The news is slow but that won't stop us from having a good time~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Climate Change Scientists, Polar Bear Adaptation, Bret Weinstein, Baby Vaccinations, Vaccination Safety Testing, Optimus v3 Hand, TX Soros Prosecutors, Conservative Influencers Drama, Jack Posobiec, Myron Gaines, Nick Fuentes, Mark Levin, Lemon Juice Invisibility, Low Knowledge Confidence, Economy Persuasion, President Trump, Anti-Trump Economic Reporting, Nick Shirley, Minnesota Somali Fraud, Tim Walz, Elon Musk, UK Anti-Trump, Gaza Hamas Talks, 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.
We've got a slow news day, so we're going to have to make the most of it.
But you know we can.
We got funny news stories.
We've got reframes.
We've got drama.
We've got trouble.
It's going to be awesome.
So I'll remind you, I guess that's the wrong word because I haven't told you yet, but it's Saturday.
And there will be a spaces event hosted by Owen Gregorian immediately-ish after this podcast.
So if you didn't get enough of what I'm going to give you, you can go get a little extra.
So Spaces is the audio feature within X. If you're not on the X platform, you probably should be, because it's got a lot of good stuff.
All right.
People, people.
You know what we should do?
The simultaneous sip.
That's probably why you're here.
And all you need for that is a copper mugger, a glass of tanker, child society, canteen, sugar, flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It's going to happen right now.
Go.
And if you subscribe to Owen Gregorian's X feed, you would get extra spaces as well.
So think about that.
Well, I would be making a mistake if I didn't remind you that the Dilberg calendar is still slightly for sale, meaning that we're getting close to selling out, which is both true and a mechanism of persuasion to tell you that there are shortages, but it's actually true.
There is a risk that if you wait a week or two, we might have sold out.
So get your Dilberg calendar while they still exist.
All right.
I like to start my show talking about science.
So apparently there's a new study in the UK that says that polar bears are undergoing rapid genetic change to adjust to climate change because climate change would wipe them out, except that they may have rapidly changed their own genetic nature to adapt.
Now, why do you think there would be a research about the genetic structure of polar bears and then blaming that on climate change?
Could it be?
Because everything else they blamed on climate change turned out to be BS.
The coral reefs are recovering.
The ice seems to be recovering.
There doesn't seem to be any important change in sea level, and we had no major storms reach landfall in the United States this year.
So pretty much all the stuff that the climate people tried to scare us about turned out not to be true.
So they're running out of stuff.
So if you still want to be a climate change person, or this was reported by ABC News, if you want to still keep with the climate crisis, you're going to need some new stuff.
So I think the new stuff is, wait, look what's happening to the polar bears.
Oh, surprise.
They survived by self-evolving their genetics rapidly.
Now, one of the things that makes me wonder, if you were a scientist, and I'm certainly not, do scientists believe that, well, do scientists think that the worst other scientists are climate change scientists?
If you were a physicist, would you say to yourself, ooh, those climate scientists are the smart ones?
Or would you say that the people who can't be good scientists become climate scientists?
Like, if you're actually a scientist, would you think that climate scientists are as serious and talented as other scientists?
Or would you say, or would you say that they're the laughing stock of scientists?
I don't know the answer to that question, but when I see stuff like this, I think, hmm, I don't think that was the most serious science that was happening.
All right, here's some more science from Eric Dolan.
He's writing about this in Cypos.
The headline is that some men may downplay climate change risks to avoid appearing feminine.
Do you think that?
Do you think that apparently there's this big difference in opinion between men and women on the risks of climate change?
Men are less likely to think it's an existential risk, and women are far more likely.
Do you think the reason for that is that the men, according to the study, that the men are trying to avoid looking feminine, so they think it's just sort of tougher to not be afraid of climate science?
Well, that might be what's going on, but that's an interpretation.
Is it also possible that this was written by women or men who are married to women?
Because it's a little bit biased.
The other possibility is that men are better at evaluating physical risk and seeing through the BS.
So are men trying to be less feminine or are they just better at evaluating risk?
Well, I think you put this in either frame, but it does suggest that whoever wrote the opinion that the real problem here is men trying to appear less feminine, that looks like it was written by a woman or a man who was married to a woman and wanted to stay that way.
Just guessing.
Speculating.
So Palmer Lucky, the billionaire head of Andarill, he seems to be doing a lot of public podcasting and interviews and stuff lately.
