Episode 3006 CWSA 11/01/25

Okay, everybody.

Good morning.

Good morning.

You know, I was going to have a theme song playing this morning, but I thought I can still do it.

While you're folding in here and grabbing a chair, grab a beverage.

I'm going to delight you in a moment for the first time.

Oh, I can't do that if I'm live.

I guess maybe I can.

We'll find out.

We'll find out how many time how many things I can do at the same time when I'm live.

All right.

This will be a special treat if it works.

Work work.

Damn it.

All right, I'll try this.

>> Ask the question.

Can you train your mind to be happy?

And it says yes.

expert says, "Would you like to know how?" >> There we go.

>> Would you like me to train you with my hypnosis experience into how to be happier?

>> All right.

Well, I won't hypnotize you.

I'll just tell you how to do it.

>> Number one, whatever you think about the most is who you are.

>> Yeah.

It's who you are.

>> >> All right.

Well, so that's Akira the Dawn.

That's one of two songs that he dropped this week that feature my voice as sampled from my podcast.

So, it's not AI, it's my actual voice.

And he combines that with his own uh music in the background.

So, everything except the recording of my voice is his work.

And it's amazing.

Have you listened to it?

You know, I've told you before I'm not really a music guy.

Uh, so it takes a lot to impress me music-wise.

There's something extra going on here that's more than just the fact that it's my voice.

So, you know, obviously I like my voice.

Um, he's a kid.

been uh following me for I don't know a decade or something a long time.

And so I know he's picking up my influence on persuasion, pacing, leading, stuff like that.

And I swear to God, I see that in the music.

And so the music hits me different than music, different than poetry, different than text, different than a podcast.

Whatever is going on that Akira is doing is music plus.

It's not music, it's music plus.

I just don't know what the plus is, but you can feel it.

You know, you you can feel his talent stack.

Um, so it's it's just wonderful pairing.

Anyway, there's a newer one out.

Uh, just look for Akira the Dawn.

Ak I R A.

There won't be many of those.

I think you'll find it on You.

Tube and wherever you download music.

All right, do not panic.

There will be a sip.

There will be.

I just had planned to have that as my theme song and I wasn't ready.

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

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and it's the best thing that ever happened to you in your whole life.

But if you'd like to try to elevate that experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with her tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker chalice, a canteen jugger glass of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.

The dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

is called the simultaneous and it happens now.

I remember when I had hot coffee.

It was great.

So, you you missed the uh I was talking to the local subscribers before the real podcast started and I was telling them that I'd been complaining about the bad quality of my coffee warmer and one of my beloved uh subscribers on Locals sent me a new one and I'm like, "Wow." And this this freaking thing is like modern, you know?

It's got the the time of day around it so you know how many hours it's set to be warm, you know, so you don't leave it on.

It's it's got a power button.

It'll actually tell you the temperature.

My old one didn't have that.

Tells you the temperature.

There's only one thing it doesn't do, which would be cool.

You know, I'm not like any designer of coffee warmer pads or, you know, I'm no expert at it or anything, but there's one thing I would have added to it.

I would have added to it the ability to warm your coffee because apparently it doesn't have that.

But boy does it look like something that would.

So that's not nothing.

All right, we're going to start with a reframe.

I guess I'll have to get a new one.

Reframe of the day.

Oh, here's a good one.

This this is what I learned from uh my first editor uh when I was picked to be a syndicated cartoonist.

There's an editor who has to say I like you and then they they go forward.

But until some editor says I like you, you get nothing.

All right.

So, when I got first syndicated, uh, before they publish you, what they do, what they do before they publish you is they work with you for 6 months or so to make sure that you could produce a comic every day before they embarrass themselves by partnering with you and then find out you can't make a comic every day.

So, you have to prove you can do it.

So after about six months of proving I could do it, I would submit my work, but I was still a new cartoonist.

So as a new cartoonist, your editor would put a little bit more of a thumb on the scale.

Once you become a famous cartoonist, if your editor is any good at all, they say something closer to, you know how to do this better than I do.

Right?

and then they sort of leave you alone but rarely now and then there might be something over the line but basically once you're published and you show you can do it they the editor who is a good editor I had a great editor uh won't try to put a you know put a boot on your work but they have to say it if they are going to get you to change something so this is from the earliest days where my editor was welcome to tell me that something worked or didn't work because I, you know, that was useful to me.

But how do you tell somebody who's an artist that they worked all day on something and it's bad and it's not worthy of being published?

Have you ever thought about how would you word that?

Because you don't want to crush somebody's spirit, right?

So, here's the reframe when you don't want to crush somebody's spirit, but you really have to tell them this wasn't good enough.

And it went like this.

Um, the usual frame, so this would be the wrong way to do it.

The old way to do it is that you did this wrong or it's not funny, right?

You did it wrong.

It's not funny.

You did a bad job.

That would be the old way.

Now listen to this reframe.

This was for my first editor.

Your other work is stronger.

Boom.

>> >> Now, now is that brilliant or not?

Your other work is stronger.

That's all she had to say.

If you tell me my other work is stronger, I'm competing against myself against myself and my other work and and I'm not competing with her.

So she basically takes it down of, you know, you and I have a disagreement about whether this is good and she turns it into a disagreement with myself.

Your other work is stronger.

Damn it.

I can make this stronger, too.

She was a genius.

All right.

I wonder if there's any uh I wonder if there's any science that they didn't need to do because they could have just asked me.

Oh, here's some.

Oh, by the way, before I forget, uh Owen Gregorian will have his spaces event after this is over.

All right.

So, if you want to get a little extra talking about this stuff or maybe some other stuff uh some few minutes after we're done today, uh Owen Gregorian will fire up ais which is the auto only feature on X.

You can just Google him Owen Gregorian and you'll find it easily.

Anyway, so there was a uh uh there was a test of AI capabilities.

So there's a new paper, meaning a scientific paper, where they tried to test AI's ability to do actual online freelance work.

Have you ever heard me talk about how capable AI is to do actual real useful things?

Do you understand that from the very beginning I've been probably one of the biggest skeptics of AI being able to actually do something without a human or even helping a human because the LLM model to me looks like an amazing user interface and that's about it.

I just don't see how it could do real work.

That's a longer conversation.

The paper was to test exactly that to see if we're at the point where the AI could replace a person and be like an AI agent, do actual freelance tasks.

And so they gave it a bunch of tasks and they found out that it could do about 3% of the things, but it didn't make anybody faster at anything.

Essentially, it found it was worthless.

Now, I know what you're going to say.

Scott, Scott, Scott, you don't understand how adoption curves work.

First, it's useless, useless, useless, useless, followed by useless, useless, useless.

But boy, when it kicks in, whoa, whoa.

Soon as it kicks in, it's going to go to the next level.

What you need is just more training.

What you need is a bigger data center.

What you need is another trillion dollars.

And then and then we got something.

Well, do we do we I'm going to say you could have asked me how that would have gone and I could have saved you a lot of time and money.

Here's a weird thing.

Exxon and Chevron are both boosting uh oil output or or gas I guess from the oil.

No, oil.

What is it?

Financial Times is reporting that the two US biggest US oil majors uh are going to increase production in the third quarter.

Now, if you're following the oil business, you know that prices are not as high as they used to be.

I mean, anything could be less, but 60 bucks a barrel is generally considered a pretty healthy place to be.

It's not super expensive, but it allows all the oil companies enough incentive to do stuff.

But how do you how do you explain that there seems to be a worldwide glut or increase in the supply of oil and it's not much changing the price?

What does that mean?

The it's not because the demand is suddenly matching the supply.

There's just more oil than there used to be.

Shouldn't the price go down?

Is this telling us that there is some kind of monopoly at work and the oil companies are all in on it?

Or not monopoly, it'd be well, if it's just two companies, it' be monopoly.

But, uh, is this telling us that there's something going on that makes them immune to price reductions independent of supply?

Because wouldn't the very best thing for the oil companies be that as much oil as they pump, they can sell for any price that they want?

How in the world does more oil equal no change in price?

Because that's what's happening.

How does that happen?

There's something going on here, right?

I I don't even know enough to ask the right question, but there's no there's no natural way that a massive increase in oil has no impact on price unless something's going on.

Anyway, so Elon Musk was doing a lot of publicity, I guess you could say it.

He wouldn't call it that.

He probably call it being on podcasts, including the Joe Rogan show for three hours.

And if you think he didn't make any news in three hours on the Joe Rogan show, you'd be wrong because he makes news when he's on that show.

And I'll just in no particular order, do you remember my prediction about cell phones that in the AI world there would be no apps and that and the phone itself would be just a dumb screen?

Do you all remember me?

I've been saying that for several years, I guess, that the the obvious future is that the phone becomes whatever you need it to become at the moment you need it to become it.

So, you wouldn't even necessarily I mean, you would have your own uh device just for convenience, but you wouldn't even need your own device.

In theory, I could reach over on the table and pick up your phone, hold it to my face, and it becomes my phone, and it gives me any feature I want without any app being involved at all.

It just goes AI the whole way.

That is what uh Elon Musk says is the future.

Um he says, "I'm not working on a phone." But the trick is it wouldn't be called a phone.

He he doesn't say he's not working on the other thing.

The other thing would be what do you call it?

You'll have an AI on the server side commun communicating with the AI your device.

Sort of the you know technical way of saying that your a that your device is just an AIdriven device and uh he says formally known as a phone.

Oh, so he might be working on one of these devices.

He didn't say he wasn't.

We He didn't say he was, but he didn't say he wasn't.

He's just saying it wouldn't be a phone.

So, do I get the credit for the uh prediction?

Probably 5 years ago, I said that.

Yeah, it's obvious it's going to go that way.

So, Elon says there won't be an operating system or apps in the future.

It'll just be a device that's where the screen and audio for the screen and audio and to put as much AI on the device as possible.

That's exactly 100% what I predicted.

More news from Elon.

Um, you've heard I think I've told you about um even Jeff Bezos said that space might be a ideal atmosphere for a data center.

Well, you could put a data center in space or apparently you can just send some software up to your vast array of Starlink satellites and they would form a they would form a virtual uh data center in the sky and you would get the benefits of you know being outside the gravity and all that and uh Elon could just sort of turn it on the the the things that he has considered and therefore or engineered just in case they want to do it later.

It's so it's just mindboggling that how how many things he can imagine in the future so that when he's building something now he doesn't preclude them.

So one of the things he did not prelude was that his satellites could as a distributed data center with its own brains and ability to communicate with each other at laser speeds.

So, I don't know if he'll do that and turn it on, but he does say they can do it.

He says, uh, they'll have ultra fast laser links, uh, powered by solar energy.

Um, and he said, oh, he says SpaceX will be doing this.

Oh, I'm sorry.

So, let me update that.

He He wasn't just talking about it speculatively.

He said they will be doing it.

