Gaza negotiations, Trump wins in courts again, lots more fun~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Tamarind Microplastics Extraction, Unionizing Uber Lyft, 2028 AOC Newsom, Rigged Polling, Van Jones, Newspaper Copy Editors, SCOTUS Venezuelan Deportations, Russ Vought Cuts, Healthcare Costs, Privacy vs Safety, Comey Perp Walk Refusal, FBI Whistleblowers Biden, Sanctuary City Fed Funding, Portland Nick Sorter Arrest, Argentina Zero-Tolerance, China Sabotage NY Operation, Israel Hamas War, Ukraine War, Canned Corn Explosives, Europe Air Defense, Satellite vs Satellite Surveillance, Japan Right-Wing Leader, Sanae Takaichi, Purring Bone Repair, 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.
Make sure you have your beverage because you're going to need it.
You're going to need a beverage today.
All right, let's see if we can get everything working today.
We'll get your comments working.
Oh.
Darn it.
Not on that device.
Maybe on this device.
I've got to remember to charge my devices, you know?
Oh, no.
No.
I thought my cleaning proof threw away my one look out.
Look how nasty this is.
It's the thing I read for the simultaneous hip.
It's the same one I've had for 10 years or something.
Well, looks like we should get serious now.
I'd like to get serious.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mugger or a glass attacker, chelsea stein, a canteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope beating of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous hip, and it happens now.
Go spectacular.
Well, I wonder if there's any scientific study that they didn't really need to do.
Maybe they could have asked Scott, oh, here's one.
Medical Express is writing about, Albert Stumb is writing that couples should never go to bed angry, right?
It might be time to rethink that, he thinks.
So how many of you have a rule, if you're a couple, that you never go to sleep angry or bad?
Is that a good rule?
Well, it turns out maybe that's a bad rule.
Because if you don't go to sleep when you're angry, you're probably going to be even more angrier because you didn't get any sleep.
That's what they're finding out now.
And they could have saved a little bit of time by asking me.
Let me summarize this.
If you're a couple, a hetero couple, and you're having a fight, the man wants to go to sleep, and the woman wants to keep that man up as part of the process of torturing the man until he does or says what the woman wants him to do.
Am I right?
I don't know if I can even remember a time I was in a couple situation and I wanted to stay up late to argue about something.
Self-Driving Accidents?00:06:33
Zero times I've wanted to do that.
I always think, I'll still be here tomorrow.
It probably wasn't important in the first place.
All right, so as long as you remember, it's only women who want to stay up late, and it's not because they want to work it out, it's because they want to torture you.
All right.
There's, according to Massimo, it's an account on X. He doesn't have a source, but he says that tamarind might help remove microplastics from your body.
So apparently microplastics like to stick to tamarind.
So it's not confirmed, but there seems to be evidence that if you ate tamarind, it would remove your microplastics.
I don't know.
I like having microplastics in my balls, according to science.
At some point, they'll be just totally plastic.
But that might work.
So you know how I've been a continuous, let's say, AI skeptic?
Well, I think I'm ahead of my time.
So just a post by Santiago, who is apparently in the technical world.
And he says nobody is writing 90% of their code using AI, which is a claim that you've heard, that 90% of the code could be AI.
He goes, the real productivity game for using AI is probably closer to 10%.
I guess Sundar Pichet, CEO of Google, said last year that 30% of the new code at Google was AI generated, but that the velocity only increased by 10%.
So you might be doing more of your code with AI, but that doesn't mean you're doing less work because you've got to check it.
You have to check it so much it's about the same amount of work.
Which is what I sort of speculated would be true.
But here's one that caught me off guard.
You've heard that the best AIs are already better than doctors looking at scans, right?
You've all heard that?
Well, somebody who's not an AI company did a test.
Roan Paul's talking about this on X. And it turns out that the actual human radiologist did way better than the GPT-5.
GPT-5 was looking at radiology scans.
I guess it got 30% right.
30%.
And the doctors just killed it.
So if you thought that it was already replacing programmers, not even a little, and if you thought that it was going to quickly replace doctors in at least some small way, maybe not.
Maybe we're not even close.
I mean, it does stand to reason that AI would do pattern recognition better than people eventually, but it doesn't look like we're actually that close.
There's one of the AIs called Sora that makes videos, just banned South Park videos from being made on their platform because people were making full episodes.
