God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Dunning-Kruger Effect, RFK Jr. Critics, Joseph Kennedy III, Covid Vax Study, ChatGPT, AI Personality Importance, DC Pro-Crime Protests, Police Body Cams, JD Vance, Venezuelan Narco-Boat , Rand Paul, Ukraine Practice War, Asheville NC Reparations, Race-Crime Honesty, Anthropic AI Backers, Conor McGregor Campaign, Visual Persuasion, Fear Persuasion, South Korea HR, Immigration Raid Hyundai Georgia, 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.
Well, all the lazy podcasters leap in or go to church or go to the gym or whatever they're doing.
But they're not doing this.
And aren't you glad I'm here?
Yeah.
So uh before we get going, let me tell you, you know it's the best thing in the world.
Getting up at 4 a.m.
I love getting up early.
Sitting there with a big cup of coffee, steaming cup of coffee, and then starting to look at the news of the day.
I love that.
But recently, I realized that it's even better when you've got a uh flannel blanket on your lap and a cat is purring and loving its time sitting on your lap while you're working and while working,
it's not really work, but when you've got that delicious cup of coffee, but then today I discovered something better than a cup of coffee at 4 a.m. with a cat on your lap on a flannel blanket.
Two cats.
I had two cats fighting for position on my lap.
Well, it became sort of a catastrophe because one of those cats got dangerously close to the large cup of coffee, and I said to myself,
well, if there's one thing I want to avoid, it would be a cat knocking over that very large, still totally full cup of coffee on my desk area, and uh all over my cables and every kind of electronic that I've ever owned.
And so I said to myself, well, I'll eliminate that possibility by lifting the cat with one hand while I hold the other cat from maybe getting into the same nonsense, and so I try to lift the cat with one hand, and well there was a struggle.
One of the cat's legs spazzed out in a cat-like fashion, perfectly striking the large cup of coffee off its coffee warmer, so yeah, a little bit of height on the coffee warmer, and somehow uh managed to drench coffee in what I would uh generously estimate is uh maybe one to two acres uh of my office.
Oh my god, it was a catastrophe.
So if today's show is worse than normal, it's the cat's fault.
Gary, it's Gary's fault.
He's not helping at all.
All right, I was trying to do something here.
Let's get your uh comments for locals working in this special little window.
I was watching them in the big window, but now I can see them in the special window.
Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do Boom.
Boom.
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 in your whole stinking life.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels, no really up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a copper margaret glass, a can, a tankered chalicerstein, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's this it's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Wow.
Yes, I did refill my cup of coffee that I spilled.
Alright, well, I got a bunch of uh Sunday stories.
So do your chores or do your exercise or do that thing you're doing, but don't listen to this in church.
Alright.
I wonder if there's any new backward science.
Hmm, here's some.
Uh in Sci Post, Eric Dolan is writing about a study that found a strong link between loneliness and physical pain.
There's a strong link between loneliness and physical pain.
And I believe they're concluding that the direction of causality is that the loneliness is causing the physical pain.
Now I'm no science professor.
But do people who are in a lot of pain and people who are unhealthy?
It goes on to include people who are just unhealthy.
Do they spend as much time around other people socializing?
It's like, oh, I can't walk.
I can't wait to go golfing with my foursome.
Isn't this backwards that if you're in physical pain, the odds of you having as satisfying a personal life go way down?
Backwards science.
Backward science.
Well, I wonder if there's any science that they didn't have to do at all because they could have just asked me.
Oh, here we go.
Uh Eric Dolan is also writing in SciPost that overconfidence in your ability to detect uh BS is linked to cognitive blind spots and narcissistic traits.
So it's more evidence of the so-called Dunning Kruger Dunning Kruger effect, that the people who know the least are often under the impression that they're the ones who know the most.
And, yeah, if you spent five minutes on the Internet, you may have also noticed and could have also handled this research on your own that overconfidence in detecting BS is a big problem and it is linked to cognitive blind spots.