How impressive is that?

That's just crazy.

And it just gets better, too.

If this had been a 4-hour interview instead of a three-hour conversation, God knows what would have come up.

But, uh, so Joe, of course, the master of asking good questions that we'd like to hear the answers to, asked him about the, uh, I guess he's working on the new sports car of some kind, and we don't know much about it, but apparently it's going to be really special.

I'd wondered about that cuz I thought the the news had said that, you know, Elon was going to be bring back what?

The Roadster.

Is that what it's called?

The Roadster.

But basically that they were going to build more of a, you know, cool Yeah, the Roadster.

They were going to build a cool sporty Tesla.

More sporty than what they have.

But nobody knew the details.

We still don't know the details, but it's possible based on what Elon said, it might be a flying car.

It might be a flying car.

But you know what it might also be?

It might also be a submersible.

It might be both.

But what he says is, uh, look, I think it has, this is Elon, look, I think it has a shot of being the most memorable product unveil ever.

He goes, "Let's just put it this way.

If you look, if you took all the James Bond cars and combined them, it's crazier than that." Okay, the James Bond cars, didn't they fly and also act as submarines?

Is that where people are getting the idea it might be both or one of those things?

Now, I I'm I'm not sure I care one way or the other.

I probably won't be buying a submersible car from anybody, but I just love the fact that he doesn't have a marketing or advertising budget.

Elon doesn't, but boy does he do good marketing.

Oh my god, the the the quality of his marketing game is so beyond really anything we've ever seen.

Just anything.

Uh, this is just this is the next level above the next level that he's got me so excited about this car that doesn't yet exist.

Anyway, we'll see what it has.

Maybe some guns.

I hope it can shoot gas and protect you, too.

Uh, I wonder if he made any other uh news.

Oh, yeah.

If this was the only thing that happened that it would still be the biggest news, but it's just one of many things he did during 3 hours.

Uh, so Joe asked Elon about these um accusations that the whistleblower there was a there was a chat GBT whistleblower and uh some say and that the some would include the parents of the whistleblower that he was murdered and did not commit suicide.

um soon after he had said he was a whistleblower and Chad GPT was going to be in a lot of trouble.

Um some of the things that Elon mentioned and I'm not going to say these are true cuz I don't want to get sued by anybody, but the conversation suggested that the following things were true.

That there was blood in more than one room.

Uh the the deceased had just ordered Door Dash.

I wonder I wonder if in the history of the world anybody's ordered Door Dash and then decided to kill themselves before the meal.

Does anybody understand what a last meal is all about?

Or did he just say, "Yeah, I'm not really hungry after all.

I'll just kill myself in two separate rooms and and put this weird wig in another room." There was some wig that didn't belong to him.

Uh so blood in two rooms, wig.

Uh let's see what else.

Um so so this this is what uh Elon said about Alman.

Now I I will tell you that personally I think there's clo close to zero chance that Sam Alman authorized or knew there would be a hit.

All right.

Can I say that as clearly as possible?

the the thought that specifically Sam Alman, you know, him specifically ordered it or knew that it would happen or had some insight into it, I think that's close to zero.

But if you're asking me, was he murdered?

Well, keep in mind that rumor-wise, the CIA has a very important, you know, mandate to have control over all the the big AI companies.

Do you think that the CIA is exerting control over the big companies?

Yes.

You know, that that's what we're being told by people who definitely know.

And would it be their job to do it?

Yes.

You know, I I hate to say it.

I mean, the CIA is supposed to do all the dirty stuff that you wish people wouldn't do, but sometimes sometimes you need the dirty stuff.

Now imagine you're the CIA and you know that uh open AI and chat GPT would be the primary way that in the future you'll be able to control other countries and you know uh find terrorists, find all the bad people.

If you thought the chat GPT was not just one of the important things you were doing, but maybe the most important thing you're doing for years, would you be willing to murder to keep that structure intact?

Meaning that there's a chat GPT, it leads the field, you've got the back door, you have all the access you need.

Public doesn't know the details, but they're okay with it because, you know, they like to be safe to.

Would that be enough reason to murder an American citizen?

Maybe.

Maybe.

I mean, I don't think they're authorized to kill American citizens on American soil, are they?

But they are authorized to do things that people aren't supposed to do.

And who knows how far that could go.

So, I don't think um and then then you have to add the uh then you have to add the rogues to the equation.

What if it wasn't the CIA and it wasn't anybody on the the board or management of Chat GBT?

Is there anyone else who would have a financial incentive or other incentive to murder a guy?

Yes, the investors.

If you had invested, you know, billions of dollars in this thing and you knew that your billions could turn into a trillion and you knew that there was one whistleblower in the way and the reason that you had billions of dollars in the first place is that you're an unethical bastard and you could just whisper to some special special services XCIA guy that you know, you know, if that guy disappeared, somebody like you who might have been involved in would have a pretty pretty big payday.

So, if I had to if I had to guess, it does look a little bit more like murder than suicide, but these things can look like something else and not be that thing.

So, the fact that it does look sort of exactly like a murder doesn't mean it is because in our world things look like things that aren't really the thing.

But I don't think it was Alman.

Don't think it was Chad GPT's management.

Probably wasn't the CIA, but I don't know about all the investors.

Anyway, um I guess on CNN a political commentator named Brad Todd mentioned that the 2020 census was rigged and the CNN host challenge that.

Wouldn't you?

What do you mean rigged the the census?

The census was rigged.

Seriously, how do you rig a census?

Easily, it turns out, as Todd Brad Todd explained, he said, quote, "We do know that uh the Census Bureau's own audit uh showed that they had uh that all of their errors were in one direction to the detriment of red states." So apparently the Census Bureau has admitted that coincidentally all of their errors are in one direction.

So yes, we actually know that the 2020 census was rigged.

How many of you knew that?

I I feel like I vaguely had heard that or something.

But did you know it was official?

It's official.

The census people said it themselves.

Yep.

All our mistakes were in one direction.

Okay.

Meanwhile, over on MSNBC, if you haven't seen this clip, it's well worth watching.

So, there's this Democrat Representative Seth Molton, who's seemingly not a good person based on this story I'm going to tell you.

He made an accusation about Trump on MSNBC's Morning Joe that is so inappropriate that I'm not even going to tell you what it was.

So, let's just say it was Epstein related, but it was He just made up.

Just made it up.

And when he put it out there and said, you know, it's sort of a fact.

Um, even Morning Joe said, "There's no evidence of that." And he said, "Oh, yes, there's I mean, it's obvious." And Morning Joe seeing his entire life on the line.

Can you imagine if Morning Joe had not uh vigorously challenged the claim that was being claimed by, you know, a government official, an elected official completely making up some That's the worst thing you've ever heard in your life, right?

Just the worst.

And and Morning Joe knowing that he would get his ass so sued if he just let that go without a challenge.

And so to his credit, but also to save his own neck, morning Joe pushed back hard.

He pushed back hard.

No evidence of that.

And again, I say no evidence of that.

And by the way, now that you're done talking, can I remind the audience there's no evidence of that.

So I'm going to give uh Morning Joe 100% uh A+ for factchecking that in real time.

But of course, he was covering his own ass because the the Trump world lawsuits are flying and he doesn't need that kind of trouble.

So, I appreciate it.

I appreciated that he pushed back on that.

So, Seth Molton, in case you want to know, total piece of Terrible person.

I mean, really a bad person.

Well, I guess the end of the year, the Obamacare premiums are going to double.

And uh one of the things that might happen is that uh Trump's uh Trump might have some success.

I don't know if he will, but now he's pushing for what's called the nuclear option, which has nothing to do with nuclear in any way.

It's just a name of a thing.

And the thing is that uh if Congress votes by some majority, I guess they can get rid of the filibuster.

Now, the filibuster was invented.

So if the minority side felt so strongly about a topic, they could say, "We're just going to talk forever and the process will never go forward because we're still in the the act of talking and that would be the filibuster." And they would just have people go up there and read the phone book and take turns and just use up the time.

But in the modern world, and I checked, a filibuster is a memo.

So the minority team just sends a memo.

You know, if we wanted to, we would filibuster this.

So, you know, let's let's just treat it like a filibuster cuz if you make us do it, we'll do it.

But don't need to.

So, just accept this memo as our warning that the only way you're going to get anything passed in this domain is 60 votes instead of a bare majority, 51%.

So they would have to uh first change the rules that you can do a filibuster and then if the filibuster went away, the second thing they could do is vote to fund the government with a bare majority.

Now, of course, the risk is insane.

The size of the risk is just insane because it works both ways.

If the Democrats get in control, the Republicans will no longer have, you know, the comfort of the filibuster themselves to protect against the things they they care about the most.

But the argument on the other side is that the Democrats are going to do absolutely anything that they can do, including the Russia collusion hoax, uh the 51 people who said that the Hunter laptop was not real.

You can go down the line.

I don't have to list everything.

But the the counterargument is that the Republicans have every reason strategically and ethically to do just everything.

Just do everything.

If if you can get more power, get something done, just do it.

Because the Democrats would do it.

Is that a good argument?

It might be.

It didn't used to be a good argument because there was a world in which there would be a little bit more cooperation and you know a little bit observance of history but we may be out of that world permanently and if you're out of that world permanently the smartest thing you can do is recognize that as soon as possible and then start consolidating your power because the alternative is the other side consolidates their power.

It you know their authoritarianism versus your authoritarianism.

you prefer yours if it's only going to go one of two ways.

One side will be an authoritarian or the other one.

So, uh I don't yet have an opinion about whether this should be nuked the, you know, the the thing that would give them the ability to change it.

It could be just a negotiating thing.

Could be.

So, I I think I'm going to wait on that one.

No opinion on that yet.

All right.

Um, would you be amazed to learn that a judge is stopping something that Trump wanted?

Yes.

Believe it or not, there's a judge once again.

Uh, a uh a federal judge has blocked this is according to Axios.

So, judge Khalen Ker Catali.

So she has got an injunction against Trump's uh Trump's order that uh the states do check IDs for voting.

So apparently this judge says that you cannot force the states to um force the voters to show ID.

And the reason is not that it's a good idea or a bad idea.

So it has nothing to do with the quality of the idea and nothing to do with whether would work and nothing to do with what you know what is ethical or what we should do.

It's none of that.

It it's just a straight up court ruling of what power the executive has versus the states.

And so her ruling is you've got no power on the states running elections.

Get out of here.

So specifically the problem is that he doesn't have authority to do this rule.

So, I asked Grock, "Grock, if you were on the Supreme Court, uh, do you think you would uphold the judge and say that Trump does not have the authority to require ID for voting, or would you uphold Trump and say he's got an argument, assuming that they had some argument?" And Grock said, um, no, it's basically a simple one.

He doesn't have that authority.

uh the only way he could have that authority is if Congress passed a law such as a voting rights law or you know some some equal rights law.