And I always enjoy reading his opinions.
But he seems to be part of what I'm seeing as a growing billionaire trend.
And when I say billionaire trend, I mean the billionaires I seem to like the most.
that the billionaires need to use their power and their money to make the world a better place.
Now, not being forced to do it, not being forced by the government to do it or taxed or something, was simply because they're the best at allocating capital.
So if you had a billion dollars floating around and you said, what are we going to do with it?
Would you rather give the billion dollars to, oh, let's say, Tim Walsh in Minnesota or Gavin Newsom in California or somebody like Elon Musk who definitely knows how to deploy capital.
So I saw Jamath from the Allen Pod saying that the billionaires need to do a better job of providing obvious benefits to the public, the way the old billionaires used to do in turn of the century, the other turn of the century.
And that's probably good advice because I think if they're doing things like creating public libraries, you know, the old billionaire stuff, or in today's world, if they're, I don't know, building cities that could make people happier, or maybe they're helping to treat problems that the government is not treating.
Maybe they're making healthcare affordable.
Maybe they're making transportation affordable.
So that the billionaires need to step up.
And the alternative would be being taxed out of their money.
And then the money goes where it would not be well employed.
So apparently Palmer Lucky is trying to convince some of his other billionaire friends to spend less time on their yachts and more time trying to deploy capital in what makes sense.
So if you see Elon Musk and Shamath and Palmer Lucky all on the same side of a topic, it's probably something you should pay attention to.
There are smartest people.
Speaking of smart people, I saw Brett Weinstein give an opinion on childhood vaccines that I thought was very close to my own opinion.
But he does such a good job of communicating.
I thought I'd tell you how he explains it.
So Brett said, quote, I believe the adverse events from regular old vaccines, so we're not talking about COVID, just the vaccines that kids get, that the adverse effects are far more common than we imagine, including things like allergies.
So he thinks his weed allergy might be because of something called adjuvants that were in his early childhood vaccinations.
He said one of his sons has seasonal allergies that are pretty bad.
The other has an allergy to dairy that's pretty bad.
And then he says, given all that education that I've now painfully received, meaning he's done a pretty deep dive on the vaccine world, and he is qualified to understand that stuff scientifically, if I had to do it all over again, I would not end up giving any vaccines to my newborn children.
Wow.
I'm so glad that I don't have newborn children.
Because this would be, I mean, this is a big decision.
It used to feel like it was automatic.
Like, of course, you get vaccinations.
Scientists all say you should do it.
Of course, you would.
But here's what Brett says.
He says, this is the important part.
He says, I'm not saying it's impossible that any of them are more beneficial than they are harmful.
But now I know that I cannot trust the safety testing.
So his opinion is based on the fact that we now know that the safety testing has been inadequate forever.
So being very careful here.
He's not saying he knows that these are the problem.
He is saying he knows that you can't tell.
And that his personal decision, if he had to make it now, would be to not vaccinate children.
That is pretty extreme, but also I would say perfectly backed up by observation.
And I'm obviously not qualified to do a deep dive on vaccinations, but he is, and he has.
And so it's a pretty shocking development.
So how much did you used to trust science?
And how much do you trust it today?
Was there ever a time when you thought the climate scientists were nailing it and that they were totally legit and that the big pharma must have been forced to do good science or else the stuff wouldn't be approved?
And now it kind of looks the opposite, doesn't it?
Now we know that at least half of all scientific studies are not reproducible.
We watched the pandemic pervert science like we didn't think it was possible.
And now we're coming to understand that even climate science, you know, one of the biggest, most important domains we thought, was probably full of the least qualified scientists who were not exactly being scientific.
They may have just been following the money, if you know what I mean.
So that goes all the way back to do you vaccinate your baby.
That's a big difference from even what I thought.
I mean, I've been skeptical about the power of science and how much it might be fraudulent.
I've been skeptical for a long time, but not this skeptical.
I mean, I've just fallen off a ledge in terms of trusting science.
Probably some of you too.
Well, remember I keep saying that if robots were going to be launched in 2026, and if those robots would be the general kind, they could learn something and be your butler, that we would already see them in the lab.
Well, interestingly, Sawyer Merritt on X is reporting that Tesla has a bunch of new job openings for their Optimus robot program.
And Elon Musk was saying that the Optimus of version 3, which must be the version they're working on in the lab, has a new hand that's an incredible piece of engineering.
