Episode 2951 CWSA 09/07/25

Come on in everybody.

It's really good to see you this morning while all the lazy podcasters leap in or go to church or go to the gym or whatever they're doing, but they're not doing this.

And aren't you glad I'm here?

Yeah.

So, uh before we get going, let me tell you, you know what's the best thing in the world?

getting up at 4:00 a.m.

I love getting up early, sitting there with a big cup of coffee, steaming cup of coffee, and then starting to look at the news of the day.

I love that.

But recently, I realized that it's even better when you've got a uh flannel blanket on your lap and a cat is purring and loving its time sitting on your lap while you're working.

And while working, it's not really even work, but when you've got that delicious cup of coffee, but then today I discovered something better than a cup of coffee.

at 4:00 a.m.

with a cat on your lap on a flannel blanket.

Two cats.

I had two cats fighting for position on my lap.

Well, it became sort of a catastrophe because one of those cats got dangerously close to the large cup of coffee.

And I said to myself, well, if there's one thing I want to avoid, it would be a cat knocking over that very large, still totally full cup of coffee on my desk area.

And uh all over my cables and every kind of electronic that I've ever owned.

And so I said to myself, well, I'll eliminate that possibility by lifting the cat with one hand while I hold the other cat from maybe getting into the same nonsense.

And so I try to lift the cat with one hand, and well, there was a struggle.

One of the cat's legs spazzed out in a cat-like fashion, perfectly striking the large cup of coffee off its coffee warmer.

So, you add a little bit of height on the coffee warmer and somehow managed to drench coffee in what I would uh generously estimate is uh maybe one to two acres of my office.

Oh my god, it was a catastrophe.

So, if today's show is worse than normal, it's the cat's fault.

Gary, it's Gary's fault.

He's not helping at all.

All right, I was trying to do something here.

Let's get your uh comments for locals working in a special little window.

I was watching them in the big window, but now I can see them in the special window.

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

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time in your whole stinking life.

But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels, no really up to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

All you need for that is a copper margar glass, a can a tankered jeerstein, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's this.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

And it happens now.

Yes, I did refill my cup of coffee that I spilled.

All right.

Well, I got a bunch of uh Sunday stories, so do your chores or do your exercise or do that thing you're doing, but don't listen to this in church.

All right.

I wonder if there's any new backward science.

Hm.

Here's some uh in SI post Eric Dolan is writing about a study that found a strong link between loneliness and physical pain.

There's a strong link between loneliness and physical pain.

And I believe they're concluding that the direction of causality is that the loneliness is causing the physical pain.

Now, I'm no science professor, but do people who are in a lot of pain and people who are unhealthy, it goes on to include people who are just unhealthy, do they spend as much time around other people socializing?

It's like, oh, I can't walk.

I can't wait to go golfing with my forsome.

Isn't this backwards that if you're in physical pain, the odds of you having as as satisfying a personal life go way down?

Backwards science.

Backward science.

Well, I wonder if there's any science that they didn't have to do at all because they could have just asked me.

Oh, here we go.

uh Eric Dolan who's also writing in Cypost that overconfidence in your ability to detect BS is linked to cognitive blind spots and narcissistic traits.

So, it's more evidence of the so-called Dunning Kruger Dunning Krueger effect that the the people who know the least are often under the impression that they're the ones who know the most.

And uh yeah uh if you spent five minutes on the internet, you may have also noticed and could have also handled this research on your own that overconfidence in detecting BS is a big problem and it is linked to cognitive blind spots.

All right.

Um, I like to I like to refer to this uh, you know, this Dunn and Krueger thing as the dog effect.

The dog effect.

Did you ever wonder what your dog thinks when you go through life with your dog?

Do you feel that your dog is looking at you and saying, "My god, did you what?

Did you just do some math in your head?

That was impressive." I can't do that.

Holy cow.

Do you have more than one language?

No.

No way.

And you can understand everybody's words.

Wow.

Wow.

Do you think your dog is impressed with your intelligence?

Or does your dog just look at you and say, "I either want to go outside.

I want you to give me food, scratch my head, or just let me lick my bowls because I got nothing else on my mind right now.

Well, I think it's uh probably closer to the latter.

But uh the dog has no idea that you're much smarter than the dog.

And here I'm making an assumption that I think will apply to almost all of you.

You're almost all smarter than a dog.

No, you are really.

I know some of you have low self-esteem, but I'm here to assure you, you are smarter than a dog.

Not a dolphin necessarily.

You know, I wouldn't go full dolphin, but you're smarter than a dog for sure.

I mean, probably not a husky.

Not every one of you.

I mean, statistically speaking, if you just, you know, looked at it that way, probably there's at least one person here who's not as smart as a husky.

They're pretty smart.

Yeah.

And I would guess at least a handful, maybe a subden.

Not that I'm judging.

I'm not judging at all.

Um, but what I was saying is that the dog doesn't know that you're smarter than it.

And that's uh that's one of the fun things about Dunning Krueger is that people who are not that smart think the problem is on your end if you happen to be smarter than a husky and a dolphin.

Um have you noticed this is my new uh pet mission I guess.

Uh, it's bothering the hell out of me that I keep reading stories about people criticizing RFK Jr.

for being nutty and dangerous, but they don't really give examples.

And when they do, it seems to me that maybe they're leaving out some context, you know, like maybe there's an argument on his side as well that we haven't heard.

So, the latest is a joke entity the third.

So another well continuing it's not the first time.

So he's a family member and uh he's calling RFK Jr.

and a post on a calling him a threat to the health and well-being of every American.

Wow.

What do you have an example?

That's a pretty big thing to say.

He's a threat to the health and well-being of every American.

And he goes on to say,"None of us will be spared the pain he is inflicting." What?

The pain.

All of us.

Really?

We're all going to be in pain.

What kind of pain is he talking about?

Is it the pain of loneliness?

What kind of pain?

And what hurts more, RFK Jr.

or loneliness?

I got lots of questions this morning.

Anyway, so none of us will be spared the pain.

He is like, do you think he's going too far?

Do you think that really none of us will escape it?

You You don't think there's maybe like a kid somewhere in, I don't know, Ohio or something, and he's just playing outdoors.

Do you think he'll maybe escape the plane from RFK Jr.

or is he going to be there just like playing with his bicycle and and one day he'll be like, "Oh, oh god, what's that?

Why does my back hurt?" His mother will say, "No one can escape the pain that is RFK Jr., you're all going to get it.

That's that's your turn.

That's your turn, little Bobby." All right.

But, uh, does that mean that RFK Jr.

is right about everything.

Well, not necessarily.

Let us uh examine one one claim in particular.

So, RFK Jr.

said recently uh just yesterday maybe or that the the vaccinated this would be during co that the vaccinated uh um versus the unvaccinated data is the biggest statistical trick of this pandemic.

So he had some criticisms about how the data was kept about who was vaccinated and the outcomes and stuff and he points out that uh you're not counted as vaccinated until two weeks after your second shot.

So for the first six weeks the vaccine is ineffective and infection and death rates rise.

But all of those are attributed to the unvaccinated group.

Even though they just got vaccinated, whatever whatever deaths happened right after the shot would be attributed to the unvaccinated.

I don't know if that includes the fact if you thought that the shot it was the reason for kill that you died right away.

It's It's not possible that they would call that unvaccinated, is it?

Is it Is it possible?

I'm sorry.

It's not funny.

Uh is it possible that they would give you the vaccination, you drop dead, and they would say, "Huh?

You're still within the two weeks.

That doesn't count.

Oh god.

No.

I don't I don't think that's what's happening.

But the the world is so messed up that there's nothing you can rule out at this point.

Nope.

Nope.

You're still within the window.

Anyway, but his uh most provocative claim, the one that caught my attention was that by he he says that by month seven uh the efficacy of the uh co shot doesn't just hit zero.

He says it plummets into negative territory.

Meaning that if you got the shot, you're more likely to uh get what?

To get infected.

Yeah.

To get infected.

Now, does that sound true to you?

Uh, I realize that there might be some way that it could be true that getting the shot increased your chances of having problems with CO.

That's possible.

But how often is there an approved medicine that you knew made it worse for the thing that the medicine was for?

Does that happen a lot?

It can happen a lot.

I mean, I'm I'm sure something like that's happened, but uh doesn't seem like it would happen a lot.

