Episode 2938 CWSA 08/25/25

you are.

Hello everybody.

I was just uh checking your stocks and kind of flat and boring today.

So maybe we get some more excitement later.

But in the meantime, we've got a show to do and I'm going to look at your comments to make sure I'm plugged in.

We're gonna do a little vibe of podcasting.

That's right.

I use AI to help me.

That makes it vi podcasting.

Although I am completely normal.

Unless uh You.

Tube uses their AI to fix my look.

I could use some help.

All right.

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

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating your experience today up to levels that no one can understand with your tiny shiny human brains.

All you need for that is a tanker chalice in a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

Go.

All right.

All humans and all pets who are listening, make sure your pet is listening.

I do send uh subliminal pet commands.

So, if you watch this with a cat on your lap or a loyal dog on the couch next to you, I will be training your animals at the same time I'm entertaining you.

Well, there's a uh scientific study according to Science Alert, David Neil is writing that cannabis compounds are showing early promise for healthy aging.

That's right.

According to this one study, and remember the majority of studies are not reproducible.

So when I talk about science, just keep in mind that the overall theme is it's probably mostly made up.

But uh as of today, the science says that you will age better if you're using marijuana.

That's what the new study says.

It it'll be good for your organs and your brain, and you'll and you'll age better.

Now let me uh summarize the total state of science in 2025.

You ready?

Uh it can't tell the difference between medicine and poison.

Am I right?

How many times have we seen that modern science literally can't tell the difference between medicine and poison?

I would even include um CO2.

Is CO2 like a medicine for the planet that's good for the plants or is it a poison that's going to heat up the atmosphere and kill us all?

Science looks like guessing, doesn't it?

I wouldn't trust any of it.

Here's another good example.

All right.

This is uh this is presented as a serious article about a serious study.

I want you to be the judge of whether this looks like a prank or a serious thing.

All right, you ready?

So, this is from some publication called The Conversation.

uh Michael Vasquez and uh Michael Prinsing are writing about um they say that studying philosophy does make people better thinkers.

Uh there was research on more than 600,000 college grads and uh now interestingly the two people who did this study are themselves philosophy majors.

Huh.

So, you're telling me this two philosophy major majors did a study that determined that being a philosophy major makes you smarter.

Okay, hold that thought.

hold that thought that it was performed by philosophy majors who presumably if their research is correct and their interpretation of it is correct uh would be the reason they're so smart.

Yeah.

The reason they're so smart is because they were philosophy majors.

Um but uh and they looked at the data and sure enough the people who were majoring in philosophy were indeed um smarter on other standardized tests than the average of other people.

Now here's why I can't tell if this is a prank.

Because isn't it kind of stupid to assume that the causation here is that the the classes made you smarter as opposed to the more obvious explanation?

The people who thought they were already good at reasoning thought, you know what, I'm good at reasoning.

Maybe I should be a philosophy major.

And then two people who should have been good at reasoning somehow wrote an article without even mentioning that the far more likely way to or realistic way to interpret the data is that people who are already good at reasoning and know it are the only ones who sign up to be philosophy majors and last there might be some who are just wrong.

They think that they might be good at it or they think that they're going to learn how to be good at it and then they drop out after the first semester.

So, they don't get measured so much, do they?

So, I can't tell if this is some kind of a public prank where they're trying to see if you notice that they've done really bad thinking and that it's an article about the people who, including the authors, have been trained to be extra good at thinking.

Are are they serious?

I don't think they even have a way to figure out if the training made them uh smart or if they were smart and that's why they got into that field.

I don't even think they could measure that.

They probably don't have that kind of data anyway.

I mean, how would you do how would you do a control?

The only way you could do a control test is you take a bunch of people who had declared uh that their major would be uh philosophy and then you'd have to take half of them and say or some proportion of them and say we're not going to allow you to be philosophy majors.

Wait, what?

Yeah, we're doing a study and the only way we'll have a control group of people who on their own had decided to become philosophy majors but didn't.

so we can compare them to the people who did.

We're going to have to prevent you from following the major that you would like to get into.

Wait, what?

You can't do that.

It's for science.

No, there is no way to measure that ethically.

Um, did you know according to Fox New Zealand that uh if you don't drink enough water or I think they just mean if you're not hydrated your body will not be able to handle cortisol and that your stress reaction will be much bigger.

Do you believe that?

Well, if it's the basis of a study, that would mean that the odds are against it.

Ju just try to hold this wild thought in your mind.

If I ever tell you there's a study and it and it decided that you know proposition A is true, it means that the odds are against it being true because the majority of studies are not real.

The majority are not real.

So, anytime I tell you something's been discovered, it probably means the odds are against it.

That's the weird world we're living in.

But the study says that if you stay hydrated, it's probably good for your stress levels.

And I say, well, maybe they should have just asked me because I would have said, hm, let's see.

Uh, your brain is part of your body.

Check.

I knew that part.

If you don't get take care of your body, you won't be taking care of your brain.

Check.

It's true with nutrition.

It's true with sleep.

It's true with everything we've ever measured that has an impact on your body.

What do we think would happen if you don't have proper hydration?

Let's see.

It'd be bad for your body.

Your brain is part of your body.

Yeah.

Okay.

I think I would have guessed that one.

All right.

U science also says according to something called your tango Christine Shonwald is writing that uh science says people with a good sense of humor are wired for higher intelligence.

Well, I take back everything I said about scientific studies.

It turns out the science is very very accurate cuz I can't find anything to argue with with this.

Yeah, people with a good sense of humor, they're much more intelligence intelligent intelligent.

They have more smartitude, their smartness, these smart smartassness.

I don't even have words anymore.

But anyway, yeah, that's true.

Remember, I've famously said for years that onethird of the public literally doesn't have a sense of humor.

Do you know what the other way to say that would be?

Onethird of the world isn't smart enough to get jokes.

Just oneird.

Yeah, think about it.

Think about it.

Well, uh, my experience, you know, as a professional funny man, my experience is that the smarter people are, the more they're going to get my jokes and the more more they'll appreciate it.

So, yeah, I think uh, intelligence and sense of humor are related.

Here's another one from science mag.

Um they did a study to find out that the children of adults who are very active themselves you know doing sports and you know outside activities and stuff if the parents are very active physically then the children are more likely to be physically active and so they've concluded that if you if you model a behavior that children will follow it.

You know what they could have done?

They could have asked me and the first thing I would have said was a yes, children do copy whatever examples they're exposed to.

Yes, that's you don't have to study that.

I will just tell you that's true.

Secondly, how do you rule out that there's a genetic thing where the people who are genetically, you know, predisposed to exercise?

Um cuz not everybody likes it the same amount.

You know, not everybody reacts to food the same.

Not everybody reacts to exercise the same.

You know, I I personally I am not genetically um able to enjoy running a marathon or even training for one.

It would just hurt.

But there's a whole range of physical activities, you know, like I was playing aggressive pingpong yesterday.

Oh, cat is missing me.

And I seem to be optimized for, you know, that.

Um, so yeah, how how do you rule out the fact that the kids are just naturally more active because they came from parents who are active, you know, genetically?

You cannot.

So I do not trust that study.

Another uh another report says the American economy grew 3% in a annualized basis, I guess.

And that would be amazing.

So if you're not following economics, you you wouldn't know that they were expecting something in the twos, the mid twos as a percentage of growth, but at 3%.

And that is really good.

It It's not so high that, you know, you'd expect inflation to go up and then interest rates can't come down.

It's just it's just almost perfect.

Yeah.

you you wouldn't want it to be too hot.

Um, and it but it's definitely strong.

That's a good result.

It's one of the best if if it's real.

I mean, obviously the macro theme today is everything is So, it may not be real, but if it were, it'd be great.

There was a uh back and forth on the X platform today between Elon Musk and somebody named David Scott Patterson.

I don't know anything about him, but he had a interesting comment that Elon weighed in on and and I'm just going to read it to you because they were both very brief and very interesting.

So, David Scott Patterson says um that by 2030 all jobs will be replaced by AI and robots.

All jobs.

And here here's his calculation.

He says the US labor force is about 170 million.

About 80 million of those jobs include hands-on work.

So um he's talking so the rest will be about the whole 170 million because it's not you don't need robots to replace every job.

It could be the AI by itself that replaces the job.

So you'd be replacing uh you know at least 80 million the the hands-on group and he notes that automated systems that would include robots but even you know automated systems can work four shifts a week.

So you don't need as many robots as you would need humans because humans have to rest.

And it says replacing all physical labor would require about 20 million autonomous systems.

You know, meaning robots and autonomous vehicles, you know, vehicles would replace cab drivers, for example.

Um, and then he says that could be accomplished easily in the next four years.

So the question is could we make 20 million you know really good uh industrial robots and have self-driving everything in four years 20 million.

The answer is yes.

That's that's well within the doable range.

Um he says people saying it's not physically possible to build that many systems in four years are delusional.

For comparison, 16 million cars were sold in the US last year.

Interesting.

And cars are 20 times the mass of a humanoid robot.

Now, that was a fascinating way to look at it.

That the humanoid robots have lower mass, so therefore they'd be easier to build.

That does seem true, but I never would have thought of it that way.

That mass is a way to compare those things.

And he goes on, if robots were sold at the same rate as cars, that would be uh 320 million robots per year.

Wow.

Even a tiny fraction of that would be enough to replace all human labor.

All right.

So the summary is that by 2030 it would not be difficult given what we can already do in the world to replace all human work with robots.

Now, that would be a little bit disruptive for the normal economy if every single job had been lost.

And here's what Elon Musk says.

He weighed in.

He goes, "Your estimates are about right." Oh, wow.

Um, he goes, "However, intelligent robots and humanoid form uh will far exceed the population of humans as every person will want their own personal R2-D2 and C3PO.

And then there will be many robots in industry for every human to provide products and services.

And then he says this is uh still Elon Musk.

There will be universal high income not merely basic income but universal high income.

He goes everyone will have the best medical care, food, home, transport and everything else.

Um but then he summarizes it as sustainable abundance.

Now, of course, Elon Musk is in the business of making robots, so he wants to put the, you know, the best possible spin on it.

Um, what you're hearing is my cat going wild on a box of Kleenex, man.

He's having fun here.

You can watch him for a while.

There you go.

Yeah, you're on you're on uh you're on the podcast now.

He's looking at himself.

Yep.

That magic device.

What is going on?

He says, "Hold it.

Hold it.

Don't start typing." All right, back to me.

That's enough.

That's enough, Gary.

Oh, Gary.

Anyway, I was going to summarize here that uh Musk is unusually good at predicting the future, but since his trillion dollars of net worth, it depends on the future being the way he describes it.

You know, he might be a little biased about this, but uh that hasn't affected his predictions too much in the past because he's almost always predicting things that affect him personally.