So apparently, I've heard Elon say this before.
that the Optimus robot hand has finally broken through to be like just super sensitive and good.
And if you can't get the hand right, you'll never have a proper robot because apparently all the robot companies can make a robot that walks and lifts heavy objects.
But it's really hard, according to Elon, to get a hand.
But they believe they have now achieved the sensitivity and the dexterity of a human hand.
So what Musk says is the new hand is an incredible piece of engineering.
And then he says, we'll have a production intent prototype, meaning they intend it to be production ready, to show in February or March of this year, 2026.
So they'll be able to show you a prototype then.
Then he says, we're going to build one million unit production line, and they hope production will start by the end of 2026.
So remember my caution that if it's not already as smart as it needs to be, how do we know it will ever get there in one year?
Because I don't think LLMs, you know, the current technology, can get you a general purpose general intelligence robot.
But is there something happening in the labs at Tesla that they know that we don't know, that suggests that within a year that they're so certain they'll have that that they would already start on a production line?
I don't know.
I can't tell how much of that is optimism and the fact that Musk might think, well, even if I don't know how to do it today, a year is a long time in AI.
And by then I will know how to do it.
Now keep in mind, the minute they figure out how to do it, and the it in this case is make a general intelligence robot, the moment they know how to do it, all the robots will have that ability because it's just the download.
It's just software.
So again, I don't want to bet against Elon Musk on robots or technology or anything about the future.
He has a good track record of prediction.
But maybe I would disagree with him on the timing.
It would be really hard that by the end of 2026 we invented this thing that I don't think anybody has an idea how to invent.
Why would it be this year?
If we went all this time without knowing how to do it up till now, would the current AIs tell us how to make a better AI?
I don't know if that's possible.
Would the current AIs be able to iterate all the different ways you could create intelligence until it hit one?
Maybe.
I don't know.
But by now, I would have expected to see general intelligence if they're going to start selling it at the end of the year, end of 2026.
So we'll see.
Well, Greg Abbott, governor of Texas, is going to create a chief state prosecutor to prosecute the criminals that the lefty prosecutors refuse to prosecute.
So Texas is pretty serious about their crime.
And everybody knows that if you got rid of the worst of the criminals, the worst of the worst, I'm not even talking about immigration now, just crime.
If you got rid of the ones that are the repeat offenders, your violating crime rate would go down by 80% immediately because 80% of the crimes are the same criminals doing one crime after another.
But if you had Soros-funded prosecutors, they're making things worse instead of better because they'd be releasing the criminals, you know, and maybe they shouldn't.
And the workaround that Greg Abbott is proposing is to have a chief state prosecutor that would go after those people that the regular prosecutors had decided to release.
Is that a good idea?
What do you think?
Well, I take a sip of water here.
I think one of my meds is making me dry mouthed.
Well, it feels like a good idea to me.
All right.
So you know that on the political right, there's been some drama among the influencers.
And you know that I've tried to completely stay out of it because I don't find value in that kind of drama.
But yesterday or recently, a little thing popped up that I thought I could add a reframe to that would be useful.
And it starts with the story of, I guess, the background is people like Jack Pisovic and Mark Levin have some kind of drama background disagreement or something.
And that part I'm not interested in, but there was an event recently where at the Turning Point USA where a number of public figures were giving selfies, because that's sort of what you do in an event like that.
You get a number of public figures.
The public wants, you know, we don't do autographs anymore.
We, public figures, we mostly do selfies.
So there were a lot of selfies.
And I guess somebody who had a Nick Fuentes-inspired t-shirt had a selfie taken with Jack Pisovic.
And then Jack was challenged to, hey, you know, why are you taking a selfie with somebody with such a terrible meme on his t-shirt?
Now, that's the sort of problem that nobody needs.
And I'll give you a little context on that and then my opinion of what's the best way to handle it.
Now, the first thing you need to know is who the hell is Nick Fuentes?
And I would frame it this way.
He's not on the left.
He's a very popular podcaster, very provocative.
I'll tell you why.
So he's not on the left because he's conservative, but he's also a Trump hater.
So he's not really on the MAGA right or the MAGA left.
So what is he?
Because he's got a large and growing audience.
I feel like the best way to understand him is the turd in the punch bowl analogy.
So I'll give you a little mental model here.
Let's say you went to a party and it was a mixed party.
There were old people and young people and people of all type for the party.
And somebody put a turd in the punch bowl.
Like not a joke turd, like an actual turd.