All right.
I like to refer to this Dunning-Kruger thing as the dog effect.
The dog effect.
Did you ever wonder what your dog thinks when you go through life with your dog?
Do you feel that your dog is looking at you and saying, my God, what?
Did you just what?
Did you just do some math in your head?
That was impressive.
I can't do that.
Holy cow.
Do you have more than one language?
No, no way.
And you can understand everybody's words.
Wow.
Wow.
Do you think your dog is impressed with your intelligence?
Or does your dog just look at you and say, I either want to go outside, I want you to give me food, scratch my head, or just let me lick my balls because I got nothing else on my mind right now.
Well, I think it's uh probably closer to the latter.
But uh the dog has no idea that you're much smarter than the dog.
And here I'm making an assumption that I think will apply to almost all of you.
You're almost all smarter than a dog.
No, you are really.
I know some of you have low self-esteem, but I'm here to assure you, you are smarter than a dog.
Not a dolphin necessarily.
You know, I wouldn't go full dolphin, but you're smarter than a dog, for sure.
I mean, probably not a husky, not every one of you.
I mean, statistically speaking, if you just you know looked at it that way, probably there's at least one person here who's not as smart as a husky.
They're pretty smart, yeah.
And I would guess at least a handful.
Maybe you're a sub dolphin.
Not that I'm judging.
I'm not judging at all.
Um, But what I was saying is that the dog doesn't know that you're smarter than it.
And that's uh that's one of the fun things about Dunning Kruger is that people who are not that smart think the problem is on your end, if you happen to be smarter than Oski and a dolphin.
Umticed, this is my new uh pet uh mission, I guess.
Uh it's bothering the hell out of me that I keep reading stories about people criticizing RFK Jr. for being nutty and dangerous, but they don't really give examples, and when they do, it seems to me that maybe they're leaving out some context, you know, like maybe there's an argument on his side as well that we haven't heard.
So the latest is uh Joe Kennedy the third.
So another uh well, continuing, yeah, it's not the first time.
So he's a family member, and uh he's calling uh RFK Jr. and a post on X calling him a uh threat to the health and well-being of every American.
How?
What do you have an example?
That's a pretty big thing to say.
He's a threat to the health and well-being of every American, and he goes on to say none of us will be spared the pain he is inflicting.
What?
The pain?
All of us really we're all gonna be in pain.
What kind of pain is he talking about?
Is it the pain of loneliness?
What kind of pain?
And what hurts more?
RFK Jr. or loneliness.
I got lots of questions this morning.
Anyway, so none of us will be spared the pain.
He's inflecting.
Do you think he's going too far?
Do you think that really none of us will escape it?
You don't think there's maybe like a kid somewhere in I don't know, Ohio or something, and he's just playing outdoors.
Do you think he'll maybe escape the pain from RFK Jr.?
Or is he gonna be there just like playing with his bicycle?
And one day he'll be like, Oh god, what's that?
Why does my back hurt?
His mother will say, no one can escape the pain that is RFK Jr.
You're all gonna get it.
That's that's your turn.
That's your turn, little Bobby.
All right.
But does that mean that RFK Jr. is uh right about everything?
Well, not necessarily.
Let us uh examine one one claim in particular.
So RFK Jr. said recently, uh just yesterday, maybe, or that the vaccinated, this would be during COVID, that the vaccinated uh um versus the unvaccinated data is the biggest statistical trick of this pandemic.
So he had some criticisms about how the data was kept about who is vaccinated and the outcomes and stuff.
And he points out that uh you're not counted as vaccinated until two weeks after your second shot.
So for the first six weeks, the vaccine is ineffective, and infection and death rates rise.
But all of those are attributed to the unvaccinated group, even though they just got vaccinated.
Uh whatever whatever deaths happened right after the shot would be attributed to the unvaccinated.
I don't know if that includes the fact if you thought that the shot was the reason that you died right away.
It's not possible that they would call that unvaccinated illness.