I kept saying that AI can't make a full movie or a full TV show.
It only does, you know, it's only good for, I don't know, less than a minute.
But apparently, if your content is as simple as South Park, because that would be the simplest art you could reproduce, people have figured out how to make full fake episodes.
I don't think they'll be funny, but they would be full.
Well, there's a new study according to Futurism that says that the Waymo self-driving taxi cars are so safe that it's almost comical, they say.
So there are reports of accidents in the self-driving Waymos, but if you drill down, it's often that the Waymo was parked.
Something just ran into it while it's parked.
A lot of the accidents got rear-ended, which presumably most of them were not its fault.
And then there were some where the passengers opened a door while it was still moving, and it would do something like hit a passenger or something.
But if you looked at just real accidents where the Waymo caused the accident or couldn't respond fast enough, it's almost disappearing number.
So we're beyond the crossover point where the self-driving car is safer than a human.
It looks like we're way over.
Now, they're claiming that the Waymos are safer than the Tesla self-driving.
But that likely is also to be a questionable data, but also that would change quickly, I'm sure.
Anyway, so self-driving cars, they're coming.
So let's see.
I live in California, the dumbest state.
What would the dumbest state do if they knew that self-driving taxis were the biggest new wave that's coming?
What would be the dumbest thing you could do?
Oh, it's what we're doing.
Newsome just signed a, they call it a landmark deal, Politico does, so that Uber and Lyft drivers can form unions, at least in California.
So we're 12 months away from every Uber driver and Lyft driver losing their job because they can't compete with self-driving taxis.
Maybe not one year, maybe two.
And Newsom wants to make it more expensive for Uber and Lyft to maintain those drivers.
Now, I would think that Uber and Lyft are already looking at self-driving options because it's the only way they'll survive.
And they're really going to have to run now because there's no way they're going to compete with unionized drivers.
So I think California just put Uber and Lyft and a business from their, at least their existing business model.
Polls and Political Strategies00:10:33
They probably can adjust.
Well, of course, it's a Saturday, so we're talking about Bill Maher saying interesting things with his guests.
I guess Bill Maher was a little frustrated, they say, with Dave Chappelle and some other, I guess some other comedians went to Saudi Arabia for some kind of comedy event there.
Got paid an awful lot, like a lot.
We don't know the numbers, but you can assume it's a lot.
But Chappelle acted as if he could speak more freely in Saudi Arabia than in America.
But I know the only example I heard of that was that Chappelle joked that he could make fun of Israel and Saudi Arabia, but not in America.
Is he right?
Of course he is.
Yeah.
Now, I would not say that there's more free speech in Saudi Arabia, but just on that one topic.
Yeah, on that one topic, probably more free speech in Saudi Arabia.
All right.
Now, free speech is not really the question because the government is not involved in any case.
But you wouldn't get away with it so well in the U.S. And then Van Jones, who is also on Bill Maher's show, made news a few times.
And one of them was that Van was sort of agreeing with Bill Maher that the Nigeria genocide, which apparently is a genocide that's been ongoing of Christians, is being ignored.
And there's certainly thought that some groups are getting special attention.
And Van Jones said, quote, no Jews, no news.
Apparently, that's a saying.
I'd never heard that before.
So the idea was that people don't care about Nigeria, but we've been trained to care about Israel.
So we imagine that whatever's happening in Israel is the big news.
But Nigeria is pretty big news, genocide-wise.
Gavin Newsom is trying to get right with the young men.
So he played Fortnite and talked politics on Twitch.
And he has admitted that Democrats are not very entertaining or funny.
I like the fact that they're starting to realize that they don't have a meme game and they don't have a humor game and their social media game is basically just mean.
It's never funny or uplifting or positive or anything.
But this story makes me give my prediction for 2028.
I feel like we're heading, and I might, you know, I'm terrible at guessing vice president choices.
I don't think I've ever probably never been right about vice president choices.
My other predictions on other domains have been pretty good, but vice president, terrible.
I'm terrible at that.
However, I had an image today while I was just sitting here of Newsom being the top of the ticket and AOC being the VP.
And I thought to myself, oh, shoot, they cancel each other's problems pretty well.
You know it?
So AOC is too lefty to be the head of the ticket right away.
