God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Male Hispanic Trump Voters, Neera Tanden, Biden's Autopen, Konstantin Kisin, Israel Hamas War, Iran Peace Talks, China Trade Deal, Tariff Hammer Deadline, President Trump, Rescission Bill, Stephen Miller, Senate Parliamentarian, Byrd Rule, Big Beautiful Bill, Laura Loomer, Senator John Cornyn, Code Pink Funding, DataRepublican, Neville Singham, Domestic Energy Production, Hunter Biden Sued, NYC Socialism, Zohran Mamdani Persuasion Skill, Salesforce AI, Marc Benioff, 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.
Let's get your comments going and then we got something.
Come on.
there we go 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.
But if you'd like to take a chance on improving the way you feel from levels that are hard to even understand with our tiny, shiny human brains, well, what you need for that is a copper mug or a glass, a tankard, shells, histine, a canteen, jugger, flask, a vessel of any kind, and fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and happens now.
go So, so good.
Well, I finally found a really satisfying use for AI.
Yesterday I was just playing around with a Grok and I told it to make me a photo of Dilbert riding on a dog.
It's just, you know, first thing that popped in my head.
And so it makes this picture, but it knew that if a human-sized Dilbert were riding on a dog, that would be bad for the dog.
So it turned the Dilbert into a little stuffed, looked like a stuffed animal and made it small and put it on a big dog.
And I posed it because I thought it was just an interesting picture.
And AI wants to give Dilbert a mouth because everybody in the world except Dilbert has a mouth.
Dilbert has no mouth, by the way, if you didn't know that, and no eyeballs.
But it wanted to give him eyeballs with some of the AIs and not others.
And he had a necktie, but it didn't seem to understand that it would be an upturned necktie.
So it was definitely Dilbert.
But yeah, the AI version.
And then people saw my version and they tried different AIs.
So the next thing I know, there's more than one Dilbert riding on a dog.
And the next thing I know, it starts morphing from Dilbert riding on a dog to me riding on a dog.
And then Dilbert riding on God's shoulders.
And then there was the baby Jesus Dilbert.
And then somebody used Midjourney, which takes a static picture and turns it into a video.
And somebody improved the background.
So the picture started as, you know, just a little thing I thought was funny.
And it took out a life of its own and evolved into all these different directions.
And there was even a dog riding Dilbert.
But my favorite was a picture of me that AI created of me riding a giant cat, a house cat.
It was a dog.
It was a horse-sized cat.
And I came away from the experience thinking, oh my God, do I want a horse-sized cat?
Would that be awesome?
One you could put a saddle on and ride.
Imagine if you could just say, hey, and call your cat, and your cat would run over and you just jump on it like a horse and ride around.
Okay, maybe it's just me.
Well, I wonder if there's any new research that could have been skipped if they had just asked me.
Oh, here's something from the University of Bath.
Now, you probably didn't know there was a University of Bath, but a lot of people try to take a bath without any education whatsoever, and they'll be like drowning and, you know, they won't even get wet because they've never gone to the University of Bath, where I believe everybody majors in bathing, I assume.
Anyway, but beyond that, they've also done a study in which they determined that people with higher IQs make better decisions.
And the reason is that people with higher IQs can predict the results of their decisions more accurately.
Uh-huh.
Yeah, that would be pretty much right in the middle of what a person with a high IQ can do, predict what's going to happen next.
So University of Bath, you should stick to your strengths, which is teaching people how to bathe.
And next time, you want to know if high IQ people are smarter than low IQ people?
Just ask me.
Just ask.
I got answers.
All right.
According to the Washington Times, there's a federal employee who managed to do work at home and get paid for three different jobs.
So it was Chrissy Monique Baker.
So she was working at HUD as a full-time management and program analyst, but she also had two separate jobs beyond that.
And she was getting paid for three jobs.
And she's pleading guilty to fraud.
Now, does that seem like fraud to you?
Do you think people should go to jail for having three jobs at the same time when they signed something that said they wouldn't do that?
So I guess that's the fraud part.
Yeah, so none of those employers got her full-time work, so I guess it is fraud.
It reminded me of Wally in the Dilbert comic.
