God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Bernie Sanders, Climate Change Debunk, HIV Vaccination, BDA Bomb Damage Assessment, Pete Hegseth, Iran Narratives, Iran Nuclear Program, Iran Regime Change, ICE Iranian Arrests, Trump Nobel Peace Prize, NATO Summit, Neera Tanden Autopen Authority, Claude AI Training, Encrypted Apps Hoax, Tucker Carlson, Woke Right Definition, NYC Zohran Mamdani, Germany Hate Speech Arrests, 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.
As soon as I get my comments working, where are you, comments?
We will have a show, and it'll be amazing.
Oh yeah, it will be.
So some of you were wondering why I had to shorten my show the other day.
And I don't know the exact answer, but I think it's a reaction to some change in medication.
So temporary and not important.
But it would have been really hard to finish the show.
All right.
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 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 tongue twister, which I wish I'd never written.
A cup or mug or glass, a tanker chalice or stein, a canteen chug or 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 dope of meeting of the day.
The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
go Well, it's all looking good.
So Elon Musk is apparently very happy with the development of his robots, Optimist.
Optimus.
Not Optimist.
No Optimus.
But ironically, which is the wrong word to use, but you won't know the difference.
He's optimistic about Optimus.
I guess version 3 is looking good, and it already has a Grok AI built into it for conversation purposes.
So 2026.
Do you know what 2026 is going to look like?
Oh my God.
You're going to have auto cabs, self-driving Teslas everywhere.
You're going to have the release of Optimus.
You're going to have AI that's going to whatever new level it goes to by then.
And what else?
Basically, all the big stuff seems like it's going to happen in 2026.
So lots of stuff coming.
Well, Bernie Sandrews was on Joe Rogan's show, and Bernie was talking about climate change, and Joe Rogan sort of challenged him on whether climate change is real.
And he said this, he said to Bernie, did you see the Washington Post piece?
Essentially, they found that we're in a cooling period.
And this was like a very inconvenient discovery, but they had to report the data.
And kudos to them for doing that.
So then he asked Jamie, his engineer, to put up a chart.
And the chart showed very clearly that with or without human involvement, the temperature of the Earth has greatly fluctuated over the entire knowable period.
So there are periods when it's up, periods when it's down.
And so Rogan shows Sanders the Washington Post piece that you might argue destroys the entire climate change narrative.
And Sanders' response was, well, I'm not sure.
I didn't read that article.
But you know, the scientists who are out there, I think I know.
So Sanders at the end of his career.
I don't think he lasts too much longer.
He's a certain age.
But imagine your entire career, one of your most important things was pursuing climate change.
And then the publication which is most aligned with the left, Washington Post, gives you essentially a debunk of the thing that you spent your entire career chasing.
So that would predictably cause some cognitive dissonance, which would make Bernie say stuff like, well, the Washington Post doesn't know, and what about those 97% of scientists?
So it's not like he's going to change his mind, but there it is.
Does it feel to you like climate change is now so debunked that you don't really see stories about it even on CNN and MSNBC?
It feels like that entire narrative went away.
Is that my imagination?
Did anybody else notice that?
I don't know if that's entirely because of Trump or just the news was too inconvenient at some point.
Well, according to something called Zatakwan by Ruben Andres, there's a survey that shows that Gen Z likes flex hours and part.
Oh, 38% of them want to have sex at work, which I believe means remote work.
And I'm saying to myself, Gen Z, only 38% of them want to have sex at work.
What part am I not understanding?
Is there really a human being who doesn't want to have sex instead of working?
Who would make that choice?
Well, you know, I could be having some sex right now and getting paid for it, but I'd rather be working on these reports.
47% of young people say remote work has improved their sex lives.
Even without a partner, I don't know.
One of the most, let's say, inconvenient things about all the remote work is that for some number of people, it probably caused a massive masturbation problem.
As in, you know, they couldn't get any work done because they were looking at porn all day.
You know that happened.
I don't know with what percentage, but probably a big percentage of remote workers found something else to do during the day, during Zoom calls.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Gilead Science has got FTA approval for an HIV vaccination that you do twice a year that they claim is nearly 100% effective in preventing HIV transmission.
Now, apparently, there's already a pill that does the same thing, but people are not good at remembering to take pills, so it's not as effective.