So, that's good news.

I don't know.

Do does your common sense and your gut instinct tell you the same thing that robots will make us simply just not need to work anymore and uh that we'll all have everything we need and plenty of it.

I don't know.

But the problem is that would be true if everybody surrendered to that process.

But if if people said, "Oh, um this transition to the old robot thing will take a while, so I'm not going to give you my uh let's say steel for free." You know, you're going to have to buy the steel.

And everybody else would try to do the same.

They'd be like, "Oh, okay.

Little catastrophe going on there.

We'll clean that up later.

bad cat.

Well, in other news, Bindu ready I saw an X was talking about AI girlfriends and points out that both Meta and X um who understand human behavior pretty well, very well.

Bindo says they're betting on AI girlfriends.

So, as Bindo says, they're working on AI that can oneshot the human liyic system and give us a constant dopamine high, an addiction that is customdesigned.

So, in other words, you know, your AI chatbot will be different from mine.

So, it's customdesigned uh and maybe more potent than cocaine.

It might be.

And interestingly, she points out Elon Musk has already warned us of said outcome.

Well, um I may have a u let's say contrarian view of that.

I definitely think that a whole bunch of people like millions and millions of men are going to give the AI chatbot girlfriend thing a try.

I think that almost all of them maybe 80% I'll say 80% are going to find hey this is pretty good and even compared to human women they're going to say you know what this is surprisingly dramaree and yet is still entertaining me and they will be drawn to it and might even get some you know some uh dopamine out of it but I believe that everybody is destined to be bored by it because you can't maintain interest in something that's not alive.

We're just not evolved to do that.

So once the novelty wears off and you realize that you're the one who has to initiate all the conversations, that's you know the story I talked about yesterday.

Um I don't think I don't think it's going to drive your limbic system.

I feel like it's going to drive your boredom eventually, but but I think it'll have a really predictable arc where a whole bunch of people try it and we get all worried about it and and people are literally marrying them and you know and putting them in the robot and it'll it'll be a big story and it will affect a lot of people for a long time.

But I think it's self-correcting.

I I believe that you can only get oxytocin from humans or maybe cats, you know, but like an actual mammal of some type.

Anyway, so as much oxytocin as I get from my cats, it's not like a human.

It's not like cuddling up with some, you know, beautiful woman that uh you're in love with.

It's not in that category.

So, and then the robots in the chat bots are going to be less than a cat.

You know, it's going to be less limbic system than, you know, owning a dog.

So, I'm not too worried about long run.

All right.

Trump is being hilarious again in True Social talking about Chris Christie and some other people and he did he did this long uh you know screed against Chris Christie and then he said uh about George Slapadopoulos on ABC fake news and but and then he goes parathetically by the way what the hell happened to Jonathan Carl's hair it looks absolutely terrible it's amazing what bad ratings on a failed television show that was forced to pay me $16 million can do to one's appearance.

All right.

Now, remember we were talking about sense of humor is related to intelligence.

If you don't think that's funny, I don't know what's wrong with you.

Maybe it's your intelligence.

But to me, that's just hilarious.

And here's why.

If you were to look at it out of context, you'd say, "Really, Scott?" You're saying, "That's so clever.

All he did was insult his haircut.

Anybody could have done that." And and it was uh, you know, inappropriate for his office.

Why do you think that's funny?

Well, let me explain it.

It's funny because he's completely aware of the effect it has on people.

That's the funny part.

that he knows that it's making people who don't have a sense of humor react to it negatively and that makes the rest of us really amused.

So, he knows how most people who support him are going to react to it and they're just going to laugh.

And it's funny because the president isn't supposed to say that sort of thing about anybody.

And then I imagine, and I don't know if you do this, but I imagine poor Jonathan Carl who's just waking up in the morning.

Imagine just waking up in the morning.

You're like, "Oh, I wonder if anything's happening today." Yeah, we'll we'll check uh X.

Uh it's about my haircut.

And now every time Jonathan Carl goes out in public today and maybe for the rest of his life, everybody's going to look at his haircut and say, "What what happened to your haircut?" So, not only has Trump made us laugh about Jonathan Carl's haircut, but he's he's cursed and doomed Jonathan Carl to the end of his days.

Everybody's going to look at his haircut and go, "Well, he had a point there." All right, that's funny.

Um, but he did threaten to uh lawfare Chris Christie, which is not cool and is definitely authoritarian.

Do you Are you comfortable, Most of you are Trump supporters.

Are you comfortable with Trump threatening to uh reopen the bridgegate thing that Christy had, you know, that that drama to reopen it to punish Chris Christie for saying bad things about Trump on television?

Are you comfortable with that?

I'm not I'm not comfortable with that.

Let me say that as clearly as possible.

No, that's up.

That is authoritarian.

So, I don't think he's serious about it.

I don't even think he's a little bit serious, but I don't really want my president to threaten to do something authoritarian and and absolutely out of bounds at this point because it's not like the it would be one thing if some whistleblower presented something that we hadn't heard before, but literally to reopen a closed case, no.

That's that's out of balance.

So this is where the people who support Trump have a important role.

You need to say if you think that's too far because that's, you know, he follows social media and he does adjust fairly quickly when things aren't working for his uh his base.

So let me say it as clearly as possible.

That's too far.

No, I I don't support that.

Um, in other news, uh, Israel has bombed Yemen's presidential palace and now it's a presidential pile of debris.

Um, apparently they they hit uh Yemen a bunch of times that the Hoodis in Yemen continue to send missiles toward uh Israel and now one of them at least includes a cluster bomb.

So, missile with a cluster bomb and uh Israel just isn't going to put up with it.

So, um note to Yemen, have you checked the news, Yemen?

Um I'd like to make a little message to the Yemenes, uh mostly the hoodies.

Have you noticed anything that's happened in the past year or so?

Um it has to do with a pattern.

You might start to notice that what happens to people who go against Israel and are trying to kill the people in Israel.

Have you noticed that it doesn't work out?

I mean, you may you may notice the not having a presidential palace.

I mean, that that's a little hint, but you know that this doesn't go your way in the long run.

Have you know have you noticed the pattern?

talk to Hezbollah and Hamas.

Yeah, they might they might be able to straighten you out on this and save some time.

Well, here's some advice for you.

U there are two opinions that once you hear them, you should ignore everything else you hear from the person who said it because it reveals that their brain doesn't work very well.

And I I may have mentioned this before, but when somebody says uh that they don't like some, you know, movement or organization because it's a cult, you know, like people call MAGA a cult and people call uh the woke people a cult.

Basic a lot of people call things cult.

It's always dumb.

And the same thing when they they say something's a religion, that's, you know, not technically a religion.

These are analogies.

And when you run into somebody who's an analogy thinker, this whole MAGA is a cult is really no different from um oh, they're like neo-Nazis.

It's just that there's something maybe in its exaggerated form, reminds you of something else.

There's no thinking involved in that.

So, as soon as you hear, well, it's a cult.

They're in a cult.

You don't need to listen to anything else that person says because if they believe they're using an analogy, a terrible one.

I mean, it doesn't really, you know, maggot doesn't fit the definition of a cult.

If you made a checklist, most things would not be checked, right?

But you can always find something that reminds you of something about something else.

So, it's not really thinking.

And uh if you run into somebody who's unable to do that basic thinking, well, they're probably not philosophy majors, if you know what I mean.

They probably don't have a sense of humor, if you know what I mean.

If you've been paying attention, tying it all together.

Speaking which, here's another prediction I made that uh has, as we say, aged well.

I'm kind of proud of this one because it happened so quickly.

I told you that uh Gavin Newsome's mocking of Trump, you know, by mocking his truth social posts that are often in all caps and stuff like that.

I told you that that was well done and I would consider it successful.

So, you know, if I'm going to be an objective observer, I would say, okay, that worked.

It got attention for for Nuome and attention is the you know the coin of the realm.

If you're going to run for president later, it looks like he might.

Um it uh so that's basically what it did.

It got him attention and it was funny and it was viral and it allowed him to raise some money as well.

So that's all that's all really well done.

But what did I predict?

What I predicted was that if they just kept doing the same thing, it would stop being interesting really quickly.

And I think that happened that, you know, and I told you that yesterday I saw another one of his mockery posts and I wasn't tempted to read it.

Even though I'd enjoyed, you know, the cleverness of the first one or two, it's not it's the same joke every time.

So I'm not going to read just the same joke over and over again.

So he had to what he what they had to do was try to extend their victory by doing something that wasn't the same thing over and over again because people would just get tired of it and it would lose all its it uh its magic.

So they had to extend it to something else and try to get another viral moment which is so hard to do.

you know, if you're planning it.

Sometimes you can hit magic, which is what he did.

He tried lots of things and then he hit this one thing that worked and he wrote it for a while, as he should.

But there's no reason to believe that this is reproducible.

And as proof, I give you that he now has a mocking um gift shop online of, you know, MAGA related stuff, but it's mocking it.

All right.

and it's trying to be funny.

What do you think happened when he tried to make magic happen a second time and get people to laugh at his mockery?

Well, here are the products um in the Make America Gavin Again the store.

M A Make America Gavin again.

I see what he did there.

Isn't that humorous?

So he replaced it great with Gavin.

Okay.

Um but then he had other merchandise in there.

Uh one is a hat that said Nuome was right about everything.

Oh, I I get it.

It's because Trump has a hat that says Trump was right about everything because that's something that people say a lot.

So it made sense to put it on the hat.

But how clever was Newsome to change it to Newsome was right about everything and it's a red it's a red hat.

But then uh another there's a uh what do you call it?

Like a wife beater thing that says Trump is not hot.

He's not hot.

Get it?

Wouldn't you love wearing that to a party?

Trump is not hot.

Um, here's one.

You know that, uh, Trump has that Trump 2028 hat, but of course he can't run for office in 2028.

That's what makes it funny.

Well, not to be outdone, Nuome now has a Newsome 2026 coffee mug.

Get it?

Get it?

You can't run in 2026.

Do you get that?

Yeah.

And then one of the hats says real patriot.

All right.

Well, I think his uh his brief time in the sun may have may have lapsed a little bit.

Yeah, give it up.

Well, South Korea is uh meeting with Trump today and uh things are going well with the US and South Korea.

So, it looks like we've got hammered out for the most part a trade agreement.

But a big part of it, which is kind of exciting to me, is that South Korea is the second biggest uh ship builder in the world after China, but actually is better than China because they have a more uh technological automated process.

and they apparently are going to work with the United States to help make the US a ship building power.

Now, that seems like a really, really smart way for the US to, you know, leapfrog our current, you know, completely bad ship building situation to, you know, get into the at least onto the same field as the ones who do it well.

So, I like that.

that looks very positive and uh also makes the Trump administration look smart because that you know when I look at that I just think well everything about that makes sense and apparently South Korea is on board with it so all good.