And they put it right in a punch bowl and then ran away and nobody saw them do it.
Well, what would happen?
Well, first of all, the women attending the party would say, I'm out of here.
This is not the kind of party I want to be at.
There's a turd in the punch bowl, so women all leave.
The older men would say, oh, God, who did that?
You know, we're going to have to find who did that.
And there has to be consequences.
So they would also leave the party because they don't want to be at a party with a turd in a punch bowl.
But the young men, the young men, would think it's the funniest thing that happened to them all week.
And even if the party shut down, they would gather in the parking lot and they would laugh uproariously at the fact that somebody put a turd in a punch bowl at a respectable party.
Now, what you need to know is that Nick Fuentes, who is verbally gifted and very good at the whole public speaking thing, is closer to a turd in the punch bowl than he is to any of the attendees.
So if you think of him as sort of a train wreck where you can't look away, then you would understand why his audience of mostly young men is growing and enthusiastic.
Then if you add on top of that, that young men feel like they're not served by the current system, then it's not unusual that they would have a burn down the system kind of approach to life.
They wouldn't respect the system, but they would like a good prank when they saw it.
So they'd actually be attached, not attached to, they would be attracted to the fact that somebody put a turd in the punch bowl.
Because they're not respecting the system.
The system doesn't respect them.
And it's not that they're in favor of turds.
This is the important part.
They're not in favor of turds.
They're not drinking the punch.
They just can't look away because it's a show that is a spectacle.
All right.
So with that in mind, if you imagine him as a turd in the punch bowl, someone who had a t-shirt meme that was, I understand, inspired by Fuentes that involved the worst thing you could imagine, which obviously I disavow because I'm an older man.
Obviously, I disavow it.
Which had some kind of cookie monster connection to the Holocaust.
And don't make me spell it out.
It's just whatever's the worst thing you could imagine.
So that was out of shirt.
So this fellow asked for, who is also an influencer, it turns out, asked for a selfie with Jack Sabuk, who gave it to him along with lots of other selfies that he was doing that day.
And it would be unusual for any normal person to have known that that t-shirt was connected. to Fundes or even what it meant.
It wasn't an obvious connection, but if you were deep into that world, you might have recognized it.
But normal people would not have known what it was.
So it caught my attention because Mark Levin, who must have some prior bigger disagreement with Jack, wrote what looked like a drunken uncle rant about, wow, you need to explain, you know, explain this, basically.
I'm summarizing.
Now, I'm not saying that Levin was drunk when he wrote the message, because I don't even know if he drinks, but it came off that way.
If you had just been introduced to him for the first time, his content, and the only thing you knew is why he wrote on that one post, it would look like maybe the eggnog was involved.
So it seemed like it was pretty extreme.
And I imagine that had to do with their background, not so much with this specific event.
But I would like to give you a reframe in my typical goals versus systems way.
You know, I often tell you, you know, sometimes it's useful to have a goal, but it's not going to be useful unless you've got a system that makes sense.
So I would argue, because I got some feedback from people in comments when I weighed in on that, somebody said that they needed to know, and here they would be talking about Jack, that they needed to know what he believed because he was one of the people asking for unity.
So if somebody's going to ask you to unify with them, is it a reasonable goal to know what it is you're unifying with?
To which I say yes.
As a goal, it would be good to know what people believe if they want you to join them in their belief or even in their activities.
You don't have to join them in the belief.
But yeah, that would be a worthy goal.
However, it would be a terrible system to use a stranger's t-shirt as a starting point for that conversation, especially if you had a Charlie Kirk-inspired event.
The main thing that Charlie Kirk inspired, in my opinion, and one of the things I respect the most about him, is that he tried to turn everything into a civilized debate in which anybody could ask anybody anything and you would get an honest answer to it.
That's pretty much what he was doing.
He was going places and say, ask me anything, and I'll give you my honest opinion.
So if you happen to be in an event in which the entire vibe is that you can ask anybody their opinion and they will give you a respectful opinion, you don't need to start the conversation based on a turd in the punch bowl and the shirt he's wearing.
Because if you start there, you're just automatically going to open up this side conversation that you don't need.
It would be far better to ask somebody about a shirt they were wearing.
So if in fact I'm wearing a shirt that offends you, it certainly makes sense that you should ask, do you believe what's on your own shirt?
Of course.
But don't ask me to defend someone else's meme on a shirt that normal people wouldn't even recognize as being offensive.
That's not a good starting point.
