Episode 2838 CWSA 05/13/25

And here I am.

Just checking on your stocks and they look to be up.

Stocks are up.

Inflation rose by 2.3%.

Which I think is good news, right?

All right, let's get my comments working and then we got a show.

Then we got a show.

Come on in here.

You'll love it.

Oh, a mystery just got solved.

Uh, I can't tell you what it is, but in the comments, somebody just solved a mystery for me.

Good.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's the best thing that ever happened to you.

But if you want to take a chance on taking this up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

All you need is a cuper mug or a glass of tanker cheline in 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, the dopamine end of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens right now.

Go.

Perfection.

Well, let's talk about the news, shall we?

We'll start with some science.

Get you warmed up.

Uh, USA scientists, they found a molecule they think could cure baldness.

So, they got a cure for baldness, they think.

Do you know when was the first time I read a news story that said science had a cure for baldness?

Probably 50 years ago.

Do you know when was the second time?

Probably 49.5 years ago.

Every six months I see a story that baldness has maybe been cured.

Do you know how much baldness has been cured in the last 50 years of great advancements in curing baldness?

Not a lot.

And generally, if they find something that does cure your baldness and makes your penis not work, it's pretty much a pretty much a guarantee.

So, no, I don't believe anything about any story that says they're going to cure my baldness or anybody else's.

According to uh story in Newsweek, psychopaths are more attractive.

Did you know that psychopaths are more attractive and therefore um because people trust attractive people?

They shouldn't, but they do.

Uh the psychopaths can get away with more because they get trusted because they're attractive.

Now, here's my question to you.

Where's the cause and where's the effect?

If psychopaths are more attractive.

I've told you this story before about when I was very young.

I remember looking in the mirror and saying to myself, "Looks like you're not going to play in the NBA.

Probably not.

You know, chances are you won't play in the NBA." And so I planned my life around the alternative, which is, you know, go to college and build up my brain.

Do you think the psychopaths when they're very young, they can tell they're unusually attractive already?

And they're not psychopaths yet, but they quickly learn that because they're attractive, they can get away with murder.

So I think being attractive turns you into a psychopath because you don't need to worry about consequences whereas I have to worry about consequences.

So I'm that's why I'm such a nice guy.

But you know you've heard that uh power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Is that all that's going on?

Could it be that the attractiveness power of the psychopath uh well it starts maybe it just starts as attractiveness power but then they just become psychopaths.

I don't know just my hypothesis.

Here's a uh study that's I found interesting that if you want to change your location um well apparently Nobel Prize winners are more likely to be Nobel Prize winners if they have changed their location more times.

So in other words, if you used to live in one place but then you moved and maybe you moved again, you're more likely to become a Nobel Prize winner.

And there's a reason for that.

If you were uh let's say you were a a genius and you were born in Silicon Valley with other geniuses, you would fairly soon become like the other people.

So it would be really good that you were around other geniuses.

That would be a real advantage, might make you smarter, but only to a certain level.

And then you would be sort of into group think.

This this is the the thought from this study from the Ohio State University.

But if you were, let's say, a scientist and you learned everything from the other scientists who lived where you live because you'd have some association with them and then you moved, you'd get a whole new bunch of scientists and uh that could take you to another level.

But I would uh I would extend this from Nobel scientists to just ordinary creative people trying to create because one of the things I noticed is that changing where where I am physically, you know, not the city but just changing well sometimes city but changing the um room you doing some work at Starbucks.

Uh I've tried going to the library.

It all works.

Every time I change my location, uh, you know, I can do more work.

So, try it.

Change your location if you're not being creative enough.

Well, if you haven't seen the videos, uh, Saudi Arabia is really rolling out the the red carpet, as they like to say, for Trump, who has arrived there today.

Um, they had three Saudi jets uh, give him give Air Force One an escort.

um which I don't think was necessary for any additional protection, but it just made it look like a big deal.

Um it was kind of impressive because they had the videos of the Saudi uh jets, you know, just sort of following him in.

Then the uh crown prince uh met Trump on the tarmac, which apparently is not their normal protocol.

So, that was another another gesture of respect.

And what I didn't know, I I thought it was just going to be the crown prince and and Trump, but apparently this is an enormous um event with the top billionaires, at least the top American billionaires from Black Rockck, Blackstone, Croup, Qualcomm, IBM.

So, so you're getting the the richest people in the world, but you're also getting So, these these are people who are going to be at the same lunch, right?

If if you know the drama involved in these personalities, it's really funny that the the same people, this group of people will be at the same table for lunch.

Elon Musk, Larry Frink, Sam Alman, and Reed Hoffman.

Now, there'll be lots of other people there, so but I'd love to see the seating chart.

Can you imagine if they put Elon Musk between Sam Alman and Reed Hoffman?

If you don't know the background, you Elon Musk has a little bit of friction with those two guys.

a little bit of friction and even Larry Frink, you know, was the main DEI guy and ESG guy for a long time.

So even he couldn't necessarily sit next to Elon Musk.

So I think there's a possibility of a fist bite.

But the the other thing that um I'm wondering is apparently the people who were smart say that this kind of a trip is always associated with pre-arranged deliverables meaning that the deals have already been made but they'll just be sort of announced and make it look like it was because of the trip.

Yeah, I guess indirectly it is because of the trip.

Um, but when you have this many billionaires and CEOs, I feel like the quantity of potential deals might be pretty tremendous.

And and I'm guessing that Saudi Arabia will be the uh the source of the money and maybe a lot of these people who are showing up think that they will be the beneficiaries of some of that flowing money.

So Trump has said something like bringing a trillion dollars of investment back.

Um I think that might happen.

He might come back with a trillion dollars worth of investments.

Well, in un in other news, uh you know Elon Musk has the Boring Company.

That's that big machine that digs tunnels and they just uh upgraded it so it doesn't need a person on the inside.

It's a total robot tunnel digger and it's a they finally achieved what they call zippit zpit zero people in tunnel.

So it's just a robot tunnel digger.

Now I would like to see two things.

One, I'd like to see those tunnels be about five times bigger because they're still tiny little tunnels.

I don't I don't know if I'd want to be inside one of those tunnels if I could if I knew I were inside it.

The other is I'd love to see some technology for digging straight down.

It's impressive that that this tunnel digger can go from left to right.

Uh but wouldn't it be great if you could if you could find some way to economically dig far enough that you could get to geothermal power?

If you go down deep enough, you have unlimited energy because the, you know, the geothermal um situation.

It would be different everywhere.

You know, how I guess how far you'd have to dig and how hard it would be.

But wouldn't it be amazing to have something along the lines of the Boring Company?

It would be all different technology because it would be drilling, not tunneling.

But that would make everything work.

You would have unlimited energy and it would be clean.

Everybody would be happy with it.

All you need is technology to be able to drill a a really deep hole where it gets really hot and do it reliably and economically.

I'd love to see that.

Well, here is the least surprising news of the day.

PJ Media's reporting on this, Matt Margolus, that apparently the Joe Biden job creation numbers were more fake than we imagined.

Now, how fake were they?

You know, you're used to seeing job numbers come out and then then later they get revised down.

So we're we're kind of conditioned for the idea that that employment numbers, you know, job numbers might be a little bit managed if you know what I mean.

Well, how managed were they?

Uh according to the new figures, and this is from the government.

So this is not an outside entity judging the government.

This is from the government.

According to the new figures, the 399,000 jobs that the Biden team claimed that they created um was not 399,000 jobs.

So, let's round that off to 400,000.

So, it turns out maybe Joe Biden did not own did not create 400,000 jobs.

They're they're revising it down a little bit.

Do you know what they revised it to?

uh lost a thousand jobs.

What uh or or there's I see another estimate that says instead of adding almost 800,000 jobs during the middle of last year, the economy likely shed more than 160,000.

So it wasn't only that they revised it downwards.

It went from wildly positive to well well it might have been negative, you know, could have been negative.

Now, how many of you remember when uh I had my Democrat uh debate friend on uh comedian whose name I can't remember right now?

Can anybody remember his name?

Um, and he now has a show on CNN, the humor show.

And uh, I said something about the Biden employment numbers always getting revised down.

And he he doubted me because my source was not good.

Black.

Yes.

Uh, yeah.

Mikely Mikey in black.

and he challenged me because I did not have a source, which was a good challenge because uh I was under the impression that his numbers always got revised, but I didn't have the data at hand or a source or a link or anything.

So, that was a perfectly reasonable thing to ask about.

But turns out uh that my that my instinct about this was right on point.

right on point.

It It's sort of stunning the degree to which the Biden administration was a complete lie.

Uh the funny thing is that uh Democrats are so hypnotized by their own media that if you ask them uh could you compare the truth or the honesty of the Biden administration versus Trump?

Every one of them.

Every one of them would say, "Oh my god, Trump's this big old liar.

Lying liar.

All he does is lie." Uh, it's a good thing that Biden never did that.

Everything that Biden did was a lie.

From the from the Biden crime family stuff to the jobs reports to how well his brain was working.

Everything just everything about Biden was a lie.