But if you remember to get your twice-a-year shot, if you believe in vaccinations, does anybody believe in vaccinations?
Maybe it's the wrong audience.
Maybe every one of you are like, we're not really sure vaccinations are even real.
But the thing that I thought was interesting is that the Wall Street Journal said the breakthrough cracks open the door to ending the HIV pandemic, to which I said, wait a minute, HIV was still a pandemic.
When was the last time you had a friend or acquaintance or co-worker who got AIDS?
I remember in the, was it the 80s, 80s and 90s, that it happened all the time.
So the person on the other side of my cubicle wall died of AIDS.
People's relatives, their cousins, their friends, everybody seemed to be, you know, dying of AIDS.
But I don't really hear about it anymore.
Is that because the pills weren't good enough?
But apparently the Wall Street Journal says it's still a pandemic.
All right.
Well, let's talk about the bomb damage assessment, the BDA.
I think the BDA and the TDS have merged.
Have you noticed that?
Trump derangement syndrome and bomb damage assessment now sort of became the same topic.
Let me do bomb damage assessment the way the public and maybe even all of the intelligence people in the military are doing it too.
Are you ready?
Now I know what you're going to say.
You're going to say, Scott, you're no expert on military stuff.
True.
You might say, Scott, you don't know anything about bomb damage assessment and you don't even have privy to all the private information.
True.
True.
But you want to watch something impressive?
I'm going to give you the best, most accurate bomb damage assessment that you'll ever see.
Better than the news, better than the military, better than Trump.
Are you ready?
Now, I know that's a high bar, but this will be the best bomb damage assessment.
You ready?
If you like Donald Trump as your president, then the entire nuclear program was obliterated and they will not start up again for possibly decades and they would be crazy to even try.
That's if you're a supporter of Trump.
If you were not a supporter of Trump, or maybe you were doubting him in the run-up to the ceasefire, then you would say, hmm, there's no way to know if anything got destroyed.
I suspect that they might be able to reconstitute their entire program in three to six months.
There you go.
Do you think there will be anything on the news that is better than that?
No, there will not be.
The one thing that you can predict with complete certainty is that there would not be agreement on how effective the bombing was, right?
There was no chance, no chance that the Democrats were going to say, well, you know, we don't like this authoritarian dictator Hitler guy, but I got to admit, he's really good at bombing away the risk of nuclear war with other countries.
Was that going to happen in any reality where Democrats are going to say, yeah, you know, got to say, he really nailed it with that, you know, limited bombing run, so precise, got everything obliterated, totally obliterated.
So I remember on the, you know, when the bombing was being talked about and it first happened, and I made some comments on social media about how in the world could you be sure that you got everything?
Because how would you know if they had something hidden that you didn't know about?
How would you know if maybe they had removed some stuff, but did it cleverly so the removal could not be detected?
How would you know what's under that mountain?
If they start digging, are they going to find anything left?
How would you know if maybe they had various equipment for enriching uranium that hadn't been connected to their setup yet, but it's new and it was sitting there and they could just connect it?
How would you know?
You would not know.
So your belief in the bomb damage assessment and whether it worked or did not work is entirely based on guessing and political preference.
If you think we're going to get to the point where we're going to know for sure if the bombing was a huge positive success or it was a big failure, we'll never know that.
There will always be two stories.
One will be that it was the best thing ever and the other will be that it didn't work.
And that will never change.
And that was completely predictable before we got to this point.
So we've got, and basically the Dilbert filter is what I like to put on these things.
So you don't have to be an expert on the military or politics to know that big organizations operate in similar ways, which is people are going to disagree about what the data is.
That's just built into everything from climate change to bomb damage assessment.
So CNN is saying predictably, according to an early U.S. intelligence assessment, the U.S. military strikes on the nuclear program did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program.
Do you think they know that?
That's based on one of what will be maybe more than a dozen different assessments that might change over time.
But do you really think that CNN has a source that can tell them that the core components have been spared?
You know, it's possible that somebody told them that, but how would anybody really know that?
You know, it doesn't seem knowable one way or the other at this point.
Iran says that their nuclear installations were badly damaged by the U.S., according to the AP.
So if Iran says badly damaged, does that mean that they can't reconstitute it in six months?
Well, I don't know.
