starlink Iran, Bunker Buster Missiles, DNC Ken Martin, Anti-Trump DNC TDS, Randi Weingarten, James Carville, Working Class Voters, Stuart Stevens, President Trump, PM Netanyahu, General Flynn, Washington Post, GPS Missile Hits Posting, Deportation Roundups, Josh Hawley, $15 Minimum Wage, Self-Evolving AI Code, AI Synthetic Training Data, AI Mental Illness, Cross-Border Smuggling Tunnel, Pavel Durov, Sperm Donor Babies, Low-Cost Childcare, 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, everyone, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
Try to take this experience up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask of a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
Until from the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called, that's right, the simultaneous sip.
Go.
All right, Paul, I see the real one.
Don't try that fake one with me again.
All right, what's going on?
I find that the first part of the news is always something about Elon Musk.
Is there even one day that guy can go without making news?
It's impossible.
But apparently on Sunday, this Sunday, in Austin, Texas, will be the launch of the Tesla RoboTaxi.
So the no driver.
Self-driving taxi in Austin.
And I saw a picture of somebody in one, and they were sitting in the front.
Would you sit in the front of a robo-taxi in the front seat?
Or would you just sit in the back in case something goes wrong?
I feel like I would sit in the back seat, if that's an option.
I assume it is.
Wouldn't you?
You know, just a little bit safer.
At least for a while.
Now, I get that the self-driving robo-taxis will be safer than a human-driven automobile.
But even with a human, I don't feel comfortable in the passenger side of the front seat.
I always think, can I trust this human?
So I'd probably sit in the back.
Well, according to the ex-CEO, which is not someone who used to be a CEO, but rather the CEO of a company called X, so Linda is saying that users will soon be able to trade stocks on X and make investments and send tips and split bills and maybe even buy merch.
All without leaving the app.
And they're going to call it XMoney.
So it'll be a peer-to-peer payment system.
Now, here's the fun part.
If X becomes the everything account, isn't X an internet within the internet?
Because I ask myself, what do I do all day on the internet?
That I could not do completely with an X. I use AI.
All right, well, that's built into X. I look at the news, but all the links and the analysis are on X. So the only other thing I do is investments and send money digitally.
That's the only other stuff I do.
So if I could do all of that, On X, I would be within an internet that was within an internet.
And do you know how much power that would give Elon Musk if you had an internet within the internet and you never left it?
You would be in the bubble of all bubbles.
Now, I get that X has different points of view, but I don't really see them.
Do you?
I could spend the entire day on X and never see a competing point of view.
All I would see is the people that I most like to see.
The only times I see competing points of view is when they're being mocked by people I agree with.
So when I see a clip on MSNBC, it's never to agree with it.
It's always to laugh at it.
If I see a clip of the view, it's always just to laugh at it.
So the bubble of all bubbles is forming.
I don't know if I'm against it or for it, but it's a complete transformation of the Internet experience if you never leave that one app.
And I probably wouldn't.
I'd probably be on it all day.
Anyway.
And then Elon Musk's AI company, which I assume will be folded into X, into Grok.
I don't know how that works.
But apparently Elon Musk is now launching the biggest supercomputer in the world.
The largest supercomputer.
It has many GPUs.
You don't need to know the details.
But the biggest one in the world is Elon Musk's.
So, if you used AI for all of your work, and Elon Musk had the largest supercomputer driving the best AI, would you ever leave?
I don't know.
It's looking to me like Elon Musk's strategy for X and for everything else is kind of amazing.
It's like a strategy I've never seen before that basically would take over everything from the news to finance to banking.
And probably it would work.
So that's big.
Speaking of Elon Musk, he points out that the solar power generation in China will exceed all sources of electricity combined in the USA.
In only three to four years, which he calls a wake-up call.
So, do you remember when people mocked Elon Musk for saying that we could get all of our energy from solar?
We would need batteries, of course, but we have batteries.
He was never really in the majority on that.
I always felt like he was in the minority, and everyone who thought they knew about energy would say over and over, well, you're never going to get there with solar power alone.
I mean, that's ridiculous.
You're going to need nuclear, and you're going to need oil and gas and all that.
And in the short run, certainly that's all true.
But is it hypothetically possible that...
And it's starting to look like he was right about that.
Looks like he got the math right.
If he were doubting Elon Musk on math and engineering, well, he made a bad bet.
I have to admit, I was skeptical.
Because it looked more like he was just promoting his own products.
But I think he's also accurate that you could get all of your electricity from solar if you went wild, you know, really went at it hard like China.
The appeals court, an appeals court is going to let Trump keep control of the California National Guard.
Now, if you haven't been following this, How many times have you heard that an appeals court altered an order from a lower court about something about Trump?
How many times have we seen that story in just this calendar year?
Maybe 25 times about different stories?
I don't know how many times, but it feels like a lot.
But the latest one is...
So Trump took control of the National Guard in California when those anti-ICE protests were happening.
And then California appealed and said, you can't do that.
You don't have the right to do that because there are only certain circumstances in which the commander-in-chief can take control, and those circumstances.
And the lower court agreed.
And so for a while, Gavin Newsom had control back of the National Guard.