Now, it might be that, you know, most things about presidents are not exactly true, but uh it it would be amazing.

I saw somebody do this.

Was it Scott Jennings maybe challenged somebody on the panel on CNN?

Uh and and he just laughed when they said that Biden was, you know, more honest.

Anyway, um RFK Jr.

was praising uh he was praising Trump for his uh executive order that would lower pharma costs in the United States and uh would make us pay no more than other countries, which would be a gigantic reduction in costs.

Um but RFK Jr.

was doing his little public statement about it.

Trump was there.

And here's what he said.

He said, "I have a couple of kids who are Democrats, big Bernie Sanders fans, and when I told them that this was going to happen, um, they had tears in their eyes.

So, this is something that Bernie wanted, you know, the lower pharma costs, but they could never get it done." Um, and even, uh, RFK Jr.

thought it would never happen in his lifetime.

So, here's the fun part.

Apparently, Bernie Sanders is so on board with Trump's executive order, but he doesn't think that it will necessarily survive a a court challenge.

Now, now, who the who the hell is going to challenge it in court?

I I get that you shouldn't do everything with an executive order.

I get it.

But is there really going to be a Democrat or or group of Democrats who insist that we pay more for pharmaceutical stuff?

Bernie thinks so because uh Bernie has said publicly now uh he goes further as Trump well knows his executive order will be thrown out by the courts.

Will it?

It will only be thrown out if a Democrat takes it to the court.

How in the world are they going to survive that politically if they take that to the court?

But I suppose Bernie probably knows his party better than I do.

I guess I would reflexively disagree with anything Trump does.

But uh here's the good news.

He says if Trump is serious about making real change rather than just issuing a press release, oh come.

It's an executive order, not a press release.

He will support legislation I will soon be introducing to make sure we pay no more for prescription drugs than people in other major countries.

Major countries.

Ah maybe he'll limit it to major countries.

We'll see if Republicans and Democrats come together on this.

We can get it passed in a few weeks.

So unless there's a trick in there and maybe the trick is the major countries.

Um, it looks like Bernie Sanders is fully on board with Trump's uh executive order.

He just wants to make it stronger and make it part of uh part of the law.

So, we'll see if that's real or that's not real.

But I I can't wait to see which Democrat would take a chance on challenging this in court.

Do Do you think that's possible?

I'm I'm going to make a prediction that even the Democrats are not dumb enough to go allin on we should pay more for pharmaceutical cuz we hate Trump.

I don't think they can do it.

I mean, they've done some crazy things just to be on the other side of Trump, but I don't think they can do this.

And you know, even Jasmine Crockett can't do this.

She might try though.

Anyway, uh as you know, uh Trump has allowed uh refugee status for the uh Africaner the the white African South Africans who are want to escape the possible genocide in South Africa.

Now, there's some disagreement.

If you watch MSNBC, you'll find out there's there's no white genocide in South Africa.

And and there's violence.

You know, everybody has violence.

So why would we be favoring the white people in South Africa, says MSNBC, when everybody's, you know, it's a dangerous place?

And, you know, there's just very, very little uh evidence that many farmers have been, you know, lost their land or been killed or anything.

But it's only like 59 people, I guess, at least initially.

And I just love the I love the trolling aspect of this combined with the fact that I do think that if if I were living there based on what I've seen in the news and what looks like is coming and it's more about what's coming because if you look at the rhetoric the rhetoric in South Africa is looking it's looking pretty dangerous.

So, if I were a white resident of South Africa, I feel like I might want to get out of there.

And the fact that uh, you know, Trump's all in on that, it just gives MSNBC something to talk about that doesn't matter.

Now, I don't know what's, you know, true or what's not true in South Africa, but the fact that it just gives gives MSNBC something unimportant.

I mean, you know, if you look at the whole world and the country, it's not the most important thing happening.

There's 59 people.

So, anyway, uh I guess I just enjoy the fact that they don't like it.

Well, the Diddy trial is uh going now, and uh I guess the Diddy defense is going to be that the violence really did happen, but it wasn't part of sex trafficking.

Boy, you know, you never want to be in legal trouble where your best defense is that your violence was real.

Well, my violence was real.

Yeah, sure.

Uh, I did beat up some women, but uh, it was part of a consensual sex acts and you know, maybe they liked it a little bit or um, that's your best defense.

Uh, but definitely wasn't sex trafficking.

Oh, no.

Oh, no.

No.

It was just violence, people.

No sex trafficking.

So, he's been accused of drugging people and bribing people and disgusting sex acts.

And there was something about a male escort who was paid thousands of dollars to get with his girlfriend Cassie.

Well, did he watched?

Um, wow.

This doesn't seem like the dangerous stuff yet, does it?

Weren't you expecting that the Diddy trial would would present a whole bunch of things that were not just about Diddy?

Like you'd find out about other people?

I'm starting to think there won't be anything about other people, you know, at least other famous people.

There there'll be other things about, you know, the male escort that he paid and, you know, the girlfriends that he did bad things to, but I feel like this is going to be really limited to just Diddy.

Um, which, you know, has to be done.

But, uh, if you were hoping for this to give you real news about other people, probably not.

Um the uh credentials committee in another story sounds like the same story because it's so disgusting but the Democratic National Committee the ones who had elected uh David Hog as their co-chair uh there's something called the credentials committee.

So the Democratic National Committee has a credentials committee and they they voted that Hog the Hog election had not followed proper parliamentary procedures.

Uh and then they'll have to decide whether he can run again.

So, so the Democrats used a rules trick to get rid of their own guy, which is so Democrat.

You know, we've been talking before about the Democrats uh they're not so much about policy and ideas because they don't have any policy ideas, but they're all about gaming the rules.

you know, you know, I think Mark Elias just sued Wyoming for something again, trying to game the rules.

So, they game the rules even on their they they've turned their weapons on their own uh people.

So, they somehow they came up with some weird parliamentary procedure thing to get rid of David Hog, but he's not gone gone.

I guess he could rerun for his own for his own seat, but the odds of him getting elected probably went way down.

Um, and this is after David Hog was on uh Bill Maher's show saying something like uh that uh young men just want to get laid and have fun.

And uh that's what the Democrats, I guess, didn't understand about young men.

And I'm thinking to myself, I I think again, you're way off.

Now, of course, young men want to do those things, but if you're if you're following the news or my podcast, you know that young men are the biggest uptick in church that there there's a much bigger trend toward young men wanting to become religious and wanting to become conservative.

And um apparently enrollment in the military is way up which is mostly young men.

Now why do young men volunteer to be in the military?

Now in some cases they might think it's their their best, you know, economic play, you know, depending on how what they're prepared for.

Um, but to me it seems like the trend is away from wanting to just get laid and have fun.

Even drinking is down.

You know, the the amount of drinking is down among the young.

I think young men are seeking meaning.

And uh I guess Charlie Kirk did a good job of of saying that that young men are far more if you're looking for a trend, they're trying to find some meaning.

Because the old days, everybody was just getting ready to be a good husband and that option seems to be decreasing.

I mean, they still might want it, but it just doesn't seem to be as available because of economics and other things.

So, I think once again, the uh Democrats just don't understand their own public.

Um, you know, it'll always be true that young men want to get laid and have fun, but the the search for meaning just seems like a bigger deal to me in terms of a you know, a direction for things.

Um, now here's a uh here's a I don't know if this is a trend or just a a thing, but have you noticed that there's a gigantic difference in the let's say uh mental capacity of Democrat supporters versus Republican.

Now, I'm not saying that if you measure the IQ of one group versus the other there'd be a difference.

I don't know that there would be.

But in terms of the people who were prominent, if you look at who's prominent on the Democrat side, you get people like Hog and Jasmine Crockett, you know, just to pick two.

Now, they're not really the brightest people, at least in terms of politics.

Um, but I've said this before.

I think I said this on X and uh Elon Musk agreed with me on X that the smartest people seem to have all moved to the Republican side because it's the common sense side.

It's hard to be smart and be opposed to common sense.

But just just to give you a sense of the difference between the Democrat side saying just one crazy thing after another and the Republicans.

The Republicans have um on their side I would say uh you've heard of Data Republican.

So, Data Republicans, a woman who is just great with data and has uh surfaced things that would be hard to surface just because she's good with data.

So, recently she put together a giant spreadsheet that you could download and you could check yourself that shows all where George Soros gave his money.

So, you can see the Soros grants.

I guess Alex Soros at this point.

Now, isn't that useful to actually understand the real world?

You'd want to know where Soros put his money.

Now, who do who on the Democrat side could do that?

They don't have they don't have data Republican.

That's just something on one side.

who uh who on the Democrat side has a Mike Benz who can explain to you in great detail all of the NOS's and how the money has been essentially laundered and you know how the CIA is all part of it etc.

They don't have a Mike Bentons.

What about Victor Davis Hansen?

You know, they do have some historians on the Democrat side, but they just seem like crazy partisans.

You know, they don't sound as, you know, authoritative or as smart or as balanced as Victor Davis Hansen.

What about uh I'm I'm going to throw Charlie Kirk in here.