The starting point is you just ask Jack, Jack, what is your opinion on this or that?
And he would give you a respectful reply.
Anyway, so I don't think anybody needs to apologize or explain someone else's shirt just because they took a selfie with them.
And I would also say there will always be an audience for the turd in the punch bowl.
Now, if you're in my category, which is people who don't like turds and punch bowls, what do you do about it?
Is it your job to fix it?
And if it is your job to fix it, let's just say from a social perspective, you don't want to identify with something that's so bad.
Well, I think it kind of depends who you are.
I have the arrogant opinion that if someone who is young and had a very bad opinion that's just way over the line, you know, just way over the line into inappropriate, that if they associate with me, that over time they would moderate their opinion because I would have a positive influence on them.
What I don't believe would ever happen, and maybe this is just my own arrogance, I don't believe that if I took a selfie with or spent time with or tolerated someone who had a wholly inappropriate opinion, that somehow that would rub off on me.
I think it only works in one direction in my case.
So in my case, being an influential type person, you know, by practice and by nature, I guess, I feel that young people would sort of drift on their own, without me being heavy-handed about it, to eventually be like an older man's opinion.
And you start being less impressed by the turd and the punch bowl and more interested in being part of the solution.
You know, sort of the Palmer-Lucky thing, be part of the solution.
So that's my reframe is, you could certainly ask a person their own opinion, but it would be a bad system to start with.
What do you think about that stranger's shirt?
Bad way to start.
All right.
Now, I'm trying desperately, not desperately, but I don't want to get dragged into the actual debate.
You know, I think there's plenty of room for people to have different opinions, but different opinions is not what the turd in the punch bowl is about.
That's more about the spectacle.
So I don't have to be yes or no on the Fuentes question.
I simply have to be a good job of being me, and maybe that will have some influence on some of the younger.
All right.
Next, next.
I saw on the X account Arch Archaeohistories.
I'd always wondered about this, the origin of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Now, you've heard of Dunning-Kruger, right?
That's where people who know the least often have the most confidence about the rightness.
So the less you know, the more confident you can be.
Well, apparently that was based on one, or at least it was triggered by one story, that back in 1995, there was a bank robber who believed that if he put lemon juice on his face when he robbed the bank, the bank cameras wouldn't be able to see him.
And his thinking was that since lemon juice was a component of invisible ink, that therefore logically, if you put lemon juice on your face, it would make you invisible on camera.
Now, that is not the case, it turns out.
And he actually smiled at the camera because he was so sure that he would be invisible.
So he easily got caught because his face was quite identifiable on the camera.
And he was surprised and he exclaimed reportedly, quote, but I wore the juice.
Now, I guess there were some researchers who heard that story and thought, we have to look into this.
What's up with that?
And then through research, they discovered that it is common for people who know the least, in this case, he didn't know much about cameras or invisible ink, to be the most confident.
And indeed, he was confident because he actually robbed the bank thinking he was safe.
So I just mentioned that because I think it's fun to know where that came from.
And it's a slow news day.
I'm looking at the comments to see.
Somebody had Tony Robbins comments here.
Let me see that.
If I can make that.
Tony Robbins, if you, I can't stop the comments.
If you just ignore problems with your thinking, blah, then you get in trouble.
No, I don't think ignoring problems is always the right way to go.
I'm not sure I understand that comment.
So I'm going to let that go.
Anyway, according to news busters, Craig Bannister's writing that facts flip voters' view of the Trump economy.
So the thesis here is based on the fact that Trump did an address to the nation recently, and he mentioned all the economic successes.
And apparently the mainstream networks seem to have somehow locked out the graphics that would show how right he was about the economy being better in all these different ways.
So that would explain why some of the public still thinks that the economy is bad.
It could be because they're just being blocked from seeing the evidence that it's good.
Now, I don't know if you've had this experience yet, but if you watch news from the right-leaning places, it will universally say, man, this economy is good from inflation to employment to GDP, you can't beat it.
And they will have numbers to back it up.
Weirdly, Democrats could do the same thing and do with their argument that the economy is actually bad.
So they've got their own set of alleged data that would show that the economy is bad in a bunch of ways.
So is the economy good or is the economy bad?
Well, if we, let's say, put a pin in that question, and rather we look at the fact, can people be persuaded by being told real facts about the economy?
Or will they be so Dunning-Kruger and so biased that even if they had access to really reliable information that was the opposite of what they had currently believed, would they change their mind?