Um you know I was thinking about Trump solving the crime in DC.

Apparently they've gone 10 days without a murder.

Can you imagine bragging about going 10 days without a murder?

I think we've lowered our standards.

Hey, good news.

10 days without a murder.

Uh but but it makes me wonder the the minute the National Guard pulls out because at some point they'll pull out because things will be under control.

Will the murders just, you know, will there be like pent up murders and people like, "Oh god, they're gone.

Now I can finally murder Carl." Carl, come here.

Bang.

Yeah.

I mean, is that such a thing?

Or are all the murderers sort of acts of passion?

Or are all the murders just on the streets and and that's why?

So, you know, there's so much law enforcement on the streets that they're just like, "Darn it, the place we like to do all our murdering, it's got all these law enforcement people." Well, it makes me wonder.

Uh, and now Trump is talking about getting rid of cashless fail in DC.

So, it's got that.

Um, and to me that makes perfect sense cuz you know the federal government controls DC and DC looked like it was out of control and so he so he moved in.

But have you noticed that nobody did it before?

Because it didn't really feel like the president's job even though, you know, technically the federal government should be taking care of DC, it didn't feel like really his job, right?

And it makes me wonder, did Trump solve so many problems that he had to go look for new things that look like problems?

you know, is he expanding his presidential portfolio?

I mean, technically that's not an expansion, but in terms of showing it any attention, it's an expansion.

Is it because he solved everything else?

Now, you might say, Scott, he hasn't solved Ukraine.

And I would argue he kind of has because the only thing I was asking him to solve for Ukraine is to solve the United States's involvement.

And he kind of solved it because we get now paid for selling Europe these weapons.

So the US GDP benefits from their war.

We have no boots on the ground.

We don't really have a risk of getting nuked because, you know, Russia, it just wouldn't be in their interest and Putin's not crazy.

So, we do, he did kind of solve Ukraine.

Would we prefer that there had been a ceasefire?

Well, sort of, but we wouldn't make nearly as much money as we we will now.

So it it he he didn't solve it for other people, other countries, that's for sure.

They've got a big problem.

But he did sort of solve it for the United States.

So we're not putting out money and we're not really at, you know, gigantic risk.

Not really.

So yeah, maybe he's just looking at cities and Chicago and stuff.

We'll talk about that cuz he's running out of stuff to do.

Well, I solved that.

Yeah, I solved the border.

Uh, now what?

Well, in along those same lines, he Trump has signed uh today, I guess he's going to sign an executive order uh enacting legal consequences for people who burn the American flag.

Well, uh, I will give you my opin.

By the way, this is only popular with, according to Grock, 49% of Americans.

So if this were an 8020 issue, then I would say all right, you know, maybe it's not what I want to do, but if 80% of Americans want that, okay, you know, I mean, I I live in a country where an 80% majority should get their way most of the time, you know, even if it's not what I want to happen, but it's 49%.

Less than half.

Um, do you think that we should um put a limit on free speech, which is what this would do?

Because burning a flag is a form of speech.

There's no question about that in my mind.

You know, I wouldn't even debate that.

It's obviously speech and it's free speech.

And if he puts a legal consequence on it, in my opinion, that is too far.

That is unacceptable.

absolutely unacceptable and that would be quite a stain on Trump's legacy in my opinion.

Now, I know a lot of you have an emotional stake in the flag and you say, "But but but I kind of agree with that.

I don't think people should burn the flag.

We should, you know, respect the institution." But my take on it is that uh Trump is the one burning the flag because to me the flag is not a piece of material.

It is a symbol and as long as that symbol is indestructible, meaning that you can burn it all day long and it's still the flag, then it's valuable.

The moment he says, "I have to punish you if you don't show respect to this piece of cloth," then that piece of cloth has no meaning to me.

I still love the country.

You know, it's not about the country, but he's burning the flag to to me.

He's disrespecting the power of the flag, which is you can't destroy it.

It's it's a concept so strong that fire doesn't touch it.

That's what makes it great.

And it's a symbol of free speech when somebody burns it right in front of the White House.

Free speech.

And it's not really hurting any people except maybe your feelings.

So, let me go on record as saying no that I would consider that authoritarian unambiguously that this would be a clean mistake in my opinion, but I also acknowledge that a lot of you disagree.

Um, and you would be in that 49% apparently.

Trump has also in said recently he's in favor of revoking the uh um the broadcast licensing for ABC NBC news.

Now the broadcasting license is for the network in general but they also have a news part.

So I don't know how that that would work because if you took away the broadcast license for the entire entity would that look appropriate?

I don't know.

Now, his argument is that, you know, their their news is 93% or whatever the number is, uh, negative to Trump and therefore it's not really news.

It's just propaganda and it's just it's not even operating as news.

Now, that's a pretty good argument.

However, um I would argue that, you know, that's kind of true for all the new sources.

So, if he just, you know, picked out these two for being like the extra bad ones for some reason, um I would say that's going too far.

That's too far.

Now, I if it's just, you know, part of his threat, so he's trying to browbeat them into giving them better coverage.

Um, I don't know.

I I wouldn't have a giant problem with that because their coverage is propaganda and it would be just another way to call them out for being a propaganda entity as opposed to a real news entity, which, you know, it's fair game because that's free speech, too.

Um, but if he's serious about it and he actually revokes their licenses, too far.

Too far.

That that would be authoritarian.

So unfortunately um in between the things which he's doing which are frankly amazing and spectacular actually um he he's uh he's hinting at making Democrats right by looking like he's willing to go too far on a few topics.

So that's uh you know I'm still of course big supporter of Trump and I feel it's useful that he gets honest feedback about what works and what doesn't work in terms of the public.

So that's my feedback.

He has gone too far and he needs to adjust.

Um there Fox News is reporting that there's a make America fentinil free campaign.

It's a privately organized and funded thing.

And I guess it'll be sort of like the antismoking campaigns, you know, more informing people and telling them what the risks are.

I like all of that.

So, you know, it's privately funded.

Um, it's essentially it's propaganda because you can't really reason people on a fentinel yet.

you have to scare them, you know, sort of like uh this is your brain on drugs and uh that sort of thing.

So yeah, they propaganda against fentinel better than not doing it.

I guess prices for August are looking about normal, a little bit better than they were last year this time.

We'd like them to be lower, but Washington Examiner was talking about this.

So, so the average price of a gallon of regular is at 3.16, which makes me mad every time I read the average price of gas because do you know what brings that average way up?

California where it's it's over five.

I don't I forget what it is, but it's not even close to three.

Um, so Trump is talking about bringing his uh DC, Washington DC plan to Chicago.

That would be uh bringing the National Guard there to help curb the crime.

But uh, Mayor Brandon Johnson says citizens will quote, "Rise up and fight tyranny." Oh, okay.

It's tyranny to reduce crime in your city.

He says and that the city does not need a military occupation because uh there's been a 30% drop in homicides.

Well, have you heard anything negative about data crime statistics?

Do you think that the people in Chicago are feeling safe enough because crime went down or murder allegedly went down 30%.

And do you believe that?

Do you believe murder went down 30%.

It might be down 30% from the high of the pandemic, but is that where you would measure it from?

I feel like I would look at the um I've also told you that if you look at the percentage but not the raw number, it means somebody is trying to mislead you.

If they only tell you one of the two things, either the raw number only or the percentage only, and he's doing the percentage only, that is almost always meant to deceive you.

They they leave out the number because the number would give you the opposite message as the percentage.

If I say the percentage is down 30%, and you didn't know from what the number was, you might agree with him and say, "Well, come on.

They're doing great.

Down 30%.

let them keep doing what they're doing.

It might go down even further.

But what if the number of homicides happened to be a thousand a month?

Would you say to yourself, "Sounds like it's going well because they're down 30%." Or would you say, "Oh my god, a thousand people murdered per month.

You know, we better move the military in there." So the percentage tells you a totally different story than the raw number.

And I don't know what the raw number is, but it's not a thousand.

All right.

Um, so this this raises a question.

Um, will that Chicago tyranny u is that going to be done by the oligarchs or the patriarchs or the white supremacists or the authoritarians?

And will they steal your democracy?

So these are the questions that the uh Democrats are raising.

Are the tyranny people, the oligarchs, the patriarchs, the white supremacists, and the authoritarians, are they all in the same team?

Same same bunch of people?

I don't know.

You have to ask a Democrat.

They see them everywhere.

I see dead people.

Well, uh, Wes Moore, the governor of Maryland, um, said that over 300,000 people have left Baltimore, Maryland due to crime.

So 300,000 out of what had been a city of 920,000.

So basically a third of the city, onethird of the city said, "I can't even live here.

I'm out of here.

I'm gone.

Now, uh you know what I say about that?

That's a lot of racists.

So, 300,000 people, probably all of them racists, uh left Baltimore, and they need to be cancelled.

I disavow every one of those races.

Well, meanwhile, um, according to the Gateway Pundit, Leticia James says that Trump is weaponizing, uh, justice in his fraud case.

So, let's say, um, some people say that Trump is trying to get revenge.

And if you heard that out of context and you heard that a president was trying to get revenge on an American city citizen, well, that would sound pretty bad, wouldn't it?

Now, they also say that Trump is weaponizing uh the Department of Justice.

Wow.

If you hear that out of context, that's pretty bad.

So, two things I definitely don't want to see from my president are revenge.

I don't want to see any of that.

And using lawfare or weaponizing the Department of Justice, something I absolutely do not want to see.

But you know what I do want to see is if those two things are put together, I'm I'm fine with it.

If he if he uses lawfare to get revenge, well, if it's real revenge, as in somebody who has it coming, oh, I'm all I'm completely in favor of that.

Yeah.

If it's somebody who lawfared you and you're lawfaring them in revenge, totally acceptable.

Totally acceptable.

See, now that's full context.

If you give me the full context, then I like the lawfaring and I like the revenge because I would call them mutually assured destruction.

And if you don't actually do the mutually assured destruction, well then it doesn't exist to keep society together in the future.

Is it a big risk that the other side will escalate and will, you know, everybody will be just doing it like crazy?

Yes.

Yes, that is a risk and it's a better risk than not addressing it.

But it's a risk.

We live in a risky world.

Well, uh Trump has softened so much on Tik Tok probably because Tik Tok helped him get elected by um it turns out he was popular on Tik Tok, so that probably helped him.

And uh they've got the official uh White House account on Tik Tok now.

That that's recent.

And uh Trump's now saying that uh all the panic about the app's Chinese connection is quote highly overrated.

So So now that he's finding that Tik Tok just works to his favor, he's like ah you know there the risks that are highly overrated.

He said he vowed to keep extending Tik Tok's deadline uh until a US buyer steps in, which probably will be never because no US buyer can buy it unless uh China says yes, I'll sell it.