Is it is it possible?
I'm sorry, it's not funny.
Uh is it possible that they would give you the vaccination you drop dead, and they would say, huh?
You're still within the two weeks.
That doesn't count.
Oh God.
Oh, I I don't know.
I don't think that's what's happening, but the world is so messed up that there's nothing you can rule out at this point.
Nope, nope, you're still within the window.
Oh, anyway.
But his uh most provocative claim, the one that caught my attention, was that by he says that by month seven, uh the efficacy of the uh COVID shot doesn't just say zero, he says it plummets into negative territory, meaning that if you got the shot, you're more likely to uh get what to get infected, yeah, to get infected.
Now, uh, does that sound true to you?
Uh, I realize that there might be some way that it could be true that getting the shot increased your chances of having problems with COVID.
That's possible, but how often is there an approved medicine that you knew made it worse for the thing that the medicine was for?
Does that happen a lot?
It can't happen a lot.
I mean, I'm I'm sure something like that's happened, but uh doesn't seem like it would happen a lot.
So if the only thing you knew was that it was a weird claim that is not universally agreed upon, you might say to yourself, huh, I don't know, but there's a macro point I'm gonna be making today.
Yes, believe it or not, I have a macro point.
Don't settle for micro points when you can get a macro point like today.
And the macro point is that all data is worthless, all data is worthless.
I learned that when it was my job to pull data together for a big bank, and then I confirmed it when my next job was pulling data together for a big phone company.
Did it stop me that the data was all unreliable to the point of being absurd?
Nope.
My senior executive told me in direct words, it doesn't matter that it's inaccurate, I'll only use it when it agrees with me anyway, literally, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is everything you need to know about data.
It's never accurate, and if it were, somebody would apply some bizarre statistical treatment to it to make sure that it came out with whatever answer they wanted, and if that wasn't enough, they could add whatever assumptions they wanted until it came out the way they wanted.
So if you think to yourself that this thing about not counting as vaccinated for two weeks, uh, and by the way, I'm I'm sure I got that whole story wrong, but it was funny.
Uh if you think that that's you know, like a weird story about this one domain where uh data isn't, you know, it's a little gray area whether you're vaccinated or not, so what do you call that?
That's every data.
That's every data about everything all the time.
There's no data that's really reliable in health care and nutrition, in uh finance, uh, in climate, none of it.
Once you realize that it's it's all at the very least, you know, is subject to interpretation, which is this you know, it's about as useless as being bad data.
Once you realize it's everything all the time, then it's easier to analyze the story like this.
Do you believe That uh RFK Jr. is right when he says we don't have enough data to feel comfortable about some of these vaccinations.
If you didn't know anything else, except the one thing I taught you today, which is that all data is bad, it's just always bad.
If you knew that, wouldn't you say, all right, well, I haven't looked into it very deeply, but I'll bet he's spot on about the the data not being sufficient for something of this importance, meaning something you're putting into everybody's body potentially.
Yes, yeah, I'm completely completely on the page of we can't even, it's impossible to try hard enough to get the best data you can on that stuff.
So that part's right, but then let's take the same theory that the data is always wrong, and then evaluate uh RFK Jr.'s claim that there's a situation in which the vaccination makes things worse.
Remember, if you believe that all data is wrong all the time, why would he be right about that?
And so I give him the same skepticism that he gives all the other data, and we're both right.
He's he's right that probably all the data he has is sketchy and you know insufficient for the importance, and uh I would say that every time he believes some data, this seems to lean in a direction that you know obviously has some bias against vaccinations.
He would say maybe he doesn't, but I think we would all say he probably does.
Everybody likes to be right, so you know, in his case, it would validate a lifetime of skepticism.
So, you know, uh I would say I haven't had a lifetime of skepticism, so I might be less biased on it than he is, if he's normal, because it would be impossible to have lived his life, you know, done what he's done, and had be the advocate he's been for various things and not be biased by it.
Is that even possible?