What does badly damaged mean in this context?
So anyway, here's what Trump said.
He said that the attacks set them back decades because they had such a bad experience.
So Trump's narrative now is not just there's nothing they can do because everything's destroyed, but he's modified his narrative a little bit to even if they could, they'd be insane to do it because it worked out so poorly.
And Israel has also said, you know, that if they see any nuclear development, they'll be back to bomb more.
And Trump says, the sites that we hit in Iran were totally destroyed and everyone knows it.
Do they?
Does everyone know it?
He says they didn't have a chance to get anything out because we acted fast.
Really?
There was no way to move that enriched uranium?
They didn't have enough time?
I'm not even sure we knew where it was in the first place, but okay.
And Trump said it's very hard and very dangerous for them to remove that kind of material.
Yeah.
But they were in sort of a dangerous situation in general.
So I don't know.
P. Eggseth says, quote, anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the president.
So you know what I have to say to P. Egseth?
Fuck you, asshole.
Fuck you.
I can make up my own opinion about whether or not our government is lying or accurate about bomb damage assessment.
And it does not have anything to do with trying to undermine the president.
And when I see somebody say something like that, that the facts, if you disagree on the analysis, that you're trying to undermine the president, fuck you.
Just fuck yourself as hard as you can with a bunker buster bomb, PXF.
You know, I've not been a critic of PXF, but no, you don't get to say this.
Well, you can say it's a free country.
But if you tell me that my opinion of the bomb damage assessment at this stage is dependent on, you know, either trying to support or undermine the president, just fuck you.
Shut the fuck up.
We don't want to hear any of it.
So, no, you fail.
That's a fail, PXF.
Bad messaging.
And like I said, Netanyahu says, if anyone in Iran thinks of rebuilding it, we will strike again.
And I was watching a video by Glenn Greenwald, who was talking about the prior, the Obama agreement on Iran.
And I don't know if I have the entire argument that I can summarize, but the summary is that Iran was already contained and that it was Trump's fault for removing an agreement that was working.
And then Iran responded and then war broke out.
So one narrative is that they never intended to do anything but domestic development.
And that would make sense because they wanted to sell their oil and they wanted to use cheap electricity at home through nuclear power.
Now, that sort of makes sense.
But then you switch the channel and listen to Jesse Waters talk about it on his show on Fox.
And he asked the following question.
If it was only for peaceful domestic energy purposes, why do they have to hide it in a mountain?
And I laughed when I heard that.
Why do they have to hide it in a mountain?
And I'm thinking, huh, yeah, does anyone else who uses nuclear only for domestic energy needs, does anybody else hide their program in a mountain?
I don't think so.
And then on top of that, Israel has been, I think everyone agrees, funding proxies that would attack Israel.
Now, if you're funding proxies to attack Israel, and you're also chanting death to Israel, and then the argument is that death to Israel, no, no, that doesn't mean kill all the people.
It just means they would like to have a one-state solution.
Do you buy that?
Do you buy that chanting death to Israel?
What it really means is a one-state solution.
Okay, let's say you do believe that.
Now explain death to America.
Oh, it got a little harder, didn't it?
Do they want a one-state solution that includes America, Israel, and the West Bank and Gaza?
Is that what they want?
Why did they throw America in the death category if we're only talking about Israel as being a one-state solution?
What's that got to do with America and us being put to death?
All right.
So here's my take.
If Iran genuinely had only domestic nuclear power ambitions, if that were real, how easy would it have been for them to avoid war?
And the answer is really, really easy.
If they seriously did not plan to at least have the threshold capability, which would be a threat to the region, or to have, you know, actually make the bomb.
If they didn't intend that, it would be the easiest thing in the world to talk the rest of the world out of attacking them.
How hard would that be?
Here's what you would do.
You would first of all say, all right, we're going to stop funding all these proxies.
Next thing you do is you would ask your own public to stop doing this chanting death to America, death to Israel thing, because it's being misinterpreted.
Right?
But you don't see that.
And then you wouldn't put it hidden in a mountain.
You wouldn't do anything that they did if you were just really just trying to get some innocent, you know, cheap electricity.
So I don't think Glenn Greenwald has got the entire picture there.
Although it's worth listening to his narrative, just so you've heard it.