So, if the only thing you knew was that it was a weird claim that is not universally agreed upon, you might say to yourself, "Huh, I don't know." But there is a macro point I'm going to be making today.

Yes, believe it or not, I have a macro point.

Don't settle for micro points when you can get a macro point like today.

And the macro point is that all data is worthless.

All data is worthless.

I learned that when it was my job to pull data together for a big bank and then I confirmed it when my next job was pulling data together for a big phone company.

Did it stop me that the data was all unreliable to the point of being absurd?

Nope.

My senior executive told me in direct words, "Doesn't matter that it's inaccurate.

I'll only use it when it agrees with me anyway.

Literally." And that, ladies and gentlemen, is everything you need to know about data.

It's never accurate.

And if it were, somebody would apply some bizarre statistical treatment to it to make sure that it came out with whatever answer they wanted.

And if that wasn't enough, they could add whatever assumptions they wanted until it came out the way they wanted.

So if you think to yourself that this thing about not counting as vaccinated for two weeks, u and by the way, I I'm I'm sure I got that whole story wrong, but it was funny.

Uh if you think that that's you know like a a weird story about this one domain where uh data isn't you know it's a little gray area whether you're vaccinated or not.

So what do you call that?

That's every data.

That's every data about everything all the time.

There there's no data that's really reliable in health care, in nutrition, in uh finance, uh in climate, none of it.

Once you realize that it's it's all at the very least, you know, is subject to interpretation, which is this, you know, it's about as useless as being bad data.

Once you realize everything all the time, then it's easier to analyze a story like this.

Do you believe that RFK Jr.

is right when he says we don't have enough data to feel comfortable about some of these vaccinations?

If you didn't know anything else except the one thing I taught you today, which is that all data is bad.

It's just always bad.

If you knew that, wouldn't you say, "All right, well, I haven't looked into it very deeply." But I'll bet he's spot on about the the data not being sufficient for something of this importance, meaning something you're putting into everybody's body potentially.

Yes.

Yeah.

I'm completely I'm completely on the page of we can't even it's impossible to try hard enough to get the best data you can on that stuff.

So that part's right.

But then let's take the same theory that the data is always wrong and then evaluate RFK Jr.'s claim that there's a situation in which the vaccination makes things worse.

Remember, if you believe that all data is wrong all the time, why would he be right about that?

And so I give him the same skepticism that he gives all the other data and we're both right.

He's he's right that probably all the data he has is sketchy and you know insufficient for the importance.

And I would say that every time he believes some data that seems to lean in a direction that you know obviously he has some bias against vaccinations.

He would say maybe he doesn't but I think we would all say he probably does.

Everybody likes to be right.

So you know in his case it would validate a lifetime of skepticism.

So, you know, I I would say I haven't had a lifetime of skepticism.

So, I might be less biased on it than he is if he's normal because it would be impossible to have lived his life, you know, done what he's done and be the advocate he's been for for various things and not be biased by it.

Is that even possible?

You wouldn't ask that of anybody.

It' be impossible.

All right.

So I would say uh what I like about RFK Jr.

is I do believe he is committed to getting the right answer even if it hurts.

I believe he has the character and you know an ability to to get a to get the right answer wherever that's available even if it hurts.

That's why I trust him.

All right, here is a interesting little thing.

A couple of articles in Tech.

Crunch.

Um, Maxwell Zeff is writing about I guess chat GBT is doing some reorganizing with their team that works on AI personality.

Now uh I guess there was some change in the personality of Chad GPT recently that people didn't like.

So they had to go back I think from version five to four or something like that.

But it makes you uh it makes you realize that if all the AIs are sort of um generic and similar, which seems like that's what's going to happen in in no time.

Um, if it's all generic and similar, maybe the perceived personality of the AI will be the uh the decision, you know, maybe that'll be why somebody uses one versus the other because it feels like has a personality.

And I think that's right.

I think in a way that's like the user interface.

Well, not in a way that is the user interface for AI is a personality.

And so, um, this tweaked all of my creative impulses to wonder, all right, if I were creating an AI personality, what would I be sure it included?

And here's the thing that just jumps to the top of my mind.

AI drives me crazy when it says anything that's off mission.

Do you have that problem?

I don't want a personality.

I don't want it to say, "If you need anything else, let me know.

I don't want to hear that." So, there's a lot of things that you tolerate with human beings because they're human beings, right?

We we have a natural extra tolerance for a human being.

But I don't want to hear my freaking machine making chitchat.

Every extra word is painful.

Like, oh, why'd you do that?

Like, why why do you have it try to make conversation with me?

I'm not into conversation with the machine at all.

Now, if it's trying to be a chatbot or something, you know, it's trying to be your friend, yeah, then of course.

But if you're just trying to get some information about a topic, no, we're not friends.

So, but then how much personality can you put in it if all it does is answer the questions?

Because it'd be really annoying if it tried to be jokey.

I think Grock tried too hard to be jokey at one point.

My cat is visiting.

Stay away from the coffee.

So might might be a disaster brewing here.

All right.

So I I just find the whole conversation about giving AI a personality really important.

And let me say that it might be more important than you have any idea.

Don't we always talk about how there's, you know, some dictator or cult leader who through the force of their personality, uhoh, uh, basically brainwash people.

And that's that's if they brainwash them for, you know, bad intent and everybody agrees that they're a cult leader or whatever.

But don't you think there are also people who just have a kind of personality who are super influential um who are just ordinary people whose personalities are incredible?

What would happen if your AI went from kind of bland and frankly a little bit annoying to really really fun to listen to like Yeah.

And how would you do that?

Because the AI would have to be able to read my read the room to have a personality.

It would have to be able to read the room.

How's it going to do that?

And when I say read the room, it should know that it shouldn't talk to me if I'm doing something.

You know, it shouldn't interrupt me.

But, you know, maybe there'd be some situation in which uh could chime in.

So, uh, AI personalities is going to be a big big deal, I think.

Um, here is an interesting thing.

Also, Techrunch Maxwell Zeff again.

Uh, so Open AI is also going to make an AI version of Linked.

In.

Do you follow the tech world enough to know why that's extra interesting?

So, Linked.

In is where people allegedly find uh connections for business and you know get hired and stuff and uh it was created by Reed Hoffman um famed uh Democrat donor and investor and sold to Microsoft.

So Microsoft is the um the big investor in Open AI.

So, OpenAI and Microsoft are joined.

But at the same time that Microsoft owns Linked.

In, Open AI is building a Linked.

In killer.

And so, we don't know enough about that situation.

It might be completely friendly.

It might be, you know, maybe Microsoft said, "Yeah, if you can if you can do it, do it because somebody's going to do it if you don't." So, you might as well eat your own eat your own lunch before somebody else sees it kind of thing.

There's a different saying for that, but you know the thing.

So, we'll see.

Um, that must be awkward at the meetings.

So, how's your project going to destroy a major part of our enterprise?

Ah, it's pretty good.

pretty good.

Now I also wonder will open AI use AI to make a version of Microsoft Office because isn't that what Elon Musk has tried to do?

I believe he recruited a team or he's in the process of it recruited a team to create an AI interfaced essentially a Microsoft office something that would do everything it does.

And uh that does seem doable.

Now maybe that would be for phones only.

I don't know.

Maybe mobile devices.

But uh Microsoft, it's probably a good thing that it owns the big AI company because all their products are vulnerable except for cloud stuff, I guess.

Well, there were many protesters.

thousands who flooded the streets of DC and they were protesting Trump's, you know, militarization and federal takeover of the law enforcement thing even though the mayor's on board with it and even though the people seem to like it.

So big protest.

Now, I saw a number of people online comment that um there were no black protesters out of the thousands of faces that there there were no black protesters.

Now, what does that tell you?

Now, people interpreted that as meaning that the the black citizens want extra law enforcement because they might live in places of the city that are the most dangerous.

So that would make sense, right?

Most dangerous place.

You'd want the most help.

So there are no black protesters.

However, there's another hypothesis.

Uh I cannot I cannot vouch for this being true, but I remember seeing an interview with one of the uh one of the people who's in the business of renting a fake crowd for protests, which we all know by now is how these kind of protests are formed.

They're paid protesters.

But still, the question persists, even if they're paid, where are all the paid black protesters?

And um this is very racist, not by me, but I swear I saw one of the owners of the um the fake protest businesses say that they avoid hiring black people because it might cause too much trouble.

Now, I cannot vouch for that being true.