I mean, she could, you know, if she were under Newsom, who probably would move to the middle if he were running for president, you know, we already see signs of that.
So Newsom could make the Democrats look like they wouldn't be communists, while AOC would satisfy the communists who say, well, but if we could get a communist in the pipeline.
Now I'm saying communists instead of socialists, but you know.
So if you think of them as a pair, they kind of solve for each other, don't they?
In a way that Vance and Trump also solve for each other.
So if you think of either of them individually running against J.D. Vance, I see both of them losing.
But if you see them as a team and people also see them as a team, they do kind of cancel for each other's weaknesses.
And that you could have to watch out for.
They would be the most, let's say, media savvy Democrats.
They both were, well, Newsome more than AOC, would probably be willing to bend in whatever direction would get them elected, which I hate to say is good technique, if that's what you want to do.
So I'm not going to say that they could win yet, but I would be surprised if that's not the ticket.
Newsome on top and AOC VP.
So look for that.
All right.
You know how we all became so cynical about political polls that we thought that many of them were fake?
Well, I have a little way for you to tell when polls are likely to be fake, not confirming, but when they're likely to be fake.
They're least likely to be fake when there's something imminent that will tell you what the truth was.
For example, the polls always get suspiciously, they say the polls will get suspiciously accurate close to the election itself.
Have you noticed that?
That all the pollsters who are all over the place, they start converging.
Doesn't mean they're right, but they're way closer to whatever the reality is by election day.
Do you know why?
Well, my theory, based on pollsters who actually are in the business, and we'll say this directly, is that a lot of those polls are fake when it's far away from the election.
In other words, they're just trying to push a candidate by making them look more popular.
And the reason they can do that when the election is far away is they can always say, well, things tightened up at the end.
So nobody will know that it was a fake poll because when you get to the point where you can actually count the votes, they've already closed the gap and gotten close to reality.
So it's a perfect crime.
So now look at the polls about public opinion of who's being blamed for closing the government.
Oh, isn't that convenient that there will never be an election?
So we'll never know for sure what people thought about closing the government and whether or not the Democrats or Republicans are mostly to blame.
What happens when there's no way to know for sure if a poll is rigged?
I'll tell you what I think happens.
I think they're rigged.
And I would think that since there's no way to get caught, because people will just say, well, our poll said this, your poll said that.
It's a toss up.
I think that probably the polls are rigged.
Not all of them, but some of them on the question of who's getting blamed for the shutdown.
Van Jones also thinks that the Democrats are being dumb because they're going to get blamed for every little thing that's not happening.
But he's not 100% sure.
Could go either way.
He says, quote, I think you can always trust our party to do the wrong thing at the wrong time for the right reason.
That's pretty good, too.
The wrong thing at the wrong time.
But, you know, they mean well.
That's a perfect summary.
Wrong thing at the wrong time, but they mean well.
In other news, the Washington Post is firing some more reporters and editors as part of their sweeping changes that they're doing over there.
But do you know what a copy editor is versus a regular editor?
A regular editor is sort of looking at the big picture.
What is the story about?
And does it make sense?
And does it hold together?
Just the big picture.
So that's what that kind of editor would do.
And that kind of editor might be more like a manager.
But a copy editor would be a lower level, usually younger editor who's trying to someday maybe be a regular editor.
But the copy editor is just checking grammar and punctuation.
Now, several of them look like they're getting cut.
And I say, why would a newspaper need a copy editor in the age of AI?
That seems to be the one thing that the AI would get every time and should be already better than a regular copy editor.
Now, it might not work as well for a book because I don't know just length.
But if you're taking a newspaper article and all you wanted to do is check the grammar, why do you need a human to do that?
So I think what they're doing is they just won't have copy editors for the opinion people.
But they probably will say, make sure you run it through an AI to at least check the spelling and stuff.
All right.
So the Supreme Court has sided with Trump that he can strip the deportation protection from 300,000 Venezuelan migrants that he's been trying to ship back.
So Trump wins again.
New York Post is reporting.
Supreme Court on Friday said, yep, you can deport those 300,000 Venezuelans.
People Trade Privacy for Health Care00:05:13
Meanwhile, Russ Vogt, budget guy, is already looking for big multi-billion dollar cuts that he can do when the government is partly shut down.
So he's freezing $2.1 billion in infrastructure in Chicago.