So if Congress passes a law and how would they do that unless they nuke the filibuster?

Oo what if the filibuster got nuked?

Then the Supreme Court doesn't even have to get involved because he can just use Congress, get his bare majority people to say nuclear filibuster and then the next thing you do, they say one of our most important things is that we have ID for voting.

Boom.

Boom.

So these might be the same issue once you get rid of the filibuster.

Likewise, there's a big decision coming up in the courts.

The Supreme Court in this case will be listening next week to arguments about whether Trump can impose tariffs.

Did you know that that was even a legal question, whether the president even has the authority to put tariffs on stuff?

I kind of thought we sort of had agreed that that was okay, that at least had the authority.

whether you liked it or not.

But um the Trump argument is a quote that denial of tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses.

That is correct.

May I add something to the Supreme Court argument because I'm pretty sure that all the lawyers who argue in the Supreme Court watch this podcast or should if you were a lawyer who lawy who argue things in the higher courts, you don't think you'd want to watch my show?

I I literally teach people how to persuade.

Of course, I mean, not all of them.

Yeah, I'm joking.

They're not all watching the show, but you'd be surprised how many lawyers whose job it is to persuade uh contact me and tell me how useful it's been.

They they either read my book, Win Bigly, or they watch the podcast.

So, is it crazy to assume that I could say something on my podcast that would be useful to this?

It's not crazy because I'm going to do it right now.

You ready for this reframe coming in?

And it's and it's a reframe.

you've heard before.

I'm just going to repurpose it.

The country with the strongest economy wins the war.

You can't separate economics from national defense.

Your economy is your national defense.

And that's and that's what that's what Trump's Justice Department is saying, but they're not quite getting the wording right.

So what I'm going to try to help him with get the wording right because you can quite easily convince people smart people that the qu that the strength of the economy is just one more weapon that national defense can take advantage of and the tariffs are really a big part of what you can manipulate in your economy for national defense.

So they they do say obviously they know because they say it directly quote denial of tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses.

But let's say that without without the nerdy stuff.

Take the nerdy legal stuff out.

The country with the strongest economy is the safest defense wise.

Once you get the the justices to agree with that general statement that you can't separate economics from defense, it's pretty hard to take the economics away from the president, chief of staff, that you know, the chief of the army.

I feel like that's enough.

I mean, obviously I'm no expert on the Supreme Court or lawyering, but uh am I wrong?

Well, give me a quick reaction.

If if you can sell the fact, which is easily easy to sell, that the economics and the national defense are you can't separate them.

They're they're inseparable.

Once you've made that claim and the justice have have sort of maybe mentally accepted that that's a baseline fact, whatever you argue on top of that gets a lot easier because it's all based on that.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how I saved the country.

I love listening to John uh Solomon talking about the RICO conspiracy potentially.

Now, nobody's been charged with this in this context, but it's possible.

He says that the all the uh bad behavior, let's say from Obama on that were uh aimed against Trump and Trump world goes back to 2014.

and that you could tr you could trace the line through the same bunch of cats all the way to 2014.

You can see the you can see the documentation so you know what bad behavior they did.

You know that they tried to do sketchy things to change the government essentially an insurrection.

And if it does go all the way back then it does look like a RICO.

RICO being the originally it was a mafia attack law.

So you could go after them for a whole bunch of organized coordinated behavior that's criminal.

So if they can show that this is criminal behavior and maybe that's the obstacle uh versus just political, it's all connected.

So, if it's criminal and it's the same people and it's all documented that they were coordinating it for a specific purpose that was illegal, looks like RICO to me, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Uh I I feel like I feel like I'm just just on the border of saying, "Yeah, this is a slam dunk Rico situation.

There's no way they lose it." I don't think it's slam dunk.

I think it's real.

And I think that John Solomon's take on it is completely reasonable, but whether that translates into, you know, actual people go to jail, I don't know.

All right, let's have some fun.

You like some uh controversy?

So, in the Wall Street Journal, there's an editorial by somebody named Dominic Green, and he's talking about the MAGA rights anti-semitism problem.

You ready for this?

So, if you've been watching the news, you know that uh there there's sort of a controversy or somebody's trying to make it into one.

It's sort of a wannabe controversy, meaning that people keep talking about it like they want to make it something, but it's not it's not it's not uh it's not performing.

It's not doing what they hope it will do, which would drive MAGA apart.

Now, I think what has been underestimated by the left is that the so-called woke right and the MAGA right and the Republicans and the conservatives are much better at having a lively disagreement and then just voting in the right way when the when the election comes.

So, I'm not sure that this could ever work because the nature of how the conservative, let's say the right side of the world, that the nature of how we work, cuz I'm going to put myself in the Wii for this for this conversation, is it's just a whole bunch of people who understand free speech.

If you could say there's one thing that binds us together on the right is free speech.

So you can't be that free speech and then also buy into there's some kind of thing, you know, driving the party apart.

It it sort of just doesn't work.

But they're trying because it would work on the left.

So I think the left is using an approach that they're sure would work on the left, which is dividing people by type because that works on their side.

But on the right, you can tell me, um, you shouldn't platform the worst person in the world, and I'll say, why do you hate free speech, right?

You can talk about platforming all day long, and I'm just going to turn it into free speech.

It's free speech.

Why don't you want to hear what the other side has to say?

Why wouldn't you hear what somebody who disagrees with you and you hate them and you wish they would go away?

Why wouldn't you know what they have to say?

Wouldn't you be better off if you knew?

Wouldn't it be better off if they were exposed to you?

Yeah.

Here's here's an argument I haven't used for a while, but I like to try it out.

If hypothetically I had the worst person in the world on my podcast and I interviewed them for an hour, what is the most likely outcome of that?

That they would turn me into a slightly worse person.

Is that what would happen?

Would they turn you into a slightly worse person?

Or having watched me for 10 years, as some of you are, is it more likely that I would persuade them to be a better person and that, you know, if I'm half of the podcast, the people watching would say, "Okay, you know, I like what the cartoonist said.

Who who is likely to persuade their audience in a positive direction more likely than me, even if I'm talking to the worst person in the world?

So there's a little bit of nuance on this stuff, right?

So the the people on the right understand that I could bring value to a person to a to a conversation with somebody who shouldn't be platformed at all according to the left, right?

But the right understands that we we can fight all day, but as long as we agree on free speech, boom, President Trump and it works out for us.

But back to this.

So Dominic Green, he looks like he would be happy if MAGA was, you know, more unhappy with each other.

So he talked about uh Tucker Carlson.

This is Wall Street Journal editorial.

Um oh, actually this is a perfect example.

The Wall Street Journal sort of leans right a little bit, right?

But they platformed this guy.

They platformed him.

And I don't think necessarily the editorial people agree with everything he says, but they platformed him.

That's how it works on the right.

CNN's doing a good job of platforming people they disagree with, too.

So, so there's a little bit on both sides.

Anyway, um here's what he says.

Dominic Green that uh that Carlson's hosting of Nick Fuentes, of course, you knew I was going to go there on his podcast, was a watershed in the campaign to make racism cool again.

All right.

Well, he's going to have to defend that, right?

So, the claim is that having Nick on is making racism cool again.

Whereas whereas people on the right might say, "You mean free speech?" Where we listen to him and we disagree with him?

Is that your problem?

That's the problem.

Now, now Nick is a special case because he's he's extra good at media stuff.

So, he would be persuasive and and is.

So he's he's a little more dangerous if you're worried about that point of view um becoming dominant and that would be a reasonable thing to worry about.

But um here's how he characterizes this is how Dominic Green characterizes Tucker.

See if you think he's characterized Tucker correctly in his opinion.

Um he said that uh Carlson has come a long way since the bow tied folly of his neoconservative youth.

Okay.

So that's just an insult.

Bow tide folly of his neoonservative youth.

All right.

No specifics there.

That's just I think I'll insult him after leaving Fox News.

Blah blah blah.

He went over the edge.

Okay.

That's your opinion that there's no evidence of that that he's using to do that.

Um, he dawned a plaid shirt of the people, rediscovered Christianity.

He didn't really rediscover Christianity.

That's crazy.

What are you watching?

He, you know, he may have, you know, updated some of his views, but he was super Christian the whole time.

Um, he cashed in on his legacy status as a ring master.

You mean he had a job?

Yeah, we're all cashing in.

It's called a job.

Is that okay?

Is it okay that he got a job?

Can I get a job?

I got cancelled.

Am I a bad person if I got cancelled and then I went and got a job?

I got a job to make money.

That's okay, isn't it?

Anyway, um this is what else he says about him.

and he reinvented himself as the second coming of Alex Jones.

Now, you recognize that as an attack by association.

If you don't have something to say about the person, you say something about who they had a photograph with or who they remind you of.

Why would you have to do that?

Why would you have to mock them for a photograph, an association, or who they remind you of?

is because you don't have a real thing to complain about.

These are just madeup things.

What else?

Uh he says, uh, so this is Dominic Green writing in the Wall Street Journal, an opinion piece.

He says that Mr.

Carlson has interviewed a podcaster who thinks Winston Churchill was the villain of World War II.

Now, I watched a little bit of that content.

Do you think that describes the nuance of what happened there?

that that we know who it is, but the the one podcaster who thinks that Winston Churchill was the villain of World War II, worse than Hitler.

Do do you think that if we talked to the podcaster and said, "Hey, this Dominic Green says you think that Winston Churchill was worse than Hitler in World War II." Is that right?

Do you think he would say, "Oh, yeah, that's kind of what I said." Do you think he'd say that?

Oh, no, he wouldn't.

No, he uh while I am not let let me be clear, I'm not defending Daryl Cooper.

I don't really know anything about that point of history.

Uh I've heard him say some things that I thought, you know, certainly things that raised my eyebrows, but I saw it under free speech.

Didn't necessarily change my opinion because of anything he said.

Thought it was interesting that a person exists with opinions I hadn't heard before.

I thought it was interesting that he was brave enough to go public with things that he knew would be a little controversial.

Little controversial.

Um, but is this a accurate uh summary of who he is?

This is Daryl Cooper if you wondered.

Um, I think that I I I think there's plenty of room for criticizing his or anybody else's message.

So, that's not the point.

So, I'm not I'm not supporting him.

I don't even know entirely what his opinions were about Churchill, but uh that's not my point.

My point is almost certainly he's being mischaracterized.

Even if even if he really should be, you know, criticized for something, this is not the way to do it.

All right.

Um they say that Tucker raised discredited claims that Ashkanazi Jews are immune to CO.

Did that happen?

Did that really happen?

Now, if the discredited claims are are things that are in the news, aren't you allowed to ask about that?

And if the answer is, "Oh, no, that was all BS.