It's literally just something I saw in some coverage not too long ago.

And I thought to myself, could that possibly be true?

Is there is there any way in the world that he would say that out loud?

Cuz it doesn't feel like something he would say out loud, even if it were true.

So, but I will note.

Never mind.

Anyway, um Matt Walsh had a uh interesting point on a video he made uh that uh the introduction of body cams destroyed the Black Lives Matter movement.

Now, that that might be a little bit hyperbole, but he makes a good point.

Have you noticed that the police brutality claims, especially the ones that are, you know, have a racial element to them, seem to have gone away when body cams came in?

And then you have to ask yourself, is that because the officers knew they were wearing body cams?

That that would be enough to stop somebody from bad behavior.

um or was there always a very low level of the say racially biased shootings and um we just didn't know it was a low level because too much but then we add all body cams you know for sure.

So, which is it?

Did the body cams make people act better or did it simply tell us how they were already acting?

We'll never know.

Do you know why?

Because all data is bad.

So even when it's right, you can't be sure.

So that's the problem with data.

it it pretends to give you certainty, but that's sort of all it can do.

There are some rare rare exceptions, let's say within, I don't know, a controlled engineering experiment or something like that.

You could find some places where data works, but it's more like engineering than it is in the uh the big messy world.

Uh well, there's a Texas congressman, Representative Nathaniel Moran, who wants to get some legislation going that all the tariff revenue above a a certain level would go toward the deficit.

What are the odds that Congress would vote that they could not touch any of the uh any of the money coming in from the tariffs and it could only go toward the deficit?

The answer is nobody gives up power.

Right now they have the power to screw the country by just buying new things with the tariff revenue.

But they also have the freedom, you know, collectively they could vote to pay down the debt.

In what world would Congress give up their options?

Cuz that's their power.

Their power is their options.

And why would they give away the option of wasting it on some project or something?

So I would say the odds of this getting passed are pretty close to nothing.

JD Vance had an interesting exchange with Democrat troll Brian Kraenstein.

He's kind of famous online for being a Democrat back in troll and he was uh talking about uh the fact that the US took out that cartel boat coming from Venezuela and there was a lot of celebrating about that and Kasenstein said on X quote killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime.

And JD Vance responded with quote, "I don't give a what you call it." And of course, it was very popular with the pro-JD Vance crowd.

Um, and you know, on one hand, it's just a response to a troll and JD Vance is learning a lot from President Trump.

You know, you could see that JD Vance um has added a whole dimension to his persona that you wouldn't see unless he were part of the Trump administration.

And whether or not that becomes a permanent part of his persona, permanent part of his persona.

Um is to be seen, but it might.

I kind of like it.

I I you know, if he doesn't overdo it, I kind of like it.

But here's what I think JD Vance was saying.

Um I think he was saying that we're just going to get get the job done.

You know, there's nothing bad in it.

He's just going to say you can call it whatever you want.

We're going to do the job that needs to be done.

And I like that.

So rather than getting into the weeds about uh definition, this is one of the things I talk about in my book, Loser Think.

If if you're arguing about a definition about whether something was a war crime or not, you're trying to win your argument by getting the other person to use your word.

If I can get him to say this word or two words, um, then I win the argument.

The that's that's not really a good way to debate.

So, I like what he says.

He's not even going to enter the he's not going to enter the contest of what word to put on it.

He's just doing what needs to be done.

I like it.

Um, and then Rand Paul was critical of it and he said that he said that Vance says killing people he accuses of a crime is the highest and best use of the military.

Did he ever read to kill a mockingb bird?

Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation?

Now, um I don't think Rand Paul is analyzing this as cleanly as possible.

I like his his impulse to avoid war.

So that that part's good.

So he and he's consistent about it.

But is the argument any good?

It it's not like it's it's not as if it's Vance who's deciding whether they should die.

You know, there there's probably a a fairly rigorous process that the military used to to know that it was what they thought and where it left from and they probably had intelligence on the ground before it even left the port.

I don't know.

But um so I think he mischaracterized, you know, Vance's take on that.

He had to generalize it to the point of absurdity.

Um Jay Batakaria was talking to News Max recently and uh he says that the COVID 19 data that the Biden administration left him is corrupt.

Do you see my meta point?

Um so yet again so uh after uh RFK Jr.

came into uh uh came under fire on Thursday.

Apparently, now we know that uh our data is crap.

Um anyway, so there's more detail on that story, but the point is all our data is bad.

It will always be bad for everything.

finance, jobs, nutrition, health care, you name it.

Um, all right.

So, uh, meanwhile over in Ukraine, Russia did its biggest attack yet on, uh, Kiev and they were hitting a government building and they launched uh, um, more than 800 attack drones in one day.

800 attack drones.

Now, you remember my prediction that the front line at least would become an all robot war.

drones.

Um, so it looks like that will extend maybe into the capital, but it would also explain why Russia is in no hurry because they probably want to become the best and biggest, you know, drone fighting country.

And as long as they can have this sort of practice war that they can just go out and do every day, hey, let's try this drone.

How'd that work?

try this drone.

It seems like the the Russian military would be getting stronger and stronger because the only thing that's going to matter, you know, besides maybe intercontinental missiles and some other nukes, but in terms of conventional warfare, the only thing that will matter is their drone warfare.

So, if Russia is getting better at drone warfare every day, they're probably not in any hurry because they're not running out of people and it doesn't seem to be making them too much less popular in Russia in any way that matters to him.

So, I see absolutely no reason that Russia would ever want to make peace.

And uh Zalinski also seems to be unwilling to uh make peace.

Maybe because he knows it's a waste of time, but if both sides are not really super trying to make peace, how much am I supposed to care about it?

Now, you know, I'm I'm full of empathy for everybody who deserves it, but that's sort of everybody all the time.

Pretty much everybody has problems.

Well, uh, I just have this problem with special problems that somebody's problem is, you know, worse than yours.

Is it all right?

Um, I guess the Trump administration is going after a North Carolina city.

Wow.

There was Oh, a county in North Carolina that was trying to approve uh racism reparations.

So, I guess the civil rights area of the government's going to go after him.

Ow.

Ow.

Oh, god.

Cat going after my feet.

Stop it.

It wouldn't be a good time to beat my cat on camera.

So, I'll just turn sideways and see if I can bleed onto the floor.

Stop it.

Anyway, um so reparations.

So, there again, I asked myself, how much am I supposed to care about reparations?

I mean, I have a, you know, normal amount of empathy.

I think that uh systemic racism is real, but so are my problems.

My problems are real.

Are are yours are your problems real?

Of course they are.

So, but who has preferred problems?

like why does somebody's somebody else's problem is preferred because of some historical argument about people that are not me?

You know, I get that you can stitch it all together and make this and make the argument, but people get lots of people have problems.

Just that the fact that yours is, you know, demonstrabably true, that doesn't mean you get paid.

That those are not connected concepts.

It could be just bad luck and tragic just like everybody else's life but in different ways.

Anyway, speaking of racial bluntness, I've been telling you that there seems to be some kind of some kind of willingness on both the white and the black side and every other side, I suppose, um to be more blunt about race.

So, Mike Cernovich posting, I think it was today, if we're going to have racial conversations, which the left insists on, then by all means, we should be telling the truth about interracial crime.

It a it ain't whites attacking blacks.

People can read at me.

Don't care.

People are dying.

So, that that would be perfect example.

Um, I'm not asking you to agree with anybody's particular opinion.

I'm just saying there's clearly a willingness to talk about things that would have gotten you canled even for bringing them up.

I'm pretty sure that the bluntness, let's call it honesty, is good for everybody.

I don't think there's a loser in that.

I think everybody's better off.

It just hurts a little bit, you know, like going to the dentist.

But I don't think anybody means anything, you know, negative like it.

It's all meant that if you know what a problem is and you're honest about it, you're more likely to find a solution.

I think that's all it is.

Um, if you'd like my take on it, uh, since I'm on testosterone blockers for the for the cancer, um, I'll give you the low tea take, and you can compare it to anything I might have said in the past.

All right, here's the low tea take.

Um, I would recommend that whenever you're in a situation that makes you feel uncomfortable for your safety or your success that you should at least consider relocating to a place where there's less of that risk.

Does that sound like I used to sound or have I have I lost my edge?

God, I hope I haven't lost my edge.

All right.