Yeah, I've heard of people who had two jobs, which I think was really common during the pandemic, people having two remote jobs.
But this is the first one where somebody had three and made it work.
I don't know how they caught her.
Probably wasn't based on her work performance.
Well, can you believe it?
Today is the one-year anniversary from Biden debating and showing the world that his brain was not working.
Does that feel like only one year ago?
Is it my imagination, or does it feel like it was three years ago that the Biden debate with Trump happened?
Does that feel like it could possibly be only one year ago?
Oh my God, how much stuff has happened in the last year?
You know, just political stuff.
Forget about your life.
But one year ago?
Are you having the same impression I have?
That there's no way that's just one year ago.
That had to be at least three years ago.
Nope, one.
I saw that in a post from End Awokeness, one of my favorite follows.
According to Ben Whedon, who's writing for Just the News, Trump won, I guess this is based on a new Pew survey.
Who is this?
Yeah, Pew Research.
So according to Pew Research, and if you don't know what Pew Research is, they research when you shoot your toy gun, pew, pew, pew, pew.
And then they research that.
And then they go to the University of Bath and wash it all off.
No, no, no, Pew Research research is very serious things.
And one of the things they found out is that Latinos were the ones who moved the most right during the period between 2020 and 2024.
Or was it possible that 2020 wasn't exactly the most accurate election, if you know what I mean?
So maybe measuring the change from 2020, where many people, I'm not saying me, but many of you believe the results were complete bullshit of the election itself.
So I would first of all question the concept of looking how things changed in the vote from 2020 to 2024.
It feels to me like, hmm, maybe there's a reason those numbers don't look as similar as you thought they would look.
Maybe.
But that's not me.
That's you.
That's what you think.
Anyway, and maybe sometimes I think it too.
But apparently, according to Pew Research, and I don't believe this is true.
How could this possibly be true?
That Trump outright won Hispanic men?
Have you heard it that way before?
I've heard a number of times he did better than anybody's ever done with Hispanic voters.
But did you know that he won outright Hispanic men by 50 to 48% against Harris?
That is freaking incredible, if it's real.
He lost narrowly with Hispanic women.
And I guess there must have been more women voting or, well, no, the numbers look right.
But overall, he was just close.
So he had 48% of the Hispanic vote compared to Harris's 51.
But the fact that he won outright the male Hispanic vote, he won it outright.
At the same time, the news was telling us all of his rhetoric was racist against exactly that category of people.
And that category of people, as I've been telling you for a long time, they're way more conservative than maybe you thought was coming.
So it doesn't surprise me that it eventually got there, but it happened faster than I thought.
Well, as you know, the cover-up of Biden's brain was considered worse than Watergate.
How many of you would agree with that?
That the cover-up of Biden as president being mentally deficient, how many of you think that was worse than Watergate?
Well, a lot of people.
The news reports that quite a bit.
That there's one expert after another saying, oh, that's worse Than Watergate.
So I would like to propose the following.
Instead of asking if something is worse than Watergate, since Watergate is now no longer the high bar mark, we should be forced to say, is it worse than Biden's brain cover-up?
So the next time there's a gigantic controversy, do not say, is it worse than Watergate?
That is no longer the high watermark.
Is it worse than Biden brain cover-up?
And when you add the Autopen part to it, it really is worse than Watergate by a lot.
So as you know, at least one person has admitted to having access to the Autopen.
I think there were more, and we'll learn more about that.
But Neera Tandon said that she, I guess she told Congress when asked, that she would use the Autopen without actually verifying from Joe Biden that he gave the order.
Now, wait a minute.
Let me say that again.
That the person operating the Autopen apparently would not check directly with Biden, but would take it from some other staff member who was not mentioned?
Would she take the word of anyone who asked?
Could anyone who had access to the president walk in and say, hey, Nira, Joe Biden totally wants you to pardon this hardened criminal for no reason that you could tell?
Would she then pardon a hardened criminal because somebody who was not Biden said, oh yeah, Biden's totally behind this.
Ah, I got questions.
I have many questions.
But if she was not verifying with Biden himself, or at least some way knowing that he had given the order, we really don't know who was running the country.