If you haven't seen Charlie Kirk's videos of all the public events he's doing, where he does a public debate with anybody who wants to, basically, so people go up to the microphone and they challenge him with one thing after another.

And one of the things we've learned is that Charlie Kirk is way smarter than I thought he was.

you know, uh, it turns out he has a pretty deep, not pretty deep, but a very deep understanding of all of these topics.

And watching him just dismiss one person after another, you think to yourself, "Oh my god, you know, I'm glad he's on our team." Um, of course, there's Elon Musk and Doge, smartest people ever on the Republican team.

And I'm going to say maybe on the Trump team as much as the Republican team.

A lot of it is uh yeah, a lot of it is uh Trumpish because Trump is the common sense guy.

David Sachs, it every time I hear David Sachs explain something complicated, I think to myself, "Oh, now I understand it because he's just so freaking smart." And I'm going to throw myself in there because I've, you know, added to the persuasion understanding of the of the Republican pro.

Trump side.

I don't think there are people like that.

There's there's just a huge difference in capability of the people who are involved and, you know, publicly involved in stuff.

So, is that just my impression?

because it's possible I'm just so biased that I can't see the difference.

So, I see in the comments somebody throwing Megan Kelly in there.

Yeah, let's let's throw Megan Kelly and Joe Rogan in there.

Not as necessarily Trump supporters, but um you know, important voices that are the best of the best in podcasting.

I think the Democrats will probably catch up and have some big podcasts, but I haven't really heard of any.

Um, that's probably just because I don't pay attention to that part of the world.

Uh, oh, somebody's throwing in Jack Pabic.

I'll throw I'll throw him in there.

What about um Steve Bannon?

Steve Bannon isn't just um the guy who needs a haircut who does a show every day.

Steve Bannon is really smart.

I don't know if you understand how smart he is.

He's really smart.

like super smart.

Even if you disagree with them, you have to give him that.

So, it does seem to me like there's a just an enormous talent difference at this point.

Yeah, you could throw I'm seeing lots of other names go by.

I won't uh I won't have to list every name, but there there's a big difference in uh capability at this point.

Anyway, uh Sam Alman was talking about where AI is going.

He says 2025 is the year of the AI agent.

Now, the AI agent would be you can have an AI that acts like a person who does whatever you want it to do.

Uh you know, work tasks or personal tasks.

I'm not so sure because I don't think there is yet a AI agent that won't hallucinate.

If there is, you know, maybe I could be corrected on that, but I feel like they don't have a solution for AI agents.

I think it would either be too dangerous.

Um, I think they're close, but I don't know if they can close that last gap where the AI agent is dependable.

So, we'll see.

I mean, there's no reason I would be right on that where, you know, if you were going to bet, you would bet on Sam Alman.

You wouldn't bet on me.

But I'm a little bit skeptical cuz uh I if it could be done, I think it would have been done already.

He thinks 2026 will be the year of scientific research and breakthroughs.

In other words, AI doing its own scientific research and breakthroughs.

That could be true.

Then 2027 is when AI and robotics um get together and then you've got robots and AI.

Now in theory there will be Optimus Prime that will be driven by AI and that will be uh available at least in small amounts at the end of this year.

I wouldn't be too surprised if that got pushed back.

So, uh, I think maybe Sam Alman's estimate that it's 2027 is probably right.

And I I think that that may have to do with the fact that you need you can't quite trust the AI yet.

So, putting it in a robot might be a little dangerous in 2025.

I think it's doable.

You know, you could have a robot in 2025, but probably 2027 is when we trust it.

Now, if you haven't seen it, there's a video of the Optimus robot uh doing jazz dancing.

It's not just dancing, but but it's looking like an actual dancer.

You know, it's got moves that don't look like a robot, looks like a person.

And but but as I was watching this, you know, I was watching it with the sound off.

And I thought to myself, how much does a robot weigh?

Does anybody have an idea?

How how much will the optimist weigh?

Because could you imagine having the apartment beneath beneath the apartment that has a robot in it?

Could you just imagine what it would be like in in the first floor apartment if the second floor apartment has an Optimus?

Clump clump clump clump clump clump.

Hey, Optimus, show everybody you can dance.

Clump clump clump clump clump clump.

There's going to be a real problem with the with the downstairs apartments, let me tell you.

Uh, all right.

Speaking of robots, um, I saw this I saw this story before and I skipped it the first time or two I saw it because I thought it was more of those uh, someday we'll be able to do this, which is way less interesting than we can do this now.

But apparently this is a a real thing that exists now that China's doing.

They've so they've got a robot dog, four-legged firefighting machine.

So I guess it connects to a hose and it can go into the most dangerous places because it's really good at balance.

So even if the stairs are giving out, it it can overcome that.

It can cool itself if it gets too close to the fire.

And it can shoot water like crazy because, you know, it carries a hose.

And it can even shoot air because I guess sometimes a strong blast of air will kill a fire pretty quickly, too.

Now, this is not apparently this is not theoretical.

It's already in play.

So they're already fighting fires with a robot dog in China.

So that's amazing.

I the the story is coming from Mashable.

Now I don't know if you can completely trust stories coming out of China, but if if this is true that they already have a robot dog firefighter, that's going to be pretty amazing.

Could you imagine being trapped in a fire and the robot dog is the first one that gets there, but it can't really carry you out because it's just a robot dog.

Doesn't really have enough hands for that.

I guess we'll have the optimist for that.

All right.

Uh well, the uh Jake Tapper book is out with co-author Alex Thompson.

Now, that's the one that promised to be uh we imagined would be full of really shocking things about Joe Biden from behind the scenes.

And so far, the only thing I've heard uh from the book is that uh I guess it's out today, but uh that Joe Biden's physical deterioration was so severe that his advisors privately discussed the possibility he might need a wheelchair if he won re-election.

Now, that's not too surprising if anybody saw him walk and fall over and stuff like that.

So, and the fact it was privately discussed, that makes perfect sense.

But is that the most shocking thing in the book of all the things in the book?

We're not even going to talk about his mental deterioration.

We're going to talk about his ability to walk.

That I feel like I was expecting a lot more.

Weren't you?

So maybe somebody only read the first chapter or something, but shouldn't there be way more shocking relevant re revelations?

I'm a little low on shocking revelations here.

So Jake, we're expecting more.

I hope there's more of this going to come out.

Apparently uh Apple Apple is now working with a startup called Synchron to uh connect their phone to your brain directly.

So this would be for disabled people at least initially.

Wall Street Journal was reporting this.

So they've they've got so Synchron is trying to do the same thing uh that Neurolink does, which is literally physically connect some device to your brain.

So they uh they have a stent-like device that's implanted in a vein at top the brain's motor cortex.

Now that's kind of surprising.

Does it surprise you that connecting to one vein near the brain would allow you to read brain signals?

And that's pretty amazing if you could do that.

Anyway, um and then it translates the signals into icons on screen.

Now, I saw some critic in the comments saying that uh uh Apple hasn't developed basically anything useful since Steve Jobs left.

Left as in, you know, died.

Um and I wonder if this will be it.

But even this is sort of a follower thing because you know Neurolink it would be way ahead.

Yep.

Brain vein signaling.

Anyway, so we'll see about that.

It seems to me that if it starts with disabled people, it wouldn't be long before you would want to have one of those brain stances in in your own brain.

How many of you would let somebody drill into your head and give you a brain stent just so you could control your phone better?

I don't know if I'd be up to be the first person to do that, but you go first.

Well, um, as you know, one of the biggest problems in the United States for developing anything is it takes too long to get approval, especially in the uranium/nuclear front.

But, uh, according to interesting engineer engineering, the US is going to fasttrack a Utah uranium mining permit.

Now, how long do you think it would normally take to get a uranium mining permit?

And I guess this isn't a mine that used to exist but got closed for some reason.

They're reopening it.

But what do how long do you think it would take?

Probably years, right?

And why would it take years?

Well, you know, there's always an environmental issues, etc.

Um, but apparently they're trying to slash that to 14 days.

14 days.

Do you think they're going to make that work?

Because I always wondered why can't you do it in 14 days.

Um, now I'm not talking about the analysis that would be presented to the whoever has to approve the thing.

The analysis might take a while.

You know, they might say, can you analyze the impact on the special frogs or whatever is there?

So, I could see why that would take a while, but it seems like once you've done the analysis that uh getting the approval shouldn't take that long.

So, do you think this will really get approved in 14 days?

Because we need local uranium so we don't have to rely on Russia.

Russia is one of the main sources of uranium.

So, seems like a bad idea to depend on Russia for our uranium.

Well, when Trump uh Trump's talking he's still talking about the China tariff agreements and apparently there's a you know a deeper level of stuff that we don't all understand.

So, one of the things I talked about is the tariffs, of course, but there was something about a whole bunch of other, you know, restrictions and things that China puts on people beyond tariffs that they're willing to relax.

But, uh, Trump is very excited about the fact that China has agreed to quote, "Open itself up to American business." Now, what exactly does that mean?