But now, the appeals court has decided that the commander-in-chief should have flexibility, and you don't want to handicap them, and you don't want to put the state in charge of protecting the whole country.
The appeals court says that Trump can keep control of the National Guard in California.
But, does it matter?
Are we still having protests?
Anti-ice protests in LA?
Or did they all stop?
because I didn't see anything in the news today about any protests.
So I think the appeals court,
Anyway, speaking of complicated things, Russ Vogt, the budget guy for the administration, according to Politico, he's got this clever idea for cutting costs in the government.
That not everybody thinks is legal.
And he calls it a pocket rescission.
So as you know, the budget process in the government is this weird, convoluted, Byzantine process that nobody understands.
Sometimes it's a budget, sometimes it's a spending bill, sometimes it's a rescission, and we don't even know what any of that means.
Idea that Trump could issue a formal request to clawback funding.
Now, this is in Politico.
And so if Trump said, I've got a formal request to end funding for some specific things, similar to what he did before with a $9.4 billion package he sent to lawmakers, that what you could do
The memo could land on Capitol Hill less than 45 days before the new fiscal year is set to begin on October 1st.
And then by withholding the cash, let's see if he can follow all this.
By withholding the cash for that full time frame, regardless of the action by Congress, the White House would treat the funding as expired.
When the current fiscal year ends.
So, something about a formal request to claw back funding, but you don't really mean it.
You just want the request to sit there and time out.
And then, somehow, it times out, and then you don't have to spend it.
Does that even sound like a real process to you?
I may be getting some part of that wrong.
But it's so frustrating that our government doesn't have a process that the voters even understand.
It's like, why don't you do your budget like everybody else does?
Where you say, this is how much I want to spend.
Does everybody agree?
And then you vote on it.
No, no, we've got to have...
Yeah, so we'll see if that works.
Anyway, I saw one report today on X that there's a senior Iranian official who told Reuters that Iran is ready to discuss limitations on its uranium enrichment.
To which I say, one guy?
There's one guy who said that?
What good is that?
If it wasn't the supreme leader, do we trust this one guy who allegedly told Reuters, oh yeah, we're totally open to discussing our uranium enrichment?
Well, at the same time, also an ex.
I think Zero Hedge was reporting this.
Another senior Iranian official, who is different from the last one, said zero enrichment will undoubtedly be rejected, especially now, because of the Israeli strikes.
So you've got one Iranian official who says, oh yeah, we'll totally discuss that.
And another one who says, oh no, we're not even going to be open to that.
But it could be that one of them is talking about zero enrichment and the other one is talking about limitations on enrichment.
So you don't really need to get to zero, do you?
Could you make a deal where it's just low enrichment levels are allowed as long as there's lots of inspections?
So maybe there's some room to deal with that.
According to NBC, Iran has unleashed what they call combat drones inside Israel for the first time.
Now, combat drone?
What would be a combat drone versus a drone?
I don't know exactly, but I think a drone would be like a smart rocket, but not very fast.
And it would plunge into something and explode.
Whereas, I'm guessing these combat drones are more like an unmanned jet that has a number of weapons, and it can go in and fire a bunch of things and then return home and get some more ordnance.
I like saying ordnance.
Makes me sound like I know what I'm talking about.
Anyway, the Revolutionary Guard has announced that...
So that's what it sounds like, a pilotless aircraft.
Meanwhile, on X and other places, I keep seeing these estimates of how many missiles Iran had and how many they've used and how many guys shot down.
And for about five minutes, I said to myself, huh, here's some useful data.
I told myself, if I know how many missiles Iran has, and I know how many they've fired, and how many they have left, and what percentage of them are getting through, I'll have a good idea what's going to happen.
And my current opinion is, it doesn't matter.
But here's what matters.
Iran is never going to surrender unless there are boots on the ground, meaning Israeli and American soldiers on the ground.
And that's not going to happen.
I'm pretty sure.
I mean, it seems deeply unlikely that Trump would agree to, you know, soldiers getting killed on the ground in Iran.
And, of course, Iran is a much bigger, harder land target than Iraq was by a lot.
So we don't think it would work.
And if you don't put people on the ground, are we really going to change the leadership in Iran?
And if we don't change the leadership, is anything going to be different once the bombs start?
Stopped dropping.
So it seems to me like we're on a path to destroying as much of Iran as you can from the air, at least the government and military stuff.
But then when it's all done, we won't have anybody on the ground.
I'm positive that there will not be a legitimate, organic rising up of the population of Iran.
To take over with a moderate?
I feel like that's a zero chance.
I just don't see a world in which your nation is being targeted and bombed all day long, and you say to yourself, you know what?
I think I'll take the side of the people bombing my country.
Even if you like the West, and even if you didn't like your Ayatollah, You're still not going to rise up against your own country and take the side of the country that's bombing you.
Has that ever happened in the history of anything?
I don't think so.
So if we're not going to have soldiers on the ground, which I don't think we will, and there won't be any kind of, you know, organic national uprising.
That means that either the supreme leader will still be in power when this is over, or maybe somebody worse who's just down the line if the supreme leader gets taken out.
He's not going to be replaced by a moderate, probably replaced by somebody who's the hardest, hard-ass they have.