He's already stripped $8 billion in funding for green projects.
And see what else.
And $18 billion in infrastructure for New York City.
Now, some of those might just be delayed, but some of them might be just money we'll never have to spend.
So there was some quotes by Yuval Noah Harari.
He's a famous author who says provocative things.
He's very smart, so people listen to him.
And he said that, quote, most people will be willing to give up their privacy in exchange for much better health care based on 24-hour monitoring of what's happening inside their bodies.
Wide Awake Media is reporting on this.
So the people who have biometric sensors, he thinks, and Google and Facebook and everybody else, including China, will know what's happening in your body all the time.
But it'll make your healthcare much less expensive.
I'm going to double down on that.
Not only is he probably right, here's what I think is going to happen.
The normal way that civilization goes is that we tweak the things that are working and we tweak it and tweak it and tweak it.
With healthcare, those tweaks just make everything better but more expensive.
The better part is great.
The more expensive part reaches this point where we just can't do it.
It's just too expensive.
And we're there.
We're at that point where we just can't afford everybody to have the high-quality healthcare.
So what would happen if you just can't afford it and the government isn't going to give it to you?
Well, you're going to get flexible then.
And then somebody's going to say, all right, here's the deal.
If you give up all of your bodily privacy, we'll tell you that we'll anonymize the data so that we're just using it for science and it's not about you specifically.
We'll tell you that it's private, but you'll never know.
But you have to give us all your data about your health all the time, and then we'll give you health care insurance at half the price.
How many people would take that deal?
All the young people, because the young people don't care about privacy the way the older people do.
So I do think, I've been saying this for years, actually, that the unstoppable arc of history is that people will willingly trade their privacy for financial gain and safety.
And I would add that people will trade their privacy to handle crime, especially in the AI age of crime, where there will be so much clever crime with AI,
people stealing your passwords and your face and your just everything, that you're going to say, all right, in order for me to be safe from, let's say, identity theft, somebody's going to need to know where I am at all times.
So that if somebody is in Walmart trying to pretend to be me, the system will say, nope, we know where Scott is.
Scott's not in Walmart.
That can't be him.
So that's a simplistic example.
But I think that because we're broke, that we incrementally just made everything better, but more expensive, that security will be too expensive.
And also the risk of bad things will be higher and higher.
And healthcare will just be literally unaffordable.
And that the solution for both of those will be massive voluntary in quotes giving up of privacy because it's the only way to lower your costs.
It's the only way.
There's probably no other way to do it.
Now, I know whenever I broach this subject, you imagine that I'm in favor of losing privacy.
I'm not in favor of it.
I'm just saying there's no way around it.
We're all going to give up our privacy and we'll do it because we can't afford not to.
It would just be too dangerous and too expensive.
So I guess the Trump push against crime in Memphis is underway.
And Pam Bondi says, according to Newsmax, 60 rests overnight.
Sanctuary Cities Controversy00:09:22
They got a bunch of guns and illegal people and got a suspect warrant for terrible crime.
So since Monday, they've had 153 rests, including five gang members, 48 guns seized, and five missing children recovered.
How do they get 48 guns?
Does that mean that there were 48 suspicious people that they stopped that all had illegal guns?
That's a lot of people with guns in a few days.
So you know that story about the trans person who wanted to travel to Kavanaugh's house and assassinate him, but that plot got stopped.
Well, that person just got a eight-year prison sentence.
Prosecutors were going for 30.
I saw some chatter that some people thought he got a lesser or she, I don't know how he or she identifies, but that the perp got a lesser sentence than it could have been because of the trans situation.
I'm not sure I believe that, but I heard some chatter about that.
Anyway, trans is every story, it seems like.
Well, apparently we're hearing now, according to the Gateway pundit, Christina Leila, has a, I think, looks like a scoop, but I'm not sure, that allegedly an FBI agent was fired recently for refusing to arrest and do a perp walk of James Comey.
Didn't you wonder why there was no perp walk?
You know, like the Roger Stone raid at six in the morning at his house with the CNN cameras all running?
And you wondered, wait a minute, because Roger Stone asked this question.
Why did I get the 6 a.m. raid with the cameras rolling?
And what did Comey get?
Come in when he got a chance?
Something like that.
Well, now we know part of the reason.
They might have had trouble getting an FBI agent to actually participate in perp walking their old boss, but they fired one.