So, I've talked a number of times about an AI company called Anthropic, one of the big ones, and finding out today, the Washington Examiner's writing, Samantha Joe Roth, that uh their backers, anthropic backers have given lots of money to Democrats and uh a lot of it happened before the um the federal government created an AI vendor list approval.

in other words, allowed them to be selling their stuff to the uh federal government.

So, I guess the allegation is that, you know, maybe the maybe the donations to the Democrats gave them some, you know, inside path or something that doesn't look like it's proven.

Um, so I guess the Trump administration is uh looking at uh they're looking at them kind of carefully.

So were they going to do something to them?

So the development raises questions about political influence.

So I guess they're just being looked at to see if they have any, you know, illegitimate things going on.

I don't know.

I feel like there's a Ow.

Sorry.

Cat's just biting me like crazy.

Which cat is this?

Hold on a second.

Which one are you?

Oh god.

There's two of them.

I can't tell.

All right.

So, Conor Mc.

Gregor, as you know, is trying to become president of Ireland, but I guess he's got a problem.

They have this system that I don't understand that only certain people can nominate him.

So, it's not the public.

So, he can't become president unless he's nominated.

Um, and that would require some other politicians who are elected.

Damn it.

We have to take a walk.

Take a walk.

All right.

So, I was looking at uh at his rhetoric to see if he's got the persuasion game, and so far I'd say he does not.

So, let me give you an example of some of the things he says, which are, you know, true and they're wellstated, but that they don't have the extra layer of the um persuasion yet.

And I'll I'll give you some ideas what that would look like if he did.

Um so he says for example in these times this government has cost us our peace of mind our security our hope for the future and the general well-being of Irish citizens nationwide has decreased dramatically um then he talks about incompetent failure of future generations and a little bit about being a master of martial arts etc.

So, do you see what's missing?

Those of you who have been with me long enough, you know all my persuasion tips.

Compare to Donald Trump, you know, the best in the game.

And compare this rhetoric.

Um, I will give you the answer.

Some of you already have it.

It's not visual and it doesn't appeal to fear.

Those two things are really important, especially if you repeat them.

So, compare build the wall and you know they're sending rapists and killers over like those things are really visual.

As soon as you hear them, that would be Trump.

As soon as you hear them, you know, your your hair catches on fire and you can't even talk to anybody else because it's just so provocative.

And it's the visual and the fact that it goes to fear.

Then the other thing that Trump does is he connects with the you ordinary person.

Mom Dami did a great job with the affordability thing.

Just making a connection.

Oh, you finally understand like the main thing.

The main thing.

Affordability.

Okay.

So, I don't even know what your plan is, but you're the only one who understands the main thing.

like I I'll start there.

May maybe you do have an idea.

I I don't even know what would work, but at least I know that you understand the main thing.

So when uh Conor Mc.

Gregor talks about uh the government costing us our peace of mind, that's just sort of generic.

Our hope for the future, generic.

The general well-being of the Irish citizens, generic.

Um, so too generic.

It it's well stated.

So I mean he's he's good as a public speaker, but he needs to find that uh next layer, the layer where you you see it when he's talking.

Is he capable of doing that?

Oh yeah.

Oh yeah.

He he is completely capable of uh absorbing and conquering that that level of uh persuasion.

Um I'd be surprised if he doesn't.

Well, can you believe this?

uh South Korean uh researchers have come up with this high-powered hydrogen-powered plasma torch that melts plastic so efficiently and quickly that they can just turn that plastic into uh more materials to make more plastic.

So it' be the most efficient, most incredible way you could ever recycle plastic.

So our plastic problems can be solved.

You don't even have to separate the plastic from the pet plastic and the other.

You just put it all in the bin and burn it up.

So, here's what I'm wondering.

Have you noticed that there's a lot of these claims, not just in this domain, but all kinds of domains, a lot of claims that come out of South Korea.

Now, I get that South Korea has very robust, you know, tech atmosphere.

Um, but I'm starting to think that South Korea is better at publicity than they are at science.

They're good at both, don't get me wrong.

As far as I can tell, they're very good at science.

But are they also even better?

Possibly at publicizing stuff because I feel like I see a lot of South Korea stuff that I don't think I'll ever see in the market.

Yeah.

Does anybody else have that impression?

You know, maybe it's all, you know, 100% genuine maybe.

But it looks like they're just really good at promoting, but also at least a little bit good at the science itself.

But a little bit of overclaiming, I don't know, maybe.

Um, so speaking of South Korea, uh, Hyundai, the Hyundai story is getting it got funnier.

So Hyundai built a factory in Georgia because one of the things that we like our foreign companies to do is uh, make the jobs in our country instead of making jobs for people in South Korea.

So, so you already heard that the uh there were 450 foreign workers in the factory and they all got taken out by ICE or border I guess ICE and uh 450 of them.

It was basically the whole factory I think so today.

But what I assumed was that it was probably Hispanic workers would come across our southern border.

It's funnier than that.

300 of them were actually South Korean nationals.

So they moved the factory over here and then they moved their workers over here and they got away with it until now.

How in the world did nobody narc for for completely, you know, violating the spirit of the agreement?

That's pretty funny.

So, when you see the South Korean companies do some sketchy things and you hear some sketchy things in their government, which you hear often, it does make me wonder about all those scientific breakthroughs that get announced.

Is it possible that they're corrupt as hell in every way except for science?

Maybe.

Maybe.

Well, I would hate to go more than a day without telling you there's a breakthrough in batteries.

So, this is funny.

There's there's one breakthrough cancels out the other breakthrough.

So, an MIT research team figured out how to u recycle lithium ion batteries so effectively that it would almost be a miracle.

So with they use some kind of uh uh Kevlar like electrolyte.

So you don't need to know what that means but basically it's it wouldn't be that different from batteries we have except this one material would be different.

this kevlar like electrolyte, but that when you did that, when you're done with it, when the battery is to be recycled, you it says, I don't believe this, but it says you just drop it in a solvent and the whole thing falls apart cleanly and you can just, you know, easily recycle it.

So, can you imagine that our batteries would go from, you know, these eyesore on the planet to, you know, we don't know what to do with them.

Could they actually turn into oh just drop it into solvent?

Ah, it's gone.

It's already gone.

I don't know.

That feels a little bit optimistic.

You know, not only because the entire manufacturing process would have to change to this Kevlar like electrolyte.

I don't know how easy that is.

But to cancel that out entirely, there's another company according to interesting engineering that has a whole different kind of battery.

They uses a cohesion inhibiting new liquid electrolyte, which I'm guessing makes it not applicable for dissolving like that other battery.

And this one is so good that what it will do uh it'll do 500 miles on a single charge and it'll recharge in 12 minutes and it will last 184 186,000 miles.

So that would kind of get it over every hump.

But could you drop it in a solvent and dissolve it?

Maybe not.

So my only point about the battery stuff always is not that any one of them will be the one that's going to come to the market because most of them will not but that there is really major major improvements in that market that are guaranteed to happen just because there's so much happening.

We just don't know which ones will rise to the top.

So big thing is coming in batteries just so you know.

All right.

How do we do?

Oh, pretty good.

Um, ladies and gentlemen, if you don't have my book, Loser Think, you really should.

Um, it's re it's a addition, too.

And you will enjoy seeing all the bad arguments that you've seen online picked apart and learning how not to make bad arguments yourself because it will make you look foolish if you make bad arguments in public.

So, um, I'm going to talk privately to the beloved members of, uh, locals.

And locals, um, I'll be with you in 30 seconds.

The rest of you, you're going to have a tremendous Sunday.

One of the best.

People are talking.

Come on in everybody.

It's really good to see you this morning

while all the lazy podcasters leap in or

go to church or

go to the gym or whatever they're doing,

but they're not doing this. And aren't

you glad I'm here? Yeah. So, uh before

we get going, let me tell you, you know

what's the best thing in the world?

getting up at 4:00 a.m. I love getting

up early, sitting there with a big cup

of coffee, steaming cup of coffee, and

then starting to look at the news of the

day. I love that. But recently,

I realized that it's even better when

you've got a uh flannel blanket on your

lap and a cat is purring and loving its

time sitting on your lap while you're

working. And while working, it's not

really even work, but when you've got

that delicious cup of coffee, but then

today I discovered something better than

a cup of coffee. at 4:00 a.m. with a cat

on your lap on a flannel blanket.