Apparently, Iran has reportedly, according to World Source News 24-7, they've arrested more than 700 Iranians and accused them of as agents for Israel over the past 12 days.
So how much does Israel have them spooked that they arrested 700 of their own citizens?
And who knows what's going to happen to them?
Probably death.
I don't know.
But in just 12 days, they arrested 700 people.
What is your guess of how many of those 700 people were actually spies for Israel?
My best guess would be maybe some of them, maybe a few dozen, and of 700.
I've got a feeling they're arresting a lot of people who had nothing to do with anything.
But if there really were 700 Iranian spies that they could catch, how many did they not catch?
Are there 20,000 Iranian spies for Israel?
I don't know.
Here's, I'm going to double down on something I predicted.
I've got a feeling that the regime has already changed.
And here's my working hypothesis.
So you've got an 86-year-old supreme leader, And he has made decisions that have brought your country to the verge of complete destruction.
And you're an underling and you're sort of no longer trusting his opinion because at 86, he needs naps more than he needs anything.
And he might be losing a step because 86 is different for different people.
So there might be a Joe Biden situation where there are only a few advisors and trusted people who even talk to him.
So it could be that it's not like he's having meetings with all of his people all the time.
So now imagine that he needed to be protected because the bombs are falling.
If you took this 86-year-old and you locked him in a bunker underground for his own good, for his own safety, and then you took away from him his phone, so there was no phone with an advisor or anybody else in the same room,
and then you would say, no, you can't have a phone, either because it doesn't work underground, or it would be too easy for Israel to identify you via the phone.
So now you've talked the supreme leader into being in an underground locked room with no form of communication.
Now, who would be in charge of protecting the Supreme Leader?
Would it be political friends?
No.
It would be some part of the military force of Iran and whoever was most trusted.
Now, if you were the head of that military and maybe you used to be not anywhere near the head of it, but all the people above you have already been assassinated, and you say to yourself, okay, I need to do something right now or I'm going to get assassinated and my whole family will be wiped out too.
How hard would it be for you to just take over without people even knowing?
Well, you would need two guards.
You would need one on the inside of the door in the same room as the Ayatollah to say, no, you can't go out and you can't have a phone and you can't talk to anybody.
And then you would need one on the outside of the door to tell people that everything's fine, but the Ayatollah doesn't want to talk to you.
If you have a question, we'll make sure that he hears the question and that he gets back to you with some instructions.
So the military head, whoever was in charge of protecting him, could have taken over the country with two guards, one on the inside of the door where the Supreme Leader is and one on the outside.
And all they'd have to do is Joe Biden the situation.
Because we watched it happen.
As long as you didn't suspect there was something wrong, you would think, oh, well, obviously the Ayatollah is not going out in public.
And obviously the people who are protecting him are just passing along the messages.
And obviously he's still running things.
If that was your belief, then whoever the top military person who's left is could have easily taken over the country.
So even if that didn't happen, just the way I explained it, he's still 86, and we don't know who he listens to.
Does he have his own Jill Biden or Hunter Biden situation where there's somebody sketchy who's the only person he talks to?
Maybe.
By the time you're 86, you just don't act the same.
You don't trust the same.
You've got less energy, everything else.
So I'm going to put it out there that we might be not hearing from the Supreme Leader in a video and that it might be a long time before we know if the Supreme Leader is still in charge.
He's probably still alive, but I suspect maybe other forces have emerged because they're trying to protect themselves from assassination, basically.
So that is my speculation.
There's already been a regime change.
And maybe that's the only reason there's a ceasefire that seems to be holding so far.
According to Belize media, the ICE in America, the ICE people, have busted 11 illegal Iranian nationals in our country.
One is a terror suspect, one's an ex-sniper, and another has Hezbollah ties.
Really?
If you were to just round up a bunch of Iranian immigrants who came through our open border, how many of them would be terror suspects, ex-snipers, and have Hezbollah ties?
Would most of them?
Or would most of them just be people trying to get a better life or something?
That's pretty scary.
Now, I feel like the only thing protecting the United States from a terror attack from some Iranian sleeper cell is that Iran knows that our revenge for that would be so extreme that couldn't possibly be a good idea.
So unless they're actually crazy, I don't think they're going to go big on any kind of state-sponsored terrorism in the U.S. That's the thing I'm least worried about.