They fired him for refusing.
And I thought to myself, you know what?
I think you have to fire that guy.
I do think you have to fire him.
I can see why he doesn't want to do it.
I mean, you know, he might have some loyalties and a history and all that.
I can see.
But you just can't make no.
You know, you can't just have people say, no, I won't do what you just ordered me to do.
So anyway, fired for refusing the perp walk.
According to John Solomon and Stephen Richards and Just the News, they're reporting that FBI had three informants that were talking about Biden corruption in Ukraine, but there was no investigation that anybody can identify.
So the FBI had three whistleblowers saying that the Bidens were doing illegal stuff in Ukraine and they decided not to, we think, current information, they decided not to pursue it.
Do you think there's any reason that they didn't pursue it other than the president was the president?
Seems to me probably just because the president was going to get them if they did.
Trump has another legal victory.
I guess a judge just ruled that sanctuary cities can be cut off from federal funds if Trump wants to do that.
Bright Bart has that story.
So that's a pretty big one.
Will that be enough for sanctuary cities to go away?
Or will they say, you can't do this to us?
We will not take your federal money and we will stay a sanctuary city.
I don't know how big their budget is and how much of that is federal funds, but I would think that losing federal funds for a city would be a big enough deal that they'd have to back off the sanctuary city thing.
I don't know what's going to happen.
Probably more lawsuits.
So you know the story about, I guess you would call him independent journalist, Nick Sorter.
So he got arrested in Portland, and the video that we saw was he was taking a burning flag and an Antifa person's hand, and he put it on the ground and he stomped out the fire because he was trying to be pro-flag, you know, anti-burning, and couldn't put up with watching it burn.
Now, I don't know that it was an upgrade that he took a burning flag that somebody was holding on a pole and put it on the ground and stomped on it.
I don't know if that accomplished the, let's show full respect for the flag that maybe he wanted, but everybody got the point that he wasn't cool with people burning a flag right in front of him.
However, what kind of a crime is that?
The flag was already on fire.
It's not like he destroyed a flag.
It's not, I don't think it's illegal to try to save a flag.
So here's the new update in the story.
Apparently the police who arrested him also didn't know what crime they were arresting him for, he says, and that it took them an hour of discussion to come up with something that looked like a crime that they could say that was why they arrested him.
So can you be arrested before they know why they're arresting you?
Wouldn't that be enough just by itself to get you out of jail if you found out you were arrested first and then they tried to figure out why you did?
Or is that normal?
Maybe they just assume there's something and that's routine enough?
No typing.
No typing.
All right, my cat's trying to use my key.
Anyway, so it's funny because when I watched the videos of the arrests, I was asking the same questions like, we don't have any video of any kind of a crime.
What kind of a crime?
I think it had something to do with disturbing the peace or some stupid thing.
Doesn't look like it will hold up.
So, you know, Argentina's flashy new president, Javier Millé.
He's just launched a zero tolerance plan, he calls it for their criminal code.
So I guess there's a lot of crime.
And he's going to be as aggressive in fighting crime as he has been in changing the economics in that country.
But one of the things that caught my eye is that he wants to revise things so that a 13-year-old can be charged as an adult for some kinds of crimes.
Currently, it's 16.
I don't know what that's probably what it is in the U.S., right?
That if you're 16 or older, it's up to the court whether they charge you as an adult, right?
Is that how it works?
Over 16, it's an option.
But he wants to go to 13 because of the gang situation.
Once the gangs and the kids realize that they can get away with anything, if they're under 16, then a lot of your gang action becomes 15-year-olds.
So maybe that's a good idea.
I mean, it seems harsh as heck that a 13-year-old would be charged as an adult.
I mean, it's hard to imagine something harsher than that.
On the other hand, if it's a gigantic problem that the 13-year-olds are becoming gang members, maybe it's a good idea.
I don't know.
So we'll see what happens there.
Remember that story about the 100,000 SIM cards in a New York area?
They found a room that was these giant racks with, I think, some kind of phones.
And it was designed so that they could make a whole bunch of phone calls and jam up a telephone cell network if they wanted to.
So it was basically a hacker facility for bringing down the U.S. phone system in at least New York.
And the current update is that it was probably China.
It was probably China.
So what do you think of that?