It's disavowed." Are are you the are you the villain because you asked about something and the answer was that it was, you know, disavowed and there was nothing to it, which I believe there's not much to it.

it certainly there's a possibility that some that some demographic groups have worser or better you know pandemic performance I think that part's demonstrated right but whether or not that has anything to do with any conspiracy or anything that's there's no evidence of that so can a podcaster ask somebody about a view that has been debunked why not why can't you ask about something that's already been debunked.

If your audience doesn't know it's already debunked, isn't that serving the audience?

Hey, what about this?

Oh, it's debunked.

Okay, now my audience knows it's debunked.

How is that a problem?

Again, free speech.

Um, and as far as I know, there's nothing to the nothing to that claim.

Um, and he says that Benjamin Netanyahu openly tells Israelis, and now he says that Tucker claims this, that that Netanyahu tells Israelis, quote, "I control the United States.

I control Donald Trump." I think there's some video in which uh in which Netanyahu is making some claims about how he can handle the United States persuasion wise.

Is that a problem?

Why why would that be a problem?

And who would be surprised if Netanyahu said that, you know, if he told people in Israel, because that's the important part.

He was talking to people in Israel.

Who would be surprised if the leader of Israel said that he had some sway with the country that matters the most and they seem to be buddies and they seem to have worked productively together.

Where are our problems here?

to to me this all falls under free speech.

Tucker can Tucker and Daryl Cooper and everybody else can defend their own points of view as can Fuentes.

I'm not defending anybody's point of view.

I'm just saying that years ago when I saw this situation developing, I started saying in public and I'll say it again.

I I uh defend my right to associate with talk to and platform anybody I want.

Free speech.

Somebody won't like it.

Let me know.

Free speech.

Anyway, I don't think the MAGA thing is real.

I think it's something the left wants to be real, but as long as the right stays in free speech, uh, we don't like what you said about that, Tucker, but we we like this.

What's wrong with that?

So I if you're if you're a Jewish and you thought that the collective the let's say the collective energy of all this stuff is uh anti-semitic.

I get that.

I get that when I listen to Fuentes it feels anti-Semitic to me.

I don't even know if he'd deny it actually.

I'm not even sure what he'd say but it feels anti-Semitic to me.

Um, but I also am fascinated by how he got to that point and I find it not persuasive at all because it feels like the thing that gets him into anti-semitic territory is some assumptions about how strangers are thinking that I don't see, you know, that's always dangerous territory.

I assume they don't say it, but I think they're thinking this way and that all of them are.

That that's where you get in trouble.

I don't buy any of that.

To me, it looks like people who are good at school get a lot of power.

That's about it.

And of course, they might want different things than you want, but that's the whole world.

That's the whole world.

Anyway, so they can defend their own views, but it does sound anti-Semitic to me.

Tucker sounds like he's uh he's playing a different game.

I I think he's he he wants America first.

He thinks Israel's maybe too much of that equation.

Was a fairly mainstream view on the right.

Well, Trump is saying now that there will be no Venezuela land attack.

Um I don't know what that includes but uh see Marco Rubio said uh according to he was mocking some newspaper he said your sources in quotes claiming to have quote knowledge of the situation tricked you into writing a fake story about the possibility that we would do a land invasion in Venezuela.

So Trump says it's not real.

No land invasion.

Marco Rubio Moxit and uh Telsey Gabbard said recently that the former American strategy of regime change is over and I guess there would be no point in going into Venezuela unless it was regime change.

And so the question we have now is it true that Trump has ruled out any landbased military action in Venezuela?

Is that true?

or is he playing an Iran game where he's telling them it's not going to happen right before it happens cuz that's sort of what he did with Iran and it worked.

We don't know.

Um my guess is that he's finding out that a land invasion would be so unpopular with at least half or more of MAGA that it wouldn't be worth the uh the squeeze.

Would you agree?

How how many of you would be just maddened if he started a land war?

Even even if it looked like, oh, this won't take long, you know, 30 days will be done, but you wouldn't believe it, right?

You wouldn't believe it'd be done in 30 days.

You'd think it last forever like everything.

I'm looking at the comments.

Yeah.

So, it could be an entirely Yeah, it may be that he he just did a trial balloon and that it didn't go over at all.

And since it didn't go over at all, uh maybe he backed off or it could be they have some completely different strategy that doesn't require it.

So, there's a lot of unknowns there.

Fog of war.

Too many unknowns.

According to town hall, Amy Curtis is writing that uh Manny plans to tax businesses even if they're based outside of New York City.

First of all, does he have the power to tax anything?

The mayor, does the mayor have taxing power?

Not sure how that works, but uh allegedly uh even if you moved your business out of the state or if you're doing business in the state, but it's not where you're doiciled, he still wants to tax you.

How could you actually make that work?

So he says, uh I guess he said recently, oops, he said recently, so the way this tax works is it applies to any business doing business here, meaning New York City.

They could be located in Miami, but if they're doing business in New York, it applies to them.

Well, wait a minute.

Isn't that the current situation?

If you had a um if your corporate entity is in one state, but let's say your Walmart stores are in other states, don't the Walmart stores get taxed in the states where they do business as opposed to where their corporate entity is located?

I'm not sure how different this is.

So, so maybe he's not so good on the details.

So, I'm not sure this is real story.

Actually, the the more I think about it, it doesn't look like a real story.

So, big question mark on that one.

CNN is reporting that uh according to the FBI, they thwarted an ISIS inspired attack.

That would be a terrorist attack.

I guess there were rifles they found and there was some online chatting about shooting something up on Halloween.

And once I guess they called it pumpkin day online and once the FBI said, "Oops, they got weapons.

They're talking about a big um terrorist act and they've picked a date." That's when they moved in.

The picking the date, I think, was the trigger.

Um, but one wonders, is the FBI now so good, and maybe they have been for some time, so good at uh catching things before they happen that that's the reason there hasn't been a 911 again.

You know, of course, that would be giving up all of our privacy, which we've already done.

But if you give up all your privacy, which I'm pretty sure we've already done, whether you whether you know it or not, um, is that enough to stop basically every attack?

You know, almost every attack.

It might be.

You know, I I've been puzzling about this for what, 20 years about why there haven't been obviously more attacks.

Clearly, you can get people into the country.

Clearly, those people could be terrorists.

Clearly, they could get the kind of weapons you'd use for an attack.

Clearly, there's people who want to do it.

Clearly, there are people who have tried to do it.

Why didn't it happen?

What's going on?

Like, why didn't it happen?

The only explanation I can think of is that whatever you think is the amount of privacy that you've already given up, it might be more than that.

Whatever our government knows about you is probably similar to what they know about every phone call and every terrorist and everybody that had a bad idea and said something on social line anywhere in the world ever.

So I don't know how to reconcile other than 100% loss of privacy but we just kind of don't see it happening so we kind of let it go.

I don't know.

You think it's because Saddamus is gone.

All right.

Here's something that you should have seen coming, but but I didn't.

So, according to the Telegraph, Charles High is writing that some gangs are using uh gigantic drones, like super drones they call them, to airlift inmates out of prison.

Now, I wasn't sure, I just skimmed this before I got on.

I wasn't sure if they've already done it, but the idea is that if you get a big enough drone, you just drop that thing into the the yard and and the bad guy grabs on and it just flies him out of the prison.

Now, I guess you'd have to I don't know, maybe use the drone to shoot the guards before you did it or something.

I I don't know how the guards would ignore that, but uh they can also drop weapons in.

So even weighing even less than an inmate, it would be easier to bring weapons in and then let the let the inmates sort of fight their way out with their weapons.

But the the whole idea of an open air prison seems to be just about over.

So, so we're probably at the end of uh history that would allow you to have an uh have a prison that doesn't have a top because now the top is 100% vulnerable to escape.

So, that's happening.

Giant drones.

All right.

According to live science, Owen Hughes is writing this.

Here's a story I'm reluctant to believe is true.

that China solved a century old problem with a new analog trip chip that is a thousand times faster than high-end Nvidia GPUs.

In theory, and you you'd better put a big grain of salt on this one, in theory, plucky little China not having access to the best of our chips has already leaprogged them in terms of power and and not not using electricity.

It would like way faster but also way way less energy use.

Do you believe that happened?

And that it's already done.

It's already done.

They've already leaprogged us by a thousand.

Uh yeah, but it's not programmable.

Somebody says, "I don't know about that." I would say this is probably getting ahead of itself.

I would say there it's unlikely that this is exactly what it's being claimed to be.

But I will say you remember my prediction about AI, right?

So I had I held some uh I do not give investment advice.

Let me say this.

This is not investment advice.

This is a description of what I did.

And I'm not good at investing and you should not follow my lead.

I'm really not.

I'm literally not good at investing.

I don't think almost anybody is because it's mostly guessing and I don't I don't really guess better than other people at least on random things.

So I held uh I held some Nvidia when you know all the AI noise started.

It went up because that's what it does.

uh but I sold it fairly quickly and the reason I sold it was I could not imagine a future in which some s some startup or maybe China would come up with a uh leapfrog technology and that we would have no visibility on that before it happened and that one day you just wake up and somebody would say hey China made a chip that's a thousand times better and a thousand times less energy they're shipping it tomorrow now again I don't believe this story necessarily But it seemed to me that the risk of disruption is higher than anything I've ever seen in my lifetime because the money involved is so much higher than anything I've seen in my lifetime.

If you tell me, hey, if you come up with an alternative technology, you can make a million dollar.

Well, somebody would probably try to do it, right?

A million dollars.

Sure.

But if you tell me, you know, if you come up with a better AI, you could make a trillion dollars.

Wait, wait, what?

A trillion?

A billion, right?

No, a trillion.

You could make a trillion dollars.

How hard would you work for a trillion dollars?

I would work pretty hard for a million.

I'd never sleep if I thought I could make a trillion.

I'd just keep working until I died.

Like I can make a trillion dollars.

A trillion.

A trillion.

Anyway, so if you assume that incentives are a real thing and the higher the incentive, the more somebody's going to work on it, there's never been in the history of the world, and maybe there never will be, a bigger incentive than leaprogging AI.

And so the smartest people in the world are working as hard as they possibly can to make my prediction come true that there's some secret technology we don't know about in a garage that's going to surprise us soon.

So that's why I sold my Nvidia.

But remember, I'm a terrible investor and I don't have confidence that that was the right decision.

But as long as you treat your investments as part of a portfolio, you know, even if you get some some part of it wrong, you probably could still get the rest of it right.

So if you see it as part of my diversification, it would make sense.

If you saw it as an individually good decision, well, you're just guessing.

I don't know if it's a good decision.

I really don't know.

All right.

Apparently, French President Mcronone, according to the Brussels signal, has reached a historic low rating, 11%.

His approval rating in France is 11.

How in the world do you stay in charge when your when your approval is 11?

Well, works in Chicago.

And in other French news, apparently they've activated, so it's in production now.

the first highway that charges your electric cars and trucks as they drive.