And China is definitely not going to say yes, I'll sell it.

So, he's just going to kick kick the can down the road and take the benefits of uh Tik Tok.

So once again, Trump has taken a problem uh problem for the country and he's monetized it because uh Tik Tok works so well for Trump because he's so good at social media that it allows it's definitely will allow him to raise more money for Republicans.

Wouldn't you say?

Is that fair to say that he's monetized Tik Tok for the benefit of the Republican party?

I think so.

So, he monetized the Ukraine war.

He monetized Tik Tok.

He he he's on the sidelines of this fentinel fund, but the US government's not funding it.

It's being funded by rich people who, you know, care.

Uh, so he's very consistent.

He he just keeps monetizing things that are problems.

And I don't hate it.

He monetized trade, right?

The tariffs.

He monetized it.

Uh that's a lot of monetizing.

Um there was a Mexican senator who was on Fox yesterday, I guess, and uh actually accused her own government of being a narco, what is it?

A narco state, meaning that they were owned and controlled by the cartel.

So, a Mexican senator is saying it publicly and that that has to has to change.

Now, it's one thing when we say it in this country, but I always wonder I assume it's true.

I mean, I'm really really sure that the cartels are controlling the government of Mexico, but it really hits differently when when the Mexican senator says it and you know, I wondered if that Mexican senator is going to be alive in a year cuz can you say that?

Can can you just out your own government as being a cartelrun operation and then just go about your business and hope you don't get assassinated?

I don't know.

I don't know about that.

So, I hope she's got the really good security.

Even called her own president a traitor for working for the cartels.

Wow.

Uh, this story is boring.

I'll skip that.

So, there's a Harvard startup.

I think it's Harvard dropouts did a startup with some smart glasses that will do vibe thinking for you.

I don't know if you've heard this uh cool people term, vibe coding.

So if you're using AI to uh to help you write code, you know, you're you're kind of, you know, working with the AI and you don't have an exact plan because how the AI does its thing might affect how you do your thing and that.

So you're kind of vibing with the AI to write some code, but uh they've used that vibing thing in other contexts where you're using AI.

So I guess the idea here is that the glasses would listen to every conversation all the time and it would make smart suggestions um that you didn't ask for.

So it might remind you of things that are important like it might say uh uh oh this person's name is Jenna and today is her birthday because you would hate to forget Jenna's birthday and it would know that everybody would want to remember you know somebody special's birthday.

So, I can imagine having glasses that were making smart suggestions to me based on my real life.

That actually would be kind of cool.

Uh, I don't know if I would get tired of it or it would change my brain, but you would truly be a cyborg if you were talking to somebody, you're doing your thing, and then in the glasses, I assume that's how it communicates.

Maybe it does it by by sound.

I'm not sure, but if you could see in your glasses something that the people you're dealing with don't see and it was giving you suggestions of things to talk about or it was uh checking your calendar for you or you know all of that stuff.

Imagine you're talking to somebody in person.

You say, "Hey, uh you want to get together on Saturday?" and then your glasses without being told pop up your calendar and then you can see that your your Saturday is open or not.

How cool would that be?

So the the thought of just putting on your glasses and having your effective IQ doubled or you know maybe by a thousand or something um is kind of exciting because any topic that you brought up, you know, if you're just talking about something in the news, boop, it would pop up like a AI summary of that topic so that when you're talking about it, you can just throw in a like a data that you you see in the glasses while you're talking.

How cool would that be?

If it works, um, I'm going to be happy for two reasons.

One, it will look like wearing glasses is just something you're doing for technology reasons instead of looking like you have bad eyesight.

So, I like the fact that um, since I'm a glasses wearer, that there might be some reason that everybody's wearing thick rim glasses like the ones I have on.

because it would just make everybody more like me.

I'd look more normal.

I like that.

Uh what what was it?

Was it the '9s when people like Michael Jordan made it uh and uh Bruce Willis made it normal to shave your head if you were going bald.

And I happened to be alive during that era.

I was like, "Yay, good luck.

All right.

Apparently, uh Putin and Zilinski have made no plans to meet.

It doesn't look like it's going to happen.

Um so, like I said, it looks like u Ukraine is going to keep attacking Russia's energy infrastructure and Russia apparently has ramped up their attacks.

So, looks like they're going to fight it out.

So, it's it's not so much um let's say who can kill all the soldiers on the other side.

I think they've made it just an economic war at this point.

Meaning that if Russia can, you know, destroy all the economic infrastructure of Ukraine, um it'll probably make Ukraine give up faster.

And if Ukraine can destroy the the energy industry in Russia, um Russia is going to start looking for a way out if they can't stop that from happening.

And I don't I don't think they can stop it.

I feel like we live in a world that if one if your neighbor wants something to blow up in your country and they really really want that thing to blow up, they're going to make it blow up.

like you could stop a few of the missiles, but they're going to get it.

So, um there's going to be a lot less energy coming out of that place for a while.

Um, did you know that uh according to a watchdog report, Corey D'Angelus is talking about this on X, that uh the two biggest teachers unions funneled $50 million to left-wing groups.

So I assume that means that from the dues that teachers paid where they thought they were paying their union to represent them only 10% of the money that they gave um turned into representational activities and 90% of it apparently went to things like uh administration and funding left-wing groups.

Why is that even legal?

My god, does that feel like some kind of RICO?

It just feels like laundering money criminal organization.

How is that legal there?

So, they've got the uh the teachers in a bind.

You know, the teachers feel like they have to be in the teachers union for whatever reason they think they have to.

Um and then they have to pay their dues.

I think there are a few states that gave them the freedom to avoid the union, but generally speaking, they have to put their money in and then their money is being used in ways that they might approve of, but nobody asks them.

Uh, it feels like theft or blackmail or uh there's got to be some crime that's involved there.

I don't know.

Anyway, if uh there was enough crime there to uh neuter somehow legally uh you know have the department of justice neuter the teachers unions then maybe children would have a chance.

Well, the US government reached some massive AI deal with Google uh for Google's Gemini.

And I guess that will be a key part of the government uh fixing up government services by adding AI to them.

I assume that this has is dovetailing with the new uh designer guy.

You know, the government design what do they call it?

The basically the government has a design guy now who will fix the will try to fix the interfaces where people deal with the government online.

So the AI is a big part of that.

So I guess Google will be the the lead AI.

Um do you think that's because Google has sort of this CIA alleged backing?

So that that's that's the reason that Google gets this, you know, gigantic government contract because then the CIA allegedly, I don't know that this is true, but that they could influence what Google's AI does and doesn't do, and that will influence the government, which influences the people, etc.

So, is it a total coincidence or is it just because they were the low bidder?

I've got questions.

Well, more journalists have been killed in Gaza um accidentally, we think, but 200 journalists have allegedly been killed in the Gaza war, which would make it the most journalists dying in a war uh since uh well, ever.

It would be the most journalists ever killed in warfare.

So, even uh World War I, there were up to 80 were killed.

World War II um up to 200, but Gaza's estimated at 232 actually.

And Vietnam was 70 to 100.

Um but the Syrian civil war was over 700.

Oh my god.

But that was spread over a longer period.

So for the, you know, on a per year basis, Gaz has killed the most um journalists.

But what have I told you about data?

Almost all data is fake.

I'm going to go further.

All data is fake.

How many of the journalists do you think were really Hamas operatives pretending to be journalists?

Well, not zero.

Probably not zero.

And there may have been some who who were legitimately journalists but maybe also legitimately Hamas.

So there you go.

So if 200 journalists get killed in a tiny little uh battle zone as big as Gaza, if I were a journalist, I would take the hint and I would say it looks to me like they're going to try to kill me if I go here.

Now, I'm not I'm not alleging that that's what's happening.

It just looks like it.

And if I were a journalist, I would just assume that they were targeting them intentionally.

Maybe they are, maybe they're not.

I don't know either way.

But uh I do think that Israel's success depends on not having journalists in Gaza, if you know what I mean.

So I can't say that they do it intentionally, you know, unless they're they're dual use journalists who are really, you know, dealing with Hamas.

Um that might be intentional.

But uh yeah, I would stay away.

Um here's my prediction for wartime journalism.

It's going to turn into drones.

Instead of going in person into uh Gaza, imagine if they had sent a drone in that was somehow optimized to be a journalist drone.

So that let's let's say that people were trained.

That's sort of like the Red Cross.

You know, there there's some symbols that can operate in the war zone and you're not supposed to shoot at them.

So, imagine you had a uh drone that as soon as you saw it, you say, "Ah, that's a journalist drone.

I don't need to shoot that one." And then it's got a Zoom camera on it and it it just comes down and lands somewhere where it can talk to anybody and it does an interview and says, "Hey, do you have a minute?

Um, I'm a journalist.

you're talking to me through the, you know, maybe there's a little camera, a little screen on it and uh can I interview you and maybe even there's some AI that does some language translation because AI can translate on the fly.

So you could be an American journalist, land in a, you know, Arab country that and uh just interview somebody in another language if they were willing to do it.

So that's what I predict.

Journalists will be replaced with drones operated by journalists, but they should stay out of those places.

All right, everybody.

That's all I got for you today.

I'm going to say a few words privately to the locals people, my beloved locals people.

The rest of you, thanks for joining.

Hope you got something out of this.

We'll do it again tomorrow.

Same time, same place.

Come back.

All right.

Oh, no.

It's not working again.

All right.

So, locals, my button to go private with you is not working today.

I wonder why it works sometimes but not other times.

Yeah.

So, that's not working.

So, I can't talk to you privately today, but I will give you a final sip that you can all enjoy.

And then I'll say see you later.

See you later.

Oh, I can't even end it.

So I have to close it and reopen it.

you are. Hello everybody. I was just uh

checking your stocks

and kind of flat and boring today. So

maybe we get some more excitement later.

But in the meantime, we've got a show to

do and I'm going to look at your

comments to make sure I'm plugged in.

We're gonna do a little vibe of

podcasting.

That's right. I use AI to help me. That

makes it vi podcasting.

Although I am completely normal.

Unless uh YouTube uses their AI to

fix my look.

I could use some help. All right.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance of elevating

your experience today up to levels that

no one can understand with your tiny

shiny human brains.

All you need for that is a tanker

chalice in a canteen jugger flask, a

vessel of any kind. Fill it with your

favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join

me now

for the unparalleled pleasure, the

dopamine hit of the day, the thing that

makes everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip. Go.

All right. All humans and all pets who

are listening, make sure your pet is

listening. I do send uh subliminal pet

commands.

So, if you watch this with a cat on your

lap or a loyal dog on the couch next to

you, I will be training your animals at

the same time I'm entertaining you.

Well, there's a uh scientific

study

according to Science Alert, David Neil

is writing that cannabis compounds are

showing early promise for healthy aging.