I suppose that's the most ordinary observation.
But I have to admit, I was holding out some kind of belief that maybe Biden would sign a little document or give somebody the word in person.
So that at the very least, the person who operates the Autopen had direct knowledge that the president wanted something signed.
But apparently not.
Apparently not.
So the person doing the Autopen literally did not know if it came from the president.
Does that seem like a problem?
Yeah, that seems like a problem.
It's bigger than Watergate.
Anyway, according to Newsmax, the gross domestic product did not look good for this quarter, but the special case reason for it is because people were buying a bunch of foreign goods in anticipation of tariffs.
So you can't really look at the GDP for this quarter, this most recent quarter that they're reporting.
That would be sort of a non-standard number this time.
But they think it will bounce back to a good number next time we see it.
And whatever happened in the April to June quarter is unlikely to be repeated.
So that's good.
So there's a post on Axe by Konstantin Kissen, who, if you're on Axe, you probably know him.
So he's, what would I call him?
He has one of the biggest podcasts, trigonometry.
He's one of the two who do that.
And he's often debating people on other podcasts.
And he's very active on social media.
But he's very well informed and very smart.
But he's the only person reporting that there's some kind of maybe deal coming up with Gaza and Israel and the Middle East.
So I'm going to say I don't believe this is true, but he says that there are reports that Trump and Nanyahu have made a deal, and it hasn't been announced yet.
Now, I'm going to, I'll read you what Constantine says is reportedly a deal, but I'll tell you in advance, I don't believe any of it.
So I checked with Grok and Grok could not find any independent reporting that agreed.
But only because Constantine Kissen is a, I'll say, a highly credible commentator.
If it were someone else, I probably wouldn't even read it.
But I'll let you know what he thinks, based on sources that he has that are unnamed.
So he thinks that there might be a deal to end the Gaza war in two weeks, which is possible.
It's possible, because you could certainly imagine that Trump would want to take the goodwill he's garnered in the Iranian situation and maybe use it to put a little pressure on Israel or get something done.
So that part, I doubt it, just because the Gaza situation seems so intractable.
But maybe, maybe, it's entirely possible that they might announce some kind of a framework that would take a long time to implement.
But maybe.
Next thing that Konstantin reports says is being reported, is that Gaza would be governed by four neighboring countries, To which I say maybe because that does make sense in terms of how in the world would you ever solve this problem?
You would almost certainly need some non-Israel, non-U.S., non-Hamas leadership.
And it does make sense that having only one of them would create a whole new problem.
So if you said, let's say Saudi Arabia is going to, you know, monitor or manage Gaza.
Well, immediately that would turn into, you know, Saudi Arabia would become a target and there'd be bad will there.
But suppose you said four of the closest neighbors were all going to jointly be part of it.
Maybe they would be helping economically.
But if there were four of them, you'd feel like, oh, okay, that really is neighbors helping out a difficult situation.
Now, again, I'm not predicting any of this is going to happen.
But it's possible.
It's within the realm of possible.
Then the third part, if any of this turns out to be true, is that Hamas leaders would be exiled.
I don't see anything else you could do with them, right?
You'd have to exile them.
Otherwise, they stay underground in Gaza and you can never solve anything.
So while I don't love the idea of them staying alive, and Israel wouldn't love it either, it's entirely possible it's the only way you can make a deal.
So is it possible?
Yeah, it's possible.
Again, I'm going to bet against it because I'm a little bit pessimistic on this particular topic, but it's possible.
Here's the part that I think is the red flag for this not being real.
That the fourth element would be a two-state solution that would be agreed by Israel and for the West Bank.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that Netanyahu would agree to a two-state solution with all of those Israeli settlements that are in the West Bank?
Does that sound real?
So that's the part that tells me, maybe, but that seems really unlikely to me.
You know, maybe like a 2% chance, something like that.
And then the last one is that several new countries would join the Abraham Accords and recognize Israel.
Certainly, if there were an agreed upon, reasonable conclusion for Gaza, that would lead to more people joining the Abraham Accords.
So that'd be a big deal.
So that's possible.
But there's no word about hostages or where do the refugees live for the many years it would take to make Gaza livable again.