Because if you were an American business and you found out that China said, "All right, in the past we weren't allowing you to even compete in China because we wanted our Chinese businesses to, you know, thrive without the competition.

But even if you could bring your business into China, wouldn't you still wor be worried that they would steal your IP and that they would bug all your devices?

You you've probably heard that if you're a CEO of a company and you travel to China, you can't bring your regular phone because everything's going to be tapped and you know you're basically going to be surveiled the entire time.

So, who would actually do that?

Like even if you could do business in China and they opened it up to American business, is that real or would there be so many Chinese specific problems that you'd wish you had never gotten near it?

I still think China is too dangerous for business.

It's too risky.

And I don't see that changing because it would it would require a complete mindset change in China where apparently the current mindset and you know I can't read minds but I'm going to only judge it from actions.

If you look at the actions of China it's as if there are no ethical or moral limits on anything and that if they can steal from you they do.

If they can abuse you, they will.

If they can steal your stuff, they will.

If they can um degrade you in any way for the benefit of the Chinese market, they will.

How is that going to change?

I don't see that changing, you know, if they don't have the mindset that, oh yeah, come on in and compete with our local businesses.

Um, so I feel like that's overblown.

I just I just feel like the I feel like there's going to be a soft decoupling.

It's very smart for Scott Bessend to say directly and publicly that we don't want to decouple from China.

That's exactly what I would say if I wanted to decouple from China.

It's just that you can't do it quickly.

Doing it quickly would be a disaster for both countries.

but a soft decouple where we just sort of quietly develop locally the ability to make our own clothing I guess or to buy it from Mexico or or Vietnam.

So I think we should say yes we want to do all kinds of business with you China.

Yeah, bring it on.

Let's do some more.

Oh, the last thing we want to do is decouple.

No, no, no.

We don't want to decouple.

And then decouple as fast as you can, but in a reasonable common sense way that doesn't destroy you as you're decoupling.

So, I say don't decouple while you decouple.

So, that's that's how I'd play it, too.

Um Gavin Newsome, our California leader here, has uh ordered California cities to shut down the homeless encampments.

He says there's no more excuses.

Blaze Media is reporting on this.

The homeless advocates, of course, were not happy about this at all.

Um so what does that mean?

Doesn't it feel like there's something missing in that?

If you close down the homeless encampments, which is basically the tents, and you get rid of the tents, where are they going to go?

Isn't the the whole point of it is that they were unwilling to go anywhere else?

So, if you said, "Pick up your tent and get out of here to where?" Now, they always had indoor options, right?

For a long time, they've had indoor options.

The reasons they stay outdoors is so they don't have to obey any of the rules of indoor living.

In other words, they can just, you know, do their fentinol and lay there and and they just prefer it.

Now, the fact that you and I don't prefer it, it shouldn't be influential in your opinion.

They prefer it.

And it's hard to understand that, you know, at some point of addiction and uh mental illness, they prefer living outdoors.

So, I don't know how this can work.

There's just a part missing where where is it that they go?

I've always liked the idea of creating a homeless encampment on public land that's just away from the other people.

Like I don't mind how many homeless people there are as long as they're not on the sidewalk so that I can walk by and the freedom poopers will not be doing their thing.

So if this is um somehow paired with there's a place you can go.

It's just and it's very nice place, you know.

Maybe it's even has more trees.

You maybe maybe has better maybe they could give them some bathroom facilities.

Uh maybe even some a little bit of healthcare or something.

So, but if there's a place to go, I I guess so.

So here again, you can see that Gavin Newsome is trying to be more of a centrist, which I define as trying to be a Republican without going all the way.

Well, according to MIT Technical Review, there is a new uh technology that police might be using soon that doesn't use facial recognition, but it can still recognize people.

So without because there's a controversy about using facial recognition, it's too uh intrusive.

But apparently they can now there's a technology that can identify people maybe less, you know, less accurately, but it can identify people by let's see um by their attributes like body size, gender, hair color, and style of clothing.

and accessories instead of their face.

So, this made me think that criminals need their own AI consultant because if imagine you were a professional criminal, it used to be you just had to, you know, understand the current situation because it never changed much.

But AI is changing so much about how the law enforcement people can do their job.

It's like in order to be a professional criminal, you're going to need your own AI consultant.

You know, it's like, all right, uh you're gonna have to start changing your clothes for each crime because if you wear the same clothes, they're going to identify you quickly.

Now, how many of the criminals will be aware that uh how many of them read the MIT technology review to know that law enforcement can identify them by their style and their clothing and their accessories?

It also says gender, but let's be real, it's men.

I think the gender part's the least important because it's always bad doing the serious crimes.

Anyway, so crooks, you better dress differently.

Um, in related news, there's a rumor that is uh not confirmed and might not be true, but reclaim the net is saying that uh you know Meta has these new glasses, these Ray-B band glasses.

you you probably saw Zuckerberg wearing them.

Um, and they they're sort of sort of limited in what they can do at the moment, but one of the things they're thinking about maybe possibly adding is facial recognition.

Now, I don't know about the legalities of that, etc.

And it's not a confirmed thing.

It's only a well, we think they're probably looking at it.

But isn't that the most valuable feature?

I mean, if I if I said to myself, what is the point of having these cool magic glasses that can help me, I don't know, hear things and see things and do things?

Wouldn't the number one thing be to tell you more about other people so that you can remember their names?

like and that you can uh uh that you can instantly know what you have in common.

You can know if they're dangerous.

It would be super intrusive and the people who are being identified would hate it.

But boy, it would be the single most useful thing you could have if you could have it.

Um and and then you'd see some people that if they even saw you walk in the room with those glasses, they'd have to leave immediately cuz cuz if you were the one person who was, you know, had some serious crimes on your record or something, the person who walks in with the meta glasses would be the only one who knows.

So as soon as you see somebody walk in with those Ray-B band glasses, you're like, "All right, got to go.

I'm out of here." uh but would be the most useful thing you could do.

You you would you would be able to talk to strangers all the time because you would see something in common.

Can you imagine you meet meet somebody you've never met before but it can check their social media and it tells you immediately what you have in common.

It's like oh you you both like to surf.

Well, you know, if you know that right away that you met somebody new and they and you both like to surf, you already have something to talk about.

It's like it would be so easy to make friends, but you can see the downside, too.

So, there there would clearly be a dark side to it.

However, I think it would be useful.

All right.

So what we're expecting from this uh Saudi trip with the president is that there are a lot of deliverables that have been uh arranged in advance and u maybe it's already happening.

I don't know.

But I think you're going to see this non-stop um this non-stop flow of good news heading to the United States.

Now at the same time apparently uh there was a uh a Pakistani man who uh who is a British citizen who's in the government who is uh suggesting that Trump should be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for quickly deescalating the Pakistan Indian conflict.

To which I say, huh, maybe yes.

Because we don't know exactly what Trump did, but I'm guessing what he did was he put pressure on both sides, as in you better cut this out or we'll, I don't know, cut trade with you or put some kind of pressure on you or sanction you or something.

And both sides would like to be able to just trade with the United States and have a good relationship with the United States.

But they also needed what I called the fake because.

The fake because is a reason to do the thing that they wanted to do anyway.

And what they wanted to do anyway is not have a fight and not go to World War II.

They definitely did not want a nuclear confrontation.

So when Trump comes in, he can just give them some ambiguous threats and both sides will say, "Oh, well, now that I have the ambiguous threat, I guess that's a good enough reason not to have World War II.

Phew, I was so willing to go to nuclear war, but now that Trump has talked to us." So I think that's something that Trump would know that neither of them wanted it.

They just needed some external reason to make it look like a good idea to stop stop being belligerent.

So maybe maybe Trump does deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for what he did.

We'll we'll find out more about what he actually did because I don't know, but maybe.

All right, that's all I've got for now.

I'm going to uh say some words privately to the people on locals, my subscribers, and the rest of you.

Thanks for joining.

I'll see you again tomorrow.

Same time, same place.

There'll be all kinds of good news by tomorrow.

All right.

If you're on You.

Tube or Rumble or X, you'll be gone in 30 seconds.

And here I am. Just checking on your

stocks and they look to be up. Stocks

are

up. Inflation rose by

2.3%. Which I think is good news,

right? All right, let's get my comments

working and then we got a show. Then we

got a show. Come on in here. You'll love

it.

[Music]

Oh, a mystery just got

solved. Uh, I can't tell you what it is,

but in the comments, somebody just

solved a mystery for me.

Good. Good morning, everybody, and

welcome to the highlight of human

civilization. It's called Coffee with

Scott Adams, and it's the best thing

that ever happened to you. But if you

want to take a chance on taking this up

to levels that nobody can even

understand with their tiny shiny human

brains. All you need is a cuper mug or a

glass of tanker cheline in 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, the dopamine end

of the day. The thing that makes

everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip and it happens right

now.

Go.