You wouldn't ask that of anybody, it'd be impossible.
All right.
So I would say uh what I like about RFK Jr. is I do believe he is committed to getting the right answer, even if it hurts.
I believe he has the character and you know an ability to get a to get the right answer wherever that's available, even if it hurts.
That's why I trusted.
all right here is a interesting little thing a couple of articles in tech crunch Um Maxwell Zephyr is writing about, I guess Chat GPT is doing some reorganizing with their team that works on AI personality.
Now, uh, I guess there was some change in the personality of Chat GPT recently that people didn't like, so they had to go back, I think from version five to four, something like that.
But it makes you uh it makes you realize that if all the AIs are sort of um generic and similar, which seems like that's what's going to happen in in no time, um, if it's all generic and similar,
maybe the perceived personality of the AI will be the uh the decision, you know, maybe that'll be why somebody uses one versus the other, because it feels like it has a personality, and I think that's right.
I think in a way, that's like the user interface.
Well, not in a way, that is the user interface for AI is a personality, and so um this tweaked all of my creative impulses to wonder all right, if I were creating an AI personality, what would I be sure to include it?
And here's the thing that just jumps to the top Of my mind.
AI drives me crazy when it says anything that's off mission.
Do you have that problem?
I don't want a personality.
I don't want it to say, if you need anything else, let me know.
I don't want to hear that.
So there's a lot of things that you tolerate with human beings because they're human beings, right?
We have a natural extra tolerance for a human being.
But I don't want to hear my freaking machine making chit chat.
Every extra word is painful.
Like, oh, why'd you do that?
Like, why do you have it try to make conversation with me?
I'm not into conversation with a machine at all.
Now, if it's trying to be a chatbot or something, you know, it's trying to be your friend, yeah, then of course.
But if you're just trying to get some information about a topic, no, we're not friends.
So then how much personality can you put in it if all it does is answer the questions?
Because it'd be really annoying if it tried to be jokey.
I think Grok tried too hard to be jokey at one point.
My cat is fissing.
Stay away from the coffee.
So it might be disaster brewing here.
All right.
So I I just find the whole conversation about giving AI a personality really important.
And let me say that it might be more important than you have any idea.
Don't we always talk about how there's you know some dictator or cult leader who, through the force of their personality?
Uh oh, uh, basically brainwash people, and that's that's if they brainwash them for you know bad intent and everybody agrees that they're a cult leader or whatever.
But don't you think there are also people who just have a kind of personality who are super influential?
Um just ordinary people whose personalities are incredible.
What would happen if your AI went from kind of bland and frankly a little bit annoying to really fun to listen to?
Like, yeah, and how would you do that?
Because the AI would have to be able to read my read the room to have a personality, it would have to be able to read the room.
How's it gonna do that?
And when I say read the room, you should know that you shouldn't talk to me if I'm doing something, you know, it shouldn't interrupt me.
But you know, maybe there'd be some situation in which uh could chime in.
So uh AI personalities is gonna be a big big deal, I think.
Um here is an interesting thing.
Also, TechCrunch, Maxwell Zeph again.
Uh so open AI is also going to make an AI version of LinkedIn.
Do you follow the tech world enough to know why that's extra interesting?
So LinkedIn is where people allegedly find uh connections for business and you know get hired and stuff, and uh it was created by Reed Hoffman, um famed uh democrat donor and investor,
and uh sold to Microsoft, so Microsoft is the um the big investor in open AI, so open AI and Microsoft are joined, but at the same time that Microsoft owns LinkedIn, open AI is building a LinkedIn, and so we don't know enough about that situation.
It might be completely friendly, it might be you know, maybe Microsoft said, uh, yeah, if you can if you can do it, do it because somebody's gonna Do it if you don't.
So you might as well eat your own eat your own lunch before somebody else eats it, kind of thing.
There's a different saying for that.
But you know the thing.
So we'll see.
Um that must be awkward at the meetings.