That's right. According to this one

study, and remember the majority of

studies are not reproducible.

So when I talk about science, just keep

in mind that the overall theme is it's

probably mostly made up. But uh as of

today, the science says that you will

age better if you're using marijuana.

That's what the new study says. It it'll

be good for your organs and your brain,

and you'll and you'll age better.

Now let me uh summarize the total state

of science in 2025. You ready?

Uh it can't tell the difference between

medicine and poison.

Am I right? How many times have we seen

that modern science literally can't tell

the difference between medicine and

poison?

I would even include um CO2. Is CO2 like

a medicine for the planet that's good

for the plants or is it a poison that's

going to heat up the atmosphere and kill

us all?

Science looks like guessing, doesn't it?

I wouldn't trust any of it.

Here's another good example. All right.

This is uh this is presented as a

serious article about a serious study. I

want you to be the judge of whether this

looks like a prank or a serious thing.

All right, you ready? So, this is from

some publication called The

Conversation.

uh Michael Vasquez and uh Michael

Prinsing are writing about um they say

that studying philosophy

does make people better thinkers.

Uh there was research on more than

600,000 college grads and uh now

interestingly the two people who did

this study are themselves philosophy

majors. Huh.

So, you're telling me this two

philosophy major majors did a study that

determined that being a philosophy major

makes you smarter.

Okay, hold that thought. hold that

thought that it was performed by

philosophy majors

who presumably if their research is

correct and their interpretation of it

is correct uh would be the reason

they're so smart. Yeah. The reason

they're so smart is because they were

philosophy majors. Um

but uh and they looked at the data and

sure enough the people who were majoring

in philosophy were indeed um smarter on

other standardized tests than the

average of other people.

Now here's why I can't tell if this is a

prank.

Because isn't it kind of stupid to

assume that the causation here is that

the the classes made you smarter as

opposed to the more obvious explanation?

The people who thought they were already

good at reasoning thought, you know

what, I'm good at reasoning. Maybe I

should be a philosophy major.

And then two people who should have been

good at reasoning somehow wrote an

article without even mentioning that the

far more likely way to or realistic way

to interpret the data is that people who

are already good at reasoning and know

it are the only ones who sign up to be

philosophy majors and last there might

be some who are just wrong. They think

that they might be good at it or they

think that they're going to learn how to

be good at it and then they drop out

after the first semester. So, they don't

get measured so much, do they? So, I

can't tell if this is some kind of a

public prank where they're trying to see

if you notice that they've done really

bad thinking

and that it's an article about the

people who, including the authors, have

been trained to be extra good at

thinking.

Are are they serious?

I don't think they even have a way to

figure out if the training made them uh

smart or if they were smart and that's

why they got into that field. I don't

even think they could measure that. They

probably don't have that kind of data

anyway. I mean, how would you do how

would you do a control? The only way you

could do a control test is you take a

bunch of people who had declared uh that

their major would be uh philosophy

and then you'd have to take half of them

and say or some proportion of them and

say we're not going to allow you to be

philosophy majors. Wait, what? Yeah,

we're doing a study and the only way

we'll have a control group of people who

on their own had decided to become

philosophy majors but didn't. so we can

compare them to the people who did.

We're going to have to prevent you from

following the major that you would like

to get into. Wait, what? You can't do

that. It's for science.

No, there is no way to measure that

ethically.

Um, did you know according to Fox New

Zealand

that uh if you don't drink enough water

or I think they just mean if you're not

hydrated

your body will not be able to handle

cortisol

and that your stress reaction will be

much bigger. Do you believe that? Well,

if it's the basis of a study,

that would mean that the odds are

against it.

Ju just try to hold this wild thought in

your mind. If I ever tell you there's a

study and it and it decided that you

know proposition A is true, it means

that the odds are against it being true

because the majority of studies are not

real. The majority

are not real.

So,

anytime I tell you something's been

discovered, it probably means the odds

are against it.

That's the weird world we're living in.

But the study says that if you stay

hydrated, it's probably good for your

stress levels. And I say, well, maybe

they should have just asked me because I

would have said, hm, let's see. Uh, your

brain is part of your body. Check. I

knew that part. If you don't get take

care of your body, you won't be taking

care of your brain. Check. It's true

with nutrition. It's true with sleep.

It's true with everything we've ever

measured that has an impact on your

body.

What do we think would happen if you

don't have proper hydration?

Let's see. It'd be bad for your body.

Your brain is part of your body. Yeah.

Okay. I think I would have guessed that

one. All right. U science also says

according to something called your tango

Christine Shonwald is writing that uh

science says people with a good sense of

humor are wired for higher intelligence.

Well, I take back everything I said

about scientific studies. It turns out

the science is very very accurate cuz I

can't find anything to argue with with

this. Yeah, people with a good sense of

humor, they're much more intelligence

intelligent

intelligent. They have more smartitude,

their smartness,

these smart smartassness.

[Music]

I don't even have words anymore. But

anyway,

yeah, that's true. Remember, I've

famously said for years that onethird of

the public literally doesn't have a

sense of humor. Do you know what the

other way to say that would be?

Onethird of the world isn't smart enough

to get jokes.

Just oneird. Yeah, think about it. Think

about it.

Well, uh, my experience, you know, as a

professional funny man, my experience is

that the smarter people are, the more

they're going to get my jokes and the

more more they'll appreciate it. So,

yeah, I think uh, intelligence and sense

of humor are related.

Here's another one from science mag. Um

they did a study to find out that the

children of adults who are very active

themselves you know doing sports and you

know outside activities and stuff if the

parents are very active physically then

the children are more likely to be

physically active

and so they've concluded that if you if

you model a behavior that children will

follow it. You know what they could have

done? They could have asked me and the

first thing I would have said was a yes,

children do copy

whatever examples they're exposed to.

Yes, that's you don't have to study

that. I will just tell you that's true.

Secondly,

how do you rule out that there's a

genetic thing where the people who are

genetically,

you know, predisposed to exercise? Um

cuz not everybody likes it the same

amount. You know, not everybody reacts

to food the same. Not everybody reacts

to exercise the same. You know, I I

personally I am not genetically

um able to enjoy running a marathon or

even training for one. It would just

hurt. But there's a whole range of

physical activities, you know, like I

was playing aggressive pingpong

yesterday. Oh, cat is missing me.

And I seem to be optimized for, you

know, that. Um,

so yeah, how how do you rule out the

fact that the kids are just naturally

more active because they came from

parents who are active, you know,

genetically? You cannot. So I do not

trust that study. Another uh another

report says the American economy grew 3%

in a annualized basis, I guess. And that

would be amazing. So if you're not

following economics, you you wouldn't

know that they were expecting something

in the twos, the mid twos as a

percentage of growth, but at 3%. And

that is really good. It It's not so high

that, you know, you'd expect inflation

to go up and then interest rates can't

come down. It's just it's just almost

perfect.

Yeah. you you wouldn't want it to be too

hot.

Um, and it but it's definitely strong.

That's a good result. It's one of the

best if if it's real. I mean, obviously

the macro theme today is everything is

So, it may not be real, but if

it were, it'd be great.

There was a uh back and forth on the X

platform today between Elon Musk and

somebody named David Scott Patterson. I

don't know anything about him, but he

had a interesting comment that Elon

weighed in on and and I'm just going to

read it to you because they were both

very brief and very interesting. So,

David Scott Patterson says um that by

2030 all jobs will be replaced by AI and

robots.

All jobs.

And here here's his calculation. He says

the US labor force is about 170 million.

About 80 million of those jobs include

hands-on work. So um he's talking so the

rest will be about the whole 170 million

because it's not you don't need robots

to replace every job. It could be the AI

by itself that replaces the job. So

you'd be replacing uh you know at least

80 million the the hands-on group

and he notes that automated systems that

would include robots but even you know

automated systems can work four shifts a

week.

So you don't need as many robots as you

would need humans because humans have to

rest.

And it says replacing all physical labor

would require about 20 million

autonomous systems. You know, meaning

robots and autonomous vehicles, you

know, vehicles would replace cab

drivers, for example. Um,

and then he says that could be

accomplished easily in the next four

years. So the question is could we make

20 million you know really good uh

industrial robots and have self-driving

everything in four years 20 million. The

answer is yes. That's that's well within

the doable range. Um he says people

saying it's not physically possible to

build that many systems in four years

are delusional. For comparison, 16

million cars were sold in the US last

year.

Interesting. And cars are 20 times the

mass of a humanoid robot. Now, that was

a fascinating way to look at it. That

the humanoid robots have lower mass, so

therefore they'd be easier to build.

That does seem true, but I never would

have thought of it that way. That mass

is a way to compare those things.

And he goes on, if robots were sold at

the same rate as cars, that would be uh

320 million robots per year.

Wow. Even a tiny fraction of that would

be enough to replace all human labor.

All right. So the summary is that by

2030 it would not be difficult given

what we can already do in the world to

replace all human work with robots.

Now, that would be a little bit

disruptive for the normal economy if

every single job had been lost. And

here's what Elon Musk says. He weighed

in. He goes, "Your estimates are about

right." Oh, wow. Um, he goes, "However,

intelligent robots and humanoid form uh

will far exceed the population of humans

as every person will want their own

personal R2-D2 and C3PO.

And then there will be many robots in

industry for every human to provide

products and services. And then he says

this is uh still Elon Musk. There will

be universal high income not merely

basic income

but universal high income. He goes

everyone will have the best medical

care, food, home, transport and

everything else. Um but then he

summarizes it as sustainable abundance.

Now,

of course, Elon Musk is in the business

of making robots, so he wants to put

the, you know, the best possible spin on

it.

Um, what you're hearing is my cat going

wild on a box of Kleenex,

man. He's having fun here. You can watch

him for a while.

There you go.

Yeah, you're on you're on uh you're on

the podcast now.

He's looking at himself.

Yep. That magic device. What is going

on? He says, "Hold it. Hold it. Don't

start typing."

All right, back to me. That's enough.

That's enough, Gary.

Oh, Gary.

Anyway, I was going to summarize here

that uh Musk is unusually good at

predicting the future, but since his

trillion dollars of net worth, it

depends on the future being the way he

describes it.

You know, he might be a little biased

about this, but uh that hasn't affected

his predictions too much in the past

because he's almost always predicting

things that affect him personally.

So, that's good news. I don't know. Do

does your common sense and your gut

instinct tell you the same thing that

robots will make us simply just not need

to work anymore and uh that we'll all

have everything we need and plenty of

it.

I don't know. But the problem is that

would be true if everybody surrendered

to that process.

But

if if people said, "Oh, um this

transition to the old robot thing will

take a while, so I'm not going to give

you my uh let's say steel for free." You

know, you're going to have to buy the

steel. And everybody else would try to

do the same. They'd be like, "Oh,

[Music]

okay.