There might be something, but I don't think anything that will change the nature of the country.
Well, Trump is going after CNN and what he calls MSDNC and the New York Times, and he's over at NATO right now.
And when asked, he said that they're all scum.
And he says that they're disrespecting the military geniuses and the pilots.
And they're not getting credit because the news are fake news and they're all scum.
Now, is that the right way to treat a bunch of people who are just reporting that we're not sure if the bomb damage assessment is correct?
I don't know.
He's right that no matter what they knew or whatever sources they had, they probably would be running nonstop content saying it didn't work because they're anti-Trump.
So as I said in the beginning, I can tell you what your bomb damage assessment is if you tell me what your political preference is.
That's all you need to know.
And we will all treat that like we know it and it's true and it's just the facts.
We don't know.
We couldn't possibly know.
But Republican Buddy Carter, he's a representative, he's nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in Israel with Iran.
And the Israeli ambassador to the UN, Danny Dannon, he agrees.
He says, I think that President Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
So imagine how frustrating it would be to be Trump when you believe you've pulled off one of the greatest peacemaking things of all time, albeit with a bomb or lots of bombs.
And you got some people promoting you for a Nobel Peace Prize, which I feel like he would love.
I feel like he would like that.
And other people saying, no, it didn't work.
Oh my God, that would drive me crazy if I were him.
So I can see why he's a little bit miffed.
Anyway, so Trump is over at the NATO meeting.
And apparently NATO has designed itself around Trump.
So apparently NATO is saying good stuff about him.
They're complimenting him.
The Secretary General of NATO said to Trump while Trump was on stage, he said, I just want to recognize your decisive action on Iran.
You were a man of strength, but you're also a man of peace.
And he said, the fact that you're now getting this ceasefire, I really want to commend you for it.
This is important for the whole world.
And he said that without President Trump, this would not have happened.
So that's the Secretary General of NATO.
He's basically just really buttering up Trump.
And then separately, NATO said that they've gone to 5% funding, you know, 5% of GDP, I guess.
And not right away.
You know, there's a schedule to get there.
But they're crediting Trump for what will be a huge increase in funding for NATO.
So they're praising him for what he's doing outside of NATO.
They're praising him for getting funding for NATO.
And then the best part, Zelensky shows up wearing a suit.
Do you think that Zelensky would have worn a suit to NATO except for Trump?
I don't think so.
I think everything from Zelensky to the Secretary General to all the leaders of NATO to all the countries, they're all adjusting their approach for Trump.
Have you ever seen anything like this?
This is the most remarkable, persuasive, I don't know, influence you've ever seen in your life.
Everything that people are doing from the news to NATO to Israel to Iran to Zelensky to Putin, they're all modifying what they're doing based on keeping Trump happy.
Even Putin.
Now, have we ever seen anything like this?
I don't think so.
There's definitely never been a president in my lifetime that was such a big footprint on just everything.
I've never seen him.
Amazing.
So yeah, Zelensky wore a suit.
And Trump said that his negotiator Wickoff told him that a Gaza deal was very close.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that a deal for Gaza is close?
What would that even look like?
And there's not much left of Gaza.
So how can you possibly make any kind of a deal?
What, is Hamas going to surrender and be shot or jailed?
Is Israel going to let the military wing of Hamas just reconstitute somewhere?
Now, remember, I said the same thing about the Israel-Iran conflict.
I said, there's no obvious way this could ever stop.
And then Trump finds a non-obvious way to do it by putting 12 bombs In six holes, and then claiming victory, and then forcing Israel to agree to it, and basically beating up everybody who disagreed.
That worked.
I mean, it looks like it worked.
We don't know if it's, we bought three months or 40 years.
But do you think he could pull off the impossible again with whatever is left of Gaza?
I don't even know what a deal would look like because Israel is not going to return all those people to their prior homes.
There's no home to return them to.
And if they put all of the prior residents of Gaza in some kind of concentrated area, it's going to be called a concentration camp.
So is the world going to say, yeah, that's a good peace deal there?
So I don't know what that could look like.
My guess would be we're not very close to a Gaza deal.
At least not one that the Gaza residents, ex-residents would have agreed to.