It's one thing when Americans travel to China and, you know, they get they're being spied on and their IP is stolen, that's bad enough.
But can China build a facility in the United States that has no other purpose than sabotage?
China's Sabotage Facility00:15:45
No other purpose.
There's nothing else it could do.
It was only built for sabotage.
What do we do with that?
Do we call them up and say, ah, we do some stuff to you, you do some stuff to us.
We cautious.
So, you know, why don't you let some of our spies loose or something like that?
You wonder how civilized it is behind the curtain.
Because, you know, obviously we know that they're doing stuff like this.
And obviously, China knows that if we can, we'd be doing stuff like that, you know, some version of it, whatever the American version looks like.
So it does make me wonder if behind the curtain, everybody just goes, ah, nice try.
We got you on this one.
You'll get us on the next one.
And it was just sort of some like professional cat and mouse game.
No cat.
No, no.
Do not eat cables.
Well, the big news is that Hamas saw Trump's proposed ceasefire deal and very cleverly agreed to a different deal.
So the news is acting like there's something like a deal because the U.S. proposed it.
Israel said yes from the start.
And then we waited for Hamas and then Hamas said yes.
But in their yes, they specified things that may be so unacceptable that it's really a no.
So there's a little bit of fog of war around this, but I guess Trump asked Israel to stop bombing, stop fighting, so that they could see if they've got something here.
And I think Israel did.
But that doesn't mean that we have a deal.
It just means that they're going to try to make a little space to make sure there's a deal.
So what Hamas wants that looks to me like a non-starter is that they cleverly, it looks like they're going to cleverly say, oh, we don't want any role in the future leadership.
No, no, we'll give that up.
But what they do want is to be part of the decision-making for how some kind of a Palestinian leadership is designed for the whole area.
And the peace deal that, as I understand it, does not, in the early days, give Gaza any kind of Palestinian leadership or any kind of Hamas involvement.
And that that's like a pretty hard rule.
And that it would be some coalition of friendly Arab countries that just want to take some kind of temporary, but it might last a while, some kind of management role of the area, so that someday it could be Palestinian-led, but not in the short run.
So it seems to me that Hamas might have a clever plan that goes like this.
How about we'll be totally peaceful, but we'll just be a useful part of the transition to a Palestinian leadership.
What would happen if Hamas peacefully became a powerful part of the Palestinian leadership in the future?
Well, since Hamas seems to be the most bloodthirsty and willing to go the furthest, probably the same thing would happen.
In the medium term, it wouldn't even be long term.
In the medium term, they would just reconstitute all their military threat.
They would kill the people who are peaceful but ahead of them in politics, and they would just take over again, right?
So if they exist in any form, it allows them to organize, get weapons, prepare for the next time they try to take over, and we would get nothing.
So if you think that's a small deal of who's involved in figuring out what the leadership of that country looks like, it's not a small deal.
It's the whole deal.
And they're completely on opposite sides.
You can't have absolutely no involvement or power or weapons or anything for Hamas.
At the same time, Hamas is a key player in reorganizing and rebuilding Gaza.
Can't have both.
And it looks like that might be the stopping point.
It looks like there would be agreement on hostages, but Hamas says, yeah, we totally agree on this hostage exchange, but only if the field conditions are ready for peace.
And so that means that they get to keep their weapons.
They get to be part of the solution going forward.
So they're not really agreeing to exchange hostages.
I'm seeing a bunch of messages here.
Oh, I see somebody arguing about whether the ADL called me a Holocaust Holocaust denier.
It wasn't the ADL.
It was the head of the ADL, Greenblatt.
So he personally did it, not the ADL officially.
Anyway, here's what I think.
I think the big winner here might be Israel, because it looks to me like this will be the final proof that Hamas is not serious about a real peace deal, because they're not going to take themselves out of it.
And if they have to be taken out of it, they're not going to give up their hostages.
So I think we're right back where we started.
But there is people who are smarter than I am are acting optimistic.
And if they're acting optimistic, it could be.
It could be the Hamas is taking their best shot, but they know they're going to have to negotiate back to something like not being involved in the future.
So we'll see.
I'm going to bet against this working.
I want it to work.
And I think it's the closest we've ever been.
And there's definitely a possibility it could work.
But I'm going to bet against it.
My prediction will be that Israel just gets their free pass and they get to say, well, we tried, did everything we could, couldn't get it done.