And do they all get to move back?
And who exactly is going to pay for the rebuilding of Gaza and all that?
So I'm going to say that there's some details missing that obviously would have to be there if there were a deal, such as the hostages.
And I don't think the two-state solution is likely enough that the entire reporting could be accurate.
So that's my red flag on that one.
Anyway, it's interesting.
The only thing it does, I think, is it helps you understand what is possible.
All right.
And CNN is reporting, I think News Banks is reporting on this too, that the U.S. is kicking around the idea of helping Iran become a peaceful nuclear energy country without the ability to make a bomb.
And that part of that might be making available to them as much as $30 billion to build a civilian nuclear program that doesn't have any enriched uranium access or anything, except for what goes into the nuclear energy for domestic use.
And that money would not necessarily come from America, but rather from other Middle Eastern countries.
Does that seem like something that might happen?
I always like the Trump approach of saying you've got two choices.
We will either attack you militarily or we'll help you develop your economy so that you can make a lot of money.
I love that.
I always tell you about one of the principles of persuasion is that you lay out a really big gap between doing what you want them to do and not doing what you want them to do.
And that's a pretty big gap.
If you try to make your own nukes again, we will bomb your country again.
Very, very bad.
But if you work with us for domestic nuclear power, we'll help you get funding for $30 billion from your neighbors.
And that's pretty good.
So I like that that's even a conversation.
Well, according to Trump, the U.S. and China have, quote, signed a trade deal.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that the U.S. and China have signed a trade deal?
I don't believe that.
There may be some elements that they've agreed upon or have a framework for, but I don't believe there's an overall China trade deal.
I'm pretty sure there will be nothing about protecting intellectual property and probably nothing about fentanyl.
So is there?
I mean, there might be some crawling forward on some things like the rare minerals.
There might be a rare mineral deal.
But no, I don't believe there's any signed comprehensive China trade deal.
But the market might.
And we'll see.
And I guess Ludnick says the U.S. is going to drop some countermeasures against China because China is loosening up about rare earth materials.
But we'll see if any of that matters.
But Trump's team says that by July 9th, which I guess is the new deadline for all the countries to make a deal, he said that there will be a tariff hammer coming down for any nation that doesn't look like they're negotiating in good faith.
So basically just more tariffs.
So they do think that there are a lot of tariff deals coming.
Now, do you remember when the tariffs were first announced?
This would be a good time to see who was right and who was wrong.
And there were some people who said, oh, these threats of tariffs will never get you anything good.
It will just all be bad.
And by now, the stock market has fully recovered.
So we're all the way back before Trump even announced the tariffs, which means the people who have the most money to invest, including the professionals, believe that the tariff thing will not be a big destructive force for the economy.
They might believe it will be additive.
We don't know yet, but certainly there's every reason to believe that our new trade deals will be a little better than the old ones.
So if you were one of the people like me who said, hold on, hold on.
There is no way to know if this is good or bad, but it is certainly a smart way to negotiate.
And all of this uncertainty, which you think is bad, it is bad, but temporarily.
If your objective is to get a trade deal, maybe a little bit of uncertainty and flip-flopping and jumping back and forth and keeping your negotiating partners off balance might be exactly what Trump does for every negotiation.
It might be he does it because it works.
And the persuasion reason that that would work is that if you get other people frightened that if they don't make a deal, there's going to be really bad consequences.
Well, then they're going to make a deal that they wouldn't have otherwise made.
So yes, keeping all of our trading partners in a very precarious, uncertain, not sure about their own political futures because it'd be such a big deal to their country if they don't get a trade deal.
That's exactly where he would want the other leaders to be.
And he put him there.
And now he says that over the summer, which is about what he predicted, they'll be cleaning up these trade deals one at a time.
It'll probably take longer than they want, longer than you want.
But it's all doable.
So it went from, oh my God, he's a crazy man who's ruining the economy.
And in, what, four months, it turned into, oh, well, it looks like that's going to work out.
Trump is on the verge of having the best summer that any president ever had.
If Trump gets the big trade deals done and he continues to be lauded for his successful conclusion to the Iran situation, if nothing else happened, that would be the best summer any president ever had, basically.