According to the Wall Street Journal, China is and Russia are a little bit more interested in having a pipeline so that Russia can supply oil to China with full control of the mechanism of delivery.
They don't want to depend on the Strait of Hormuz or anything else that could get easily attacked by other countries.
But they're not going forward with it because apparently they can't agree on percentage ownership.
So they can't figure out how to make a deal.
But imagine how important that would be if they did, if Russia just set a pipeline to China.
And then part of the conversation is that Russia doesn't want to be too dependent on having one big customer and China doesn't want to be too dependent on Russia.
So they've got issues.
But I think it's interesting that we see Russia and China becoming these great friends and it's a big risk to us.
But apparently the big friends, China and Russia, can't even work out a pipeline deal, which honestly doesn't seem like it would be that hard.
I feel like Trump could do it.
You know, Trump could work out a pipeline deal, I think.
But no, they can't do it.
Well, we know now who was primarily involved in managing the auto pen for Biden.
Now, I can't believe that we had to wait this long for the person who was definitely in charge of it to come forward and only because she was compelled by congressional testimony today.
So some oversight committee was querying her, and she admitted that she was in charge of making sure the Autopen process worked.
Now, in theory, that does not mean that she was making the decisions.
In theory, she was just doing whatever the president wanted her to do.
So, you know, in the best case scenario, there's no issue here at all.
But do you believe that?
Do you believe that she only did what Biden asked her to do?
As in, well, I'm at the beach.
Use that autopen?
Maybe it started that way.
But there are some accusations that I would not consider yet credible.
But there are accusations that some entities that she was involved with outside of her job got a little extra funding thanks to that AutoPen.
But I think it's too soon to imagine that those accusations are accurate.
Maybe.
I mean, if she had that power and nobody was watching too closely, maybe.
You know, I always tell you that wherever corruption is possible, it always happens.
But if there were other people watching her all the time and it wasn't just one person and an autopen, well, maybe enough people were watching.
All right, so we don't know.
Pol Sir Mark Mitchell was on Betty Johnson's podcast, and Mark Mitchell is from Raspbicon.
And he said that Trump is on pace to pass Obama as the most popular president in U.S. history.
Now, it hasn't happened, but the trend line is looking like it might.
So according to Mark Mitchell, at this point, yeah, 100% Trump is about to outperform him, meaning Obama.
That's what's going to happen.
Then separately, I saw, but I didn't look into, there's another poll, not Rasmussen, that had Trump at a new low.
So the pollsters do not agree.
Is Trump going to be the most popular president or did his popularity just go down?
Well, that's the way the world is working right now.
Apparently, 128 Democrats decided to vote against the idea of pursuing impeachment over Trump.
So Fox News is reporting this.
So it was not only the Republicans who killed the Al Green, Representative Al Green.
He's always looking for a Trump impeachment no matter what.
But a whole bunch of Democrats disagreed.
So that's good.
My guess is that it didn't work Last time, the last time they tried the impeachment, and they have really nothing to impeach them over.
So I guess they were just being wise.
There's a AI called Claude, if you haven't heard of it, it's one of the big ones by Anthropic.
And Anthropic is apparently Amazon-backed.
So Amazon's the money backer, one of them.
And they just won a court ruling that they would be allowed to train their AI on books that had been legally purchased as long as they don't reproduce the book.
So they can't reproduce it, even if you said to them, give me the first chapter of that book.
Instead, it would just be a method of training them.
So I don't know how I feel about that.
It does feel like, I have to admit, that feels like fair use, because if you're only using it to sort of generically train your AI, the same way it would train looking at Reddit or looking at X or something, then I'm not too worried about it.
But as an author, it does make you wonder if your copyright value is shrinking with AI.
I think it's shrinking, but it's not gone.
So that's happening.
Meanwhile, according to The Guardian, the U.S. House of Representatives has banned WhatsApp.
So it doesn't want any of its members using the WhatsApp app to communicate.
And the reasoning is that it doesn't have enough cybersecurity.
Or at least they're not confident it has enough cybersecurity.
So how many times have I told you that there's no such thing as a protected form of communication?
If you ever imagined that you had an app that would encrypt things and nobody could see it because it's all encrypted, I don't think there was ever any chance of that.
Because at the very least, the intelligence services of the host company, wherever the company resides, at the very least, they're going to insist on a back door.