Perfection. Well, let's talk about the

news, shall we? We'll start with some

science. Get you warmed

up. Uh, USA scientists, they found a

molecule they think could cure

baldness. So, they got a cure for

baldness, they think. Do you know when

was the first time I read a news story

that said science had a cure for

baldness? Probably 50 years ago. Do you

know when was the second time? Probably

49.5 years ago. Every six months I see a

story that baldness has maybe been

cured. Do you know how much baldness has

been cured in the last 50 years of great

advancements in curing

baldness? Not a

lot. And generally, if they find

something that does cure your baldness

and makes your penis not work, it's

pretty much a pretty much a guarantee.

So, no, I don't believe anything about

any story that says they're going to

cure my baldness or anybody

else's. According to uh story in

Newsweek, psychopaths are more

attractive. Did you know that

psychopaths are more attractive and

therefore um because people trust

attractive people? They shouldn't, but

they do. Uh the psychopaths can get away

with more because they get trusted

because they're attractive. Now, here's

my question to

you. Where's the cause and where's the

effect?

If psychopaths are more

attractive. I've told you this story

before about when I was very young. I

remember looking in the mirror and

saying to myself,

"Looks like you're not going to play in

the

NBA. Probably not. You know, chances are

you won't play in the NBA." And so I

planned my life around the alternative,

which is, you know, go to college and

build up my

brain. Do you think the

psychopaths when they're very young,

they can tell they're unusually

attractive already? And they're not

psychopaths yet, but they quickly learn

that because they're attractive, they

can get away with murder.

So I think being attractive turns you

into a

psychopath because you don't need to

worry about

consequences whereas I have to worry

about consequences. So I'm that's why

I'm such a nice guy. But you know you've

heard that uh power corrupts and

absolute power corrupts absolutely. Is

that all that's going on? Could it be

that the attractiveness power of the

psychopath uh well it starts maybe it

just starts as attractiveness power but

then they just

become psychopaths. I don't know just my

hypothesis. Here's a uh study that's I

found interesting that if you want to

change your location

um well apparently Nobel Prize winners

are more likely to be Nobel Prize

winners if they have changed their

location more times. So in other words,

if you used to live in one place but

then you moved and maybe you moved

again, you're more likely to become a

Nobel Prize winner.

And there's a reason for that. If you

were uh let's say you were a a genius

and you were born in Silicon Valley with

other geniuses, you would fairly soon

become like the other people. So it

would be really good that you were

around other geniuses. That would be a

real advantage, might make you smarter,

but only to a certain level. And then

you would be sort of into group think.

This this is the the thought from this

study from the Ohio State University.

But if you were, let's say, a

scientist and you learned everything

from the other scientists who lived

where you live because you'd have some

association with them and then you

moved, you'd get a whole new bunch of

scientists and uh that could take you to

another level. But I would uh I would

extend this from Nobel scientists to

just ordinary creative people trying to

create because one of the things I

noticed is that changing where where I

am physically, you know, not the city

but just changing well sometimes city

but changing the um room you doing some

work at Starbucks. Uh I've tried going

to the library.

It all works. Every time I change my

location,

uh, you know, I can do more work. So,

try it. Change your location if you're

not being creative

enough. Well, if you haven't seen the

videos, uh, Saudi Arabia is really

rolling out the the red carpet, as they

like to say, for Trump, who has arrived

there today. Um, they had three Saudi

jets uh, give him give Air Force One an

escort.

um which I don't think was necessary for

any additional protection, but it just

made it look like a big deal. Um it was

kind of impressive because they had the

videos of the Saudi uh jets, you know,

just sort of following him in. Then the

uh crown prince uh met Trump on the

tarmac, which apparently is not their

normal protocol. So, that was another

another gesture of

respect. And what I didn't know, I I

thought it was just going to be the

crown prince and and Trump, but

apparently this is an enormous

um event with the top

billionaires, at least the top American

billionaires from Black Rockck,

Blackstone, Croup, Qualcomm, IBM. So, so

you're getting the the richest people in

the world, but you're also getting So,

these these are people who are going to

be at the same

lunch, right? If if you know the drama

involved in these personalities, it's

really funny that the the same people,

this group of people will be at the same

table for lunch. Elon Musk, Larry Frink,

Sam Alman, and Reed Hoffman. Now,

there'll be lots of other people there,

so but I'd love to see the seating

chart. Can you imagine if they put Elon

Musk between Sam Alman and Reed

Hoffman? If you don't know the

background, you Elon Musk has a little

bit of friction with those two guys. a

little bit of

friction and even Larry Frink, you know,

was the main DEI guy and ESG guy for a

long time. So even he couldn't

necessarily sit next to Elon

Musk. So I think there's a possibility

of a fist

bite. But the the other thing that um

I'm wondering is apparently the people

who were smart say that this kind of a

trip is always associated with

pre-arranged

deliverables meaning that the deals have

already been made but they'll just be

sort of announced and make it look like

it was because of the trip. Yeah, I

guess indirectly it is because of the

trip. Um, but when you have this many

billionaires and

CEOs, I feel like the quantity of

potential

deals might be pretty tremendous. And

and I'm guessing

that Saudi Arabia will be the uh the

source of the money and maybe a lot of

these people who are showing up think

that they will be the beneficiaries of

some of that flowing money. So Trump has

said something like bringing a trillion

dollars of investment back. Um I think

that might happen. He might come back

with a trillion dollars worth of

investments. Well, in un in other news,

uh you know Elon Musk has the Boring

Company. That's that big machine that

digs tunnels and they just uh upgraded

it so it doesn't need a person on the

inside. It's a total robot tunnel

digger and it's a they finally achieved

what they call zippit zpit zero people

in tunnel. So it's just a robot tunnel

digger. Now I would like to see two

things. One, I'd like to see those

tunnels be about five times bigger

because they're still tiny little

tunnels. I don't I don't know if I'd

want to be inside one of those tunnels

if I could if I knew I were inside it.

The other is I'd love to see some

technology for digging straight

down. It's impressive that that this

tunnel digger can go from left to right.

Uh but wouldn't it be great if you could

if you could find some way to

economically dig far enough that you

could get to geothermal power? If you go

down deep enough, you have unlimited

energy because the, you know, the

geothermal

um situation. It would be different

everywhere. You know, how I guess how

far you'd have to dig and how hard it

would be. But wouldn't it be amazing to

have something along the lines of the

Boring Company? It would be all

different technology because it would be

drilling, not tunneling. But that would

make everything work.

You would have

unlimited energy and it would be clean.

Everybody would be happy with it. All

you need is technology to be able to

drill a a really deep hole where it gets

really hot and do it reliably and

economically. I'd love to see

that. Well, here is the least surprising

news of the day. PJ Media's reporting on

this, Matt Margolus, that apparently the

Joe Biden job creation numbers were more

fake than we

imagined. Now, how fake were they? You

know, you're used to seeing job numbers

come out and then then later they get

revised down. So we're we're kind of

conditioned for the idea that that

employment numbers, you know, job

numbers might be a little bit managed if

you know what I mean. Well, how managed

were they? Uh according to the new

figures, and this is from the

government. So this is not an outside

entity judging the government. This is

from the

government. According to the new

figures, the

399,000 jobs that the Biden team claimed

that they created

um was not 399,000 jobs. So, let's round

that off to

400,000. So, it turns out maybe Joe

Biden did not own did not create 400,000

jobs. They're they're revising it down a

little bit. Do you know what they

revised it to?

uh lost a thousand

jobs. What

uh or or there's I see another estimate

that says instead of adding almost

800,000 jobs during the middle of last

year, the economy likely shed more than

160,000. So it wasn't only that they

revised it downwards. It went from

wildly positive to well well it might

have been negative, you know, could have

been

negative. Now, how many of you remember

when uh I had

my Democrat uh debate friend on uh

comedian whose name I can't remember

right now? Can anybody remember his

name? Um, and he now has a show on CNN,

the humor

show. And uh, I said something about the

Biden employment numbers always getting

revised down. And he he doubted me

because my source was not good. Black.

Yes. Uh, yeah. Mikely Mikey in black.

and he challenged me because I did not

have a source, which was a good

challenge because

uh I was under the

impression that his numbers always got

revised, but I didn't have the data at

hand or a source or a link or anything.

So, that was a perfectly reasonable

thing to ask about. But turns out uh

that my that my instinct about this was

right on point.

right on point. It It's sort of stunning

the degree to which the Biden

administration was a complete

lie. Uh the funny thing is that uh

Democrats are so hypnotized by their own

media that if you ask them uh could you

compare

the truth or the honesty of the Biden

administration versus Trump? Every one

of them. Every one of them would say,

"Oh my god, Trump's this big old liar.

Lying liar. All he does is lie." Uh,

it's a good thing that Biden never did

that. Everything that Biden did was a

lie. From the from the Biden crime

family stuff to the jobs reports to how

well his brain was working. Everything

just everything about Biden was a lie.

Now, it might be that, you know, most

things about presidents are not exactly

true, but uh it it would be amazing. I

saw somebody do this. Was it Scott

Jennings maybe challenged somebody on

the panel on CNN? Uh and and he just

laughed when they said that Biden was,

you know, more honest.