ZMA Science is writing about this.

Mah Andre and uh apparently they've already put up a mile, a kilometer and a half, which is about a mile.

Uh and they've turned it on and it works.

Now I don't know how much you can charge anything in one mile.

So it's just a proof of concept thing, but they built it.

It's in the road.

It works.

They're testing it.

Don't you think that would be ultimately the way to do this?

The the one thing I don't like about the electric car situation is that you have to charge it.

Now, if I had one, which I don't, I would charge it at home and I would barely ever need to charge it anywhere else.

But wouldn't it be great if you never had to plug it in?

Wouldn't it be great if at least, you know, I'll just pick a random number.

Let's say 30% of your roads that were the ones most traveled.

Uh or they don't even have to be the ones most traveled.

Maybe you could even build the road just for that purpose.

But wouldn't it be great if you just got charged by going where you're going?

It'd be hard to beat that as a business model.

Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, that's what I had for you today.

Let's see.

I feel like I'm forgetting something.

Am I forgetting anything?

Uh, did I mention that uh on the all-in pod?

I saw a clip of the all-in pod.

So, uh, Elon was not only on Joe Rogan show, but he also was on the all-in pod.

One of the one of the best pods in the whole world, as they'll tell you.

But uh Elon was talking about some um particular bureaucratic problem in com companies and he made a Dilbert reference and he said uh on the Dilbert scale this would be 11 and a 10.

Uh yeah Owen will have his faces.

I'll mention that again.

Uh so he mentioned Dilbert on the All- In Pod.

Um all of the All- In Pod guys know me.

They they either know me or I've communicated with them.

I guess I've communicated with all of them one way or the other.

So, uh I love those guys.

They're they're just the most useful.

You know how I always say that the goal of life is to be useful.

Not not just entertaining, but to be useful.

They are the most useful podcast probably in the world because you get you get four brilliant Oh, I haven't talked to Freeberg.

So, I don't I don't know him, but he seems cool.

Um, they're the most useful podcast by far because you're getting four of the smartest, plugged in, high talent stack people who know how to communicate really well and, you know, get into the cool topics and stuff.

You can't beat them for being useful.

The they're top of the list right there.

But anyway, then Jason gave me a nice call out.

I appreciate that.

Appreciate that, Jason.

You might be watching.

So, we're at the end of the show.

Uh, I'm going to say a few words privately to my beloved local subscribers.

So, so far every night, every late afternoon for me, I've been doing a drawing lesson from my man cave.

Don't know how much longer they'll go because my, you know, my muscles are degrading kind of quickly, but at the moment, it's really fun.

You can watch my hand as I'm drawing the cartoon and I teach you little tricks about drawing that you would wouldn't hear anywhere else.

So, probably we'll do that again.

I don't give a time for that because I just do it when I when I can.

But, uh, we'll do some more of those.

All right, locals, come at me.

The rest of you, hope I see you tomorrow.

Bye for now.

Okay, everybody.

Good morning. Good morning. You know, I

was going to have a theme song playing

this morning, but

I thought I can still do it. While

you're folding in here and grabbing a

chair,

grab a beverage.

I'm going to delight you in a moment

for the first time.

Oh, I can't do that if I'm live. I guess

maybe I can.

We'll find out. We'll find out how many

time how many things I can do at the

same time when I'm live.

All right. This will be a special treat

if it works.

Work work.

Damn it. All right, I'll try this.

>> Ask the question. Can you train your

mind to be happy? And it says yes.

expert says, "Would you like to know

how?"

>> There we go.

>> Would you like me to train you with my

hypnosis experience

into how to be happier?

>> All right. Well, I won't hypnotize you.

I'll just tell you how to do it.

>> Number one,

whatever you think about the most is who

you are.

[singing]

>> Yeah. It's who you are.

>> [singing and music]

>> All right. Well, so that's Akira the

Dawn. That's one of two songs that he

dropped this week that feature my voice

as sampled from my podcast. So, it's not

AI, it's my actual voice. And he

combines that with his own uh music in

the background. So, everything except

the recording of my voice is his work.

And it's amazing. Have you listened to

it? You know, I've told you before I'm

not really a music guy.

Uh, so it takes a lot to impress me

music-wise. There's something extra

going on here

that's more than just the fact that it's

my voice. So, you know, obviously I like

my voice. Um,

he's a kid. been uh following me for I

don't know a decade or something a long

time. And so I know he's picking up my

influence on persuasion,

pacing, leading, stuff like that. And I

swear to God, I see that in the music.

And so the music hits me different than

music, different than poetry, different

than text, different than a podcast.

Whatever is going on that Akira is doing

is music plus. It's not music, it's

music plus. I just don't know what the

plus is, but you can feel it. You know,

you you can feel his talent stack. Um,

so it's it's just wonderful pairing.

Anyway, there's a newer one out. Uh,

just look for Akira the Dawn. Ak I R A.

There won't be many of those. I think

you'll find it on YouTube and wherever

you download music.

All right,

do not panic. There will be a sip.

There will be.

I just had planned to have that as my

theme song and I wasn't ready.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

it's the best thing that ever happened

to you in your whole life. But if you'd

like to try to elevate that experience

up to levels that nobody can even

understand with her tiny shiny human

brains,

all you need for that is a copper mug or

a glass of tanker chalice, a canteen

jugger glass of any kind. Fill it with

your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And

join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure. The dopamine of the day, the

thing that makes everything better. is

called the simultaneous

and it happens now.

I remember when I had hot coffee. It was

great.

So, you you missed the uh I was talking

to the local subscribers before the real

podcast started

and

I was telling them that I'd been

complaining about the bad quality of my

coffee warmer and one of my beloved uh

subscribers on Locals sent me a new one

and I'm like, "Wow." And this this

freaking thing is like modern, you know?

It's got the the time of day around it

so you know how many hours it's set to

be warm, you know, so you don't leave it

on. It's it's got a power button. It'll

actually tell you the temperature. My

old one didn't have that. Tells you the

temperature. There's only one thing it

doesn't do, which would be cool. You

know, I'm not like any designer of

coffee warmer pads or, you know, I'm no

expert at it or anything, but there's

one thing I would have added to it. I

would have added to it the ability to

warm your coffee because apparently it

doesn't have that.

But boy does it look like something that

would.

So that's not nothing. All right, we're

going to start with a reframe.

I guess I'll have to get a new one.

Reframe of the day. Oh, here's a good

one.

This this is what I learned from uh my

first editor uh when I was picked to be

a syndicated cartoonist.

There's an editor who has to say I like

you and then they they go forward. But

until some editor says

I like you, you get nothing. All right.

So, when I got first syndicated, uh,

before they publish you, what they do,

[laughter]

what they do before they publish you is

they work with you for 6 months or so

to make sure that you could produce a

comic every day before they embarrass

themselves

by partnering with you and then find out

you can't make a comic every day. So,

you have to prove you can do it. So

after about six months of proving I

could do it, I would submit my work, but

I was still a new cartoonist. So as a

new cartoonist, your editor would put a

little bit more of a thumb on the scale.

Once you become a famous cartoonist, if

your editor is any good at all, they say

something closer to, you know how to do

this better than I do.

Right? and then they sort of leave you

alone but rarely now and then there

might be something over the line but

basically once you're published and you

show you can do it they the editor who

is a good editor I had a great editor uh

won't try to put a you know put a boot

on your work but they have to say it if

they are going to get you to change

something so this is from the earliest

days where my editor was welcome to tell

me that something worked or didn't work

because I, you know, that was useful to

me. But how do you tell somebody who's

an artist that they worked all day on

something and it's bad and it's not

worthy of being published? Have you ever

thought about how would you word that?

Because you don't want to crush

somebody's spirit, right? So, here's the

reframe when you don't want to crush

somebody's spirit, but you really have

to tell them this wasn't good enough.

And it went like this. Um, the usual

frame, so this would be the wrong way to

do it. The old way to do it is that you

did this wrong or it's not funny,

right? You did it wrong. It's not funny.

You did a bad job. That would be the old

way. Now listen to this reframe. This

was for my first editor.

Your other work is stronger.

Boom.

>> [laughter]

>> Now, [clears throat]

now is that brilliant or not? Your other

work is stronger.

That's all she had to say. If you tell

me my other work is stronger, I'm

competing against myself

against myself and my other work and and

I'm not competing with her. [snorts] So

she basically takes it down of, you

know, you and I have a disagreement

about whether this is good and she turns

it into a disagreement with myself. Your

other work is stronger. Damn it. I can

make this stronger, too. She was a

genius.

All right. I wonder if there's any

[sighs]

uh I wonder if there's any science that

they didn't need to do because they

could have just asked me. Oh, here's

some. Oh, by the way, before I forget,

uh Owen Gregorian will have his spaces

event after this is over. All right. So,

if you want to get a little extra

talking about this stuff or maybe some

other stuff uh some few minutes after

we're done today, uh Owen Gregorian will

fire up ais which is the auto only

feature on X. You can just Google him

Owen Gregorian and you'll find it

easily. Anyway, so there was a uh uh

there was a test of AI capabilities. So

there's a new paper, meaning a

scientific paper, where they tried to

test AI's ability to do actual online

freelance work.

Have you ever heard me talk about how

capable AI is to do actual real useful

things?

Do you understand that from the very

beginning I've been probably one of the

biggest skeptics of AI being able to

actually do something without a human or

even helping a human

because the LLM model to me looks like

an amazing user interface and that's

about it. I just don't see how it could

do real work. That's a longer

conversation. The paper was to test

exactly that to see if we're at the

point where the AI could replace a

person and be like an AI agent, do

actual freelance tasks. And so they gave

it a bunch of tasks and they found out

that it could do about 3% of the things,

but it didn't make anybody faster at

anything. Essentially, it found it was

worthless.

Now, I know what you're going to say.

Scott, Scott, Scott, you don't

understand how adoption curves work.

First, it's useless, useless, useless,

useless, followed by useless, useless,

useless. But boy, when it kicks in,

whoa, whoa. Soon as it kicks in, it's

going to go to the next level. What you

need is just more training. What you

need is a bigger data center. What you

need is another trillion dollars. And

then and then we got something. Well, do

we do we I'm going to say you could have

asked me how that would have gone and I

could have saved you a lot of time and

money.

Here's a weird thing. Exxon and Chevron

are both boosting uh oil output or or

gas I guess from the oil. No, oil. What

is it? Financial Times is reporting that

the two US biggest US oil majors uh are

going to increase production in the

third quarter. Now, if you're following

the oil business, you know that prices

are not as high as they used to be. I

mean, anything could be less, but 60

bucks a barrel is generally considered a

pretty healthy place to be. It's not

super expensive, but it allows all the

oil companies enough incentive to do

stuff. But how do you how do you explain

that there seems to be a worldwide glut

or increase in the supply of oil and

it's not much changing the price?