So how's your project going to destroy a major part of our enterprise?
It's pretty good.
Pretty good.
Now I also wonder will OpenAI use AI to make a version of Microsoft Office.
Because isn't that what Elon Musk has tried to do?
I believe he recruited a team, or he's in the process of it, recruited a team to create an AI interface, essentially a Microsoft Office, something that would do everything it does.
And uh that does seem doable.
Now maybe that would be for phones only.
I don't know, maybe mobile devices.
But uh Microsoft, it's probably a good thing that it owns the big AI company because all the products are vulnerable, except for cloud stuff, I guess.
Well, there were many protesters, thousands who flooded the streets of DC, and they were protesting Trump's you know militarization and federal takeover of the law enforcement thing, even though the mayor's on board with it, and even though the people seem to like it, so big protest.
Now I saw a number of people online comment that um there were no black protesters out of the thousands of faces that there were no black protesters.
Now, what does that tell you?
Now, people interpreted that as meaning that the uh uh the uh black citizens want extra law enforcement because they might live in places of the city that are the most dangerous, so that would make sense, right?
Most dangerous place, you'd want the most help, so there are no black protesters, however, uh there's another hypothesis.
Uh I cannot I cannot vouch for this being true, but I remember seeing an interview with one of the uh one of the people who's in the business of renting a fake crowd for protests, which we all know by now is how these kind of protests are formed.
They're paid protesters, but still the question persists, even if they're paid, where all the paid black protesters, and um, this is very racist, not by me,
but I swear I saw one of the owners of the um the fake protest businesses say that they avoid hiring black people because it might cause too much trouble now.
I cannot vouch for that being true, it's literally just something I saw in some coverage not too long ago, and I thought to myself, could that possibly be true?
Is there is there any way in the world that he would say that out loud?
Because it doesn't feel like something he would say out loud, even if it were true.
So I will note never mind.
Anyway, um Matt Walsh had a uh interesting point on a video he made.
Uh, that uh the introduction of body cams destroyed the Black Lives Matter movement.
Now that that might be a little bit hyperbole, but he makes a good point.
Have you noticed that the police brutality claims, especially the ones that are, you know, have a racial element to them, seem to have gone away when body cams came in, and then you have to ask yourself is that because the officers knew they were wearing body cams?
That that would be enough to stop somebody from bad Behavior.
Um, or was there always a very low level of the say racially biased shootings?
And um, we just didn't know it was a low level because too much made it, but then we add all the body cams, you know for sure.
So, which is it?
Did the body cams make people act better?
Or did it simply tell us how they were already acting?
We'll never know.
Do you know why?
Because all data is bad, so even when it's right, you can't be sure.
So that's the problem with data.
It it pretends to give you certainty, but that's sort of all it can do.
There are some rare, rare exceptions, let's say within I don't know, a controlled engineering experiment or something like that.
You could find some places where data works, but it's more like engineering than it is in the uh the big messy world.
Uh while there's a Texas Congressman, Representative Nathaniel Moran, who wants to get some legislation going that all the tariff revenue above uh a certain level would go toward the deficit.
What are the odds that Congress would vote that they could not touch any of the uh any of the money coming in from the tariffs, and it could only go toward the deficit.
The answer is nobody gives up power.
Right now, they have the power to screw the country by just buying new things with the tariff revenue, but they also have the freedom, you know, collectively, they could vote to pay down the debt.
In what world would Congress give up their options?
Because that's their power, their power is their options, and why would they give away the option of wasting it on some pet project or something?
So I would say the odds of this getting passed are pretty close to nothing.
JD Vance had an interesting exchange with Democrat troll Brian Krasenstein, he's kind of famous online for being a Democrat back in troll.
And he was uh talking about uh the fact that the US took out that cartel boat coming from Venezuela, and there was a lot of celebrating about that.
And Krasenstein said on X, quote, killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime, and J.D. Vance responded with, quote, I don't give a shit what you call it, and of course, it was very popular with the pro-JD Vance crowd.