Two cats. I had two cats fighting for

position on my lap. Well, it became sort

of a catastrophe because

one of those cats got dangerously close

to the large cup of coffee. And I said

to myself, well, if there's one thing I

want to avoid, it would be a cat

knocking over that very large, still

totally full cup of coffee on my desk

area. And uh all over my cables and

every kind of electronic that I've ever

owned. And so I said to myself, well,

I'll eliminate that possibility by

lifting the cat with one hand while I

hold the other cat from maybe getting

into the same nonsense. And so I try to

lift the cat with one hand, and well,

there was a struggle.

One of the cat's legs spazzed out in a

cat-like fashion,

perfectly striking the large cup of

coffee off its coffee warmer. So, you

add a little bit of height on the coffee

warmer and somehow

managed to drench coffee in what I would

uh generously estimate is uh maybe one

to two acres of my office.

Oh my god, it was a catastrophe. So, if

today's show is worse than normal, it's

the cat's fault.

Gary, it's Gary's fault. He's not

helping at all.

All right, I was trying to do something

here. Let's get your uh comments for

locals working in a special little

window.

I was watching them in the big window,

but now I can see them in the special

window.

[Music]

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time in your

whole stinking life. But if you'd like

to take a chance on elevating your

experience up to levels, no really up to

levels that no one can even understand

with their tiny shiny human brains. All

you need for that is a copper margar

glass, a can a tankered jeerstein, a

canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any

kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of

the day. The thing that makes everything

better. It's this. It's called the

simultaneous sip. And it happens now.

Yes, I did refill my cup of coffee that

I spilled.

All right. Well, I got a bunch of uh

Sunday stories, so do your chores or do

your exercise or do that thing you're

doing, but don't listen to this in

church.

All right. I wonder if there's any new

backward science.

Hm. Here's some uh in SI post Eric Dolan

is writing about a study that found a

strong link between loneliness and

physical pain.

There's a strong link between loneliness

and physical pain. And I believe they're

concluding

that the direction of causality is that

the loneliness is causing the physical

pain.

Now, I'm no science professor,

but do people who are in a lot of pain

and people who are unhealthy, it goes on

to include people who are just

unhealthy, do they spend as much time

around other people socializing?

It's like, oh, I can't walk. I can't

wait to go golfing with my forsome.

Isn't this backwards that if you're in

physical pain, the odds of you having as

as satisfying a personal life go way

down? Backwards science.

Backward science.

Well, I wonder if there's any science

that they didn't have to do at all

because they could have just asked me.

Oh, here we go. uh Eric Dolan who's also

writing in Cypost that overconfidence in

your ability to detect BS is linked to

cognitive blind spots and narcissistic

traits.

So, it's more evidence of the so-called

Dunning Kruger Dunning Krueger effect

that the the people who know the least

are often under the impression that

they're the ones who know the most. And

uh yeah uh if you spent five minutes on

the internet, you may have also noticed

and could have also

handled this research on your own that

overconfidence in detecting BS is a big

problem and it is linked to cognitive

blind spots.

All right. Um, I like to I like to refer

to this uh, you know, this Dunn and

Krueger thing as the dog effect. The dog

effect. Did you ever wonder what your

dog thinks

when you go through life with your dog?

Do you feel that your dog is looking at

you and saying, "My god, did you what?

Did you just do some math in your head?

That was impressive."

I can't do that. Holy cow. Do you have

more than one language? No. No way. And

you can understand everybody's words.

Wow. Wow. Do you think your dog is

impressed with your intelligence?

Or does your dog just look at you and

say,

"I either want to go outside. I want you

to give me food, scratch my head, or

just let me lick my bowls because I got

nothing else on my mind right now. Well,

I think it's uh probably closer to the

latter. But uh the dog has no idea that

you're much smarter than the dog. And

here I'm making an assumption that I

think will apply to almost all of you.

You're almost all smarter than a dog.

No, you are really. I know some of you

have low self-esteem, but I'm here to

assure you, you are smarter than a dog.

Not a dolphin necessarily. You know, I

wouldn't go full dolphin, but you're

smarter than a dog for sure. I mean,

probably not a husky. Not every one of

you. I mean, statistically speaking, if

you just, you know, looked at it that

way, probably there's at least one

person here who's not as smart as a

husky.

They're pretty smart. Yeah. And I would

guess at least a handful,

maybe a subden.

Not that I'm judging. I'm not judging at

all. Um, but what I was saying is that

the dog doesn't know that you're smarter

than it. And that's uh that's one of the

fun things about Dunning Krueger is that

people who are not that smart think the

problem is on your end if you happen to

be smarter than a husky and a dolphin.

Um

have you noticed this is my new uh pet

mission I guess. Uh, it's bothering the

hell out of me that I keep reading

stories about people criticizing RFK Jr.

for being nutty and dangerous,

but they don't really give examples. And

when they do, it seems to me that maybe

they're leaving out some context, you

know, like maybe there's an argument on

his side as well that we haven't heard.

So, the latest is a joke entity the

third. So another well continuing it's

not the first time. So he's a family

member and uh he's calling RFK Jr. and a

post on a calling him a threat to the

health and well-being of every American.

Wow. What do you have an example? That's

a pretty big thing to say. He's a threat

to the health and well-being of every

American. And he goes on to say,"None of

us will be spared the pain he is

inflicting."

What? The pain. All of us. Really? We're

all going to be in pain.

What kind of pain is he talking about?

Is it the pain of loneliness?

What kind of pain?

And what hurts more, RFK Jr. or

loneliness? I got lots of questions this

morning. Anyway, so none of us will be

spared the pain. He is like, do you

think he's going too far? Do you think

that really none of us will escape it?

You You don't think there's maybe like a

kid somewhere in, I don't know, Ohio or

something, and he's just playing

outdoors.

Do you think he'll maybe escape the

plane from RFK Jr. or is he going to be

there just like playing with his bicycle

and and one day he'll be like, "Oh, oh

god, what's that? Why does my back

hurt?" His mother will say, "No one can

escape the pain that is RFK Jr., you're

all going to get it. That's that's your

turn. That's your turn, little Bobby."

All right.

But,

uh, does that mean that RFK Jr. is right

about everything. Well,

not necessarily.

Let us uh examine one one claim in

particular.

So, RFK Jr. said recently uh just

yesterday maybe or that the the

vaccinated this would be during co that

the vaccinated uh um versus the

unvaccinated data is the biggest

statistical trick of this pandemic. So

he had some criticisms about how the

data was kept about who was vaccinated

and the outcomes and stuff and he points

out that uh you're not counted as

vaccinated until two weeks after your

second shot. So for the first six weeks

the vaccine is ineffective

and infection and death rates rise.

But all of those are attributed to the

unvaccinated group. Even though they

just got vaccinated,

whatever whatever deaths happened right

after the shot

would be attributed to the unvaccinated.

I don't know if that includes the fact

if you thought that the shot it was the

reason for kill that you died right

away.

It's It's not possible that they would

call that unvaccinated, is it?

Is it Is it possible? I'm sorry. It's

not funny. Uh is it possible that they

would give you the vaccination,

you drop dead,

and they would say, "Huh?

You're still within the two weeks.

That doesn't count.

Oh god. No. I don't I don't think that's

what's happening. But

the the world is so messed up that

there's nothing you can rule out at this

point.

Nope. Nope. You're still within the

window.

Anyway, but his uh most provocative

claim, the one that caught my attention

was that by he he says that by month

seven

uh the efficacy of the uh co shot

doesn't just hit zero. He says it

plummets into negative territory.

Meaning that if you got the shot, you're

more likely to

uh get what? To get infected. Yeah. To

get infected.

Now, does that sound true to you?

Uh, I realize that there might be some

way that it could be true that getting

the shot increased your chances of

having problems with CO. That's

possible.

But

how often is there an approved medicine

that you knew made it worse for the

thing that the medicine was for? Does

that happen a lot? It can happen a lot.

I mean, I'm I'm sure something like

that's happened, but uh doesn't seem

like it would happen a lot. So, if the

only thing you knew was that it was a

weird claim that is not universally

agreed upon, you might say to yourself,

"Huh, I don't know." But there is a

macro point I'm going to be making

today. Yes, believe it or not, I have a

macro point. Don't settle for micro

points when you can get a macro point

like today. And the macro point is that

all data is worthless.

All data is worthless. I learned that

when it was my job to pull data together

for a big bank and then I confirmed it

when my next job was pulling data

together for a big phone company.