And if a miracle happens and somehow we get something done with Gaza and or Ukraine, and I would bet against both of those, but even if he got one of them to go the way he wants, and let's say the Abraham Accords goes to the next level, that could all happen in one summer.
Oh my God.
Oh my God.
No president is going to be able to touch that for just sheer persuasive leadership policies.
And that's not even without the big beautiful bill, which is in trouble at the moment.
Let's talk about that.
So remember when I've talked about the budget process in Congress, I act like I don't understand it.
And it's not an act.
I really don't understand it.
And I read the messages from Steven Miller, who's trying to explain, oh, no, this is not a budget bill.
It's a recision bill.
Recision?
Is that the way you say it?
And they're very different.
If it were a budget bill, then you would need to get, I think, 60% of the Senate to agree.
And nobody believes that that's possible in today's environment.
But if it's one of these weird recession things, apparently you can cut the budget on stuff with only a 50% majority, you know, 51%.
And so the entire reason that there were not a lot of Doge cuts in this one Is that the place you would do that would be in the larger one?
But they did have a bunch of cuts.
And now it turns out that there's something called a parliamentarian.
How many of you knew that Congress even had a parliamentarian?
I guess the parliamentarian just makes sure that Congress is following its own guidelines and follows the law.
And guess what the parliamentarian just told the creators of the Big Beautiful Bill?
The parliamentarian just explained that the only thing they could do is some minor budget tweaks they can't have in the Big Beautiful Bill changes in policy.
Because if you want to change policy, according to something called the Bird Rule, B-Y-R-D, based on, you know, ex-Congressperson Bird, that if you follow the rules, you can't change policy with a rescission bill.
And there were a number of things that were policy changes.
So I asked Grok, you know, what the hell, what kind of changes they are.
And most of them I don't understand.
But stuff like changing the EPA's multi-pollutant vehicle emission standards, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So a lot of these budget changes are directly connected to policy changes.
And we found out this week that they can't do that.
Now, try to hold that in your head for a moment.
Does it make sense that you and I did not know that there was a parliamentarian?
Yeah, of course.
Yeah, we're not that deep into it.
So most of us never heard of this parliamentarian thing.
If you had heard of it, would you have known that the rescission process would be different from the budget process and that if you tried to conflate the two, the parliamentarian would shut you down?
Well, I didn't know that.
But I'm not a member of Congress who just spent five fucking months trying to negotiate this thing.
Are you telling me that nobody behind the Big Beautiful bill was understanding that the parliamentarian was going to shoot a bullet through the middle of its heart as soon as it was almost done?
Are you telling me that nobody involved in that process saw this coming?
Are you telling me that they never once talked to her in advance and said, we don't want to get too far with this unless we know that it can get past the parliamentarian because we're mixing some policy with some funding?
Nobody?
Nobody knew this was coming?
Are you fucking kidding me?
And again, you and I can be excused, right?
You know, we like to be well-informed citizens who can, you know, with our opinions, maybe help move things in one direction or another in small ways.
But we're not supposed to know that.
Everyone who is going to vote on this big, beautiful bill, every one of them, should have definitely known this was coming.
And to suddenly act like they're all surprised and people are calling for the firing of the parliamentarian?
No.
No.
Don't fire the parliamentarian.
Fire every single person who didn't know that they should check with the parliamentarian before they got this far.
All of them.
Every one of them should be removed from Congress.
If you don't know this most basic thing about your own fucking job, how do we expect you to get anything done?
So I don't know what the fate is of the big beautiful bill, but it's looking like it's going to be totally gutted of some substantial percentage of the things that the Republicans were trying to get done.
Somebody says that Vance can override her.
Vance can override her?
You mean if there's a vote of a majority?
All right.
Well, I guess there might be more we'll find out about this.
I don't know if that's true, the part about Vance.
But, I mean, it's just such a head shaker.
I definitely do not feel at this point, you know, something might change my mind, but I definitely don't feel like the parliamentarian is the bad person.
It's a woman, so I was going to say bad guy, but the bad person.
I think the parliamentarian is just doing the parliamentarian job.