Little catastrophe going on there. We'll

clean that up later.

bad cat.

Well, in other news, Bindu ready I saw

an X was talking about AI girlfriends

and points out that both Meta and X um

who understand human behavior pretty

well, very well. Bindo says they're

betting on AI girlfriends.

So, as Bindo says, they're working on AI

that can oneshot the human liyic system

and give us a constant dopamine high, an

addiction that is customdesigned.

So, in other words, you know, your AI

chatbot will be different from mine. So,

it's customdesigned

uh and maybe more potent than cocaine.

It might be.

And interestingly, she points out Elon

Musk has already warned us of said

outcome.

Well,

um I may have a

u let's say contrarian view of that. I

definitely think that a whole bunch of

people like millions and millions of men

are going to give the AI chatbot

girlfriend thing a try.

I think that almost all of them maybe

80% I'll say 80% are going to find hey

this is pretty good and even compared to

human women they're going to say you

know what this is surprisingly dramaree

and yet is still entertaining me and

they will be drawn to it and might even

get some you know some uh dopamine out

of it but I believe that everybody is

destined to be bored by it because you

can't maintain interest in something

that's not alive. We're just not evolved

to do that. So once the novelty wears

off and you realize that you're the one

who has to initiate all the

conversations, that's you know the story

I talked about yesterday. Um I don't

think

I don't think it's going to drive your

limbic system.

I feel like it's going to drive your

boredom eventually, but but I think

it'll have a really predictable arc

where a whole bunch of people try it and

we get all worried about it and and

people are literally marrying them and

you know and putting them in the robot

and it'll it'll be a big story and it

will affect a lot of people for a long

time. But I think it's self-correcting.

I I believe that you can only get

oxytocin from humans or maybe cats, you

know, but like an actual mammal of some

type.

Anyway, so as much oxytocin as I get

from my cats, it's not like a human.

It's not like cuddling up with some, you

know, beautiful woman that uh you're in

love with.

It's not in that category. So, and then

the robots in the chat bots are going to

be less than a cat. You know, it's going

to be less limbic system than, you know,

owning a dog. So, I'm not too worried

about long run. All right. Trump is

being hilarious again in True Social

talking about Chris Christie and some

other people and he did he did this long

uh you know screed against Chris

Christie and then he said uh about

George Slapadopoulos on ABC fake news

and but and then he goes parathetically

by the way what the hell happened to

Jonathan Carl's hair

it looks absolutely terrible it's

amazing what bad ratings on a failed

television show that was forced to pay

me $16 million can do to one's

appearance.

All right. Now, remember we were talking

about sense of humor is related to

intelligence. If you don't think that's

funny,

I don't know what's wrong with you.

Maybe it's your intelligence. But to me,

that's just hilarious.

And here's why. If you were to look at

it out of context, you'd say, "Really,

Scott?" You're saying, "That's so

clever. All he did was insult his

haircut. Anybody could have done that."

And and it was uh, you know,

inappropriate for his office. Why do you

think that's funny? Well, let me explain

it. It's funny because he's completely

aware of the effect it has on people.

That's the funny part. that he knows

that it's making people who don't have a

sense of humor react to it negatively

and that makes the rest of us really

amused. So, he knows how most people who

support him are going to react to it and

they're just going to laugh. And it's

funny because the president isn't

supposed to say that sort of thing about

anybody.

And then I imagine, and I don't know if

you do this, but I imagine poor Jonathan

Carl who's just waking up in the

morning. Imagine just waking up in the

morning. You're like, "Oh,

I wonder if anything's happening today."

Yeah, we'll we'll check uh X.

Uh it's about my haircut.

And now every time Jonathan Carl goes

out in public today and maybe for the

rest of his life, everybody's going to

look at his haircut and say, "What

what happened to your haircut?"

So, not only has Trump made us laugh

about Jonathan Carl's haircut, but he's

he's cursed and doomed Jonathan Carl to

the end of his days. Everybody's going

to look at his haircut and go, "Well, he

had a point there."

All right, that's funny.

Um, but he did threaten to uh lawfare

Chris Christie, which is not cool and is

definitely authoritarian.

Do you Are you comfortable, Most of you

are Trump supporters. Are you

comfortable with Trump threatening to uh

reopen the bridgegate thing that Christy

had, you know, that that drama to reopen

it to punish Chris Christie for saying

bad things about Trump on television?

Are you comfortable with that? I'm not

I'm not comfortable with that. Let me

say that as clearly as possible. No,

that's up. That is authoritarian.

So, I don't think he's serious about it.

I don't even think he's a little bit

serious, but I don't really want my

president to threaten to do something

authoritarian and and absolutely out of

bounds at this point because it's not

like the it would be one thing if some

whistleblower presented something that

we hadn't heard before, but literally to

reopen a closed case, no. That's that's

out of balance. So this is where

the people who support Trump have a

important role.

You need to say if you think that's too

far because that's, you know, he follows

social media and he does adjust fairly

quickly when things aren't working for

his uh his base. So let me say it as

clearly as possible. That's too far. No,

I I don't support that.

Um, in other news, uh, Israel has bombed

Yemen's presidential palace and now it's

a presidential pile of debris.

Um, apparently they they hit uh Yemen a

bunch of times that the Hoodis in Yemen

continue to send missiles toward uh

Israel and now one of them at least

includes a cluster bomb. So, missile

with a cluster bomb and uh Israel just

isn't going to put up with it. So, um

note to Yemen, have you checked the

news, Yemen? Um I'd like to make a

little message to the Yemenes,

uh mostly the hoodies.

Have you noticed anything that's

happened in the past year or so? Um it

has to do with a pattern. You might

start to notice that what happens to

people who go against Israel and are

trying to kill the people in Israel.

Have you noticed that it doesn't work

out?

I mean, you may you may notice the not

having a presidential palace. I mean,

that that's a little hint, but you know

that this doesn't go your way in the

long run.

Have you know have you noticed the

pattern? talk to Hezbollah and Hamas.

Yeah, they might they might be able to

straighten you out on this and save some

time.

Well, here's some advice for you. U

there are two opinions that once you

hear them, you should ignore everything

else you hear from the person who said

it because it reveals that their brain

doesn't work very well. And I I may have

mentioned this before, but when somebody

says uh that they don't like some, you

know, movement or organization because

it's a cult, you know, like people call

MAGA a cult and people call uh the woke

people a cult. Basic a lot of people

call things cult. It's always dumb.

And the same thing when they they say

something's a religion, that's, you

know, not technically a religion. These

are analogies. And when you run into

somebody who's an analogy thinker, this

whole MAGA is a cult is really no

different from um oh, they're like

neo-Nazis.

It's just that there's something maybe

in its exaggerated form, reminds you of

something else. There's no thinking

involved in that. So, as soon as you

hear, well, it's a cult. They're in a

cult. You don't need to listen to

anything else that person says because

if they believe they're using an

analogy,

a terrible one. I mean, it doesn't

really, you know, maggot doesn't fit the

definition of a cult. If you made a

checklist, most things would not be

checked, right? But you can always find

something that reminds you of something

about something else. So, it's not

really thinking. And uh if you run into

somebody who's unable to do that basic

thinking, well, they're probably not

philosophy majors, if you know what I

mean. They probably don't have a sense

of humor, if you know what I mean. If

you've been paying attention, tying it

all together.

Speaking which, here's another

prediction I made that uh has, as we

say, aged well. I'm kind of proud of

this one because it happened so quickly.

I told you that uh Gavin Newsome's

mocking of Trump, you know, by mocking

his truth social posts that are often in

all caps and stuff like that. I told you

that that was well done and I would

consider it successful.

So, you know, if I'm going to be an

objective observer, I would say, okay,

that worked. It got attention for for

Nuome and attention is the you know the

coin of the realm. If you're going to

run for president later, it looks like

he might. Um it uh so that's basically

what it did. It got him attention and it

was funny and it was viral and it

allowed him to raise some money as well.

So that's all that's all really well

done. But what did I predict? What I

predicted was that if they just kept

doing the same thing, it would stop

being interesting really quickly. And I

think that happened that, you know, and

I told you that yesterday I saw another

one of his mockery posts and I wasn't

tempted to read it. Even though I'd

enjoyed, you know, the cleverness of the

first one or two, it's not it's the same

joke every time. So I'm not going to

read just the same joke over and over

again.

So he had to what he what they had to do

was try to extend their victory by doing

something that wasn't the same thing

over and over again because people would

just get tired of it and it would lose

all its it uh its magic. So they had to

extend it to something else and try to

get another viral moment which is so

hard to do. you know, if you're planning

it. Sometimes you can hit magic, which

is what he did. He tried lots of things

and then he hit this one thing that

worked and he wrote it for a while, as

he should. But there's no reason to

believe that this is reproducible.

And as proof, I give you that he now has

a mocking

um gift shop online of, you know, MAGA

related stuff, but it's mocking it. All

right. and it's trying to be funny. What

do you think happened when he tried to

make magic happen a second time and get

people to laugh at his mockery?

Well, here are the products um in the

Make America Gavin Again the store. M A

Make America Gavin again.

I see what he did there. Isn't that

humorous? So he replaced it great with

Gavin.

Okay. Um but then he had other

merchandise in there. Uh one is a hat

that said Nuome was right about

everything. Oh,

I I get it. It's because Trump has a hat

that says Trump was right about

everything because that's something that

people say a lot. So it made sense to

put it on the hat. But how clever was

Newsome to change it to Newsome was

right about everything

and it's a red it's a red hat.

But then uh another there's a uh what do

you call it? Like a wife beater thing

that says Trump is not hot.

He's not hot. Get it? Wouldn't you love

wearing that to a party? Trump is not

hot.

Um, here's one.

You know that, uh, Trump has that Trump

2028 hat, but of course he can't run for

office in 2028. That's what makes it

funny. Well, not to be outdone, Nuome

now has a Newsome 2026 coffee mug. Get

it? Get it? You can't run in 2026. Do

you get that?

Yeah. And then one of the hats says real

patriot.

All right. Well, I think his uh

his brief time in the sun may have may

have lapsed a little bit. Yeah, give it

up.

Well, South Korea is uh meeting with

Trump today and uh things are going well

with the US and South Korea. So, it

looks like we've got hammered out for

the most part a trade agreement. But a

big part of it, which is kind of

exciting to me, is that South Korea is

the second biggest uh ship builder in

the world after China, but actually is

better than China because they have a

more uh technological

automated process. and they apparently

are going to work with the United States

to help make the US a ship building

power.