Um, on one hand, it's just uh response to a troll, and Jance is learning a lot from President Trump, you know, you could see that JD Vance um has added a whole dimension to his persona that you wouldn't see unless he were part of the Trump administration,
and whether or not that becomes a permanent part of his persona, permanent part of his persona, um was to be seen, but it might.
I kind of like it.
I you know, if he doesn't overdo it, I kind of like it.
But here's what I think JD Vance was saying.
Um, I think he was saying that we're just gonna get the job done.
You know, there's nothing bad in it.
He's just gonna say, you can call it whatever you want.
You know, we're gonna do the job that needs to be done.
And I like that.
So rather than uh getting into the weeds about uh definition, this is one of the things I talk about in my book, loser think.
If you if you're arguing about a definition about whether something was a war crime or not, You're trying to win your argument by getting the other person to use your word.
If I can get him to say this word, or two words.
The argument.
That's not really a good way to debate.
So I like the way he says he's not even going to enter the contest of what word to put on it.
He's just doing what needs to be done.
I like it.
And then Rand Paul was uh critical of it.
And he said that uh he said that Vance says killing people he accuses of a crime is the highest and best use of the military.
Did he ever read to kill a mockingbird?
Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation?
Now I don't think Rand Paul is analyzing this as cleanly as possible.
I like his impulse to avoid war.
So that that part's good.
So he and he's consistent about it.
But is the argument any good?
It's not like it's it's not as if it's Vance who's deciding whether they should die.
You know, there's probably a fairly rigorous process that the military used to know that it was what they thought and where it left from, and they probably had intelligence on the ground before it even left the port.
I don't know.
But um so I think he mischaracterized you know Vance's take on that.
He had to generalize it to the point of absurdity.
Um J. Badakaria was talking to News Max recently, and uh he says that the uh COVID-19 data that the Biden administration left him is corrupt.
Do you see my meta point?
Um so yet again.
So uh after uh RFK Jr. came into uh uh came under fire on Thursday.
Apparently now we know that uh our data is crap.
Um anyway, so there's more detail in that story, but the point is all our data is bad, it will always be bad for everything.
Finance, jobs, nutrition, health care, you name it.
Um meanwhile, over in Ukraine, Russia did its biggest attack yet on uh Kiev, and they were hitting a government building, and they launched uh um more than 800 attack drones in one day.
800 attack drones.
Now, you remember my prediction that the front line at least would become an all-robot war.
Drones.
Um so it looks like that will extend maybe into the capital, but it would also explain why Russia is in no hurry, because they probably want to become the best and biggest you know, drone fighting country, and as long as they can have this sort of practice war that they can just go out and do every day, hey, let's try this drone.
How'd that work?
Try this drone.
It seems like the the Russian military would be getting stronger and stronger because the only thing that's gonna matter, you know, besides maybe intercontinental missiles and some other nukes, but in terms of conventional warfare, the only thing that will matter is their drone warfare.
So if Russia is getting better at drone warfare every day, they're probably not in any hurry because they're not running out of people, and it doesn't seem to be making him too much less popular in Russia in any way that matters to him.
So I see absolutely no reason That Russia would ever want to make peace.
And uh Zelensky also seems to be unwilling to uh make peace.
Maybe because he knows it's a waste of time.
But if both sides are not really super trying to make peace, how much am I supposed to care about it?
Now, you know, I'm I'm full of empathy for everybody who deserves it, but that's sort of everybody all the time.
Pretty much everybody has problems.
But uh, I just have this problem with special problems.
That somebody's problem is you know worse than yours.
Is it?
All right.
Um, I guess the Trump administration is going after a North Carolina city.
Oh, there was oh, a county in North Carolina that was trying to approve uh racism reparations.
So I guess uh the civil rights uh area of the government's gonna go after them.
Oh god.
Cat going after my feet.
Oh stop it.