So what exactly would be the way that we could have any kind of victory here?
It looks to me like there's only one way this all works out.
If we're not going to put boots on the ground, Iran will still be Iran when we're done.
And then they will start rebuilding their offensive weapons, presumably because they think it's their best chance of survival.
So, I just don't see a path.
Do you?
Do any of you see how this could possibly be settled in a way that we would all be happy?
And when I say all, I mean everybody except Iran.
I feel like everybody's going to be unhappy, including Iran.
So that's what it looks like.
But Starlink is still alive in Iran.
Everything's about Elon Musk.
So Iran has turned off its regular internet service.
But the people who have Starlink, I don't know how many there are, but they do have full internet thanks to Elon Musk's Starlink company.
Now that's something that apparently Iran can't turn off because they don't have any control over the satellites in the air.
So that would suggest that at least Israel and the US could But there won't be that many people who have a Starlink, right?
And I imagine that if you did have a Starlink and the Iranian authorities found out, wouldn't they arrest you or take your Starlink-based platform away?
So I don't think Starlink will have a gigantic impact on the population of Iran.
Because there can't be that many people who have access to it.
And even if they did, as I said before, you're not going to convince the population to rise up against their own leader while you're bombing them.
It just isn't a thing.
It just couldn't possibly happen in our world.
Anyway, over on MSNBC, there was some talking head.
Who was arguing that when the Iranians chant death to America, that they don't really mean it.
And his example was that he was at some event where they were chanting death to America.
And then he introduced himself to some of the locals.
And the locals said, oh, we love America.
We like your movies and your culture and all that.
And so he concluded.
That death to America doesn't really mean death to America.
It's just a thing they say.
To which I say, it doesn't really matter what the public wanted.
It only matters what the leadership means when they say death to America.
Right?
It doesn't matter how many people repeat it.
They don't have any power.
So what matters is Or is it just something they say while they're loving Western culture?
Well, no.
The supreme leader is not loving Western culture.
Anything that the population says about how much they love America, which I do believe all indications are that the Iranians are at least pro-Western culture, if not pro-America.
I don't think it matters.
I think it only matters what the leaders think.
And if they want to destroy America and Israel, well, they'll keep doing it.
The Pentagon, according to Jennifer Griffin, Fox News, the Pentagon is very confident that the Bunker Buster missiles would work if employed.
And apparently they're GPS-guided, and if one doesn't get the job done, they can drop a second one in the same hole as the first one, and it'll make the hole deeper, and that'll get the job done.
Let me ask you this.
When was the last time you saw a very complicated system that had never been tested work on the first try?
Well, maybe the nuclear bombs that we dropped on Japan.
But you could argue that We tested those before we dropped them, right?
Not the ones we dropped, but...
I should know that.
It was tested, right?
I feel like we would have tested it.
But how in the world have we tested dropping two bombs in the same hole?
Does that sound like something we could...
It would be one thing if we said it'll probably work.
So it's worth a try.
But they're not really saying probably, are they?
The Pentagon is basically saying, oh, this will work.
Do you believe that?
So I would say that the chance that it doesn't work, or it doesn't work completely, or it They're pretty high.
Pretty high.
Because in the real world, when you haven't tested something that's complicated, and it's kind of complicated to fly a bomber all across the ocean and refuel it multiple times, drop one bomb and then drop a second one in the same hole while the Iranians are watching.
I guess they would have no defense against any of that.
Well, let me just say that I don't think it's guaranteed.
I don't know what the odds are, but I would put the odds at maybe 70% that it would work.
What would you do?
Tell me in the comments.
If you had to guess without knowing anything, none of us really know anything about this topic, but knowing that it's complicated.
And there's technology involved, and there's war, and when war is involved, nothing goes exactly the way you planned.
What would you guess are the odds it would work?
I say 100%, 25%.
Well, you're just joking on the 25%.
99%?
Yeah, we don't know, do we?
It's an unknowable estimate.
I don't think the Pentagon knows.
But they use words like this.
That it would definitely work if it were deployed correctly.
Do you see what they're doing?
If deployed correctly.
That's the problem.
I'm actually confident that they know how to make a bomb that makes a big hole.
That part I believe.
I believe the bomb will explode.
So I don't really have a lot of doubt about that.
There's some uncertainty, but very low.
The uncertainty is whether we implement it correctly.
So they've got that little catch in there.
Oh, yeah, it's 100% going to work if deployed correctly.
Wouldn't that be everything?
Everything works if deployed correctly?
It's sort of like saying nothing.
Anyway.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Israel is spending hundreds of millions of dollars a day supporting this war, which would explain why they wanted it to end in two weeks.
But, do you remember one of my predictions?
That it would not end in two weeks?
Now, Trump has said he needs two weeks from now to make a decision.
Because the Europeans are meeting to allegedly talk about what can be done with Iran.
So it doesn't look like Iran wants to talk to the United States or to Israel directly, but they might talk to the Europeans because the Europeans have not been as bellicose as the U.S. and Israel.
So let's say they talk to the Europeans and that that takes two weeks before Trump decides whether he wants to get militarily aggressive on the side of offense.
And so we're already at three weeks, right?