Anyway,

um RFK Jr. was praising

uh he was praising Trump for his uh

executive order that would lower pharma

costs in the United States and uh would

make us pay no more than other

countries, which would be a gigantic

reduction in costs. Um but RFK Jr. was

doing his little public statement about

it. Trump was there. And here's what he

said. He said, "I have a couple of kids

who are Democrats, big Bernie Sanders

fans, and when I told them that this was

going to happen, um, they had tears in

their

eyes. So, this is something that Bernie

wanted, you know, the lower pharma

costs, but they could never get it

done."

Um, and even, uh, RFK Jr. thought it

would never happen in his lifetime.

So, here's the fun part. Apparently,

Bernie Sanders is so on board with

Trump's executive order, but he doesn't

think that it will necessarily survive a

a court challenge. Now, now, who the who

the hell is going to challenge it in

court? I I get that you shouldn't do

everything with an executive order. I

get it. But is there really going to be

a Democrat or or group of Democrats who

insist that we pay more for

pharmaceutical

stuff? Bernie thinks so because uh

Bernie has said publicly now uh he goes

further as Trump well knows his

executive order will be thrown out by

the courts. Will it? It will only be

thrown out if a Democrat takes it to the

court. How in the world are they going

to survive that politically if they take

that to the

court? But I suppose Bernie probably

knows his party better than I

do. I guess I would reflexively disagree

with anything Trump does. But uh here's

the good news. He says if Trump is

serious about making real change rather

than just issuing a press release, oh

come. It's an executive order, not a

press release. He will support

legislation I will soon be introducing

to make sure we pay no more for

prescription drugs than people in other

major countries. Major countries. Ah

maybe he'll limit it to major countries.

We'll see if Republicans and Democrats

come together on this. We can get it

passed in a few weeks. So unless there's

a trick in there and maybe the trick is

the major countries.

Um, it looks like Bernie Sanders is

fully on

board with Trump's uh executive order.

He just wants to make it stronger and

make it part of uh part of the

law. So, we'll see if that's real or

that's not real. But I I can't wait to

see which Democrat would take a chance

on challenging this in

court. Do Do you think that's possible?

I'm I'm going to make a prediction that

even the Democrats are not dumb enough

to go allin on we should pay more for

pharmaceutical cuz we hate

Trump. I don't think they can do it. I

mean, they've done some crazy things

just to be on the other side of Trump,

but I don't think they can do this. And

you know, even Jasmine Crockett can't do

this. She might try though.

Anyway, uh as you know, uh Trump has

allowed uh refugee status for the uh

Africaner the the white African South

Africans who are want to escape the

possible genocide in South Africa. Now,

there's some disagreement. If you watch

MSNBC, you'll find out there's there's

no white genocide in South Africa. And

and there's violence. You know,

everybody has violence. So why would we

be favoring the white people in South

Africa, says

MSNBC, when everybody's, you know, it's

a dangerous place? And, you know,

there's just very, very little uh

evidence that many farmers have been,

you know, lost their land or been killed

or anything. But it's only like 59

people, I guess, at least initially.

And I just love the I love the trolling

aspect of this combined with the fact

that I do think that if if I were living

there based on what I've seen in the

news and what looks like is coming and

it's more about what's coming because if

you look at the rhetoric the rhetoric in

South Africa is looking it's looking

pretty dangerous. So, if I were a white

resident of South Africa, I feel like I

might want to get out of there. And the

fact that uh, you know, Trump's all in

on that, it just gives MSNBC something

to talk about that doesn't matter.

Now, I don't know what's, you know, true

or what's not true in South Africa, but

the fact that it just gives gives MSNBC

something unimportant. I mean, you know,

if you look at the whole world and the

country, it's not the most important

thing happening. There's 59

people. So, anyway,

uh I guess I just enjoy the fact that

they don't like it.

Well, the Diddy trial is uh going now,

and uh I guess the Diddy defense is

going to be that the violence really did

happen, but it wasn't part of sex

trafficking. Boy, you know, you never

want to be in legal trouble where your

best defense is that your violence was

real. Well, my violence was real. Yeah,

sure. Uh, I did beat up some women, but

uh, it was part of a consensual sex acts

and you know, maybe they liked it a

little bit or um, that's your best

defense. Uh, but definitely wasn't sex

trafficking. Oh, no. Oh, no. No. It was

just violence, people. No sex

trafficking. So, he's been accused of

drugging people and bribing people and

disgusting sex acts. And there was

something about a male escort who was

paid thousands of dollars to get with

his girlfriend Cassie. Well, did he

watched?

Um, wow. This doesn't seem like the

dangerous stuff yet, does it? Weren't

you expecting that the Diddy trial

would would present a whole bunch of

things that were not just about Diddy?

Like you'd find out about other people?

I'm starting to think there won't be

anything about other people, you know,

at least other famous people. There

there'll be other things about, you

know, the male escort that he paid and,

you know, the girlfriends that he did

bad things to, but I feel like this is

going to be really limited to just

Diddy. Um, which, you know, has to be

done. But, uh, if you were hoping for

this to give you real news about other

people, probably not.

Um the uh credentials committee in

another story sounds like the same story

because it's so disgusting but the

Democratic National Committee the ones

who had elected uh David Hog as their

co-chair

uh there's something called the

credentials committee. So the Democratic

National Committee has a credentials

committee and they they voted that Hog

the Hog election had not followed proper

parliamentary

procedures. Uh and then they'll have to

decide whether he can run again.

So, so the Democrats used a rules trick

to get rid of their own

guy, which is so Democrat. You know,

we've been talking before about the

Democrats uh they're not so much about

policy and ideas because they don't have

any policy ideas, but they're all about

gaming the rules. you know, you know, I

think Mark Elias just sued Wyoming for

something again, trying to game the

rules. So, they game the rules even on

their they they've turned their weapons

on their own uh people. So, they somehow

they came up with some weird

parliamentary procedure thing to get rid

of David Hog, but he's not gone gone. I

guess he could rerun for his own for his

own seat, but the odds of him getting

elected probably went way down.

Um, and this is after David Hog was on

uh Bill Maher's show saying something

like

uh that uh young men just want to get

laid and have

fun. And uh that's what the Democrats, I

guess, didn't understand about young

men. And I'm thinking to myself, I I

think again, you're way off. Now, of

course, young men want to do those

things, but if you're if you're

following the news or my podcast, you

know that young men are the biggest

uptick in

church that there there's a much bigger

trend toward young men wanting to become

religious and wanting to become

conservative.

And

um apparently enrollment in the military

is way up which is mostly young men. Now

why do young men volunteer to be in the

military? Now in some cases they might

think it's their their best, you know,

economic play, you know, depending on

how what they're prepared for. Um, but

to me it seems like the trend is away

from wanting to just get laid and have

fun. Even drinking is down. You know,

the the amount of drinking is down among

the young. I think young men are seeking

meaning. And uh I guess Charlie Kirk did

a good job of of saying that that young

men

are far more if you're looking for a

trend, they're trying to find some

meaning. Because the old days, everybody

was just getting ready to be a good

husband and that option seems to be

decreasing. I mean, they still might

want it, but it just doesn't seem to be

as

available because of economics and other

things. So, I think once

again, the uh Democrats just don't

understand their own public. Um, you

know, it'll always be true that young

men want to get laid and have fun, but

the the search for

meaning just seems like a bigger deal to

me in terms of a you know, a direction

for things.

Um, now here's a uh here's a I don't

know if this is a trend or just a a

thing, but have you noticed that there's

a gigantic difference in

the let's say uh mental

capacity of Democrat supporters versus

Republican. Now, I'm not saying that if

you measure the IQ of one group versus

the other there'd be a difference. I

don't know that there would be. But in

terms of the people who were

prominent, if you look at who's

prominent on the Democrat side, you get

people like Hog and Jasmine

Crockett, you know, just to pick

two. Now, they're not really the

brightest

people, at least in terms of

politics. Um, but I've said this before.

I think I said this on X and uh Elon

Musk agreed with me on X that the

smartest people seem to have all moved

to the Republican side because it's the

common sense side. It's hard to be smart

and be opposed to common sense.

But just just to give you a sense of the

difference between the Democrat side

saying just one crazy thing after

another and the Republicans. The

Republicans have um on their side I

would say

uh you've heard of Data Republican. So,

Data Republicans, a woman who is just

great with data and has uh surfaced

things

that would be hard to surface just

because she's good with data. So,

recently she put together a giant

spreadsheet that you could download and

you could check yourself that shows all

where George

Soros gave his money. So, you can see

the Soros grants. I guess Alex Soros at

this

point. Now, isn't that useful to

actually understand the real world?

You'd want to know where Soros put his

money. Now, who do who on the Democrat

side could do that? They don't have they

don't have data

Republican. That's just something on one

side. who

uh who on the Democrat side has a Mike

Benz who can explain to you in great

detail all of the NOS's and how the

money has been essentially laundered and

you know how the CIA is all part of it

etc. They don't have a Mike

Bentons. What about Victor Davis Hansen?

You know, they do have some historians

on the Democrat side, but they just seem

like crazy

partisans. You know, they don't sound

as, you know, authoritative or as smart

or as balanced as Victor Davis Hansen.