What does that mean?

The it's not because the demand is

suddenly matching the supply. There's

just more oil than there used to be.

Shouldn't the price go down? Is this

telling us that there is some kind of

monopoly at work and the oil companies

are all in on it? Or not monopoly, it'd

be well, if it's just two companies, it'

be monopoly. But, uh, is this telling us

that there's something going on

that makes them immune to price

reductions independent of supply?

Because wouldn't the very best thing for

the oil companies be that as much oil as

they pump, they can sell for any price

that they want?

How in the world does more oil equal no

change in price? Because that's what's

happening. [laughter]

How does that happen? There's something

going on here, right? I I don't even

know enough to ask the right question,

but there's no there's no natural way

that a massive increase in oil has no

impact on price unless something's going

on.

Anyway, so Elon Musk was doing a lot of

publicity, I guess you could say it. He

wouldn't call it that. He probably call

it being on podcasts, including the Joe

Rogan show for three hours. And if you

think he didn't make any news in three

hours on the Joe Rogan show, you'd be

wrong because he makes news when he's on

that show. And I'll just in no

particular order, do you remember my

prediction about cell phones

that in the AI world there would be no

apps and that and the phone itself would

be just a dumb screen?

Do you all remember me? I've been saying

that for several years, I guess, that

the the obvious future is that the phone

becomes whatever you need it to become

at the moment you need it to become it.

So, you wouldn't even necessarily I

mean, you would have your own uh device

just for convenience, but you wouldn't

even need your own device. In theory, I

could reach over on the table and pick

up your phone, hold it to my face, and

it becomes my phone, and it gives me any

feature I want without any app being

involved at all. It just goes AI the

whole way. That is what uh Elon Musk

says is the future.

Um he says, "I'm not working on a

phone." But the trick is it wouldn't be

called a phone.

He he doesn't say he's not working on

the other thing. The other thing would

be what do you call it? You'll have an

AI on the server side commun

communicating with the AI your device.

Sort of the you know technical way of

saying that your a that your device is

just an AIdriven device and uh he says

formally known as a phone. Oh, so he

might be working on one of these

devices. He didn't say he wasn't. We He

didn't say he was, but he didn't say he

wasn't. He's just saying it wouldn't be

a phone.

So, do I get the credit for the uh

prediction? Probably 5 years ago, I said

that. Yeah, it's obvious it's going to

go that way. So, Elon says there won't

be an operating system or apps in the

future. It'll just be a device that's

where the screen and audio for the

screen and audio and to put as much AI

on the device as possible. That's

exactly

100% what I predicted.

More news from Elon. Um, you've heard I

think I've told you about um even Jeff

Bezos said that space might be a ideal

atmosphere for a data center. Well, you

could put a data center in space or

apparently you can just send some

software up to your vast array of

Starlink satellites and they would form

a they would form a virtual uh data

center in the sky and you would get the

benefits of you know being outside the

gravity and all that and uh Elon could

just sort of turn it on

the the the things that he has

considered and therefore or engineered

just in case they want to do it later.

It's so it's just mindboggling that how

how many things he can imagine in the

future so that when he's building

something now he doesn't preclude them.

So one of the things he did not prelude

was that his satellites could as a

distributed data center with its own

brains and ability to communicate with

each other at laser speeds.

So, I don't know if he'll do that and

turn it on, but he does say they can do

it. He says, [clears throat] uh, they'll

have ultra fast laser links, uh, powered

by solar energy. Um, and he said, oh, he

says SpaceX will be doing this. Oh, I'm

sorry. So, let me update that. He He

wasn't just talking about it

speculatively. He said they will be

doing it. [laughter]

How impressive is that? That's just

crazy.

And it just gets better, too.

If this had been a 4-hour interview

instead of a three-hour conversation,

God knows what would have come up. But,

uh, so Joe, of course, the master of

asking good questions that we'd like to

hear the answers to, asked him about

the, uh, I guess he's working on the new

sports car of some kind, and we don't

know much about it, but apparently it's

going to be really special.

I'd wondered about that cuz I thought

the the news had said that, you know,

Elon was going to be bring back what?

The Roadster. Is that what it's called?

The Roadster. But basically that they

were going to build more of a, you know,

cool Yeah, the Roadster. They were going

to build a cool sporty Tesla. More

sporty than what they have. But nobody

knew the details. We still don't know

the details, but it's possible

based on what Elon said, it might be a

flying car. [laughter]

It might be a flying car. But you know

what it might also be?

It might also be a submersible.

It might be both. But what he says is,

uh, look, I think it has, this is Elon,

look, I think it has a shot of being the

most memorable product unveil ever. He

goes, "Let's just put it this way. If

you look, if you took all the James Bond

cars and combined them, it's crazier

than that." Okay, the James Bond cars,

didn't they fly and also act as

submarines? Is that where people are

getting the idea it might be both or one

of those things? Now, I I'm I'm not sure

I care one way or the other. I probably

won't be buying a submersible car from

anybody, but I just love the fact that

he doesn't have a marketing or

advertising budget. Elon doesn't, but

boy does he do good marketing. Oh my

god, the the the quality of his

marketing game is so beyond

really anything we've ever seen. Just

anything. Uh, this is just this is the

next level above the next level that

he's got me so excited about this car

that doesn't yet exist.

Anyway, we'll see what it has. Maybe

some guns. I hope it can shoot gas and

protect you, too.

Uh, I wonder if he made any other uh

news. Oh, yeah. [laughter]

If this was the only thing that happened

that it would still be the biggest news,

but it's just one of many things he did

during 3 hours. Uh, so Joe asked Elon

about these um accusations that the

whistleblower there was a there was a

chat GBT whistleblower [snorts] and uh

some say and that the some would include

the parents of the whistleblower that he

was murdered and did not commit suicide.

um soon after he had said he was a

whistleblower and Chad GPT was going to

be in a lot of trouble. Um some of the

things that Elon mentioned and I'm not

going to say these are true cuz I don't

want to get sued by anybody, but the

conversation

suggested that the following things were

true. That there was blood in more than

one room. Uh the the deceased had just

ordered Door Dash. [laughter]

I wonder I wonder if in the history of

the world anybody's ordered Door Dash

and then decided to kill themselves

before the meal.

Does anybody understand what a last meal

is all about? Or did he just say, "Yeah,

I'm not really hungry after all. I'll

just kill myself in two separate rooms

and and put this weird wig in another

room." There was some wig that didn't

belong to him. Uh so blood in two rooms,

wig.

Uh let's see what else. Um

so so this this is what uh Elon said

about Alman. Now I I will tell you that

personally I think there's clo close to

zero chance that Sam Alman authorized or

knew there would be a hit.

All right. Can I say that as clearly as

possible? the the thought that

specifically Sam Alman, you know, him

specifically

ordered it or knew that it would happen

or had some insight into it, I think

that's close to zero.

But if you're asking me, was he

murdered?

Well, keep in mind that rumor-wise, the

CIA

has a very important, you know, mandate

to have control over all the the big AI

companies. Do you think that the CIA is

exerting control over the big companies?

Yes. You know, that that's what we're

being told by people who definitely

know. And would it be their job to do

it?

Yes. You know, I I hate to say it. I

mean, the CIA is supposed to do all the

dirty stuff that you wish people

wouldn't do, but sometimes sometimes you

need the dirty stuff. Now imagine you're

the CIA and you know that uh open AI and

chat GPT would be the primary way that

in the future you'll be able to control

other countries and you know uh find

terrorists, find all the bad people. If

you thought the chat GPT was not just

one of the important things you were

doing, but maybe the most important

thing you're doing for years, would you

be willing to murder to keep that

structure intact? Meaning that there's a

chat GPT, it leads the field, you've got

the back door, you have all the access

you need. Public doesn't know the

details, but they're okay with it

because, you know, they like to be safe

to. Would that be enough reason to

murder an American citizen?

Maybe.

Maybe. I mean, I don't think they're

authorized to kill American citizens on

American soil, are they? But they are

authorized to do things that

people aren't supposed to do. And who

knows how far that could go.

So, I don't think um and then then you

have to add the uh

then you have to add the rogues to the

equation. What if it wasn't the CIA and

it wasn't anybody on the the board or

management of Chat GBT? Is there anyone

else who would have a financial

incentive or other incentive to murder a

guy?

Yes, the investors.

If you had invested, you know, billions

of dollars in this thing and you knew

that your billions could turn into a

trillion and you knew that there was one

whistleblower in the way and the reason

that you had billions of dollars in the

first place is that you're an unethical

bastard and you could just whisper to

some special special services XCIA guy

that you know, you know, if that guy

disappeared,

somebody like you who might have been

involved in

would have a pretty pretty big payday.

So, if I had to if I had to guess, it

does look a little bit more like murder

than suicide, but these things can look

like something else and not be that

thing. So, the fact that it does look

sort of exactly like a murder doesn't

mean it is because in our world things

look like things that aren't really the

thing. But I don't think it was Alman.

Don't think it was Chad GPT's

management.

Probably wasn't the CIA,

but I don't know about all the

investors.

Anyway, um

I guess on CNN a political commentator

named Brad Todd

mentioned that the 2020 census was

rigged and the CNN host challenge that.

Wouldn't you? What do you mean rigged

[laughter]

the the census? The census was rigged.

Seriously,

how do you rig a census?

Easily, it turns out, as Todd Brad Todd

explained, he said, quote, "We do know

that uh the Census Bureau's own audit uh

showed that they had uh that all of

their errors were in one direction to

the detriment of red states." So

apparently the Census Bureau has

admitted that coincidentally all of

their errors are in one direction. So

yes, [clears throat]

we actually know that the 2020 census

was rigged. [laughter] How many of you

knew that? I I feel like I vaguely had

heard that or something. But did you

know it was official?

It's official. The census people said it

themselves. Yep. All our mistakes were

in one direction.

Okay.

Meanwhile, over on MSNBC, if you haven't

seen this clip, it's well worth

watching. So, there's this Democrat

Representative Seth Molton, who's

seemingly not a good person based on

this story I'm going to tell you. He

made an accusation about Trump on

MSNBC's Morning Joe that is so

inappropriate that I'm not even going to

tell you what it was. So, let's just say

it was Epstein related, but it was

He just made up. Just made it

up. And when he put it out there and

said, you know, it's sort of a fact. Um,

even Morning Joe said, "There's no

evidence of that." And he said, "Oh,

yes, there's I mean, it's obvious." And

Morning Joe seeing his entire life on

the line. Can you imagine if Morning Joe

had not uh vigorously challenged the

claim that was being claimed by, you

know, a government official, an elected

official

completely making up some That's

the worst thing you've ever heard in

your life, right? Just the worst. And

and Morning Joe knowing that he would

get his ass so sued if he just let that

go without a challenge. And so to his

credit, but also to save his own neck,

morning Joe pushed back hard. He pushed

back hard. No evidence of that. And

again, I say no evidence of that. And by

the way, now that you're done talking,

can I remind the audience there's no

evidence of that. [laughter]

So [clears throat] I'm going to give uh

Morning Joe 100%

uh A+ for factchecking that in real

time. But of course, he was covering his

own ass because the the Trump world

lawsuits are flying and he doesn't need

that kind of trouble. So, I appreciate

it. I appreciated that he pushed back on

that. So, Seth Molton, in case you want

to know, total piece of Terrible

person. I mean, really a bad person.