Russia has attacked Ukraine's, one of their big natural gas facilities.
So as I'd been predicting, the war has evolved into mostly robots doing the fighting, if you include drones as robots.
And the most impactful attacks will be on energy infrastructure in Russia and Ukraine.
So it's getting closer and closer to that old original Star Trek plot that I've never been able to get out of my head because it makes so much sense, but it's so ridiculous.
And when something makes complete sense, but it's also ridiculous, you can't forget that.
Do you remember the episode where there was some planet where they were so advanced that they realized that having cats and they realized that having wars where you reached trying to kill each other was too uncivilized, but that they couldn't solve stuff without war.
So you still had to have the war, but you wanted to get rid of the uncivilized part of the war where people are being ripped apart by shrapnel.
So instead, they would simulate the war with computers so they know who would have won if they'd had a war.
And then the losing team has to line up and go into these machines that basically evaporate them.
So they kind of volunteer to be taken off the face of the earth if their side loses in the simulation.
And they're all just happily standing in line because they agree with that's their system.
Well, when I watch the Russia-Ukraine war morph from frontline action, hand-to-hand combat, people blowing people up with shrapnel, and that's all it is in the beginning.
And then it starts to morph to, well, our robots are attacking your people.
Okay, now your robots are attacking our robots.
So you got a robot-robot thing going, kind of like a simulation in a way.
And then You get to the point where the key targets are not people anymore.
The key targets are the infrastructure.
So, what would happen if they just said, All right, here's the deal: we're going to stop targeting people because it's not working.
The front line just hasn't moved.
So, we'll just stop targeting people, but we'll go after your infrastructure.
You go after our infrastructure.
And by the way, we don't need people to go after infrastructure.
We'll use robots.
So, our robots will attack your infrastructure, your energy infrastructure.
Your robots will attack ours.
And then, whoever does the most damage with their robots on our infrastructure gets to win the war.
It's almost like Star Trek.
It's so weirdly reminding me of it.
Anyway, so I think I called that.
I don't know who else was predicting that it would become a robots on energy infrastructure war, but I'm going to claim credit for getting that one right.
So, apparently, the Russians had some kind of a plot to smuggle a bunch of drone explosives in cans of corn.
So, they had massive cans of corn that had explosives in them.
Do you know why they had to use corn?
Because you can't have bombs that are made of peas because it's like peas.
Never mind, never mind.
It works better if you see it in writing.
All right.
So, apparently, the I don't know how they would even know that.
They think that these cans of corn with explosives in it were part of creating weapons for drones that would be dropped on Poland, Lithuania, and Germany.
Do you think Russia is literally targeting Poland, Lithuania, and Germany directly with explosives?
I don't know.
I'm not buying that.
That doesn't really make sense, like why they would take that kind of a chance.
I could see them doing lots of flyovers with their, you know, with their drones and trying to unsettle Europe and make them think that they don't have any airspace defense, which they don't, apparently.
So, that part makes sense.
I can't imagine that Germany would start doing explosive things, you know, things blowing up in these, you know, especially, especially if it's a NATO country.
I just can't see them doing it.
So, I don't believe that news.
Zelensky did a video, which I also don't believe.
It might be a little bit true, but he says that Russia now imports gasoline from various places from China and Europe and Belarus.
That would be because Ukraine did such a good job blowing up the refineries that they have to import gas.
Do you believe that?
Here's what I believe: probably a little bit and temporarily.
So, I know some of the refineries got knocked out, so you could easily imagine them saying, All right, damn it, it's going to take us four months to fix this refinery, so we'll buy a little gas from our neighbors until we get that fixed.
It doesn't necessarily mean that Ukraine is bringing Russia to its knees on energy, but it's a little bit of a little bit of a hint that if they keep doing it, maybe.
I mean, that does signal something if they're getting their gas from other countries.
That's not a nothing, but I don't think it's as big as Zelensky wants to make it out to be yet.
It'll get bigger.
Um, but uh, Russia is also reportedly, according to Visigrad 24 on Axe, started attacking Ukrainian passenger trains with suicide drones.
So, they just took out a passenger train yesterday, I guess.
So, it's not all energy infrastructure, might be some other infrastructure too.
Um, so more airports are uh shuttered.
I guess there's a Munich airport had another strange drones.