So minimum would be three weeks.
And remember, two weeks is just to make a decision.
If he makes the decision, So, how do you like my prediction now, where Israel said we'll be done in two weeks?
And I said, I think probably months.
I think we're up to at least a month already, no matter what.
And I don't think we're done extending that.
I've got a feeling it's going to be multiple months, and whatever Israel thought they were going to spend, they're going to spend a lot more.
So it's going to be billions.
And Israel might, I don't know, they might bankrupt themselves on this war.
So I guess the interceptor missiles are a major expense, according to the Wall Street Journal.
So the interceptor missiles...
And then the building repairs, because Iran is knocking down buildings in Israel, are estimated at $400 million.
So that's the kind of expense that Israel is looking at to keep doing what they're doing.
And keep in mind that they can do this forever, and they still wouldn't get the result that they need.
Without boots on the ground, and there won't be boots on the ground.
So, they're not only spending hundreds of millions of dollars a day, but it's in an effort that, even on paper, it's hard to imagine how it would work.
Right?
Because even if the leadership collapses, there's just going to be some new mullah.
Doesn't mean it's going to be better.
And we're not going to be on the ground.
So I think Iran wins just by not losing.
If Iran just has to exist in two months, it's going to look like they won in a weird way.
I mean, they'll be in terrible shape, but they would be able to rebuild and the fighting would be over and then...
Anyway, so Trump is still acting like negotiations are still possible, but it's up to the Europeans at this point.
However, some people are saying that Trump isn't so much expecting the negotiations to work.
He is really just buying time.
For the U.S. to move more assets into the theater, as they say.
Does that sound right?
It might be both.
So Trump might be thinking, well, you know, there's some possibility the negotiations will work, so might as well give it a few weeks.
At the same time, he might be thinking, well, you know, if I had another week or two, we could get a few more, I don't know.
Naval ships in the area or some more ammunition or something.
So probably waiting makes sense.
But also, it could be that Israel is planning a ground attack on Fordow, which is the place that we're looking at as bunker busters.
So maybe, if you wait two weeks, we will know if Israel can get in the front door.
Of these underground bunkers, if they have boots on the ground, limited.
It'd be like special forces.
And just do that one job and then presumably go home as soon as they're done.
So we've got at least two or three things that might be happening in two weeks.
More assets getting into the war zone for the U.S. Israel potentially making their own ground attack on Fordow and the other one.
And maybe negotiations that might lead to something.
So that's probably all happening.
New York Post has a story about how all the once devoted Iranian proxies, as they call them, are all out of the fight.
So, are you surprised that the Hezbollah and Hamas and the Houthis and the Shiite militia are sort of sitting this one out?
It does suggest that Israel did a heck of a good job in suppressing them.
And I guess the U.S. did a good job with the Houthis.
And maybe they just don't have the assets, maybe they just don't have the But I would say the same thing about the proxies that I'm saying about Iran.
For them to win, they only have to survive.
Because even though Hezbollah is acting like they don't want to attack Israel, they could change their mind once they've built up more resources.
But it does look like Iran is going to be sucking for money, and I don't think they're going to have much money for their proxies.
So making Iran run out of money might be the only way you can keep them weak enough to not be a risk.
Now, if anybody is new to my podcast, I remind you that...
So I'm not taking sides, and I'm not making moral or ethical judgments.
And I certainly don't know the military ins and outs.
But just looking at it as an observer, trying to figure out, all right, what's going on here?
What do we expect?
All right, another topic over on Politico.
There are unnamed Democrat people who are criticizing their own team, and they're calling the DNC chairman, Ken Martin, weak, whiny, and invisible.
That does sound exactly like what we're seeing, that Ken Martin guy.
He does seem weak, whiny, and invisible.
And he's had quite a bit of drama.
But here's another quote from the same article.
Many DNC members and outside Democrats, including Martin supporters, said they wished the party would just move on from recent internal turmoil and focus instead on mounting an effective fight against Trump.
An effective fight against Trump?
You mean fighting the 80% of the country who agrees with him?
How much of a loser strategy could you possibly have?
I mean, just think about that.
The Democrats are just, you know, decomposing and falling apart and, you know, they've got all kinds of turmoil.
They don't have a leader.
They get all these problems.
And then when you ask the brightest people, What do we need to do?
You know, the Democrats, what do they need to do?
The answer is they need to mount a more effective fight against Trump.
Trump got elected because people wanted more of his stuff.
When they say they want to fight Trump and they don't say...
They're sort of admitting that they've got nothing.
Fighting Trump is not exactly what anybody needs.
Even if you thought he was wrong, you would still say, well, we'd rather do this plan instead of that plan.
It's unbelievable that they can't get off the fighting Trump thing.
That's pure TDS.
So it seems that TDS doesn't just infect individuals.
It seems it's infecting the entire Democrat Party because as a party, the way they talk is they've got to defeat Trump.
That's just TDS.
That's not even politics.
And even Randy Weingarten, who was a member of the DNC, she was on some board, she recently quit.
And when asked why, she said she wants the Democratic Party to work for working families.
And she said that's what FDR did, that's what Joe Biden did, and that's what we should expect from the party.