And the research suggests that they would change their mind.
And that if they had seen what they believe to be accurate information that said that the economy is doing well, that fairly drastically people would say, oh, I guess the economy is doing well.
But if they do not have access to that new better information, then they would not change their mind, which would suggest that the mainstream media might know that.
And that's the reason that they don't emphasize Trump and his graphics showing everything getting better.
Now that's that's let me give you some numbers.
In a survey conducted in mid-December, 56% of U.S. voters surveys said they believe the economy is getting worse, while only 37% said it was getting better.
And this is mid-December.
Then, once voters were informed of the facts, and again, you could debate whether these are the real facts or not, but let's say the Trump facts, the numbers slipped.
And the percent who said the economy is improving jumped 25 points from 37 to 62, while pessimism plummeted from 56 to 33.
So that, and so the allegation here is that the mainstream media has to hide the truth because the truth would tell people that the economy is doing well.
Maybe, maybe.
The other possibility is that the Democrats have some data of their own.
And since most data is fake, even if you agree with it, most data from the left, most data from the right, it's hard to trust any data.
In 2025-26, it feels like no matter where you're looking, you're getting weird data.
I'm seeing in the comments, where do you get your news, Scott?
I gave a long description of where I got my news the other day, because that's a good question.
But I do sample CNN and MSN Now, and I always listen to Jessica Tarloff on the five.
So I try to get both sides, and especially clips.
So I get clips that show both sides.
That was a good question.
So the answer is I sample both sides or try to.
So an online, I don't know if he'd be an influencer or an independent journalist or what you call him, but somebody called Nick Shirley put out a video in which he went to Minnesota and looked for fraud on his own.
Because, you know, there have been allegations that the Somalis, especially, have been stealing mass amounts of money.
And I guess he was trying to figure out how hard it would be to spot the frauds.
And the answer is, it is alarmingly easy.
So he went to a number of places that alleged that they were taking government money and using it for charitable reasons.
And almost every one of them was a storefront or an empty store, and very obviously not in the business of helping anybody.
So the shocking part is that he alleges he found $110 million in one day of what looked like fraudulent money transfers to fraudulent fake entities.
And if he could do it with just his microphone and his camera and a plane ticket, how hard was it for Minnesota itself to know that that was going on?
If you could uncover it that easily, and I'm not adding to the story that the fraud exists, that part we knew.
What he added to the story is that anybody could have seen it.
It was just right out in the open.
I mean, you had to ask a couple of questions and walk around a little bit, but you didn't have to be like Sherlock Holmes.
It was right there.
So Elon Musk commented on that video with just three words, prosecute Governor Tim Wals.
Prosecute Governor Tim Walsh.
Forward.
Now, do you think that you could prosecute the governor or that if you look into it, you would find evidence you could?
Because there's no way to believe that he was unaware.
Well, here's the weird thing.
Governor Walsh does not have obvious signs of wealth.
Does he?
Does it look like he made millions of dollars?
Because he doesn't live any kind of a lifestyle, as far as we know, that would suggest that he's spending a lot of money.
He could be packing away, if in fact he's criminal.
He could be maybe he had been blackmailed or threatened, so he had to keep it quiet so he could stay safe.
I have no evidence of that.
But Elon Musk, of course, has dug deeper on all these things than you and I have.
So when he says prosecute Tim Walsh, some of that might be that it seems obvious that he couldn't have not known.
Some of it might be that Tim Walsh has tried to prosecute Elon Musk and tried to destroy his companies.
Tried really hard to destroy his companies and he did it publicly.
That you're just seeing an obvious kind of response to that.
But I am curious if Tim Walsh was massively incompetent or was he threatened to stay quiet?
He might have been threatened, might have been too dangerous to be even a whistleblower himself.
So incompetence, crime, or is he a victim himself?
I doubt he's a victim himself.
So according to Wall Street Apes, also an ex, Portland, Oregon spent 1.5 billion in the last two years in homelessness, and yet the homelessness population rose by 60%.
So that's a bad result.
And by comparison, Houston, Texas spent only 72 million, so we're not talking billions, just millions, on homelessness, and their homelessness went out by 60%.
All right.
So Democrats spent a massive amount of money and things went in the wrong direction.
Texas spent a good deal of money, but just a fraction, and things went strongly in the right direction.
How do you explain that?
Well, a reasonable assumption is that Democrats are laundering money and they're a criminal organization and they did not do the things that you would obviously do to reduce homelessness, but rather they stole it.