So I do agree that there's a risk.
But what else would they use?
I feel like it would be like all it's going to do is force them to use some other app that's just as unsecure, right?
I don't know.
Maybe they'll just never talk to each other.
Well, Tucker Carlson mentioned on his podcast that, and I'd never heard this before.
I don't know if anybody'd heard it before, that right after he got fired from Fox News, the owners of Fox News, the Murdochs, offered to back him for president if he ran against Trump and suggested that they would use their media assets to back him.
That would include Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, among others.
Now, apparently, according to Tucker, and I don't think he would lie about it, according to Tucker, even though they had just fired him, they still thought he was a better choice for president than Trump.
Now, Tucker, of course, laughs it off as him not being qualified for that.
But what does it tell you that the Murdochs believe they could make him president based on never having held any office?
Does it feel like people keep making the President Trump analogy and it just doesn't work?
The analogy would be, well, if this one person who was never elected before and is only a popular media star, if this one person can become president of the United States without going through the normal senator, governor channels, then why not do it with another celebration?
And I think that always has the wrong, well, the problem with that analysis is that there's only one Trump.
If Tucker Carlson were also Trump, like exactly Trump, you know, not somebody who reminds you of Trump, but exactly Trump.
Well, if he were exactly Trump, that might work.
But I don't think you can take some media personality, whether it's Stephen A. Smith or John, what's his name from the Daily Show, I don't think you could take your average TV popular media person and turn them into a president, even if he had the entire Fox News, Wall Street Journal machine behind it.
Or am I being naive?
Am I being naive?
Is it possible they could make anyone president if they have name recognition on the one side that they care about and they backed it hard?
Maybe they could.
What do you think?
My instinct is that there's only one Trump.
So imagining that you could reproduce that kind of phenomenon would just be folly, I think.
But the fact that the Murdochs thought they could turn a TV talking head opinion guy into a president just by adding their Resources.
Boy, that is a peek behind the curtain, isn't it?
That's some scary stuff.
Well, I keep seeing on social media and in the news references to the woke right.
How many of you even know what that means?
The woke right.
I did not know what that meant.
So I've tried now twice to figure out what it is, to find out if I'm part of it, or somebody else thinks I'm part of it.
So here's what Grok says.
So these are the characteristics of somebody who's in the, quote, woke right.
And there are several of them.
They have identity-driven rhetoric.
Well, that's sort of everybody, isn't it?
Is there anybody who doesn't have identity-driven rhetoric?
No.
If you're woke, as in the left woke, you have identity-driven rhetoric.
If you're opposed to it, you also have identity-driven rhetoric.
But in this case, you're trying to make the identity not the main thing.
But it's still part of your messaging.
You would be anti-woke.
Okay, a lot of people are anti-woke.
Does that make them woke right?
You have outrage and moralism.
Okay, that's everybody online.
There's a victimhood narrative.
Again, that's everybody who talks about how politics talks about how their own group is being disadvantaged by other groups.
That's sort of everything the social media is.
You're always talking about how the group you're in or the group you care about or some other group is being disadvantaged by some other group.
Isn't that everybody?
Is there a way to not talk about that if you're talking about politics?
There's a populist appeal.
Really?
Populism is going to be part of woke, right?
There's a cancel culture tactics, meaning trying to cancel people for their views.
But isn't that just anti-woke?
And then there's social media amplification.
Again, that's just people online who are doing a good job.
And performative activism.
Performative?
Is Robbie Starbuck performative?
If he's actually getting real corporations to change their policies?
That's not really performative.
That's actually real stuff.
And then I asked Grok to give me a list of people that would be considered woke right.
Now, you tell me what have all these people have in common other than being right-leaning.
Clay Travis, Charlie Kirk, Jack Pasobic, the Libs of TikTok, that's Chaya Rajik, Marjorie Taylor Green, Ron DeSantis, Candace Owens, and Tucker Carlson.
I'm pretty sure they don't even agree with each other.
Is that the list of people that have so much in common that they get their own label?
I don't see it.
So this whole woke right thing, it just seems so artificial and I don't know, it just seems like somebody's trying to find a way to come up with an insult for people who are doing a good job getting attention for their point of view.
If the only thing you're doing is a really good job of getting clicks because people really care about your opinion, it's not exactly, you know, we don't need a label for that.