What about uh I'm I'm going to throw

Charlie Kirk in here. If you haven't

seen Charlie Kirk's videos of all the

public events he's doing, where he does

a public debate with anybody who wants

to, basically, so people go up to the

microphone and they challenge him with

one thing after another. And one of the

things we've learned is that Charlie

Kirk is way smarter than I thought he

was. you know, uh, it turns out he has a

pretty deep, not pretty deep, but a very

deep understanding of all of these

topics. And watching him just dismiss

one person after another, you think to

yourself, "Oh my god, you know, I'm glad

he's on our team." Um, of course,

there's Elon Musk and Doge, smartest

people

ever on the Republican team. And I'm

going to say maybe on the Trump team as

much as the Republican team. A lot of it

is uh yeah, a lot of it is uh Trumpish

because Trump is the common sense guy.

David

Sachs, it every time I hear David Sachs

explain something complicated, I think

to myself, "Oh, now I understand it

because he's just so freaking smart."

And I'm going to throw myself in there

because I've, you know, added to the

persuasion understanding of the of the

Republican proTrump side. I don't think

there are people like

that. There's there's just a huge

difference in capability of the people

who are involved and, you know, publicly

involved in

stuff. So, is that just my impression?

because it's possible I'm just so biased

that I can't see the difference. So, I

see in the comments somebody throwing

Megan Kelly in there. Yeah, let's let's

throw Megan Kelly and Joe Rogan in

there. Not as necessarily Trump

supporters, but um you know, important

voices that are the best of the best in

podcasting. I think the Democrats will

probably catch up and have some big

podcasts, but I haven't really heard of

any. Um, that's probably just because I

don't pay attention to that part of the

world. Uh, oh, somebody's throwing in

Jack Pabic. I'll throw I'll throw him in

there. What about

um Steve

Bannon? Steve Bannon isn't just um the

guy who needs a haircut who does a show

every day. Steve Bannon is really

smart. I don't know if you understand

how smart he is. He's really smart. like

super

smart. Even if you disagree with them,

you have to give him that.

So, it does seem to me like there's a

just an

enormous talent difference at this

point. Yeah, you could throw I'm seeing

lots of other names go by. I won't

uh I won't have to list every name, but

there there's a big difference in uh

capability at this point.

Anyway, uh Sam Alman was talking about

where AI is going. He says 2025 is the

year of the AI

agent. Now, the AI agent would be you

can have an AI that acts like a person

who does whatever you want it to do. Uh

you know, work tasks or personal tasks.

I'm not so sure because I don't think

there is yet a AI agent that won't

hallucinate. If there is, you know,

maybe I could be corrected on that, but

I feel like they don't have a solution

for AI agents. I think it would either

be too dangerous.

Um, I think they're

close, but I don't know if they can

close that last gap where the AI agent

is dependable.

So, we'll see. I mean, there's no reason

I would be right on that where, you

know, if you were going to bet, you

would bet on Sam Alman. You wouldn't bet

on me. But I'm a little bit skeptical

cuz

uh I if it could be done, I think it

would have been done

already. He thinks 2026 will be the year

of scientific research and

breakthroughs. In other words, AI doing

its own scientific research and

breakthroughs.

That could be true. Then 2027 is when AI

and robotics

um get together and then you've got

robots and AI. Now in theory there will

be Optimus Prime that will be driven by

AI and that will be uh available at

least in small amounts at the end of

this year. I wouldn't be too surprised

if that got pushed back. So, uh, I think

maybe Sam Alman's estimate that it's

2027 is probably right. And I I think

that that may have to do with the fact

that you need you can't quite trust the

AI yet. So, putting it in a robot might

be a little dangerous in 2025. I think

it's doable. You know, you could have a

robot in

2025, but probably 2027 is when we trust

it. Now, if you haven't seen it, there's

a video of the Optimus robot uh doing

jazz

dancing. It's not just dancing, but but

it's looking like an actual dancer. You

know, it's got moves that don't look

like a robot, looks like a person. And

but but as I was watching this, you

know, I was watching it with the sound

off. And I thought to myself, how much

does a robot

weigh? Does anybody have an idea? How

how much will the optimist weigh?

Because could you imagine having the

apartment beneath beneath the apartment

that has a robot in

it? Could you just

imagine what it would be like in in the

first floor apartment if the second

floor apartment has an Optimus? Clump

clump clump clump clump clump. Hey,

Optimus, show everybody you can dance.

Clump clump clump clump clump clump.

There's going to be a real problem with

the with the downstairs apartments, let

me tell you. Uh, all right. Speaking of

robots, um, I saw this I saw this story

before and I skipped it the first time

or two I saw

it because I thought it was more of

those uh, someday we'll be able to do

this, which is way less interesting than

we can do this now. But apparently this

is a a real thing that exists now that

China's doing. They've so they've got a

robot dog, four-legged firefighting

machine. So I guess it connects to a

hose and it can go into the most

dangerous places because it's really

good at balance. So even if the stairs

are giving out, it it can overcome that.

It can cool itself if it gets too close

to the fire. And it can shoot water like

crazy because, you know, it carries a

hose. And it can even shoot air because

I guess sometimes a strong blast of air

will kill a fire pretty quickly, too.

Now, this is not

apparently this is not theoretical. It's

already in play. So they're already

fighting fires with a robot dog in

China.

So that's amazing. I the the story is

coming from Mashable. Now I don't know

if you can completely trust stories

coming out of China, but if if this is

true that they already have a robot dog

firefighter, that's going to be pretty

amazing. Could you imagine being trapped

in a fire and the robot dog is the first

one that gets there, but it can't really

carry you out because it's just a robot

dog. Doesn't really have enough hands

for

that. I guess we'll have the optimist

for

that. All right. Uh well, the uh Jake

Tapper book is out with co-author Alex

Thompson. Now, that's the one that

promised to be uh we imagined would be

full of really shocking things about Joe

Biden from behind the scenes. And so

far, the only thing I've heard uh from

the book is that uh I guess it's out

today, but uh that Joe Biden's physical

deterioration was so severe that his

advisors privately discussed the

possibility he might need a wheelchair

if he won

re-election.

Now, that's not too surprising if

anybody saw him walk and fall over and

stuff like that. So, and the fact it was

privately discussed, that makes perfect

sense. But is that the most shocking

thing in the

book of all the things in the book?

We're not even going to talk about his

mental deterioration. We're going to

talk about his ability to

walk. That I feel like I was expecting a

lot more. Weren't

you? So maybe somebody only read the

first chapter or something, but

shouldn't there be way more shocking

relevant re

revelations? I'm a little low on

shocking revelations here. So Jake,

we're expecting more. I hope there's

more of this going to come out.

Apparently uh Apple Apple is now working

with a startup called

Synchron to uh connect their phone to

your brain directly. So this would be

for disabled people at least initially.

Wall Street Journal was reporting this.

So they've they've got so Synchron is

trying to do the same thing uh that

Neurolink does, which is literally

physically connect some device to your

brain. So they uh they have a stent-like

device that's implanted in a vein at top

the brain's motor cortex. Now that's

kind of surprising.

Does it surprise you that connecting to

one

vein near the brain would allow you to

read brain

signals? And that's pretty amazing if

you could do that. Anyway, um and then

it translates the signals into icons on

screen. Now, I saw some critic in the

comments saying that uh uh Apple hasn't

developed basically anything useful

since Steve Jobs

left. Left as in, you know, died.

Um and I wonder if this will be it. But

even this is sort of a follower thing

because you know Neurolink it would be

way

ahead. Yep. Brain vein

signaling. Anyway, so we'll see about

that. It seems to me that if it starts

with disabled people, it wouldn't be

long before you would want to have one

of those brain stances in in your own

brain. How many of you would let

somebody drill into your head and give

you a brain stent just so you could

control your phone

better? I don't know if I'd be up to be

the first person to do that, but you go

first.

Well, um, as you know, one of the

biggest problems in the United States

for developing anything is it takes too

long to get approval, especially in the

uranium/nuclear front. But, uh,

according to interesting engineer

engineering, the US is going to

fasttrack a Utah uranium mining permit.

Now, how long do you think it would

normally take to get a uranium mining

permit? And I guess this isn't a mine

that used to exist but got closed for

some reason. They're reopening it. But

what do how long do you think it would

take? Probably years,

right? And why would it take

years? Well, you know, there's always an

environmental issues, etc. Um, but

apparently they're trying to slash that

to 14 days.

14 days. Do you think they're going to

make that work? Because I always

wondered why can't you do it in 14 days.

Um, now I'm not talking about the

analysis that would be presented to the

whoever has to approve the thing. The

analysis might take a while. You know,

they might say, can you analyze the

impact on the special frogs or whatever

is there? So, I could see why that would

take a while, but it seems like once

you've done the analysis that uh getting

the approval shouldn't take that long.