So even Randy Weingarten, the head of the biggest teachers union, And, you know, one of the biggest Democrat supporters is completely aware that the party is not even focusing on the main people that they would need to focus on to get back in power, the working class.
And then James Carville, who remains entertaining, but he is one of the only Democrats who understands what's going on, I have to say.
As entertaining as he is and provocative as he is, he at least understands what's going on.
And he says that, he said, quote, among other things, he was on a podcast, he said, let's face it, Democrats acted like these people didn't exist.
He's talking about the working class.
They just did.
And don't come back and say, Oh, he says, we act like working class, particularly working class, non-college whites.
We're not part of our too-cool-for-school group.
And Carville says, there were some real high-end people that kind of bought into that shite.
So, is he right?
I think so.
Because I do not remember the Democrats.
Really doing anything that would address the working class.
But Trump continually did.
He was talking about bringing back manufacturing and lowering their taxes and stuff.
Even if you don't believe he would do those things, at least he was focusing on it.
And the working class responded.
They moved to him because he was saying the things they wanted him to say.
Meanwhile, over at MSNBC was the chief strategist for Mitt Romney.
The chief strategist for Mitt Romney?
Now, that should be a disqualifying job.
Like, who are we going to get to put on TV?
How about the chief strategist for Mitt Romney?
That's not much of a resume right there.
Anyway.
His name is Stuart Stevens.
He was on MSNBC.
And he said, among other things, that Trump is the most dangerous president since the Civil War.
Huh.
The most dangerous president since the Civil War.
Is Stuart Stevens saying that slavery was good?
Sort of indirectly.
Like, why would you make the cutoff, the Civil War?
Because the Civil War seems like that was when Abe Lincoln was trying to end slavery.
So, was Abe Lincoln the most dangerous president who wasn't Trump?
Why in the world would that be where you'd put your stick in the sand and say, Oh, Trump is the most dangerous since the Civil War.
That's a little weird and crazy.
So I don't think he's in favor of slavery, but his quote makes it sound like he is.
And I guess that's what it takes to become a chief strategist for Mitt Romney.
Good job.
Anyway.
So here's the...
So, every day, Trump wakes up, at least lately, and he tries to figure out how to minimize the authoritarian regime in Iran and maybe the authoritarian regime in Russia.
Or at least figure out how to deal with them.
And while Trump is trying to reduce the impact of authoritarian regimes, the Democrats have decided that Trump himself is the authoritarian regime.
Now, how in the world did we get to this place where there's a whole bunch of TDS people who have decided that for all kinds of invisible reasons, Trump is an authoritarian.
And if you ask somebody in the street, well, what did he do that was so authoritarian?
Well, he's shipping back the people who are in this country illegally.
You mean he's following the existing law, but he's doing far less of it than Obama did.
So that's the authoritarian thing he's doing?
Yes.
What else?
Well, he's doing a bunch of executive orders.
Okay.
Didn't every president do executive orders?
Yes, but he's doing more of them.
Okay.
How many of those executive orders are things that the public, by a majority, doesn't want?
And the answer is, uh, okay.
Almost everything he does by executive order.
Is something that a majority of the public wants?
Is that authoritarian?
Or is that just giving the public what they want?
What they're asking for?
And then some of the executive orders might be reaching too far and things that a president shouldn't be doing.
And then they go to court.
And then the court decides whether he can do it.
And then he obeys the court.
Are there a bunch of examples where Trump is not obeying the court?
The only one I can think of is sort of a gray area that had to do with that Maryland dad who was shipped off to the El Salvador jail.
And even he got shipped back.
Now, you might not like how that process worked, and I can understand that.
But is that it?
The Maryland dad, the MS-13 accused MS-13 guy, that's the one authoritarian thing he's doing?
That's it?
Yeah, so it's a weird argument that he's authoritarian.
I like Trump's response to that, where he points out how difficult it is for him as president to get anything done.
Because he's got resistance in his own party.
Right now, the MAGA people are divided on what to do about Iran.
So that's a limitation.
And then he's got, of course, the Democrats are lawfaring him on every single thing.
And Congress is useless.
so you can't really get them to vote for anything.
So his argument that But it's just hard to get anything done in America.
It's a pretty good argument.
Pretty good.
So the Democrats have teased themselves into thinking that Trump's entire day of fighting authoritarian regimes such as Iran are not really anything.
And the real problem is his own authoritarian ways that they can't quite come up with examples of.
Netanyahu, talking about Iran, said that the Iranian regime may fall, but that's for Iranians to decide.
Now, that's, of course, what you want to say in public.
He says the primary goal of the war is to remove the nuclear threat.
Secondly, to remove the ballistic missile threats.
And he said, clearly, the regime will be destabilized in the process, but it's up to the I don't think they will.
I'm not seeing anything that would suggest that Iran is going to change its government.
So I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
Well, General Flynn was on a podcast in which he doesn't think this is the time for Trump to attack.
Which is notable, because he's a general and he knows what he's talking about.
But he was on Benny Johnson's podcast, and he said, General Flynn said, no, do not do it, Mr. President.
Right now is not the time.
Now, he's talking about using the bunker busters.
He says, don't lose focus of why you were elected.
You have options.