So good luck with the big, beautiful bill.
Anyway, but it'd be amazing if Trump got that through without it being totally gutted.
His summer would be looking pretty amazing.
Well, there's a Chinese doctor who fled his home country and according to just the news and is doing some whistleblowing on China.
Sorry.
Excuse me.
And says that China makes the Chinese people who come to America sign a contract.
Not all the Chinese people, but the scientific people.
And anybody who's coming to the U.S. and working in science, they have to sign a contract with China to help steal U.S. intellectual property and research and anything else of value and bring it back to the Chinese Communist Party.
Now, why is there never a story about Russia doing this?
Have you ever noticed that?
If Russia is our big enemy, why is it only the Chinese are stealing our intellectual property?
Or is Russia doing it too, but they're better at it, so we don't catch them?
Why would it only be China?
It's not like Russia is doing its own Silicon Valley.
Aren't they just as much in need of stealing our intellectual property?
And do you think that Russia has, let's say, some moral or ethical reason not to steal from us?
Why would it only be China?
I don't know.
But I guess the Trump administration is launching a vetting process for the hundreds of foreign scientists.
So we're going to try to catch them.
But how weird that China is doing that, but not Iran, Venezuela, the Mexican cartels.
Well, how many sleeper cells and spies do we have in this country now?
Is it more than the residents?
Because allegedly, Iran has sleeper cells.
China has all these spies and sleeper cells and buying on farmland to do God knows what.
Venezuela is sending us the trend de Aragua or have.
The Mexican cartels have already made inroads into the mainland U.S. And they've all got these sleeper cells and spies and stuff.
But when was the last time you heard that Russia was doing any of those things?
Like trying to put a lot of Russian immigrants into the country so they could become sleeper cells or steal our IP?
Are they not doing it?
Or do they just not get caught?
Or do we just not mention them for some reason?
Isn't that weird?
If it works, everybody would be doing it.
You know, Mexico would be sending their scientists and Venezuela would be, I don't know, there's something weird about the fact that only China is doing this thing.
If it works, I mean, if it works, they should all be trying it.
Well, Laura Luber has another exclusive, and I have to compliment her for carving out a valuable space in the internet world.
And what she seems the best at in terms of her scoops is finding out whose sibling, whose children and or spouses are involved in things that the politician might be making decisions about.
And here's another one.
So according to Laura Lumer, John Cornyn, who's a Texas senator, his daughter lobbies for China related to Alibaba.
At the same time that the Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, is targeting Alibaba for privacy violations.
So the daughter of the U.S. Senator for Texas is working for a Chinese company.
And not just a Chinese company, but one of the biggest?
Or is it the biggest?
I don't know.
Now, does that seem like a problem to you?
It does to me.
Yeah, does to me.
So another Laura Lumer exclusive.
She's really got that category nailed down.
And according to Blaze Media, Carlos Garcia is writing about this, there was a Democrat-leaning group called Code Pink that's now threatening an internet user named Data Republican.
I've talked about Data Republican.
It's a woman who is very good at data analysis and especially linked to political events.
So Code Pink is threatening her because she apparently suggested that they got some funding from Chinese sources.
So Code Pink is threatening a lawsuit and they say that they do not get money from China or the Chinese Communist Party or any foreign government.
So that's what Code Pink says.
They don't get money from China, Chinese Communist Party, or any foreign country.
So do you think Data Republican is wrong?
What do you think?
Do you think Code Pink is telling you the truth and Data Republican is wrong?
Well, Data Republican decided that the best approach to this threat of lawsuit is simply to dump everything she knew and you can make up your own mind.
So here's what we've learned.
Apparently, Code Pink is getting some significant funding from a rich guy who, a social activist and businessman, Neville Singham.
He's a billionaire who is already under congressional investigation for possibly violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act, I'll be VARA, on behalf of the Chinese government.
Oh.
So it didn't come from China, the funding, and it didn't come from the Chinese Communist Party, And it didn't come from a foreign country.
True.
But it might have come from a billionaire who likes to do things on behalf of China.
So how do you score that one?
Do you score that one as, yeah, that's Chinese funding?