Well, Stephen Miller is pointing out that New York City may be on the verge of getting what is called an anarchist socialist mayor and a Muslim and an immigrant who wants to basically freeze housing costs and build government grocery stores, basically a socialist.
And Stephen Miller is pointing out that the only way that he could be ahead in the polls and likely about to be the next mayor is because of massive illegal, probably illegal immigration into New York City.
I think I saw that 38% of New York City, the residents were born in other countries, 38%.
That's a big number.
That would be enough to make sure that the undocumented people who would come into the country are determining local politics.
That looks like that's what's happening.
And I think Andrew Cuomo was already dropped out.
So that's who was running against him for the primary.
And then it looks like he would be the Democrat candidate.
And in New York City, that pretty much means you're going to win.
So, yeah, get out of cities.
Get out.
Well, you remember the Doge employee, the young man named Big Balls.
That was one of his names he used online.
He has resigned from working on Doge, according to Wired.
So there will no longer be any Big Balls associated with Doge, just in case you wondered.
In other news, Germany has cracked down on hate speech in their own country, and the police are knocking down doors and arresting people, and they've raided 170 private homes for saying things online that the government considers hateful or inflammatory.
The Interior Minister calls it digital arsonist.
My goodness.
And points out that the hate postings are way up compared to prior years.
Now, how lucky do you feel if you live in America and free speech is still, for the most part, legal so far?
But can you even imagine your government breaking down doors because of something you said online?
How bad was it?
I don't know.
There's a report in the New York Post that AI-powered hiring tools, which are more and more being used, are racist and sexist, and they favor black and female job applicants over white and male applicants.
So if you don't tweak them, the large language models look at the world, because that's what they're trained on.
They look at everything that's being written and everything that's being allowed to be written.
And they decided that black and female candidates were superior to white people and male applicants.
But the good news is that they're aware of the problem, the people who run these AIs, and they're working hard to get rid of that discrimination.
So I guess they've found some workarounds.
But what does it tell you that if you train a large language model on the allowed things online and the allowed things in books, that it discriminates against white males?
It tells you that the world discriminates against white males, because that's what the world is what they're trained on.
They don't come up with it on their own.
According to something called Study Finds, nearly one in four Americans want to break from physical intimacy.
So I could have asked you what percentage, and you would have guessed 25%, and you would have been close.
But 24% of Americans want a break from sexual activity, and half have already taken extended breaks, averaging six months.
So there's a little experiment that I sometimes do if I'm in public, if I'm in the mall or just somewhere where people are walking down the street, and they're coupled up.
I look at the couples.
Well, they don't even need to be couples, could be individuals.
And I say to myself, how many people would want to have sex with that person?
And you can walk past a lot of Americans before you see one that you can even imagine that someone else would want to have sex with them.
Forget about you.
So it's not even whether you would have sex with them.
You look at them and you go, who would?
Like, who would want to have sex with that?
And so I'm not surprised.
And 69% of single Americans are content being single and not actively looking for relationships.
It had to be 69%, didn't it?
All right.
All right.
Argentina's GDP is soaring at 5.8%, the highest in the Western world, and even higher than China, whose numbers I don't trust anyway.
So is Argentina and their leader Mile, is it a miracle everything's working?
Maybe, or maybe he controls the reporting of what their GDP is, or maybe that the way anybody can make their GDP soar is by removing social services for the poor.
Because I do think that the counter narrative to Millé being an economic genius who saved Argentina is that in order to do that, I think he had to cut a lot of social services to the poor, which might be the only way to do it.
It might be the only way out.
But we tend to leave out what did it cost them to get that 5.8% growth.
Well, Morgan Stanley is expecting the Fed to deliver seven rate cuts in 2026.
So remember I told you that 2026 could be lit because you can have robo-taxis and robots and AI?
Well, you might also have a series of interest rate cuts.
So things are looking really positive for 2026.
And I thought this already happened, but did Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez already get married?
Because the report is that they're throwing a three-day, $55 million wedding in Venice with 90 private jets and 200 VIPs and all kinds of stuff.
Now that's a wedding.
I was not invited.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for you.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately for a moment because they're beloved.
And the rest of you, thanks for joining, and I will see you same time tomorrow.