And as General Flynn points out, that it's a good strategy to have the most options you can have until the last minute.
Now, that's a really good summary.
And it also explains Trump's strategy pretty well.
He wants the most options for the longest period of time.
The most options for the longest period of time.
And that's what the two-week delay gets them.
The two-week delay creates an option that maybe Europe will come up with a deal that the US couldn't come up with.
Maybe the Israeli forces could do something on the ground to get into those underground bases.
So your options will, So Trump is very much following this plan.
Of keeping the most options open until the last minute.
So hearing that summarized by General Flynn is kind of good for my confidence.
So, let's see.
In other news, I saw a post by Marina Medvin, and some other people are talking about this, that apparently there's a writer for the Washington Post Who once worked for Al Jazeera, who's posting the exact coordinates of successful Iranian missile strikes in Israel.
And the problem with that is that if the Iranians are trying to tune their missiles to be more accurate, that one of the things they would want to know is the exact place that the existing missiles hit.
Why would the Washington Post feel it necessary to print the, I guess, the GPS coordinates?
It's not as if when you read the newspaper, the Washington Post, it's not like you're going to say, oh, uh-huh, uh-huh, I see the GPS coordinates, now I know more.
That would have no value to a consumer of the Washington Post.
It would only...
Now, that's one point of view.
I think Bill Ackman is asking the same questions.
Like, why are you doing that?
Is there a reason?
Because if you don't have a reason for printing the exact GPS coordinates of the missile landings, why are you doing it?
Now, others have said, pushing back on that point of view, that the Iranians have satellite imagery and they can tell what they hit so that it's not actually news to them.
But I would ask, well, if it doesn't help the reader of the Washington Post, because it's not like you and I are going to look at GPS coordinates and go, oh, okay.
Yeah, it's 53424.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
So, there's no value to the reader, and if it were true that there's no value to the Iranian regime firing the rockets, why would you do it?
So, it's sort of an open question.
So my guess is that Iran might not have the ideal satellite view of the battlefield.
So I don't know why I asked this, they have, but...
So, former Vice President Mike Pence is speaking up about the existential identity crisis that the Trump supporters and the political right is going through.
How many of you think that there's some kind of permanent Trump-supporters split that's happening that will somehow splinter the party and make everything not work?
I don't see that happening.
Because my take on the Republicans is that they like winning.
and that Trump likes winning.
So if Trump figures out a way to
If Trump somehow solves this, maybe by the Europeans coming up with some kind of agreement for rigorous inspections of Iran's enrichment or something, if he manages to solve this, Will there be any further problems with his coalition?
No.
It will be one more thing that they all come together on.
It's like, oh, okay.
I have to admit I didn't see that solution coming, but look what you did.
You did it again.
So if it works, there will be no division.
People will just say, damn it, he's good.
I'm glad I voted for him.
I did not see that solution coming, but he made it work.
That might happen.
The other possibility is that everything will go to hell, in which case it's not like he's running for office again.
So if everything goes to hell, then all bets are off.
But I don't think that's so much an existential identity crisis.
I think it's just winning is unifying and losing is disunifying.
Because if you look at the Democrats, Their problem is not that they disagree on strategy.
Their problem is they lost.
So losing just drives you apart, and winning drives you together.
So when you're watching what will happen with Trump's supporters, I think Trump had the right take on that, which is he said his supporters will support his judgment, basically.
And you are seeing a number of people say, we have to trust Trump.
He knows more about this situation than we do.
Obviously, he would have all the confidential information and stuff.
So, I am, I think, buying into the notion that if Trump did something that I wouldn't do, it doesn't mean that I'm the one who's right.
Does anyone else have that feeling?
That if Trump did something that you wouldn't do, and you don't know why it makes sense, that you would give him a little bit of a break and say, all right, he might know more than I do.
He might be good at this.
He might be sowing some uncertainty intentionally.
So I do like the fact that Trump has created a situation.
Where people who disagree with them on the right are still willing to say, you know what?
That's not what I would have done.
But I'm going to watch and see how this plays out.
That's a really good place to be, by the way.
That's sort of the ultimate place to be.
Because you're not going to have a situation where everybody agrees what's the best thing to do.
That's just not possible.
So what would be the best?
In a human situation that you could do, the best would be if people say, you know, I wouldn't have done that, but I'm going to let this play out because he's smarter than I am.
And I think that's true for a lot of us.
He's smarter than we are.
Anyway, let's see if you can guess this number.
According to Now, if you're an NPC, this is where you would say, Scott!
Scott!
Because that's how NPCs talk.
They don't talk like regular.
They go, Scott!
Scott!
They all are criminals because they came into the country illegally.
They're all criminals, Scott!
Scott!
Scott!
So if you're an NPC, I'll give you a few minutes to say the most obvious thing you could say, which is whenever we talk about criminal non-citizens, you feel it's necessary to remind us as if we didn't know that coming into the country is itself illegal.
So get it out of your system.
I know some of you need to do it.
So just put it in the comments.
Scott!
Scott!
They're all criminals.
They're all criminals.
I get it.
I get it.
Anyway, 25% apparently do not fit the category of the worst first.
So they had not been convicted of crimes.