Or is it Chinese funding that's deniable?
Because when Code Pink denied it, they did not say, and we don't take money from any billionaires who are connected to China's government.
They left that part out.
So I don't know.
Maybe they'll come back.
And then apparently one of the things that Code Pink has done is push some propaganda saying that the Uyghurs were not, the Uyghurs were basically dangerous.
So total Chinese propaganda that nobody would do unless some Chinese force was giving them money.
In other China versus U.S. news, Elon Musk pointed to a chart on X and said, remember this chart.
And what it was, was a chart that showed how much electricity China is pulling online, you know, with new power plants, et cetera, versus the U.S. If you look at the U.S.'s number since the 90s, it's up a little bit, but it's almost a flat line.
We have about as much electricity in the U.S. as we had at the end of the 90s.
And that's been a while.
Now, you might say, but Scott, that's good news because we've learned to conserve on electricity.
But then you look at the China line, and it's not quite straight up, but it's pretty close.
And it has passed us by a lot.
So China is adding electricity like crazy.
And the U.S. is still just getting ready to add electricity by making it easier to build nuclear power plants and reducing regulations and stuff.
It'll make a difference.
But we're way behind.
If you're trying to predict the future, like which countries will succeed, one of the best ways to predict the future is how much energy they can produce domestically.
That is really predictive of how your country's going to go.
So China's got a big advantage there.
But they also have a big country, so they need a lot of electricity.
So, you know, there's a reason that they're just also meeting basic needs.
But that's worrisome.
And then the other thing would be birth rate.
So if you asked Elon Musk, what are the big risks, you know, sort of geopolitical risks and country risks, et cetera, he would probably say low birth rate is a gigantic problem in every developed country, apparently.
And not having enough electricity for AI might be the other gigantic variable that it would be easy to overlook if you don't follow the news pretty closely.
So yeah, have more babies and more electricity, and you're going to be in good shape.
According to the Free Beacon, Hunter Biden is being sued by one of his, probably there were a lot of them, law firms that work for him and say he owes in excess of $50,000 in fees and interests.
And I guess he has paid them a little bit in the past, but hasn't paid them everything.
Now, I don't know about you, but I'm starting to think that Hunter Biden's art career was not 100% legit.
Hmm.
Because I feel like he could have solved that problem by selling just one painting, just one.
So now I'm starting to suspect that that painting operation was not exactly what it looked like.
Hmm.
Anyway, let's talk about New York City's future mayor.
This is Oren Mamdani, who's an overt socialist.
Republicans are trying to paint him as a communist, but more socialist than communist, I would say.
And I realized I had not evaluated him on persuasion.
I talked about him and his policies and the fact he's a socialist, and he wants things like rent control and government grocery stores and free transportation and stuff, a bunch of socialist things.
And everybody who knows anything about economics and history knows that too much socialism will destroy just about anything.
So New York City, if he wins, and it looks like he might, probably actually, New York City is sort of looking doomed because of his socialist policies.
But to be fair, since I have in the past reviewed Trump just as how persuasive he is, you know, that's how I got started doing this political stuff.
And I've done the same with AOC.
So I've said, you know, I don't like AOC's policies.
I wouldn't want her to be my president.
But definitely she has some persuasion skills.
And so I decided to look at Zoran Mamdani, just as a persuasion filter.
And I don't think there's any question about why he's doing well.
If you look at him, if you forget policies, because voters don't even understand policies for the most part, and you just look at persuasion, he does have the whole package for a Democrat and a Democrat majority city.
So he's got charisma like crazy.
He's young and good looking, which matters.
He's perpetually optimistic, which is not necessarily what the voters are feeling, but he's optimistic.
So he's always smiling.
He's always got this, you know, we can fix this problem thing.
He's a person of color.
So he's not a generic white guy, because Democrats are not going to put up with that.
And when he talks about what he's about, he has this little phrase.
See if this sounds familiar to you.
What does it remind you of?
It's not familiar, but it'll remind you of somebody else's work.
He says he's trying to, and I quote, make the city affordable.
Make the city affordable.
What's that sound like?
Make America great again.
If you're worried that this socialist is going to be such a good politician that he can't be stopped, he does have the whole package.