How surprised are you that there's no real uh air defense in Europe?
And apparently, there's no real air defense in America.
Is that a surprise to you?
It's not a total surprise to me.
I've spent many, many years wondering how you could possibly protect the sky over a major country.
I mean, I can see why, you know, if maybe one missile was coming in, you could, you know, get a beat on it or something.
But it just doesn't seem to me that anybody can guard their sky.
It doesn't seem doable.
So I think Putin is probably being kind of smart, if it's Putin, to remind us every day, you know, Europe doesn't have any air defense.
So if you want to cause some trouble, you want to get into a big war, don't count on air defense because you don't have any.
It's a pretty good, pretty good psychological attack, if that's what's going on.
We don't know that.
There's also reports, BBC, that Russia is targeting UK military satellites.
So I guess they try to jam them from the ground, presumably over the Ukraine situation.
But they also have assets in the air that apparently are following around other countries' satellites and trying to get data from them or jam them.
So there's already a space war.
So we actually currently have assets in space, we meaning the world.
So the UK has satellites and the Russians have anti-satellite equipment following it around, trying to jam it or try to read it.
So the space war, it's already on.
Yeah, space war is on.
It's just, you know, it'll get worse, but it's on.
Yeah, let's see what else is happening.
Space War Already On00:03:53
I saw a post by Marcus Villig who said that Europe now has...
Wait, that's not who that was.
It was from Cremieu.
Cremu noticed that NVIDIA's market cap now exceeds that of all the big pharma combined.
So that one company, NVIDIA, bigger value than all of the big pharma combined.
Wow.
A lot of smart people are saying that the American economy would already be in an obvious recession except for AI and the AI stuff might be a little overblown.
But at the moment, it's making everything frothy.
So it is feeling a little bit like a dot-com bubble, I got to admit.
But I don't think you can use that analogy to predict this one because everything's, you know, there's always enough differences that the analogy is not the thing you should look to.
Never use the analogy to win your argument.
That's what I say.
But also, Marcus Willig said that Europe now has zero companies left in the global top 25.
Just hold that in your head for a second.
Europe, Europe, all of Europe, has no company that's in the top 25 biggest companies.
None.
Do you have any question about the direction that Europe is going?
I don't see if Europe is not friendly for business, but is super friendly for Islamic immigration.
This only goes one way, right?
It can only go in one direction.
It's not like there's some possibility that it can go in a different direction.
They have designed Europe for failure, looks to me.
By design, it can't exist in the long run.
But over in Japan, some interesting occurrence.
So for the first time, a woman is going to be prime minister of Japan if everything goes the way it looks like it will.
But the woman, Sanai Takachi, is a super right-wing leader.
So Japan is going full Trump, apparently.
So Ms. Takeuchi is an anti-immigration, anti-migration and opposes same-sex marriage, supports the requirement for couples to share a surname after marriage.
So she's so right-wing that she doesn't want you to get married unless you're going to take your husband's last name.
And she thinks that government gender equality could destroy the social structure of the family units.
And She supports jailing people who damage Japan's national flag.
So she's super conservative.
And do you think that's the Trump effect?
I'm going to say yes.
I think that's the Trump effect.
I think that Japan is looking at the United States and saying, oh, yeah, maybe we need to close a border and maybe we need to get tough on crime.
Yeah, maybe we need to jail people who disrespect the flag.
I'm not on board on that one, by the way.
But I can see how they might look at it and say, let's take that model.
Yeah, that's definitely Trump.
But the most important thing, this is also from Massimo on X. Again, I don't have the source for this, so maybe he's good at making stuff up.
Purr Into Health00:01:16
I don't know.
But he says that scientific research has confirmed that a cat's purr is that a vibration that helps heal bones and improve tissue repair.
Now, I've heard that before, but his claim is that science has confirmed it.
So that's why I have these cats for medical reasons because they're purring me back to health.
All right.
So if you get a cat, your cat's going to purr you back to health.
Now, normally on Saturdays, normally on Saturdays, Owen does a spaces after the show, but this weekend it will be on Sunday.
So don't look for the spaces event following this.
But normally it would be on Saturday.
But this week, Sunday.
So go check that out tomorrow.
A cat purr is one of the best sounds ever, I have to say.
One of the best sounds ever.
All right, I'm going to talk privately to the beloved members of locals.