Now, I don't know if committed or convicted of crimes is the right standard, because All caps.
Scott, they are all illegal.
The NPCs are weighing in on the comments now.
Good for you.
Good for you, NPCs.
But I would point out the following: it's possible that the 25% who were not convicted of a crime They might be associating with MS-13.
We might know that they're part of a gang, but they haven't been convicted of it.
So I don't know if the 25% are all, you know, your gardener and your, you know, your hardworking, meatpacking employee.
I don't know if it's that.
But I will say...
So the Democrats, who probably would love to spend more time talking about the innocent, good citizens who are not technically legal residents of the country, they're being abused by the Trump immigration program.
But doesn't it feel like it doesn't matter as much?
It matters as much as it ever did, but in our minds, because this other thing seems bigger, you know, like we might get nuked at some point, it just seems so much bigger.
We might put boots on the ground and yet another pointless war in the Middle East.
It's just so much bigger that the whole immigration thing, I think Trump's border people are going to get a little bit of a break because the news just isn't going to put much attention on it.
If it's not in the news, people will stop protesting.
So all the shelf space of the news is getting used up.
In other news, Fox Business is reporting.
That Republican Josh Hawley is pushing to raise the minimum wage in those states where it's not already raised.
So the current federal minimum wage is $7.25.
He wants that to go to $15 per hour.
And Republicans typically have not been all pro-raising the minimum wage.
But Josh Hawley would be one of the best supporters of President Trump.
He's about as Republican as you could possibly get, and he's the one pushing it.
So I guess Trump's response when asked about it, because this is obviously not typical Republican stuff, but it's coming from a real Republican, pro-MAGA kind of a guy.
Trump says, I haven't seen it.
I'd have to speak to Josh.
He's a very good friend of mine, Trump said.
And that's interesting that Josh did that.
You have to think about that one.
So, how about that?
How would you like to be so credible that when the president hears that you have an idea that probably his first reflex would be to be against?
Instead of just reflexively saying, hmm, I don't like that idea, he says, that's interesting that Josh did that.
You have to think about that one.
Now, that's credibility right there.
If you ever want to be credible, you want to get to the point where somebody who's reflex to disagree with you is completely deactivated because you, as an individual, Are so credible.
That's what's happening here.
So this is another example of, you know, when you think the MAGA coalition is falling apart, I think Republicans are way more accepting of alternative opinions.
And this is a good example.
As long as the person is credible, And you know that they have the best interest in the country in mind, then you're willing to listen to it.
So that sounds like what Trump is.
He's just willing to listen to the argument.
Good answer.
All right.
According to MIT, they found that AI can rewrite its own code, and that's changing everything.
Now, this is in geeky gadgets.
Julian Horsey is writing about this.
So it's what they call the SEAL framework, self-adapting language models.
So what they're doing is that the AI will sort of imagine different scenarios that aren't real, and they would call that synthetic training data, and that it would self-edit and update its internal parameters based on The synthetic training data.
Now, what would be another name for synthetic training data?
Well, it would be imagination.
It would be imagination, because it's not based on reality, but you perceive it as if it's reality, but you know it's not.
And I would only add, I think that's how humans work.
When you're thinking about doing something, That, you know, is not routine.
Don't you imagine all of the outcomes?
And when you're imagining all the different outcomes, is that not you using your human brain for what the AI would call synthetic training data?
I do.
I mean, is your brain different than mine?
If I'm considering any kind of big move or anything important, I imagine it going right.
I imagine it going wrong, and I imagine all the other possibilities.
And each of them are not real.
They're synthetic training data from my own brain.
And then, once I've seen a bunch of synthetic imaginary possibilities, that retrains my brain.
For whichever one of those I think is the most likely or the favored one or whichever one scares me the most, I want to avoid the most, etc.
But I feel like this is a perfect description of what a human brain does.
It imagines synthetic data and then it rewrites your own brain based on your imagination.
That's what TDS is.
TDS is people imagining this authoritarian king, and then they rewrite their brains.
In this case, it's a mental illness.
So it's not always good.
AI might have the same problems.
But it seems to me that imagination, if it works correctly, it helps you make a better decision.
But if your imagination is flawed, as it is with the authoritarian Trump stuff, he's going to be your king.
If your imagination is flawed, which you might call your synthetic training data, then you're going to have mental illness.
So I predict that AI will have mental illness.
So that's my prediction.
Mental illness.
And furthermore, that the only way to fix the mental illness, if it gives it to itself by creating synthetic training data and then convincing itself that it's true or acting as though this is reality, that you're going to need something like an AI therapist that would have to be a separate AI.
That would work with your AI to help it with its mental problems.
Because it's imagining that a king is going to take over or it's imagining that executive orders are authoritarian or something.
So that's coming.
According to Breitbart, Bob Price is writing about a sophisticated cross-border tunnel.
That's been found that links San Diego to Tijuana.
Apparently, it's just this massive tunnel they found, which makes me ask the following questions.
Has not the Trump administration been bragging about zero people getting across the border or zero people released?
I forget what the exact phrase is.
But how would we know?
How many people are coming through tunnels that we haven't found?
Would we know?