So, do you think this will really get

approved in 14 days? Because we need

local uranium so we don't have to rely

on

Russia. Russia is one of the main

sources of

uranium. So, seems like a bad idea to

depend on Russia for our

uranium. Well, when Trump

uh Trump's talking he's still talking

about the China tariff agreements and

apparently there's a you know a deeper

level of stuff that we don't all

understand. So, one of the things I

talked about is the tariffs, of course,

but there was something about a whole

bunch of other, you know, restrictions

and things that China puts on people

beyond tariffs that they're willing to

relax. But, uh, Trump is very excited

about the fact that China has agreed to

quote, "Open itself up to American

business." Now, what exactly does that

mean?

Because if you were an American business

and you found out that China said, "All

right, in the past we weren't allowing

you to even compete in China because we

wanted our Chinese businesses to, you

know, thrive without the

competition. But even if you could bring

your business into China, wouldn't you

still wor be worried that they would

steal your IP and that they would bug

all your devices? You you've probably

heard that if you're a CEO of a company

and you travel to China, you can't bring

your regular phone because everything's

going to be tapped and you know you're

basically going to be surveiled the

entire time. So, who would actually do

that? Like even if you could do business

in China and they opened it up to

American business, is that real or would

there be so many Chinese specific

problems that you'd wish you had never

gotten near it? I still think China is

too dangerous for business. It's too

risky. And I don't see that changing

because it would it would require a

complete mindset change in China where

apparently the current mindset and you

know I can't read minds but I'm going to

only judge it from actions. If you look

at the actions of China it's as if there

are no ethical or moral limits on

anything and that if they can steal from

you they do. If they can abuse you, they

will. If they can steal your stuff, they

will. If they can um degrade you in any

way for the benefit of the Chinese

market, they

will. How is that going to change? I

don't see that changing, you know, if

they don't have the mindset that, oh

yeah, come on in and compete with our

local

businesses. Um, so I feel like that's

overblown. I just I just feel like the I

feel like there's going to be a soft

decoupling. It's very smart for Scott

Bessend to say directly and publicly

that we don't want to decouple from

China. That's exactly what I would say

if I wanted to decouple from China. It's

just that you can't do it quickly. Doing

it quickly would be a disaster for both

countries. but a soft decouple where we

just sort of quietly develop locally the

ability to make our own clothing I guess

or to buy it from Mexico or or Vietnam.

So I think we should say yes we want to

do all kinds of business with you China.

Yeah, bring it on. Let's do some more.

Oh, the last thing we want to do is

decouple. No, no, no. We don't want to

decouple. And

then decouple as fast as you

can, but in a

reasonable common sense way that doesn't

destroy you as you're

decoupling. So, I say don't

decouple while you

decouple. So, that's that's how I'd play

it, too.

Um Gavin

Newsome, our California leader here, has

uh ordered California cities to shut

down the homeless encampments. He says

there's no more excuses. Blaze Media is

reporting on this. The homeless

advocates, of course, were not happy

about this at all.

Um so what does that mean? Doesn't it

feel like there's something missing in

that?

If you close down the homeless

encampments, which is basically the

tents, and you get rid of the tents,

where are they going to

go? Isn't the the whole point of it is

that they were unwilling to go anywhere

else? So, if you said, "Pick up your

tent and get out of here to

where?" Now, they always had indoor

options, right? For a long time, they've

had indoor options. The reasons they

stay outdoors is so they don't have to

obey any of the rules of indoor living.

In other words, they can just, you know,

do their fentinol and lay there and and

they just prefer it. Now, the fact that

you and I don't prefer it, it shouldn't

be influential in your opinion. They

prefer it. And it's hard to understand

that, you know, at some point of

addiction and uh mental illness, they

prefer living

outdoors.

So, I don't know how this can work.

There's just a part missing where where

is it that they go? I've always liked

the idea of creating a homeless

encampment on public land that's just

away from the other people. Like I don't

mind how many homeless people there are

as long as they're not on the sidewalk

so that I can walk by and the freedom

poopers will not be doing their thing.

So if this is um somehow paired with

there's a place you can go. It's just

and it's very nice place, you know.

Maybe it's even has more trees. You

maybe maybe has better maybe they could

give them some bathroom

facilities. Uh maybe even some a little

bit of healthcare or something. So, but

if there's a place to go, I I guess so.

So here again, you can see that Gavin

Newsome is trying

to be more of a centrist, which I define

as trying to be a Republican without

going all the

way. Well, according to MIT Technical

Review, there is a new uh technology

that police might be using soon that

doesn't use facial recognition, but it

can still recognize people.

So without because there's a controversy

about using facial recognition, it's too

uh intrusive. But apparently they can

now there's a technology that can

identify people maybe less, you know,

less accurately, but it can identify

people by let's see

um by their attributes like body size,

gender, hair color, and style of

clothing. and accessories instead of

their

face. So, this made me think that

criminals need their own AI consultant

because if imagine you were a

professional criminal, it used to be you

just had to, you know, understand the

current situation because it never

changed much. But AI is changing so much

about how the law enforcement people can

do their job. It's like in order to be a

professional criminal, you're going to

need your own AI consultant. You know,

it's like, all right, uh you're gonna

have to start changing your clothes for

each crime because if you wear the same

clothes, they're going to identify you

quickly. Now, how many of the criminals

will be aware that

uh how many of them read the MIT

technology review to know that law

enforcement can identify them by their

style and their clothing and their

accessories? It also says gender, but

let's be real, it's men. I think the

gender part's the least important

because it's always bad doing the

serious

crimes. Anyway, so crooks, you better

dress

differently. Um, in related news,

there's a rumor that is uh not confirmed

and might not be true, but reclaim the

net is saying that uh you know Meta has

these new glasses, these Ray-B band

glasses. you you probably saw Zuckerberg

wearing them. Um, and they they're sort

of sort of limited in what they can do

at the moment, but one of the things

they're thinking about maybe possibly

adding is facial

recognition. Now, I don't know about the

legalities of that, etc. And it's not a

confirmed thing. It's only a well, we

think they're probably looking at it.

But isn't that the most valuable

feature? I mean, if I if I said to

myself, what is the point of having

these cool magic glasses that can help

me, I don't know, hear things and see

things and do things? Wouldn't the

number one thing be to tell you more

about other people so that you can

remember their

names? like and that you can

uh uh that you can instantly know what

you have in common. You can know if

they're dangerous. It would be super

intrusive and the people who are being

identified would hate it. But boy, it

would be the single most useful thing

you could have if you could have it.

Um and and then you'd see some people

that if they even saw you walk in the

room with those glasses, they'd have to

leave

immediately cuz cuz if you were the one

person who was, you know, had some

serious crimes on your record or

something, the person who walks in with

the meta glasses would be the only one

who knows. So as soon as you see

somebody walk in with those Ray-B band

glasses, you're like, "All right, got to

go. I'm out of here."

uh but would be the most useful thing

you could do. You you would you would be

able to talk to strangers all the time

because you would see something in

common. Can you imagine you meet meet

somebody you've never met before but it

can check their social media and it

tells you immediately what you have in

common. It's like oh you you both like

to surf.

Well, you know, if you know that right

away that you met somebody new and they

and you both like to surf, you already

have something to talk about. It's like

it would be so easy to make friends, but

you can see the downside, too. So, there

there would clearly be a dark side to

it. However, I think it would be

useful. All right. So what we're

expecting from this uh Saudi trip with

the president is that there are a lot of

deliverables that have been uh arranged

in

advance and u maybe it's already

happening. I don't know. But I think

you're going to see this non-stop

um this

non-stop flow of good news heading to

the United States. Now at the same time

apparently uh there was a uh a Pakistani

man who uh who is a British citizen

who's in the government who is uh

suggesting that Trump should be

nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for

quickly deescalating the Pakistan Indian

conflict.

To which I

say, huh, maybe

yes. Because we don't know exactly what

Trump did, but I'm guessing what he did

was he put pressure on both sides, as in

you better cut this out or we'll, I

don't know, cut trade with you or put

some kind of pressure on you or sanction

you or something. And both sides would

like to be able to just trade with the

United States and have a good

relationship with the United States. But

they also needed what I called the fake

because. The fake because is a reason to

do the thing that they wanted to do

anyway. And what they wanted to do

anyway is not have a fight and not go to

World War II. They definitely did not

want a nuclear confrontation. So when

Trump comes in, he can just give them

some ambiguous threats and both sides

will say, "Oh, well, now that I have the

ambiguous threat, I guess that's a good

enough reason not to have World War II.

Phew, I was so willing to go to nuclear

war, but now that Trump has talked to

us." So I think that's something that

Trump would

know that neither of them wanted it.

They just needed some external reason to

make it look like a good idea to stop

stop being belligerent. So maybe maybe

Trump does deserve a Nobel Peace Prize

for what he did. We'll we'll find out

more about what he actually did because

I don't know, but

maybe. All right, that's all I've got

for now. I'm going to uh say some words

privately to the people on locals, my

subscribers, and the rest of you. Thanks

for joining. I'll see you again

tomorrow. Same time, same place.

There'll be all kinds of good news by

tomorrow. All right. If you're on

YouTube or Rumble or

X, you'll be gone in 30 seconds.