[sighs and gasps]

Well, I guess the end of the year, the

Obamacare premiums are going to double.

And uh one of the things that might

happen is that uh Trump's uh Trump might

have some success. I don't know if he

will, but now he's pushing for what's

called the nuclear option, which has

nothing to do with nuclear in any way.

It's just a name of a thing. And the

thing is that uh if Congress votes by

some majority, I guess they can get rid

of the filibuster. Now, the filibuster

was invented. So if the minority side

felt so strongly about a topic, they

could say, "We're just going to talk

forever and the process will never go

forward because we're still in the the

act of talking and that would be the

filibuster." And they would just have

people go up there and read the phone

book and take turns and just use up the

time. But in the modern world, and I

checked, a filibuster is a memo.

[laughter]

So the minority team just sends a memo.

You know, if we wanted to, we would

filibuster this. So, you know, let's

let's just treat it like a filibuster

cuz if you make us do it, we'll do it.

But don't need to. So, just accept this

memo as our warning that the only way

you're going to get anything passed in

this domain is 60 votes instead of a

bare majority, 51%.

So they would have to uh first change

the rules that you can do a filibuster

and then if the filibuster went away,

the second thing they could do is vote

to fund the government with a bare

majority. Now, of course, the risk is

insane.

The size of the risk is just insane

because it works both ways. If the

Democrats get in control, the

Republicans will no longer have, you

know, the comfort of the filibuster

themselves to protect against the things

they they care about the most. But the

argument on the other side is that the

Democrats are going to do absolutely

anything that they can do, including the

Russia collusion hoax, uh the 51 people

who said that the Hunter laptop was not

real. You can go down the line. I don't

have to list everything. But the the

counterargument is that the Republicans

have every reason strategically and

ethically to do just everything. Just do

everything. If if you can get more

power, get something done, just do it.

Because the Democrats would do it. Is

that a good argument?

It might be. It didn't used to be a good

argument because there was a world in

which there would be a little bit more

cooperation and you know a little bit

observance of history but we may be out

of that world permanently and if you're

out of that world permanently the

smartest thing you can do is recognize

that as soon as possible and then start

consolidating your power because the

alternative is the other side

consolidates their power. It you know

their authoritarianism versus your

authoritarianism. you prefer yours if

it's only going to go one of two ways.

One side will be an authoritarian or the

other one. So, uh I don't yet have an

opinion about whether this should be

nuked the, you know, the the thing that

would give them the ability to change

it. It could be just a negotiating

thing.

Could be.

So, I I think I'm going to wait on that

one. No opinion on that yet.

All right. Um,

would you be amazed to learn that a

judge

is stopping something that Trump wanted?

Yes. Believe it or not, there's a judge

[laughter]

once again. Uh, a uh

a federal judge has blocked this is

according to Axios. So, judge Khalen Ker

Catali.

So she has got an injunction against

Trump's uh Trump's order that uh the

states do check IDs for voting.

So apparently this judge says that you

cannot force the states to um force the

voters to show ID.

And the reason is not that it's a good

idea or a bad idea. So it has nothing to

do with the quality of the idea and

nothing to do with whether would work

and nothing to do with what you know

what is ethical or what we should do.

It's none of that. It it's just a

straight up court ruling of what power

the executive has versus the states. And

so her ruling is you've got no power on

the states running elections. Get out of

here. So specifically the problem is

that he doesn't have authority to do

this rule. So, I asked Grock, "Grock, if

you were on the Supreme Court,

uh, do you think you would uphold the

judge and say that Trump does not have

the authority to require ID for voting,

or would you uphold Trump and say he's

got an argument, assuming that they had

some argument?" And Grock said, um, no,

it's basically a simple one. He doesn't

have that authority.

uh the only way he could have that

authority is if Congress passed a law

such as a voting rights law or you know

some some equal rights law. So if

Congress passes a law and how would they

do that unless

they nuke the filibuster?

Oo what if the filibuster got nuked?

Then the Supreme Court doesn't even have

to get involved because he can just use

Congress, get his bare majority people

to say nuclear filibuster and then the

next thing you do, they say one of our

most important things is that we have ID

for voting. Boom.

Boom. So these might be the same issue

once you get rid of the filibuster.

Likewise, there's a big decision coming

up in the courts. The Supreme Court in

this case will be listening next week to

arguments about whether Trump can impose

tariffs.

Did you know that that was even a legal

question, whether the president even has

the authority to put tariffs on stuff? I

kind of thought we sort of had agreed

that that was okay, that at least had

the authority. whether you liked it or

not. But um the Trump argument is

a quote that denial of tariff authority

would expose our nation to trade

retaliation without effective defenses.

That is correct. May I add something to

the Supreme Court argument because I'm

pretty sure that all the lawyers who

argue in the Supreme Court watch this

podcast or should

if you were a lawyer who lawy who argue

things in the higher courts, you don't

think you'd want to watch my show? I I

literally teach people how to persuade.

Of course, I mean, not all of them.

Yeah, I'm joking. They're not all

watching the show, but you'd be

surprised how many lawyers whose job it

is to persuade uh contact me and tell me

how useful it's been. They they either

read my book, Win Bigly, or they watch

the podcast. So, is it crazy to assume

that I could say something on my podcast

that would be useful to this? It's not

crazy because I'm going to do it right

now. You ready for this reframe coming

in? And it's and it's a reframe. you've

heard before. I'm just going to

repurpose it.

The country with the strongest economy

wins the war.

You can't separate economics from

national defense. Your economy is your

national defense. And that's and that's

what that's what Trump's Justice

Department is saying, but they're not

quite getting the wording right. So what

I'm going to try to help him with get

the wording right because you can quite

easily convince people smart people that

the qu that the strength of the economy

is just one more weapon that national

defense can take advantage of and the

tariffs are really a big part of what

you can manipulate in your economy for

national defense. So they they do say

obviously they know because they say it

directly quote denial of tariff

authority would expose our nation to

trade retaliation without effective

defenses. But let's say that without

without the nerdy stuff. Take the nerdy

legal stuff out.

The country with the strongest economy

is the safest

defense wise.

Once you get the the justices to agree

with that general statement that you

can't separate economics from defense,

it's pretty hard to take the economics

away from the president, chief of staff,

that you know, the chief of the army.

I feel like that's enough. I mean,

obviously I'm no expert on the Supreme

Court or lawyering, but uh am I wrong?

Well, give me a quick reaction. If if

you can sell the fact, which is easily

easy to sell, that the economics and the

national defense are you can't separate

them. They're they're inseparable. Once

you've made that claim and the justice

have have sort of maybe mentally

accepted that that's a baseline fact,

whatever you argue on top of that gets a

lot easier because it's all based on

that. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is

how I saved the country.

I love listening to John uh Solomon

talking about the RICO conspiracy

potentially. Now, nobody's been charged

with this in this context, but it's

possible. He says that the all the uh

bad behavior, let's say from Obama on

that were uh aimed against Trump and

Trump world goes back to 2014.

and that you could tr you could trace

the line through the same bunch of cats

all the way to 2014. You can see the you

can see the documentation so you know

what bad behavior they did. You know

that they tried to do sketchy things to

change the government essentially an

insurrection. And if it does go all the

way back

then it does look like a RICO. RICO

being the originally it was a mafia

attack law. So you could go after them

for a whole bunch of organized

coordinated behavior that's criminal. So

if they can show that this is criminal

behavior and maybe that's the obstacle

uh versus just political,

it's all connected.

So, if it's criminal and it's the same

people and it's all documented that they

were coordinating it for a specific

purpose that was illegal,

looks like RICO to me, but I wouldn't

bet on it. Uh I I feel like I feel like

I'm just

just on the border of saying, "Yeah,

this is a slam dunk Rico situation.

There's no way they lose it." I don't

think it's slam dunk.

I think it's real. And I think that John

Solomon's take on it is completely

reasonable,

but whether that translates into, you

know, actual people go to jail, [snorts]

I don't know. All right, let's have some

fun. You like some uh controversy?

So, in the Wall Street Journal, there's

an editorial by somebody named Dominic

Green, and he's talking about the MAGA

rights anti-semitism problem.

You ready for this?

So, if you've been watching the news,

you know that uh there there's sort of a

controversy or somebody's trying to make

it into one. It's sort of a wannabe

controversy, meaning that people keep

talking about it like they want to make

it something, but it's not it's not it's

not uh it's not performing. [laughter]

It's not doing what they hope it will

do, which would drive MAGA apart. Now, I

think what has been underestimated by

the left is that the so-called woke

right and the MAGA right and the

Republicans and the conservatives are

much better at having a lively

disagreement

and then just voting in the right way

when the when the election comes. So,

I'm not sure that this could ever work

because the nature of how the

conservative, let's say the right side

of the world, that the nature of how we

work, cuz I'm going to put myself in the

Wii for this for this conversation, is

it's just a whole bunch of people who

understand free speech.

If you could say there's one thing that

binds us together on the right is free

speech. So you can't be that free speech

and then also buy into there's some kind

of thing, you know, driving the party

apart.

It it sort of just doesn't work. But

they're trying because it would work on

the left. So I think the left is using

an approach that they're sure would work

on the left, which is dividing people by

type because that works on their side.

But on the right, you can tell me, um,

you shouldn't platform the worst person

in the world, and I'll say, why do you

hate free speech,

right?

You can talk about platforming all day

long, and I'm just going to turn it into

free speech. It's free speech.

Why don't you want to hear what the

other side has to say? Why wouldn't you

hear what somebody who disagrees with

you and you hate them and you wish they

would go away? Why wouldn't you know

what they have to say? Wouldn't you be

better off if you knew? Wouldn't it be

better off if they were exposed to you?

Yeah. Here's here's an argument I

haven't used for a while, but I like to

try it out. If hypothetically

I had the worst person in the world on

my podcast and I interviewed them for an

hour, what is the most likely outcome of

that? That they would turn me into a

slightly worse person.

Is that what would happen? Would they

turn you into a slightly worse person?

Or having watched me for 10 years, as

some of you are, is it more likely that

I would persuade them to be a better

person and that, you know, if I'm half

of the podcast, the people watching

would say, "Okay, you know, I like what

the cartoonist said.

Who who is likely to persuade their

audience in a positive direction more

likely than me, even if I'm talking to

the worst person in the world?