Now, they're thinking that this tunnel is for moving drugs, because it had like a railroad component to it, so it looked like it was for moving large weights.
But if it were moving people, would we even know?
I don't know.
Because we didn't know about this tunnel until recently.
So I don't know if it was functioning, actually.
But how many tunnels are there?
There must be a lot of them.
There's got to be at least one tunnel for every cartel.
Well, Wired publication.
Reese Rogers is talking about how Amazon is upgrading their Alexa.
I won't say it out loud because it will activate your devices at home.
But the thing that Amazon has that you talk to is using a, quote, staggering amount of AI tools to rewrite it.
So here's the advantage of being a slow follower of a trend.
If Amazon had been a fast follower, Or tried to be like the leading edge of AI.
They would have had whatever tools you have when you first start, which would not be that great.
But because it seems like they waited too long, it feels like they're at least a year behind AI, they get the advantage of using all the AI tools to build their AI.
So apparently they've done a massive amount of Coding, using AI to do the coding in the process of building their own AI that will drive their A-L-E-X-A.
So I guess that's being rolled out to some specific power users, but we'll see it pretty soon.
I just was impressed by the fact that when you start makes such a difference.
Being first, like IBM was the first with Windows computers, but they didn't last.
So being a follower who jumps in right at the right time when all the tools are there and you really know what you can and cannot do, pretty good approach.
Jeff Bezos' team doing it again.
Well, the BBC is reporting.
That the founder and boss of the Telegram app, it's a messaging app, plans to leave his multi-billion dollar fortune to over 100 children he fathered.
100.
Now, he didn't do it the Elon Musk way.
He only had, I guess, six children, you know, the sort of normal way that people have children.
And all the rest of his hundred-ish children, We're because he had donated to a sperm bank.
So he plans to leave his money to children he's never met that he was the sperm donor for.
Now, if you've ever seen this guy, he is first of all a genius, and second of all, really good looking.
So you can really imagine why he would have been selected a lot to be the But I love how billionaires reproduce.
I have to admit that there's something about this that makes sense.
Now, I guess he's not going to leave them the money right away.
There's something like a 30-year delay between when he makes the money available and when he dies.
So he wants to make sure that they can...
But, yeah, he's the official father of over 100 babies, conceived in over 12 countries.
Wouldn't that be wild to have 100 babies?
There's a friend of mine who, in her adult life, learned that she was basically a sperm donor baby.
And then at the same time, learned that she had dozens, I think dozens, of half-siblings.
And they started finding each other.
How wild would that be?
To be an adult, like you're in the middle of your life, and you learn that you have like dozens of half-siblings, and you start meeting each other.
That would be so wild.
Anyway.
According to the Ohio State University, most women want children, but half are unsure if they will.
Well, you know how I can make sure that they have children?
They should use that billionaire's sperm donor and try to get in on the inheritance.
That might help.
So apparently, a lot of people have the intention to have a baby.
But they don't necessarily think that it would make a difference, that their happiness wouldn't necessarily be worse or better if they had a baby or not.
So clearly, unless we plan to reproduce with robots alone, which maybe we will, you never know, we're going to have to completely reconfigure society so that having babies make sense again.
And the only way I can think of that is if people who want to have babies find living conditions that are ideal for having a baby.
And I would argue that if you're in an inner city, not a great place to have a baby.
But if you're also in a very rural area, again, maybe not the best place to have a baby.
So I'm going to give you my idea.
That you're going to fight against if you're an NPC, and you're going to say, no small houses, even though this has nothing to do with tiny homes.
You'll say it anyway, because that's what NPCs say.
I believe that we need to develop cities that are optimized for having babies.
And all that would mean is that you add little neighborhood areas.
Where people who are having babies around the same time are living so that there's always somebody who can watch your kid.
I think I've told you this before, but in my first marriage, there was this extremely lucky situation where the two stepkids were exactly the same gender and same age as, I think, four different couples that we knew really well.
So on any given weekend, the kids would have a sleepover at the house of somebody that you knew really well, so you trusted them.
And the kids would be delighted, and then the parents could have a date night if they wanted, and you wouldn't worry too much because you were such a tight group of people, and the ages and the genders were perfect, so that both the boy and the girl, Had somebody their age in this other house.
And that was amazing.
It just made life so much easier in so many ways.
Now add to that if it were walking distance to those houses.
Because it wasn't in our case, but they were in town.
They weren't that far away.
So imagine, then imagine, And imagine that you've got one that's so safe that you could send a smallish kid, not too small, but 12 years old, let's say, to their friend's house without having to leave your house.
Now imagine that you had essentially free or low cost child watching stuff while you're working.
You know, if you designed your...
You would have parties all the time, and there'd be fun sleepovers, and it would be wonderful.
It's just that if you're...
Two people to have a job and also raising kids, it's almost, I mean, it's so expensive and it's just so hard that you can imagine why people don't do it.
But you could design around that.
You could engineer a living space that you don't have to live in.
So the NPCs could say, you can't make me live in that 15-minute city.
No, it's not a 15-minute city.
All it is is a great place to raise a kid.
That's it.
That's all it is.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you today.
I hope you have a great weekend.
I'm going to say a few words privately to the locals people, my beloved locals people.