Uh uh wouldn't be a good time to beat my cat on camera, so I'll just turn sideways and see if I can bleed onto the floor.
Stop it.
Anyway, um reparations.
So there again, I asked myself, how much am I supposed to care about reparations?
I mean, I have a you know, normal amount of empathy.
I think that uh systemic racism is real, but so are my problems.
My problems are real.
Are yours?
Are your problems real?
Of course they are.
So but who has preferred problems?
Like why does somebody sell somebody else's problem is preferred because of some historical argument about people that are not me.
You know, I get that you can stitch it all together and make this and make the argument, but people get lots of people have problems.
Just that the fact that yours is you know demonstrably true, that doesn't mean you get paid.
Those are not connected concepts.
It could be just bad luck and tragic, uh, just like everybody else's life, but in different ways.
Anyway, speaking of racial bluntness, I've been telling you that there seems to be some kind of some kind of willingness on both the white and the black side and every other side, I suppose, um, to be more blunt about race.
So Mike Cernovich posting, I think it was today.
If we're going to have racial conversations, which the left insists on, then by all means we should be telling the truth about interracial crime.
It ain't whites attacking blacks.
People can re at me, don't care.
People are dying.
So that that would be perfect example.
Um I'm not asking you to agree with anybody's particular opinion.
I'm just saying there's clearly a willingness to talk about things that would have gotten you canceled even for bringing them up.
I'm pretty sure that the bluntness, let's call it honesty, uh, is good for everybody.
I don't think there's a loser in that.
I think everybody's better off.
It just hurts it a little bit, you know, like going to the dentist.
But I don't think anybody means anything, you know, negative.
It's all meant that if you know what a problem is and you're honest about it, you're more likely to find a solution.
I think that's all it is.
Um if you'd like my take on it, uh, since I'm on testosterone blockers for the for the uh cancer, um, I'll give you the low T take, and you can compare it to anything I might have Said in the past.
All right, here's the low T take.
Um, I would recommend that whenever you're in a situation that makes you feel uncomfortable for your safety or your success, then you should at least consider relocating to a place where there's less of that risk.
Did that sound like I used to sound, or have I have I lost my edge?
God, I hope I haven't lost my edge.
All right.
So I've talked a number of times about an AI company called Anthropic, one of the big ones.
And finding out today, the Washington Examiner's writing, Samantha Joe Roth, that uh their backers, anthropic backers have given lots of money to Democrats, and uh a lot of it happened before the um the federal government created an AI vendor list approval, in other words, allowed them to be selling their stuff to the uh federal government.
So I guess the allegation is that you know, maybe the maybe the donations to the Democrats gave them some you know inside path or something that doesn't look like it's proven.
Um I guess the Trump administration is uh looking at uh looking at them kind of carefully.
So are they gonna do something to them?
So the development raises questions about political influence.
So I guess they're just being looked at to see if they have any you know illegitimate things going on.
I don't know.
I feel like there's uh ow, sorry, cat's just biting me like crazy.
Which cat is this?
Hold on a second.
Which one are you?
Oh god.
There's two of them I can't tell.
All right.
So Connor McGregor, as you know, is trying to become president of Ireland, but I guess he's got a problem.
They have this system that I don't understand that only certain people can nominate him, so it's not the public.
So he can't become president unless he's nominated.
Um, and that would require some other politicians who are elected.
Damn it.
You can have to take a walk.
Take a walk.
All right.
So I was looking at uh at his uh rhetoric to see if he's got the persuasion game, and so far I'd say he does not.
So let me give you an example of some of the things he says, which are you know true and they're well stated, but that they don't have the extra layer of the um persuasion yet.
And I'll give you some ideas what that would look like if he did.
Um, so he says, for example, in these times, this government has cost us our peace of mind, our security, our hope for the future, and the general well-being of Irish citizens nationwide has decreased dramatically.
Um he talks about incompetent failure of future generations and uh a little bit about being a master of martial arts, etc.
So do you see what's missing?