Now, I'm not sure that's what's happening, but it sure looks like it, doesn't it?
it looks a little steely anyway um
Apparently over in China, according to interesting engineering, China did some kind of demonstration with robots and hackers and found that one hacked robot could infect other robots just by being near it.
So one robot could, if it had been hacked into doing something evil, could co-opt another robot without using the internet.
Because the thing we worried about is if all the robots are on the internet, somebody would hack the ball or the bad robot would have access to the other robots and the logo.
But it would make this awesome movie where if one robot got near another robot, it could instantly hack it and co-opt it into being evil.
And so I asked the following question.
In order to create robots that smart, you're going to have some kind of form of AI.
Could the AI, or a version of AI, be the thing that protects the other robots from hackers?
In other words, can you build a robot that would have sort of a separate AI brain that did nothing but watch the rest of the robot to make sure it had not gotten hacked?
And is that the only way that you could prevent a high intelligence robot from hacking another robot?
Is to have AI that's just like a sentry.
So that's what I predict.
I think humans would not be fast enough to respond to a hacker robot hacking other robots.
But if the robot that's being attacked has its own AI sentry built into it that you can't get to with any kind of AI, notice some change happening, the rest of the robotic is shut it down.
So I think that might be the model, just guessing.
Speaking of China, interesting engineering says that China is starting some of their cargo vessels, of which they have massive numbers, because China does so much shipping that they just have massive numbers of cargo ships.
It looks like they found a way, and this is not confirmed, but videos are showing it.
It looks like they're putting some kind of weapons platforms on the commercial ships.
And the idea is, and again, this is just speculation, that China is trying to create a situation where if war happened, they could quickly militarize their massive fleet of commercial ships.
Now, that would be a really good strategy, it seems to me.
Those ships would be a little bit vulnerable to attack, but they have so many of them that if you imagine that war breaks out and suddenly, suddenly China has 10,000 ships that are warships, that would be presumably an interesting military strategy.
But again, I feel like those ships would be so vulnerable to attack from unmanned missiles and drones that they would get soaked quickly.
Unless some of the military hardware you're putting in those ships is some kind of amazing anti-missile, anti-drone lasers on top of the offensive weapons.
So I just thought that was interesting.
Well, there's some teacher, according to Breitbart, there's a teacher in the UK who has been referred to the UK terror program.
I didn't know they had a terror program because he shows them Donald Trump videos.
So apparently, if you're a school teacher in England and you even show a video of Trump, you could be accused of being a terrorist and referred to some kind of terrorist handling thing.
And I guess this program was established to stop people from becoming radicalized.
So the UK is so afraid of Trump that they make it illegal to show young people Trump videos.
Now, I suppose it might matter which video you're showing them, but what has Trump ever done that would be so dangerous that it would radicalize the youth to become terrorists?
That's pretty crazy.
Speaking of Trump, let's see what's happening elsewhere in the world.
I guess Netanyahu is going to visit Trump on Monday for what's called a crucial conversation about what's going to happen in Gaza.
Now, if you have a situation, and I think we do, in which what's good for America and what's good for Trump is that the Gaza thing gets fixed in some way that's acceptable to, you know, at least America, right?
But Netanyahu does not represent America.
His job is to represent Israel.
And it seems pretty clear that Netanyahu does not want to, let's say, give up his military control of Gaza, which might be a requirement to get to whatever the peace plan calls for.
So let's say you have a situation, which we do, in which the interests of the President of the United States and arguably America itself is to get this thing settled.
And to do that, they need some things that Israel, with its current government, would never agree to.
So they're never going to agree to a two-state solution when Netanyahu is in charge.
And they're never going to agree to give up security in Gaza.
So how would you predict how that turns out?
Well, if I were Israel, time would seem to be on my side, because eventually Trump will be out of office.
And he might be the only president strong enough to move Israel in a way they don't want to move.
So if Netanyahu, and again, I'm just speculating because I can't read minds, but it seems to me that Israel has time on their side and they can outweight Trump unless Trump puts so much pressure on him, like pressure they've never seen before, that Netanyahu caves.
But even then, it feels like Israel could wait him out.
Because even if they agreed today to do XYZ, and even if they did those things, they could reverse it.
They just have to wait three years.
So the thing I'm going to be looking for in these conversations is whether Israel agrees to anything that looks like it would solve this problem in a way that Trump would be happy.
