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 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 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 even 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 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 tried to lift the cat with one hand.
And, well, there was a struggle.
One of the cats' legs spazzed out in a cat-like fashion, perfectly striking the large cup of coffee off its coffee warmer.
So you had a little bit of height on the coffee warmer.
And somehow managed to drench coffee in what I would generously estimate is maybe one to two acres 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 comments for locals working in a special little window.
I was watching them in the big window, but now I can see them in the special window.
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.
Dog Effect of Dunning-Kruger00:05:26
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 and mugger glass, a tankard, Cheliserstein, 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 called the simultaneous sip and it happens now yes i did refill my cup of coffee that i spilled All right, well, I got a bunch of 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.
All right.
I wonder if there's any new backward science.
Hmm, here's some.
In SciPost, Eric Nolan 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 foresome.
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.
Backwards 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.
Eric Dolan, who's also writing in SciPost, that overconfidence in your ability to detect BS is linked to cognitive blind spots and narcissistic traits.
So it's more evidence of the so-called 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, you know, 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, 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 probably closer to the latter, but 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 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.
Why AI Needs No Personality00:16:01
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.
But what I was saying is that the dog doesn't know that you're smarter than it.
And 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 a husky and a dolphin.
Have you noticed, this is my new pet mission, I guess.
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 Joe Kennedy III.
So another, well, continuing, it's not the first time.
So he's a family member, and he's calling RFK Jr. and a post-anax calling him a 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 going to 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 inflicting.
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 going to be there just like playing with his bicycle?
And one day he'll be like, oh, oh, God, what's that?
Why does my back hurt?
His mother will say, no one could escape the pain that is RFK Jr.
You're all going to get it.
That's your turn.
That's your turn, little Bobby.
All right.
But does that mean that RFK Jr. is right about everything?
Well, not necessarily.
Let us examine one claim in particular.
So RFK Jr. said recently, just yesterday maybe, that the vaccinated, this would be during COVID, that the vaccinated 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 was vaccinated and the outcomes and stuff.
And he points out that 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.
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 this shot was the reason for that you died right away.
It's not possible that they would call that unvaccinated, is it?
Is it possible?
I'm sorry, it's not funny.
Is it possible that they would give you the vaccination and you drop dead?
And they would say, you're still within the two weeks.
That doesn't count.
Oh, God.
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.
Anyway, but his most provocative claim, the one that caught my attention, was that he says that by month seven, the efficacy of the COVID shot doesn't just hit zero.
He says it plummets into negative territory, meaning that if you got the shot, you're more likely to get what?
To get infected?
Yeah, to get infected.
Now, does that sound true to you?
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 sure something like that's happened, but it 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 going to 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, and by the way, I'm sure I got that whole story wrong, but it was funny.
If you think that that's like a weird story about this one domain where 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 healthcare and nutrition, in finance, in climate.
None of it.
Once you realize that it's all, at the very least, you know, is subject to interpretation, which is, you know, it's about as useless as being bad data.
Once you realize there's everything all the time, then it's easier to analyze a story like this.
Do you believe that 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 data not being sufficient for something of this importance, meaning something you're putting into everybody's body potentially.
Yes.
Yeah, I'm completely, I'm 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 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 right that probably all the data he has is sketchy and insufficient for the importance.
And I would say that every time he believes some data that seems to lean in a direction that, you know, obviously he 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, 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 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 would be impossible.
All right.
So I would say 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 ability to get the right answer wherever that's available, even if it hurts.
That's why I trust him.
All right.
Here is an interesting little thing, a couple of articles on TechCrunch.
Maxwell Zeph is writing about, I guess ChatGPT is doing some reorganizing with their team that works on AI personality.
Now, I guess there was some change in the personality of ChatGPT 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 realize that if all the AIs are sort of generic and similar, which seems like that's what's going to happen in no time, if it's all generic and similar, maybe the perceived personality of the AI will be the decision.
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 where AI is a personality.
And so 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 the 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, but 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 vising.
Stay away from the coffee.
So it might be disaster brewing here.
All right.
So 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 some dictator or cult leader who, through the force of their personality, uh-oh, basically brainwash people.
And that's if they brainwash them for 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 who are 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, really fun to listen to?
AI Reading the Room00:02:50
Like, you know, 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 going to do that?
And when I say read the room, it should know that it 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 it could chime in.
So AI personalities is going to be a big, big deal, I think.
Here is an interesting thing.
Also, TechCrunch, Maxwell Zephy again.
So OpenAI 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 connections for business and get hired and stuff.