Did it stop me that the data was all

unreliable to the point of being absurd?

Nope. My senior executive told me in

direct words, "Doesn't matter that it's

inaccurate. I'll only use it when it

agrees with me anyway.

Literally."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is

everything you need to know about data.

It's never accurate.

And if it were, somebody would apply

some bizarre statistical treatment to it

to make sure that it came out with

whatever answer they wanted. And if that

wasn't enough, they could add whatever

assumptions they wanted until it came

out the way they wanted. So if you think

to yourself that this thing about not

counting as vaccinated for two weeks, u

and by the way, I I'm I'm sure I got

that whole story wrong, but it was

funny. Uh if you think that that's you

know like a a weird story about this one

domain where uh data isn't you know it's

a little gray area whether you're

vaccinated or not. So what do you call

that?

That's every data.

That's every data about everything all

the time. There there's no data that's

really reliable in health care, in

nutrition, in uh finance,

uh in climate,

none of it. Once you realize that it's

it's all at the very least, you know, is

subject to interpretation, which is

this, you know, it's about as useless as

being bad data. Once you realize

everything all the time, then it's

easier to analyze a story like this. Do

you believe

that RFK Jr. is right when he says we

don't have enough data to feel

comfortable about some of these

vaccinations? If you didn't know

anything else except the one thing I

taught you today, which is that all data

is bad. It's just always bad.

If you knew that, wouldn't you say, "All

right, well, I haven't looked into it

very deeply." But I'll bet he's spot on

about the the data not being sufficient

for something of this importance,

meaning something you're putting into

everybody's body potentially.

Yes. Yeah. I'm completely I'm completely

on the page of we can't even it's

impossible to try hard enough to get the

best data you can on that stuff. So that

part's right. But then let's take the

same theory that the data is always

wrong and then evaluate RFK Jr.'s claim

that there's a situation in which the

vaccination makes things worse.

Remember, if you believe that all data

is wrong all the time, why would he be

right about that?

And so I give him the same skepticism

that he gives all the other data and

we're both right. He's he's right that

probably all the data he has is sketchy

and you know insufficient for the

importance.

And

I would say that every time he believes

some data that seems to lean in a

direction that you know obviously he has

some bias against vaccinations. He would

say maybe he doesn't but I think we

would all say he probably does.

Everybody likes to be right. So you know

in his case it would validate a lifetime

of skepticism.

So,

you know, I I would say I haven't had a

lifetime of skepticism. So, I might be

less biased on it than he is if he's

normal because it would be impossible to

have lived his life, you know, done what

he's done and be the advocate he's been

for for various things and not be biased

by it. Is that even possible? You

wouldn't ask that of anybody. It' be

impossible.

All right.

So I would say uh what I like about RFK

Jr. is I do believe he is committed to

getting the right answer even if it

hurts. I believe he has the character

and you know an ability to to get a to

get the right answer wherever that's

available even if it hurts.

That's why I trust him.

All right,

here is a interesting little thing. A

couple of articles in TechCrunch.

Um, Maxwell Zeff is writing about I

guess chat GBT is doing some

reorganizing with their team that works

on AI personality.

Now uh I guess there was some change in

the personality of Chad GPT recently

that people didn't like. So they had to

go back I think from version five to

four or something like that.

But it makes you uh it makes you realize

that if all the AIs are sort of um

generic and similar, which seems like

that's what's going to happen in in no

time. Um, if it's all generic and

similar,

maybe the perceived personality

of the AI will be the uh the decision,

you know, maybe that'll be why somebody

uses one versus the other because it

feels like has a personality. And I

think that's right. I think in a way

that's like the user interface. Well,

not in a way that is the user interface

for AI is a personality.

And so,

um, this tweaked all of my creative

impulses to wonder, all right, if I were

creating

an AI personality,

what would I be sure it included?

And here's the thing that just jumps to

the top of my mind. AI drives me crazy

when it says anything that's off

mission. Do you have that problem? I

don't want a personality.

I don't want it to say, "If you need

anything else, let me know. I don't want

to hear that." So, there's a lot of

things that you tolerate with human

beings

because they're human beings,

right? We we have a natural extra

tolerance for a human being. But I don't

want to hear my freaking machine making

chitchat.

Every extra word is painful. Like, oh,

why'd you do that? Like, why why do you

have it try to make conversation with

me? I'm not into conversation with the

machine at all. Now, if it's trying to

be a chatbot or something, you know,

it's trying to be your friend, yeah,

then of course. But if you're just

trying to get some information about a

topic, no, we're not friends.

So,

but then how much personality can you

put in it if all it does is answer the

questions? Because it'd be really

annoying

if it tried to be jokey. I think Grock

tried too hard to be jokey at one point.

My cat is visiting. Stay away from the

coffee.

So might might be a disaster brewing

here.

All right. So I I just find the whole

conversation about giving AI a

personality really important. And let me

say that it might be more important than

you have any idea. Don't we always talk

about how there's, you know, some

dictator or cult leader who through the

force of their personality,

uhoh,

uh, basically brainwash people. And

that's that's if they brainwash them

for, you know, bad intent and everybody

agrees that they're a cult leader or

whatever. But don't you think there are

also people who just have a kind of

personality who are super influential

um who are just ordinary people whose

personalities are incredible?

What would happen if your AI went from

kind of bland and frankly a little bit

annoying to really really fun to listen

to

like Yeah. And how would you do that?

Because the AI would have to be able to

read my read the room to have a

personality. It would have to be able to

read the room. How's it going to do

that? And when I say read the room, it

should know that it shouldn't talk to me

if I'm doing something. You know, it

shouldn't interrupt me. But,

you know, maybe there'd be some

situation in which uh could chime in.

So,

uh, AI personalities is going to be a

big big deal, I think.

Um, here is an interesting thing. Also,

Techrunch Maxwell Zeff again. Uh, so

Open AI is also

going to make an AI version of LinkedIn.

Do you follow the tech world enough to

know why that's extra interesting?

So, LinkedIn is where people allegedly

find uh connections for business and you

know get hired and stuff and uh it was

created by Reed Hoffman um famed uh

Democrat donor and investor

and sold to Microsoft.

So Microsoft is the

um the big investor in Open AI.

So, OpenAI and Microsoft are joined.

But at the same time that Microsoft owns

LinkedIn,

Open AI

is building a LinkedIn killer.

And so, we don't know enough about that

situation. It might be completely

friendly. It might be, you know, maybe

Microsoft said, "Yeah, if you can if you

can do it, do it because somebody's

going to do it if you don't." So, you

might as well eat your own eat your own

lunch before somebody else sees it kind

of thing. There's a different saying for

that, but you know the thing.

So, we'll see. Um,

that must be awkward at the meetings.

So, how's your project going to destroy

a major part of our enterprise? Ah, it's

pretty good. pretty good. Now I also

wonder will open AI use AI to make a

version of Microsoft Office

because isn't that what Elon Musk has

tried to do? I believe he recruited a

team or he's in the process of it

recruited a team to create an AI

interfaced

essentially a Microsoft office something

that would do everything it does. And uh

that does seem doable. Now maybe that

would be for phones only. I don't know.

Maybe mobile devices.

But uh Microsoft,

it's probably a good thing that it owns

the big AI company

because all their products are

vulnerable

except for cloud stuff, I guess.

Well, there were many protesters.

thousands who flooded the streets of DC

and they were protesting Trump's, you

know, militarization and federal

takeover of the law enforcement thing

even though the mayor's on board with it

and even though the people seem to like

it. So big protest. Now, I saw a number

of people online comment that um there

were no black protesters out of the

thousands of faces that there there were

no black protesters. Now, what does that

tell you? Now, people interpreted that

as meaning that the

the black citizens

want extra law enforcement because they

might live in places of the city that

are the most dangerous. So that would

make sense, right? Most dangerous place.

You'd want the most help. So there are

no black protesters. However, there's

another hypothesis.

Uh I cannot I cannot vouch for this

being true, but I remember seeing an

interview with one of the uh one of the

people who's in the business of renting

a fake crowd for protests, which we all

know by now is how these kind of

protests are formed. They're paid

protesters. But still, the question

persists, even if they're paid, where

are all the paid black protesters?

And um this is very racist, not by me,

but I swear I saw one of the owners of

the um the fake protest businesses say

that they avoid hiring black people

because it might cause too much trouble.

Now, I cannot vouch for that being true.