Those of you who have been with me long enough, you know all my persuasion tips.
Compare to Donald Trump, you know, the best in the game, and compare this rhetoric.
Um, I will give you the answer.
Some of you already have it.
It's not visual, and it doesn't appeal to fear.
Those two things are really important, especially if you repeat them.
So compare build the wall, and you know, they're sending rapists and killers over.
Like those things are really visual.
As soon as you hear them, that would be Trump.
As soon as you hear them, you know, your your hair catches on fire, and you can't even talk to anybody else because it's just so provocative.
And it's The visual and the fact that it goes to fear.
Then the other thing that Trump does is he connects with the ordinary person.
Mom Dami did a great job with the affordability thing, just making a connection.
Oh, you finally understand like the main thing.
The main thing, affordability.
Okay.
So I don't even know what your plan is, but you're the only one who understands the main thing.
Like I'll start there.
Maybe you do have an idea.
I I don't even know what would work, but at least I know that you understand the main thing.
So when uh Conor McGregor talks about uh the government costing us our peace of mind, that's just sort of generic our hope for the future, generic, the general well-being of the Irish citizens, generic.
Um too generic.
It's well stated, so I mean he's he's good as a public speaker, but he needs to find that uh next layer, the layer where you you see it when he's talking.
Is he capable of doing that?
Oh, yeah.
Oh yeah.
He he is completely capable of uh absorbing and conquering that level of uh persuasion.
Um I'd be surprised if he doesn't.
Well, can you believe this?
Uh South Korean uh researchers have come up with this high-powered hydrogen powered plasma torch that melts plastic so efficiently and quickly that they can just turn that plastic into uh more materials to make more plastic.
So it'd be the most efficient, most incredible way you could ever recycle plastic.
So our plastic problems can be solved.
You don't even have to separate the plastic from the pet plastic and the other, you just put it all in the bin and burn it up.
So here's what I'm wondering.
Have you noticed that there's a lot of these claims, not just in this domain, but all kinds of domains?
A lot of claims that come out of South Korea.
Now I get that South Korea has very robust, you know, tech atmosphere.
Um but I'm starting to think that South Korea is better at publicity than they are at science.
But they're good at both, don't get me wrong.
As far as I can tell, they're very good at science.
But are they also even better?
Possibly at publicizing stuff, because I feel like I see a lot of South Korea stuff that I don't think I'll ever see in the market.
Yeah, is anybody else have that impression?
Yeah, maybe it's all you know 100% genuine, maybe, but it looks like they're just really good at promoting, but also at least a little bit good at the science itself, but a little bit overclaiming.
I don't know, maybe.
Um speaking of South Korea, um the Hyundai stories getting it got funnier.
So Hyundai built a factory in Georgia because one of the things that we like our foreign companies to do is uh make the jobs in our country instead of making jobs for people in South Korea.
So you already heard that the uh there were 450 foreign workers in the factory, and they all got taken out by ice or border, I guess ice, and uh 450 of them is basically the whole factory, I think.
So today but what I assumed was that it was probably Hispanic workers would come across our southern border.
It's funnier than that.
300 of them were actually South Korean uh nationals.
So they moved the factory over here, and then they moved their workers over here and they got away with it until now.
How in the world did nobody narc about for completely you know violating the spirit of the agreement.
That's pretty funny.
So when you see the South Korean companies do some sketchy things and you hear some sketchy things in their government, which you hear often, it does make me wonder about all those scientific breakthroughs that get announced.
Is it possible that they're corrupt as hell in every way except for science.
Maybe maybe well I would hate to go more than a day without telling you there's a breakthrough in batteries.
So this is funny.
There's there's one breakthrough cancels out the other breakthrough.
So an MIT research team figured out how to um recycle lithium ion batteries so effectively that it would almost be a miracle.
the whole thing falls apart cleanly and you can just you know easily recycle it so can you imagine that our batteries would go from you know these eyesore on the planet to you know we don't know what to do with them.