And it was created by Reid Hoffman, famed Democrat donor and investor, and sold to Microsoft.
So Microsoft is the big investor in OpenAI.
So OpenAI and Microsoft are joined.
But at the same time, that Microsoft owns LinkedIn, OpenAI is building a LinkedIn killer.
And so we don't know enough about that situation.
It might be completely friendly.
It might be, you know, maybe Microsoft said, yeah, if you can do it, do it, because somebody's going to do it if you don't.
So you might as well 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 is trying 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.
OpenAI's AI Office00:03:40
And that does seem doable.
Now, maybe that would be for phones only.
I don't know, maybe mobile devices.
But Microsoft, it's probably a good thing that it owns the big AI company because all their 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 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 protests.
Now, I saw a number of people online comment that 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 black citizens want extra law enforcement because they might live in places of the city that are the most dangerous.
So that makes sense, right?
Most dangerous place, you'd want the most help.
So there are no black protesters.
However, there's another hypothesis.
I cannot vouch for this being true, but I remember seeing an interview with 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 are all the paid black protesters?
And this is very racist, not by me, but I swear I saw one of the owners of 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 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.
But I will note, never mind.
Anyway, Matt Walsh had an interesting point on a video he made that the introduction of body cams destroyed the Black Lives Matter movement.
Now, that might be a little bit of hyperbole, but he makes a good point.
Have you noticed that the police brutality claims, especially the ones that 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 would be enough to stop somebody from bad behavior.
Or was there always a very low level of the, say, racially biased shootings?
Body Cams and Bias00:05:49
And we just didn't know it was a low level because too much.
But then we had 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 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 big messy world.
Well, there's a Texas congressman, Representative Nathaniel Moran, who wants to get some legislation going that all the tariff revenue above a certain level would go toward the deficit.
What are the odds that Congress would vote that they could not touch 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 talking about the fact that the U.S. 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-J.D.
Vance crowd.
And, you know, on one hand, it's just a response to a troll and J.D. Vance is learning a lot from President Trump.
You know, you could see that J.D. Vance 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, is to be seen.
But it might.
I kind of like it.
If he doesn't overdo it, I kind of like it.
But here's what I think J.D. Vance was saying.
I think he was saying that we're just going to get the job done.
There's nothing bad in it.
He's just going to say, you can call it whatever you want.
We're going to do the job that needs to be done.
And I like that.
So rather than getting into the weeds about a definition, this is one of the things I talk about in my book, Loser Think.
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 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 critical of it.
And 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 part's good.
And he's consistent about it.
But is the argument any good?
It's not as if it's Vance who's deciding whether they should die.
There's probably a fairly rigorous process that the military used to know that it was what they thought and where it left from.
Drone Warfare Dominance00:03:13
And they probably had intelligence on the ground before it even left the port.
I don't know.
But so I think he mischaracterized Vance's take on that.
He had to generalize it to the point of absurdity.
Jay Batakaria was talking to News Max recently, and he says that the COVID-19 data that the Biden administration left him is corrupt.
Do you see my meta point?
So yet again, so after RFK Jr. came into came under fire on Thursday, apparently now we know that our data is crap.
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.
All right.
So meanwhile, over in Ukraine, Russia did its biggest attack yet on Kiev.
And they were hitting a government building and they launched more than 800 attack drones in one day.
800 attack drones.
Now, you remember my prediction that the frontline at least would become an all-robot war.
Drones.
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 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 Russian military would be getting stronger and stronger because the only thing that's going to 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 them too much less popular in Russia in any way that matters to them.
So I see absolutely no reason that Russia would ever want to make peace.
And Zelensky also seems to be unwilling to make peace, maybe because he knows it's a waste of time.
Why Should I Care?00:04:53
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 full of empathy for everybody who deserves it, but that's sort of everybody all the time.
Pretty much everybody has problems.
I just have this problem with special problems, that somebody's problem is, you know, worse than yours.
Is it?
All right.
I guess the Trump administration is going after a North Carolina city.
Ow.
There was a county in North Carolina that was trying to approve racism reparations.
So I guess the civil rights area of the government's going to go after them.
Ow, ow.
Oh, God.
Cat going after my feet.
Stop it.
It 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, so reparations.
So there again, I asked myself, how much am I supposed to care about reparations?
I mean, I have a normal amount of empathy.
I think that 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 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 lots of people have problems.
Just the fact that yours is demonstrably true, that doesn't mean you get paid.
Those are not connected concepts.
It could be just bad luck and tragic, 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 willingness on both the white and the black side and every other side, I suppose, 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 would be a perfect example.