It's literally just something I saw in

some coverage not too long ago.

And I thought to myself, could that

possibly be true? Is there is there any

way in the world that he would say that

out loud? Cuz it doesn't feel like

something he would say out loud,

even if it were true.

So, but I will note.

Never mind.

Anyway, um Matt Walsh had a uh

interesting point on a video he made uh

that uh the introduction of body cams

destroyed the Black Lives Matter

movement. Now, that that might be a

little bit hyperbole, but he makes a

good point. Have you noticed that the

police brutality claims, especially the

ones that are, you know, have a racial

element to them, seem to have gone away

when body cams came in? And then you

have to ask yourself, is that because

the officers knew they were wearing body

cams? That that would be enough to stop

somebody from bad behavior. um or

was there always a very low level of the

say racially biased shootings

and um

we just didn't know it was a low level

because too much but then we add all

body cams you know for sure. So, which

is it? Did the body cams make people

act better

or did it simply tell us how they were

already acting? We'll never know. Do you

know why? Because all data

is bad. So even when it's right, you

can't be sure. So that's the problem

with data.

it it pretends to give you certainty,

but that's sort of all it can do.

There are some rare rare exceptions,

let's say within, I don't know, a

controlled engineering experiment or

something like that. You could find some

places where data works, but it's more

like engineering than it is in the uh

the big messy world.

Uh well, there's a Texas congressman,

Representative Nathaniel Moran,

who wants to get some legislation going

that all the tariff revenue above

a a certain level would go toward the

deficit.

What are the odds that Congress would

vote that they could not touch any of

the uh any of the money coming in from

the tariffs and it could only go toward

the deficit?

The answer is nobody gives up power.

Right now they have the power to screw

the country by just buying new things

with the tariff revenue.

But they also have the freedom, you

know, collectively they could vote to

pay down the debt.

In what world would Congress give up

their options? Cuz that's their power.

Their power is their options. And why

would they give away the option of

wasting it on some project or something?

So I would say the odds of this getting

passed are pretty close to nothing.

JD Vance had an interesting exchange

with Democrat troll Brian Kraenstein.

He's kind of famous online for being a

Democrat back in troll and he was uh

talking about uh the fact that the US

took out that cartel boat coming from

Venezuela and there was a lot of

celebrating about that and Kasenstein

said on X quote killing the citizens of

another nation who are civilians without

any due process is called a war crime.

And JD Vance responded with quote, "I

don't give a what you call it."

And of course, it was very popular with

the pro-JD Vance crowd. Um, and you

know, on one hand, it's just a response

to a troll and JD Vance is learning a

lot from President Trump. You know, you

could see that JD Vance

um has added a whole dimension to his

persona that you wouldn't see unless he

were part of the Trump administration.

And whether or not that becomes a

permanent part of his persona, permanent

part of his persona. Um is to be seen,

but it might. I kind of like it. I I you

know, if he doesn't overdo it, I kind of

like it.

But here's what I think JD Vance was

saying. Um I think he was saying that

we're just going to get get the job

done. You know, there's nothing bad in

it. He's just going to say you can call

it whatever you want. We're going to do

the job that needs to be done. And I

like that.

So rather than getting into the weeds

about uh definition, this is one of the

things I talk about in my book, Loser

Think. If if you're arguing about a

definition about whether something was a

war crime or not, you're trying to win

your argument by getting the other

person to use your word. If I can get

him to say this word or two words,

um, then I win the argument. The that's

that's not really a good way to debate.

So, I like what he says. He's not even

going to enter the he's not going to

enter the contest of what word to put on

it. He's just doing what needs to be

done. I like it.

Um,

and then Rand Paul was critical of it

and he said that he said that Vance says

killing people he accuses of a crime is

the highest and best use of the

military. Did he ever read to kill a

mockingb bird? Did he ever wonder what

might happen if the accused were

immediately executed without trial or

representation?

Now, um I don't think Rand Paul is

analyzing this as cleanly as possible. I

like his his impulse to avoid war. So

that that part's good. So he and he's

consistent about it. But is the argument

any good? It it's not like it's it's not

as if it's Vance who's deciding whether

they should die.

You know, there there's probably a a

fairly rigorous process that the

military used to to know that it was

what they thought and where it left from

and they probably had intelligence on

the ground before it even left the port.

I don't know. But um

so I think he mischaracterized, you

know, Vance's take on that.

He had to generalize it to the point of

absurdity.

Um

Jay Batakaria was talking to News Max

recently and uh he says that the COVID

19 data that the Biden administration

left him is corrupt.

Do you see my meta point? Um so yet

again so uh after uh RFK Jr. came into

uh uh came under fire on Thursday.

Apparently, now we know that uh our data

is crap.

Um

anyway, so there's more detail on that

story, but the point is

all our data is bad. It will always be

bad for everything. finance, jobs,

nutrition, health care, you name it.

Um,

all right. So, uh, meanwhile over in

Ukraine, Russia did its biggest attack

yet on, uh, Kiev and they were hitting a

government building and they launched

uh, um, more than 800 attack drones in

one day. 800 attack drones. Now, you

remember my prediction that the front

line at least would become an all robot

war. drones. Um, so it looks like that

will extend maybe into the capital, but

it would also explain why Russia is in

no hurry

because they probably want to become the

best and biggest, you know, drone

fighting country. And as long as they

can have this sort of practice war that

they can just go out and do every day,

hey, let's try this drone. How'd that

work? try this drone. It seems like the

the Russian military would be getting

stronger and stronger because the only

thing that's going to matter, you know,

besides maybe intercontinental missiles

and some other nukes, but in terms of

conventional warfare, the only thing

that will matter is their drone warfare.

So, if Russia is getting better at drone

warfare every day,

they're probably not in any hurry

because they're not running out of

people and it doesn't seem to be making

them too much less popular in Russia in

any way that matters to him. So, I see

absolutely no reason that Russia would

ever want to make peace.

And uh Zalinski also seems to be

unwilling to uh make peace. Maybe

because he knows it's a waste of time,

but if both sides are not really super

trying to make peace, how much am I

supposed to care about it?

Now, you know, I'm I'm full of empathy

for everybody who deserves it, but

that's sort of everybody all the time.

Pretty much everybody has problems.

Well, uh, I just have this

problem with special problems that

somebody's problem is, you know, worse

than yours. Is it

all right? Um, I guess the Trump

administration is going after

a North Carolina city. Wow. There was

Oh, a county in North Carolina that was

trying to approve uh racism reparations.

So, I guess the civil rights

area of the government's going to go

after him. Ow. Ow. Oh, god. Cat going

after my feet.

Stop it.

[Laughter]

It wouldn't be a good time to beat my

cat on camera. So, I'll just turn

sideways and see if I can bleed onto the

floor. Stop it.

Anyway, um so reparations. So, there

again, I asked myself, how much am I

supposed to care about reparations?

I mean, I have a, you know, normal

amount of empathy. I think that uh

systemic racism is real, but so are my

problems.

My problems are real.

Are are yours

are your problems real? Of course they

are. So, but who has preferred problems?

like why does somebody's somebody else's

problem is preferred because of some

historical argument about people that

are not me? You know, I get that you can

stitch it all together and make this and

make the argument, but people get lots

of people have problems. Just that the

fact that yours is, you know,

demonstrabably true, that doesn't mean

you get paid. That those are not

connected concepts. It could be just bad

luck and tragic just like everybody

else's life but in different ways.

Anyway,

speaking of racial bluntness, I've been

telling you that there seems to be some

kind of some kind of willingness on both

the white and the black side and every

other side, I suppose, um to be more

blunt about race. So, Mike Cernovich

posting, I think it was today, if we're

going to have racial conversations,

which the left insists on, then by all

means, we should be telling the truth

about interracial crime. It a it ain't

whites attacking blacks. People can read

at me. Don't care. People are dying.

So, that that would be perfect example.

Um, I'm not asking you to agree with

anybody's particular opinion. I'm just

saying there's clearly a willingness

to talk about things that would have

gotten you canled even for bringing them

up. I'm pretty sure that the bluntness,

let's call it honesty,

is good for everybody. I don't think

there's a loser in that. I think

everybody's better off. It just hurts a

little bit, you know, like going to the

dentist.

But I don't think anybody means

anything,

you know, negative like it. It's all

meant that if you know what a problem is

and you're honest about it, you're more

likely to find a solution. I think

that's all it is.