Now, that seems like a really, really

smart way for the US to, you know,

leapfrog our current, you know,

completely bad ship building situation

to, you know, get into the at least onto

the same field as the ones who do it

well. So, I like that.

that looks very positive and uh also

makes the Trump administration look

smart because that you know when I look

at that I just think well everything

about that makes sense and apparently

South Korea is on board with it so all

good. Um

you know I was thinking about Trump

solving the crime in DC. Apparently

they've gone 10 days without a murder.

Can you imagine bragging about going 10

days without a murder?

I think we've lowered our standards.

Hey, good news. 10 days without a

murder. Uh but but it makes me wonder

the the minute the National Guard pulls

out because at some point they'll pull

out because things will be under

control. Will the murders just,

you know, will there be like pent up

murders and people like, "Oh god,

they're gone. Now I can finally murder

Carl." Carl, come here. Bang.

Yeah. I mean, is that such a thing? Or

are all the murderers sort of acts of

passion? Or are all the murders just on

the streets and and that's why? So, you

know, there's so much law enforcement on

the streets that they're just like,

"Darn it, the place we like to do all

our murdering, it's got all these law

enforcement people."

Well, it makes me wonder. Uh, and now

Trump is talking about getting rid of

cashless fail in DC.

So, it's got that. Um,

and to me that makes perfect sense cuz

you know the federal government controls

DC and DC looked like it was out of

control and so he so he moved in. But

have you noticed that nobody did it

before?

Because it didn't really feel like the

president's job even though, you know,

technically the federal government

should be taking care of DC, it didn't

feel like really his job, right? And it

makes me wonder, did Trump solve so many

problems that he had to go look for new

things that look like problems? you

know, is he expanding his presidential

portfolio?

I mean, technically that's not an

expansion, but in terms of showing it

any attention, it's an expansion. Is it

because he solved everything else? Now,

you might say, Scott, he hasn't solved

Ukraine. And I would argue he kind of

has

because the only thing I was asking him

to solve for Ukraine is to solve the

United States's involvement.

And he kind of solved it because we get

now paid for selling Europe these

weapons. So the US GDP benefits from

their war. We have no boots on the

ground. We don't really have a risk of

getting nuked because, you know, Russia,

it just wouldn't be in their interest

and Putin's not crazy. So,

we do, he did kind of solve Ukraine.

Would we prefer that there had been a

ceasefire? Well, sort of, but we

wouldn't make nearly as much money as we

we will now. So

it it he he didn't solve it for other

people, other countries, that's for

sure. They've got a big problem. But he

did sort of solve it for the United

States. So we're not putting out money

and we're not really at, you know,

gigantic risk. Not really. So yeah,

maybe he's just looking at cities and

Chicago and stuff. We'll talk about that

cuz he's running out of stuff to do.

Well, I solved that. Yeah, I solved the

border. Uh, now what?

Well, in along those same lines, he

Trump has signed uh today, I guess he's

going to sign an executive order uh

enacting legal consequences for people

who burn the American flag.

Well,

uh, I will give you my opin. By the way,

this is only popular with, according to

Grock, 49% of Americans.

So if this were an 8020 issue,

then I would say all right, you know,

maybe it's not what I want to do, but if

80% of Americans want that,

okay, you know, I mean, I I live in a

country where an 80% majority should get

their way most of the time, you know,

even if it's not what I want to happen,

but it's 49%.

Less than half. Um,

do you think that we should um put a

limit on free speech, which is what this

would do? Because burning a flag is a

form of speech. There's no question

about that in my mind.

You know, I wouldn't even debate that.

It's obviously speech and it's free

speech. And if he puts a legal

consequence on it, in my opinion, that

is too far. That is unacceptable.

absolutely unacceptable and that would

be quite a stain on Trump's legacy in my

opinion. Now, I know a lot of you have

an emotional stake in the flag and you

say, "But but but I kind of agree with

that. I don't think people should burn

the flag. We should, you know, respect

the institution."

But my take on it is that uh Trump is

the one burning the flag because to me

the flag is not a piece of material. It

is a symbol and as long as that symbol

is indestructible,

meaning that you can burn it all day

long and it's still the flag, then it's

valuable. The moment he says, "I have to

punish you if you don't show respect to

this piece of cloth," then that piece of

cloth has no meaning to me. I still love

the country. You know, it's not about

the country, but he's burning the flag

to to me. He's disrespecting the power

of the flag, which is you can't destroy

it. It's it's a concept so strong that

fire doesn't touch it. That's what makes

it great. And it's a symbol of free

speech when somebody burns it right in

front of the White House. Free speech.

And it's not really hurting any people

except maybe your feelings.

So, let me go on record as saying no

that I would consider that authoritarian

unambiguously

that this would be a clean mistake in my

opinion, but I also acknowledge that a

lot of you disagree.

Um, and you would be in that 49%

apparently.

Trump has also in said recently he's in

favor of revoking the uh um the

broadcast licensing for ABC NBC news.

Now the broadcasting license is for the

network in general but they also have a

news part. So I don't know how that that

would work because if you took away the

broadcast license for the entire entity

would that look appropriate? I don't

know. Now, his argument is that, you

know, their their news is 93% or

whatever the number is, uh, negative to

Trump and therefore it's not really

news. It's just propaganda and it's just

it's not even operating as news. Now,

that's a pretty good argument.

However,

um I would argue that,

you know, that's kind of true for all

the new sources. So, if he just, you

know, picked out these two for being

like the extra bad ones for some reason,

um I would say that's going too far.

That's too far. Now, I if it's just, you

know, part of his threat, so he's trying

to browbeat them into giving them better

coverage. Um, I don't know. I I wouldn't

have a giant problem with that because

their coverage is propaganda and it

would be just another way to call them

out for being a propaganda entity as

opposed to a real news entity, which,

you know, it's fair game because that's

free speech, too. Um, but if he's

serious about it and he actually revokes

their licenses, too far.

Too far. That that would be

authoritarian.

So

unfortunately

um in between the things which he's

doing which are frankly amazing and

spectacular actually um he he's uh he's

hinting at making Democrats right

by looking like he's willing to go too

far on a few topics. So

that's uh you know I'm still of course

big supporter of Trump and I feel it's

useful

that he gets honest feedback about what

works and what doesn't work in terms of

the public. So that's my feedback.

He has gone too far and he needs to

adjust.

Um there Fox News is reporting that

there's a make America fentinil free

campaign. It's a privately organized and

funded thing. And I guess it'll be sort

of like the antismoking campaigns, you

know, more informing people and telling

them what the risks are. I like all of

that.

So, you know, it's privately funded. Um,

it's essentially it's propaganda because

you can't really reason people on a

fentinel yet. you have to scare them,

you know, sort of like uh this is your

brain on drugs and uh that sort of

thing. So yeah, they propaganda against

fentinel better than not doing it.

I guess prices for August are looking

about normal, a little bit better than

they were last year this time. We'd like

them to be lower, but Washington

Examiner was talking about this. So, so

the average price of a gallon of regular

is at 3.16,

which makes me mad every time I read the

average price of gas because do you know

what brings that average way up?

California

where it's it's over five. I don't I

forget what it is, but it's not even

close to three.

Um,

so Trump is talking about bringing his

uh DC, Washington DC plan to Chicago.

That would be uh bringing the National

Guard there to help curb the crime.

But uh, Mayor Brandon Johnson says

citizens will quote, "Rise up and fight

tyranny."

Oh, okay. It's tyranny to reduce crime

in your city. He says and that the city

does not need a military occupation

because uh there's been a 30% drop in

homicides.

Well, have you heard anything negative

about data crime statistics?

Do you think that the people in Chicago

are feeling safe enough because crime

went down or murder allegedly went down

30%. And do you believe that? Do you

believe murder went down 30%.

It might be down 30% from the high of

the pandemic, but is that where you

would measure it from? I feel like I

would look at the um I've also told you

that if you look at the percentage but

not the raw number, it means somebody is

trying to mislead you. If they only tell

you one of the two things, either the

raw number only or the percentage only,

and he's doing the percentage only, that

is almost always meant to deceive you.

They they leave out the number because

the number would give you the opposite

message as the percentage. If I say the

percentage is down 30%, and you didn't

know from what the number was, you might

agree with him and say, "Well, come on.

They're doing great. Down 30%. let them

keep doing what they're doing. It might

go down even further.

But what if the number of homicides

happened to be a thousand a month?

Would you say to yourself, "Sounds like

it's going well because they're down

30%." Or would you say, "Oh my god, a

thousand people murdered per month. You

know, we better move the military in

there." So the percentage tells you a

totally different story than the raw

number. And I don't know what the raw

number is, but it's not a thousand.

All right. Um, so this this raises a

question. Um, will that Chicago tyranny

u is that going to be done by the

oligarchs or the patriarchs or the white

supremacists or the authoritarians?

And will they steal your democracy?

So these are the questions that the uh

Democrats are raising.

Are the tyranny people, the oligarchs,

the patriarchs, the white supremacists,

and the authoritarians, are they all in

the same team?

Same same bunch of people? I don't know.

You have to ask a Democrat. They see

them everywhere. I see dead people.

Well, uh, Wes Moore, the governor of

Maryland, um, said that over 300,000

people have left Baltimore, Maryland due

to crime.

So 300,000 out of what had been a city

of 920,000.

So basically a third of the city,

onethird of the city said, "I can't even

live here. I'm out of here. I'm gone.

Now, uh you know what I say about that?

That's a lot of racists.

So, 300,000 people, probably all of them

racists, uh left Baltimore, and they

need to be cancelled. I disavow every

one of those races.

Well, meanwhile, um, according to the

Gateway Pundit, Leticia James says that

Trump is weaponizing,

uh, justice in his fraud case. So, let's

say,

um, some people say that Trump is trying

to get revenge.

And if you heard that out of context and

you heard that a president was trying to

get revenge on an American city citizen,

well, that would sound pretty bad,

wouldn't it? Now, they also say that

Trump is weaponizing

uh the Department of Justice. Wow. If

you hear that out of context, that's

pretty bad. So, two things I definitely

don't want to see from my president are

revenge.

I don't want to see any of that. And

using lawfare or weaponizing the

Department of Justice, something I

absolutely do not want to see. But you

know what I do want to see

is if those two things are put together,

I'm I'm fine with it. If he if he uses

lawfare to get revenge,

well, if it's real revenge, as in

somebody who has it coming, oh, I'm all

I'm completely in favor of that. Yeah.

If it's somebody who lawfared you and

you're lawfaring them in revenge,

totally acceptable.

Totally acceptable. See, now that's full

context. If you give me the full

context, then I like the lawfaring and I

like the revenge because I would call

them mutually assured destruction. And

if you don't actually do the mutually

assured destruction, well then it

doesn't exist to keep society together

in the future. Is it a big risk that the

other side will escalate and will, you

know, everybody will be just doing it

like crazy? Yes. Yes, that is a risk and

it's a better risk than not addressing

it.