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, is good for everybody.
I don't think there's a loser in that.
I think everybody's better off.
It just hurts a little bit, you know, like going to the dentist.
But I don't think anybody means anything 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.
If you'd like my take on it, since I'm on testosterone blockers for the cancer, I'll give you the low-type take, and you can compare it to anything I might have said in the past.
All right, here's the low-tee take.
I would recommend that whenever you're in a situation that makes you feel uncomfortable for your safety or your success, that 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 lost my edge?
God, I hope I haven't lost my edge.
All right.
South Korean Battery Breakthroughs?00:11:52
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 their backers, anthropic backers, have given lots of money to Democrats.
And a lot of it happened before the federal government created an AI vendor list approval.
In other words, allowed them to be selling their stuff to the federal government.
So I guess the allegation is that maybe the donations to the Democrats gave them some inside path or something.
That doesn't look like it's proven.
So I guess the Trump administration is looking at them kind of carefully.
So were they going to do something to him?
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 a, oh, sorry, Kat'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.
And that would require some other politicians who are elected.
Damn it.
You have to take a walk.
Take a walk.
All right.
So I was looking at his 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 true and they're well stated, but they don't have the extra layer of the persuasion yet.
And I'll give you some ideas what that would look like if he did.
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.
He talks about incompetent failure of future generations and 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.
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 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 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 don't even know what would work, but at least I know that you understand the main thing.
So when Connor McGregor talks about 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.
So too generic.
It's well stated.
So, I mean, he's good as a public speaker, but he needs to find that next layer, the layer where you see it when he's talking.
Is he capable of doing that?
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
He is completely capable of absorbing and conquering that level of persuasion.
I'd be surprised if he doesn't.
Well, can you believe this?
South Korean 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 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 could 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 a very robust tech atmosphere.
But I'm starting to think that South Korea is better at publicity than they are at science.
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.
Does anybody else have that impression?
Maybe it's all 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.
So speaking of South Korea, Hyundai, the Hyundai story is got funnier.
So Hyundai built a factory in Georgia because one of the things that we like our foreign companies to do is make the jobs in our country instead of making jobs for people in South Korea.
So you already heard that there were 450 foreign workers in the factory and they all got taken out by ICE or border, I guess, ICE.
And 450 of them is basically the whole factory, I think.
So today, but what I assumed was that it was probably Hispanic workers who come across our southern border.
It's funnier than that.
300 of them were actually South Korean 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 nerk them out for completely 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 one breakthrough cancels out the other breakthrough.
So an MIT research team figured out how to recycle lithium-ion batteries so effectively that it would almost be a miracle.
So with they use some kind of Kevlar-like electrolyte.
So you don't need to know what that means.
But basically, it wouldn't be that different from batteries we have, except this one material would be different, this Kevlar-like electrolyte.
But that when you did that, when you were done with it, when the battery is to be recycled, it says, I don't believe this, but it says you just drop it in a solvent and the whole thing falls apart cleanly and you can just easily recycle it.
So can you imagine that our batteries would go from these eyesore on the planet to, you know, we don't know what to do with them.
Could they actually turn into, oh, just drop it into solvent?
It's gone.
It's already gone.
I don't know.
That feels a little bit optimistic.
Not only because the entire manufacturing process would have to change to this Kevlar-like electrolyte.
I don't know how easy that is.
But to cancel that out entirely, there's another company, according to Interesting Engineering, that has a whole different kind of battery.
They uses a cohesion-inhibiting new liquid electrolyte, which I'm guessing makes it not applicable for dissolving like that other battery.
And this one is so good that what it'll do, it'll do 500 miles on a single charge and it'll recharge in 12 minutes.
And it will last 186,000 miles.
So that would kind of get it over every hump.
But could you drop it in a solvent and dissolve it?
Maybe not.
So my only point about the battery stuff I always is not that any one of them will be the one that's going to come to the market because most of them will not, but that there is really major, major improvements in that market that are guaranteed to happen just because there's so much happening.
Major Battery Breakthroughs00:00:53
We just don't know which ones will rise to the top.
So big thing is coming in batteries.
Just so you know.
All right.
How do we do?
Oh, pretty good.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you don't have my book, Loser Think, you really should.
It's edition two, and you will enjoy seeing all the bad arguments that you've seen online picked apart and learning how not to make bad arguments yourself because it will make you look foolish if you make bad arguments in public.
So I'm going to talk privately to the beloved members of locals and locals.
I'll be with you in 30 seconds.
The rest of you, you're going to have a tremendous Sunday.