And I'm thinking that the only logical way this is going to go is that they will not agree, or Netanyahu will agree in a way that he can still kick the can down the road and change his mind later.
I remind you that I don't have opinions on whether Israel is good or bad or any of that.
I simply observe them as a foreign country that is an ally of the United States.
My interest is in the United States.
And I'm an observer when it comes to Israel.
Just an observer.
No one needs my opinion of what they should be doing.
But I'll give you an opinion of what maybe is a predictable future.
Well, there's a report from British scientists that they think they have a cancer vaccine that can be available within 10 years.
To which I say, every year of my life, there has been a cancer vaccine that could be available within 10 years.
So far, not so much.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is the end of my prepared remarks.
And I believe you need a simultaneous sip.
If you joined us late, there's still time.
Simultaneity.
Go.
Very good.
And I remind you that there will be an Owen Gregorian themed, not themed, hosted Spaces event right after this.
You should give him a few minutes to set up whenever he's ready.
And you can continue the conversation if you happen to be on X.
Then Spaces is available to you.
It's audio only.
And if you don't know where to find it, search for Owen Gregorian.
It'll pop right up.
You'll see it.
It'll be at the top of his feed on X. All right.
Was there anything you liked or didn't like about today's show?
I will take your comments now.
You find yourself quoting me consistently.
You know, I'm going to do an X post in a little while.
Not today, but sometime soon.
In which I'm going to ask you to give me some feedback on who I might have influenced, be it you or somebody notable, because I wonder about that myself.
And I would love to know your opinion of who I've influenced.
One of the things I'd love to influence is the Trump pirate ship approach to building a coalition.
I've always loved the fact that Trump could ignore how much he disagrees with you if you're willing to be a pirate on his ship.
And that's really worked well.
I think people respect being included, even if you disagree with some of their, some or even all of their views, as long as you're not, as long as it's not personal.
And if he says, hey, you're a pirate, I'm a pirate, we can both be on the pirate ship.
I influenced Trump by prepping him that Kamala was his future opponent.
Well, I did predict she would be his future opponent, but I doubt I influenced him in some important way about that.
I did not invent the term in Trump derangement syndrome.
That was Charles Crauhammer, I think.
And it was first introduced, not about Trump, but I think it was Bush.
I think it was Bush derangement syndrome first.
I'm definitely a booster of it, but I did not invent it.
All right.
How did you like my turd in the punch bowl analogy?
Did that clarify?
I think if you try to take somebody like Nick Fuentes and jam him into existing buckets, that you just confuse yourself.
Because he definitely doesn't fit in any existing bucket.
Turd is a word.
So you like the analogy?
Yeah.
The other thing I'd love to add is that young men especially are attracted to inappropriate content.
And sometimes you just have to wait, and they just grow out of this.
I see what you're saying.
There will always be an audience for whatever is the most inappropriate thing you could say in public.
But that doesn't mean that people will have that opinion all their life.
So I believe that the guy who got the selfie, someone named Myron, was wearing a T-shirt that is allegedly inspired by Fuentes.
So that would be the connection.
And I don't know much about the background of any of that.
I just know that there's a meme that ordinary people would not have recognized as being what it is.
Myron Geynes.
Yeah, I think that's who it was.
I'm not too familiar with him except that he's provocative and does some podcasting.
beyond that i don't really follow him he likely denies the holocaust You know, I don't even want to get into that.
You know, it's sort of like there's some topics that you can't add to, but if you get involved, it sticks to you.
So, I don't need that.
Anyway.
All right, just looking at your comments, hanging out with you.
And I'll give Owen some time to set up his spaces.
Some of you like to turn in a punch bowl analogy.
Or another way to say it is, you don't really have to spend your time debating whether you do or do not agree with the Turtle in the Punch Bowl.
That's really not what that's even about.
Yeah.
All right.
Yeah, the Punch Bowl is very visual, isn't it?
It's like I've done this before.
I love you.
Thank you.
All right, I think i've added all I can add today.
Change the world, so don't blame people for their shirts that they take, whether somebody else is wearing during a uh selfie.
That's my lesson for the day.
All right everybody, have a great day.
Join Owen if you feel the urge.
I might be there myself later.
I'm usually anonymous when I join that chat because I don't want to be taking away the attention.
But you should know that I'm often in Owen Gregorian's spaces.
I just do it anonymously so I can listen to you guys and not be the focus of attention.