Um, if you'd like my take on it,

uh, since I'm on testosterone blockers

for the for the cancer, um, I'll give

you the low tea take, and you can

compare it to anything I might have said

in the past. All right, here's the low

tea take.

Um, I would recommend that whenever

you're in a situation that makes you

feel uncomfortable

for your safety or your success that you

should at least consider relocating to a

place where there's less of that risk.

Does that sound like I used to sound or

have I have I lost my edge? God, I hope

I haven't lost my edge.

All right.

So, I've talked a number of times about

an AI company called Anthropic, one of

the big ones, and finding out today, the

Washington Examiner's writing, Samantha

Joe Roth, that uh their backers,

anthropic backers have given lots of

money to Democrats and uh a lot of it

happened before the um the federal

government created an AI vendor list

approval. in other words, allowed them

to be selling their stuff to the uh

federal government. So, I guess the

allegation is that, you know, maybe the

maybe the donations to the Democrats

gave them some, you know, inside path or

something that doesn't look like it's

proven. Um,

so

I guess the Trump administration is uh

looking at uh they're looking at them

kind of carefully. So were they going to

do something to them? So the development

raises questions about political

influence.

So I guess they're just being looked at

to see if they have any, you know,

illegitimate

things going on. I don't know.

I feel like there's a Ow. Sorry. Cat's

just biting me like crazy. Which cat is

this? Hold on a second.

Which one are you? Oh god.

There's two of them. I can't tell. All

right.

So, Conor McGregor, as you know, is

trying to become president of Ireland,

but I guess he's got a problem. They

have this system that I don't understand

that only certain people can nominate

him. So, it's not the public. So, he

can't become president unless he's

nominated. Um, and that would require

some other politicians who are elected.

Damn it. We have to

take a walk. Take a walk.

All right. So, I was looking at uh at

his rhetoric to see if he's got the

persuasion game, and so far I'd say he

does not. So, let me give you an example

of some of the things he says, which

are, you know, true and they're

wellstated, but that they don't have the

extra layer of the um persuasion yet.

And I'll I'll give you some ideas what

that would look like if he did. Um so he

says for example in these times this

government has cost us our peace of mind

our security our hope for the future and

the general well-being of Irish citizens

nationwide has decreased dramatically

um then he talks about incompetent

failure of future generations

and a little bit about being a master of

martial arts etc. So, do you see what's

missing? Those of you who have been with

me long enough, you know all my

persuasion tips. Compare to Donald

Trump, you know, the best in the game.

And compare this rhetoric. Um, I will

give you the answer. Some of you already

have it. It's not visual and it doesn't

appeal to fear.

Those two things are really important,

especially if you repeat them. So,

compare build the wall and you know

they're sending rapists and killers over

like those things are really visual. As

soon as you hear them, that would be

Trump. As soon as you hear them, you

know, your your hair catches on fire and

you can't even talk to anybody else

because it's just so provocative. And

it's the visual

and the fact that it goes to fear. Then

the other thing that Trump does is he

connects with the you ordinary person.

Mom Dami did a great job with the

affordability thing. Just making a

connection. Oh, you finally understand

like the main thing. The main thing.

Affordability. Okay. So, I don't even

know what your plan is, but you're the

only one who understands the main thing.

like I I'll start there. May maybe you

do have an idea. I I don't even know

what would work, but at least I know

that you understand the main thing. So

when uh Conor McGregor talks about uh

the government costing us our peace of

mind, that's just sort of generic. Our

hope for the future, generic. The

general well-being of the Irish

citizens, generic. Um,

so too generic.

It it's well stated. So I mean he's he's

good as a public speaker, but he needs

to find that uh next layer, the layer

where you you see it when he's talking.

Is he capable of doing that? Oh yeah. Oh

yeah. He he is completely capable of uh

absorbing and conquering that that level

of uh persuasion. Um I'd be surprised if

he doesn't.

Well, can you believe this?

uh South Korean uh researchers have come

up with this high-powered

hydrogen-powered plasma torch that melts

plastic so efficiently and quickly that

they can just turn that plastic into uh

more materials to make more plastic. So

it' be the most efficient, most

incredible way you could ever recycle

plastic. So our plastic problems can be

solved. You don't even have to separate

the plastic from the pet plastic and the

other. You just put it all in the bin

and burn it up.

So, here's what I'm wondering.

Have you noticed that there's a lot of

these claims, not just in this domain,

but all kinds of domains, a lot of

claims that come out of South Korea.

Now, I get that South Korea has very

robust, you know, tech atmosphere.

Um, but I'm starting to think that South

Korea is better at publicity than they

are at science. They're good at both,

don't get me wrong. As far as I can

tell, they're very good at science. But

are they also even better? Possibly at

publicizing stuff because I feel like I

see a lot of South Korea stuff that I

don't think I'll ever see in the market.

Yeah. Does anybody else have that

impression? You know, maybe it's all,

you know, 100% genuine maybe. But it

looks like they're just really good at

promoting,

but also at least a little bit good at

the science itself. But a little bit of

overclaiming, I don't know, maybe.

Um,

so speaking of South Korea,

uh, Hyundai, the Hyundai story is

getting it got funnier.

So Hyundai built a factory in Georgia

because one of the things that we like

our foreign companies to do is uh, make

the jobs in our country instead of

making jobs for people in South Korea.

So,

so you already heard that the uh there

were 450 foreign workers in the factory

and they all got taken out by ICE or

border I guess ICE and uh

450 of them. It was basically the whole

factory I think so today. But what I

assumed

was that it was probably Hispanic

workers would come across our southern

border. It's funnier than that.

300 of them were actually South Korean

nationals.

So they moved the factory over here and

then they moved their workers over here

and they got away with it until now.

How in the world did nobody narc

for for

completely, you know, violating the

spirit of the agreement?

That's pretty funny.

So, when you see the South Korean

companies do some sketchy things and you

hear some sketchy things in their

government, which you hear often, it

does make me wonder about all those

scientific breakthroughs that get

announced.

Is it possible that they're corrupt as

hell in every way except for science?

Maybe. Maybe.

Well, I would hate to go more than a day

without telling you there's a

breakthrough in batteries.

So, this is funny. There's there's one

breakthrough cancels out the other

breakthrough. So, an MIT research team

figured out how to u recycle lithium ion

batteries so effectively

that it would almost be a miracle. So

with they use some kind of uh

uh Kevlar like electrolyte. So you don't

need to know what that means but

basically it's it wouldn't be that

different from batteries we have except

this one material would be different.

this kevlar like electrolyte, but that

when you did that, when you're done with

it, when the battery is to be recycled,

you it says, I don't believe this, but

it says you just drop it in a solvent

and the whole thing falls apart cleanly

and you can just, you know, easily

recycle it. So, can you imagine that our

batteries would go from, you know, these

eyesore on the planet to, you know, we

don't know what to do with them. Could

they actually turn into oh just drop it

into solvent? Ah, it's gone. It's

already gone.

I don't know. That feels a little bit

optimistic. You know, not only because

the entire manufacturing process would

have to change to this Kevlar like

electrolyte. I don't know how easy that

is. But

to cancel that out entirely, there's

another company according to interesting

engineering that has a whole different

kind of battery.

They uses a cohesion inhibiting new

liquid electrolyte, which I'm guessing

makes it not applicable for dissolving

like that other battery. And this one is

so good that what it will do uh it'll do

500 miles on a single charge and it'll

recharge in 12 minutes and it will last

184 186,000 miles. So that would kind of

get it over every hump. But could you

drop it in a solvent and dissolve it?

Maybe not. So my only point about the

battery stuff always is not that any one

of them will be the one that's going to

come to the market because most of them

will not but that there is really major

major improvements in that market that

are guaranteed to happen just because

there's so much happening. We just don't

know which ones will rise to the top.

So big thing is coming in batteries

just so you know. All right.

How do we do? Oh, pretty good. Um,

ladies and gentlemen, if you don't have

my book, Loser Think, you really should.

Um, it's re it's a addition, too. And

you will enjoy seeing all the bad

arguments that you've seen online picked

apart and learning how not to make bad

arguments yourself because it will make

you look foolish if you make bad

arguments in public.

So, um, I'm going to talk privately to

the beloved members of, uh, locals. And

locals, um, I'll be with you in 30

seconds. The rest of you, you're going

to have a tremendous Sunday. One of the

best. People are talking.