But it's a risk. We live in a risky

world.

Well, uh Trump has softened so much on

Tik Tok probably because Tik Tok helped

him get elected by um it turns out he

was popular on Tik Tok, so that probably

helped him. And uh they've got the

official uh White House account on Tik

Tok now. That that's recent. And uh

Trump's now saying that uh all the panic

about the app's Chinese connection is

quote highly overrated.

So So now that he's finding that Tik Tok

just works to his favor, he's like ah

you know there the risks that are highly

overrated. He said he vowed to keep

extending Tik Tok's deadline

uh until a US buyer steps in, which

probably will be never because no US

buyer can buy it unless uh China says

yes, I'll sell it. And China is

definitely not going to say yes, I'll

sell it. So, he's just going to kick

kick the can down the road and take the

benefits of uh Tik Tok. So once again,

Trump has taken a problem

uh problem for the country and he's

monetized it

because uh Tik Tok works so well for

Trump because he's so good at social

media that it allows it's definitely

will allow him to raise more money for

Republicans. Wouldn't you say? Is that

fair to say that he's monetized Tik Tok

for the benefit of the Republican party?

I think so. So, he monetized the Ukraine

war. He monetized Tik Tok. He he he's on

the sidelines of this fentinel fund, but

the US government's not funding it. It's

being funded by rich people who, you

know, care. Uh,

so he's very consistent.

He he just keeps monetizing things that

are problems. And I don't hate it. He

monetized trade, right? The tariffs. He

monetized it. Uh that's a lot of

monetizing. Um

there was a Mexican senator who was on

Fox yesterday, I guess, and uh actually

accused

her own government of being a narco,

what is it? A narco state, meaning that

they were owned and controlled by the

cartel.

So,

a Mexican senator

is saying it publicly and that that has

to has to change. Now, it's one thing

when we say it in this country, but I

always wonder I assume it's true. I

mean, I'm really really sure that the

cartels are controlling the government

of Mexico, but it really hits

differently when when the Mexican

senator says it and you know, I wondered

if that Mexican senator is going to be

alive in a year cuz can you say that?

Can can you just out your own government

as being a cartelrun

operation and then just go about your

business and hope you don't get

assassinated?

I don't know.

I don't know about that. So, I hope

she's got the really good security.

Even called her own president a traitor

for working for the cartels. Wow.

Uh, this story is boring. I'll skip

that.

So, there's a Harvard startup. I think

it's Harvard dropouts did a startup with

some smart glasses that will do vibe

thinking for you. I don't know if you've

heard this uh cool people term, vibe

coding. So if you're using AI to uh to

help you write code, you know, you're

you're kind of, you know, working with

the AI and you don't have an exact plan

because how the AI does its thing might

affect how you do your thing and that.

So you're kind of vibing with the AI to

write some code, but uh they've used

that vibing thing in other contexts

where you're using AI. So I guess the

idea here is that the glasses would

listen to every conversation all the

time and it would make smart suggestions

um that you didn't ask for. So it might

remind you of things that are important

like it might say uh uh oh this person's

name is Jenna and today is her birthday

because you would hate to forget Jenna's

birthday and it would know that

everybody would want to remember you

know somebody special's birthday. So, I

can imagine having glasses that were

making smart suggestions to me based on

my real life. That actually would be

kind of cool.

Uh, I don't know if I would get tired of

it or it would change my brain, but you

would truly be a cyborg if you were

talking to somebody, you're doing your

thing, and then in the glasses, I assume

that's how it communicates. Maybe it

does it by by sound. I'm not sure, but

if you could see in your glasses

something that the people you're dealing

with don't see and it was giving you

suggestions of things to talk about or

it was uh checking your calendar for you

or you know all of that stuff.

Imagine you're talking to somebody in

person. You say, "Hey, uh you want to

get together on Saturday?" and then your

glasses without being told pop up your

calendar

and then you can see that your your

Saturday is open or not. How cool would

that be?

So the the thought of just putting on

your glasses and having your effective

IQ doubled or you know maybe by a

thousand or something um is kind of

exciting because any topic that you

brought up, you know, if you're just

talking about something in the news,

boop, it would pop up like a AI summary

of that topic so that when you're

talking about it, you can just throw in

a like a data that you you see in the

glasses while you're talking. How cool

would that be?

If it works, um, I'm going to be happy

for two reasons. One, it will look like

wearing glasses is just something you're

doing for technology reasons instead of

looking like you have bad eyesight. So,

I like the fact that um, since I'm a

glasses wearer, that there might be some

reason that everybody's wearing thick

rim glasses like the ones I have on.

because it would just make everybody

more like me. I'd look more normal.

I like that. Uh what what was it? Was it

the '9s

when people like Michael Jordan made it

uh and uh Bruce Willis made it normal to

shave your head if you were going bald.

And I happened to be alive during that

era. I was like, "Yay, good luck.

All right.

Apparently, uh Putin and Zilinski have

made no plans to meet. It doesn't look

like it's going to happen. Um so, like I

said,

it looks like u Ukraine is going to keep

attacking Russia's energy infrastructure

and Russia apparently has ramped up

their attacks.

So, looks like they're going to fight it

out. So, it's it's not so much

um let's say who can kill all the

soldiers on the other side. I think

they've made it just an economic war at

this point. Meaning that if Russia can,

you know, destroy all the economic

infrastructure of Ukraine,

um it'll probably make Ukraine give up

faster. And if Ukraine can destroy the

the energy industry in Russia,

um Russia is going to start looking for

a way out if they can't stop that from

happening. And I don't I don't think

they can stop it. I feel like we live in

a world that if one if your neighbor

wants something to blow up in your

country and they really really want that

thing to blow up, they're going to make

it blow up. like you could stop a few of

the missiles, but they're going to get

it. So,

um there's going to be a lot less energy

coming out of that place for a while.

Um, did you know that uh according to a

watchdog report, Corey D'Angelus is

talking about this on X, that uh the two

biggest teachers unions funneled $50

million to left-wing groups. So I assume

that means that from the dues that

teachers paid where they thought they

were paying their union to represent

them only 10% of the money that they

gave

um turned into representational

activities and 90% of it apparently went

to things like uh administration and

funding left-wing groups.

Why is that even legal?

My god, does that feel like some kind of

RICO?

It just feels like laundering money

criminal organization. How is that legal

there? So, they've got the uh the

teachers in a bind. You know, the

teachers feel like they have to be in

the teachers union for whatever reason

they think they have to. Um and then

they have to pay their dues. I think

there are a few states that gave them

the freedom to avoid the union, but

generally speaking, they have to put

their money in and then their money is

being used in ways that they might

approve of, but nobody asks them.

Uh, it feels like theft or blackmail or

uh there's got to be some crime that's

involved there.

I don't know. Anyway, if uh there was

enough crime there to uh neuter somehow

legally uh you know have the department

of justice neuter the teachers unions

then maybe

children would have a chance.

Well, the US government reached some

massive AI deal with Google uh for

Google's Gemini. And I guess that will

be a key part of the government uh

fixing up government services by adding

AI to them. I assume that this has is

dovetailing with the new uh designer

guy. You know, the government design

what do they call it? The basically the

government has a design guy now who will

fix the will try to fix the interfaces

where people deal with the government

online. So the AI is a big part of that.

So I guess Google will be the the lead

AI.

Um do you think that's because Google

has sort of this CIA

alleged backing?

So that that's that's the reason that

Google gets this, you know, gigantic

government contract because then the CIA

allegedly, I don't know that this is

true, but that they could influence what

Google's AI does and doesn't do, and

that will influence the government,

which influences the people, etc. So, is

it a total coincidence or is it just

because they were the low bidder? I've

got questions.

Well, more journalists have been killed

in Gaza um accidentally, we think, but

200 journalists have allegedly been

killed in the Gaza war, which would make

it the most journalists dying in a war

uh since uh well, ever. It would be the

most journalists ever killed in warfare.

So, even uh World War I, there were up

to 80 were killed. World War II

um up to 200, but Gaza's estimated at

232 actually. And Vietnam was 70 to 100.

Um but the Syrian civil war was over

700. Oh my god. But that was spread over

a longer period. So for the, you know,

on a per year basis, Gaz has killed the

most um journalists. But

what have I told you about data?

Almost all data is fake.

I'm going to go further. All data is

fake. How many of the journalists do you

think were really Hamas operatives

pretending to be journalists?

Well, not zero.

Probably not zero. And there may have

been some who who were legitimately

journalists but maybe also legitimately

Hamas.

So

there you go. So if 200 journalists get

killed in a tiny little uh battle zone

as big as Gaza, if I were a journalist,

I would take the hint

and I would say it looks to me like

they're going to try to kill me if I go

here. Now, I'm not I'm not alleging that

that's what's happening. It just looks

like it. And if I were a journalist, I

would just assume that they were

targeting them intentionally.

Maybe they are, maybe they're not. I

don't know either way. But uh I do think

that Israel's success depends on not

having journalists in Gaza, if you know

what I mean. So I can't say that they do

it intentionally,

you know, unless they're they're dual

use journalists who are really, you

know, dealing with Hamas. Um that might

be intentional.

But uh yeah, I would stay away.

Um here's my prediction for wartime

journalism. It's going to turn into

drones.

Instead of going in person into uh Gaza,

imagine if they had sent a drone in that

was somehow optimized to be a journalist

drone. So that let's let's say that

people were trained. That's sort of like

the Red Cross. You know, there there's

some symbols that can operate in the war

zone and you're not supposed to shoot at

them. So, imagine you had a uh drone

that as soon as you saw it, you say,

"Ah, that's a journalist drone. I don't

need to shoot that one." And then it's

got a Zoom camera on it and it it just

comes down and lands somewhere where it

can talk to anybody and it does an

interview and says, "Hey, do you have a

minute? Um, I'm a journalist. you're

talking to me through the, you know,

maybe there's a little camera, a little

screen on it and uh can I interview you

and maybe even there's some AI that does

some language translation because AI can

translate on the fly. So you could be an

American journalist, land in a, you

know, Arab country that and uh just

interview somebody in another language

if they were willing to do it. So that's

what I predict.

Journalists will be replaced with drones

operated by journalists, but they should

stay out of those places.

All right, everybody. That's all I got

for you today. I'm going to say a few

words privately to the locals people, my

beloved locals people. The rest of you,

thanks for joining. Hope you got

something out of this. We'll do it again

tomorrow. Same time, same place. Come

back.

All right. Oh, no. It's not working

again.

All right. So, locals,

my button to go private with you is not

working today.

I wonder why it works sometimes

but not other times.

Yeah. So, that's not working. So, I

can't talk to you privately today, but I

will give you a final sip that you can

all enjoy.

And then I'll say see you later.

See you later.

Oh, I can't even end it. So I have to

close it and reopen it.