He's got the message.
He's got policies that if you're a certain kind of person and a Democrat, you'd say, yeah, yeah, why not that?
So if I'm looking at him as only for persuasion, charisma, optimism, not a generic white guy, and he's got policies that fit easily under the category of make the city affordable, everybody understands that, and it touches them directly.
And it's not about the rich.
Why is he winning?
Because the people he's running against are not even close.
They're not even close to that.
They don't have that package.
So, you know, the other lesson here is if you imagine that the Democrats are completely destroyed because, you know, Trump won everything and the Republicans have the Congress and all that, all it takes is one candidate who's got this entire package.
And if you say to yourself, but he can't go that far because his policies are batshit crazy, Democrat voters don't know that.
Obviously, Democrat voters cannot tell what policies will destroy the country, obviously.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have the policies that they have.
So could somebody like that win the presidency?
Not necessarily him.
Well, I guess he was born in another country, so he wouldn't be eligible.
But all it takes, all it's going to take is one candidate who's got the full package.
And Democrats are going to be right back.
So that's dangerous.
According to Lydia Moynihan in the New York Post, luxury real estate brokers in New York City are already getting people saying, the rich people are already saying, maybe I don't want to live in New York City anymore.
So just the fact that the socialists might come into office and raise their taxes and free the criminals, it's going to make the real estate people pretty busy moving these people out of New York.
According to Salesforce CEO and founder Mark Benioff, and CNBC is reporting this, for Salesforce, he says that AI is doing up to 50% of the work that would have been, that had been done by people.
Does that sound right to you?
That Salesforce is already using AI for half, you know, it might be 30% to 50%, but he's estimating.
It might be up to half of all their work that's being done by AI.
But now the question you might ask is, oh no, how many people have they laid off?
Because that's a pretty big company.
And the answer is that he believes that it just frees people.
AI is freeing people to do higher level work.
So he's not talking in terms of layoffs.
He's talking in terms of sort of turbo boosting the power of every existing employee so that they can get all their regular work done with AI, the help of AI, and then they can, you know, that'll free them to do higher level stuff that's valuable.
That is not the majority view.
And I don't know how many companies that would ever be true for.
It will definitely be true for some.
You know, there's no doubt about it.
Some companies will maybe add employees because the AI plus an employee is so valuable that you want to add humans to work with the AI because it's all so good.
But there will be companies where they just need fewer people because of the AI.
So it's going to be a little both.
And maybe Salesforce will have to change their staffing, let's say, ideals.
But Betioff estimates that the software company has reached, I don't know exactly what this means, 93% accuracy using AI.
93% accuracy.
Now, is that as good as people?
Because people are not too perfect.
So if AI is competing with people for these jobs, is 93% is that going to get it done?
I don't know.
Would you spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on a technology that would be wrong 7% of the time?
Would you?
I don't know.
Maybe he's betting on improvements in AI.
But that doesn't sound too great.
Anyway, but something that is great is that over in UK, the Dyson, you know, Dyson, the engineering slash technology company, they built an indoor strawberry farm that is worked by robots.
So the robots are checking on stuff and picking the strawberries.
And they came up with this really innovative method where instead of just putting things in an indoor garden and then picking them when they're done, they have these big rotating drums that allow the strawberries to essentially get the right amount of light by rotating slowly so that all the strawberries get enough light.
And what this taught me is that I have this interest in indoor farms.
I'm just nerdy enough to care about that kind of stuff.
But I always imagined that the indoor farms would be growing a variety of food.
But I'm now completely convinced that every indoor farm should optimize over one product, like the strawberries.
Because probably you wouldn't grow the potatoes the same way.
Or corn.
Or anything else.
So I think robots plus indoor farms plus only one product per farm.
So you can optimize it.
Maybe has a future.
It's tough to get protein from an indoor farm.
So even if you had an indoor, I don't know, fish farm, it'd be hard to maintain that.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I had for today.
That's the news for today.
It's Friday, and I know you're ready to start your weekends.
I'm going to talk privately to my beloved subscribers on locals.
And the rest of you, I hope you'll come back tomorrow.