So there's a little bit of nuance on

this stuff, right? So the the people on

the right understand that I could bring

value to a person to a to a conversation

with somebody who shouldn't be

platformed at all according to the left,

right? But the right understands that we

we can fight all day, but as long as we

agree on free speech, boom, President

Trump and it works out for us. But back

to this. So Dominic Green, he looks like

he would be happy if MAGA was, you know,

more unhappy with each other. So he

talked about uh Tucker Carlson. This is

Wall Street Journal editorial.

Um oh, actually this is a perfect

example. The Wall Street Journal sort of

leans right a little bit, right? But

they platformed this guy. [laughter]

They platformed him. And I don't think

necessarily the editorial people agree

with everything he says, but they

platformed him. That's how it works on

the right. CNN's doing a good job of

platforming people they disagree with,

too. So, so there's a little bit on both

sides. Anyway, um here's what he says.

Dominic Green that uh that Carlson's

hosting of Nick Fuentes, of course, you

knew I was going to go there on his

podcast, was a watershed in the campaign

to make racism cool again. All right.

Well, he's going to have to defend that,

right? So, the claim is that having Nick

on is making racism cool again. Whereas

whereas people on the right might say,

"You mean free speech?" Where we listen

to him and we disagree with him? Is that

your problem? [laughter]

That's the problem. Now, now Nick is a

special case because he's he's extra

good at media stuff. So, he would be

persuasive and and is. So he's he's a

little more dangerous if you're worried

about that point of view um becoming

dominant and that would be a reasonable

thing to worry about.

But um here's how he characterizes this

is how Dominic Green characterizes

Tucker. See if you think he's

characterized Tucker correctly in his

opinion.

Um he said that uh Carlson has come a

long way since the bow tied folly of his

neoconservative youth. Okay. So that's

just an insult.

Bow tide folly of his neoonservative

youth. All right. No specifics there.

That's just I think I'll insult him

after leaving Fox News. Blah blah blah.

He went over the edge. Okay. That's your

opinion that there's no evidence of that

that he's using to do that. Um, he

dawned a plaid shirt of the people,

[laughter]

rediscovered Christianity. He didn't

really rediscover Christianity. That's

crazy. What are you watching? He, you

know, he may have, you know, updated

some of his views, but he was super

Christian the whole time. Um, he cashed

in on his legacy status as a ring

master. You mean he had a job?

Yeah, we're all cashing in. It's called

a job. Is that okay? Is it okay that he

got a job?

Can I get a job? I got cancelled. Am I a

bad person if I got cancelled and then I

went and got a job? I got a job to make

money. That's okay, isn't it? Anyway, um

this is what else he says about him. and

he reinvented himself as the second

coming of Alex Jones. Now, you recognize

that as an attack by association.

If you don't have something to say about

the person, you say something about who

they had a photograph with or who they

remind you of. Why would you have to do

that? Why would you have to mock them

for a photograph, an association, or who

they remind you of? is because you don't

have a real thing to complain

about. These are just madeup things.

What else?

Uh he says, uh, so this is Dominic Green

writing in the Wall Street Journal, an

opinion piece. He says that Mr. Carlson

has interviewed a podcaster who thinks

Winston Churchill was the villain of

World War II.

Now, I watched a little bit of that

content.

Do you think that describes the nuance

of what happened there?

that that we know who it is, but the the

one podcaster who thinks that Winston

Churchill was the villain of World War

II,

worse than Hitler. Do do you think that

if we talked to the podcaster and said,

"Hey, this Dominic Green says you think

that Winston Churchill was worse than

Hitler in World War II." Is that right?

Do you think he would say, "Oh, yeah,

that's kind of what I said." Do you

think he'd say that? Oh, no, he

wouldn't. [laughter]

No, he uh while I am not let let me be

clear, I'm not defending Daryl Cooper. I

don't really know anything about that

point of history. Uh I've heard him say

some things that I thought, you know,

certainly things that raised my

eyebrows, but I saw it under free

speech. Didn't necessarily change my

opinion because of anything he said.

Thought it was interesting that a person

exists with opinions I hadn't heard

before. I thought it was interesting

that he was brave enough to go public

with things that he knew would be a

little controversial. Little

controversial. Um,

but is this a accurate

uh summary of who he is? This is Daryl

Cooper if you wondered. Um, I think that

I I I think there's plenty of room for

criticizing

his or anybody else's message. So,

that's not the point. So, I'm not I'm

not supporting him.

I don't even know entirely what his

opinions were about Churchill, but uh

that's not my point. My point is almost

certainly he's being mischaracterized.

Even if even if he really should be, you

know, criticized for something, this is

not the way to do it. All right. Um

they say that Tucker raised discredited

claims that Ashkanazi Jews are immune to

CO.

Did that happen? Did that really happen?

Now, if the discredited claims are are

things that are in the news,

aren't you allowed to ask about that?

And if the answer is, "Oh, no, that was

all BS. It's disavowed." Are are you the

are you the villain because you asked

about something and the answer was that

it was, you know, disavowed and there

was nothing to it, which I believe

there's not much to it. it certainly

there's a possibility that some that

some demographic groups have worser or

better you know pandemic performance I

think that part's demonstrated right but

whether or not that has anything to do

with any conspiracy or anything that's

there's no evidence of that

so can a podcaster ask somebody about a

view that has been debunked

why not why can't you ask about

something that's already been debunked.

If your audience doesn't know it's

already debunked, isn't that serving the

audience? Hey, what about this? Oh, it's

debunked. Okay, now my audience knows

it's debunked. How is that a problem?

[laughter] Again, free speech. Um, and

as far as I know, there's nothing to the

nothing to that claim.

Um, and he says that Benjamin Netanyahu

openly tells Israelis, and now he says

that Tucker claims this, that that

Netanyahu

tells Israelis, quote, "I control the

United States. I control Donald Trump."

I think there's some video

in which uh

in which Netanyahu is making some claims

about how he can handle the United

States persuasion wise. Is that a

problem?

Why why would that be a problem? And who

would be surprised if Netanyahu said

that, you know, if he told people in

Israel, because that's the important

part. He was talking to people in

Israel. Who would be surprised if the

leader of Israel said that he had some

sway with the country that matters the

most and they seem to be buddies and

they seem to have worked productively

together.

Where are our problems here? to to me

this all falls under free speech. Tucker

can Tucker and Daryl Cooper and

everybody else can defend their own

points of view as can Fuentes. I'm not

defending anybody's point of view. I'm

just saying that years ago when I saw

this situation developing, I started

saying in public and I'll say it again.

I I uh defend my right

to associate with talk to

and platform

anybody I want. Free speech.

Somebody won't like it. Let me know.

Free speech.

Anyway, I don't think the MAGA thing is

real. I think it's something the left

wants to be real, but as long as the

right stays in free speech, uh, we don't

like what you said about that, Tucker,

but we we like this. What's wrong with

that?

So I if you're if you're a Jewish and

you thought that the collective the

let's say the collective energy of all

this stuff is uh anti-semitic.

I get that. I get that when I listen to

Fuentes it feels anti-Semitic to me. I

don't even know if he'd deny it

actually. I'm not even sure what he'd

say but it feels anti-Semitic to me. Um,

but I also am fascinated by how he got

to that point and I find it not

persuasive at all because it feels like

the thing that gets him into

anti-semitic territory is some

assumptions about how strangers are

thinking that I don't see, you know,

that's always dangerous territory. I

assume they don't say it, but I think

they're thinking this way and that all

of them are. That that's where you get

in trouble. I don't buy any of that. To

me, it looks like people who are good at

school get a lot of power.

That's about it. And of course, they

might want different things than you

want, but that's the whole world. That's

the whole world. Anyway, so they can

defend their own views, but it does

sound anti-Semitic to me. Tucker sounds

like he's uh he's playing a different

game. I I think he's he he wants America

first. He thinks Israel's maybe too much

of that equation.

Was a fairly mainstream view on the

right.

Well, Trump is saying now that there

will be no Venezuela land attack.

Um I don't know what that includes

but uh

see Marco Rubio said uh according to he

was mocking some newspaper he said your

sources in quotes claiming to have quote

knowledge of the situation tricked you

into writing a fake story about the

possibility that we would do a land

invasion in Venezuela. So Trump says

it's not real. No land invasion. Marco

Rubio Moxit

and uh

Telsey Gabbard said recently that the

former American strategy of regime

change is over and I guess there would

be no point in going into Venezuela

unless it was regime change.

And so the question we have now is it

true that Trump has ruled out any

landbased military action in Venezuela?

Is that true? or is he playing an Iran

game where he's telling them it's not

going to happen right before it happens

cuz that's sort of what he did with Iran

and it worked. We don't know. Um

my guess is that he's finding out that a

land invasion would be so unpopular with

at least half or more of MAGA that it

wouldn't be worth the uh the squeeze.

Would you agree? How how many of you

would be just maddened if he started a

land war? Even even if it looked like,

oh, this won't take long, you know, 30

days will be done, but you wouldn't

believe it, right? You wouldn't believe

it'd be done in 30 days. You'd think it

last forever like everything. I'm

looking at the comments. Yeah. So, it

could be an entirely Yeah, it may be

that he he just did a trial balloon

and that it didn't go over at all.

[laughter]

And since [clears throat] it didn't go

over at all, uh maybe he backed off or

it could be they have some completely

different strategy that doesn't require

it. So, there's a lot of unknowns there.

Fog of war. Too many unknowns.

According to town hall, Amy Curtis is

writing that uh Manny plans to tax

businesses even if they're based outside

of New York City.

First of all, does he have the power to

tax anything? The mayor, does the mayor

have taxing power? Not sure how that

works, but uh allegedly

uh even if you moved your business out

of the state or if you're doing business

in the state, but it's not where you're

doiciled, he still wants to tax you.

How could you actually make that work?

So he says, uh I guess he said recently,

oops,

he said recently, so the way this tax

works is it applies to any business

doing business here, meaning New York

City. They could be located in Miami,

but if they're doing business in New

York, it applies to them.

Well, wait a minute. Isn't that the

current situation?

If you had a um if your corporate entity

is in one state, but let's say your

Walmart stores are in other states,

don't the Walmart stores get taxed in

the states where they do business as

opposed to where their corporate entity

is located? I'm not sure how different

this is. So, so maybe he's not so good

on the details.

So, I'm not sure this is real story.

Actually, the [clears throat] the more I

think about it, it doesn't look like a

real story. So, big question mark on

that one.

CNN is reporting that uh according to

the FBI, they thwarted an ISIS inspired

attack. That would be a terrorist

attack. I guess there were rifles they

found and there was some online chatting

about shooting something up on

Halloween. And once I guess they called

it pumpkin day online and once the FBI

said, "Oops, they got weapons. They're

talking about a big um terrorist act and

they've picked a date." That's when they

moved in. The picking the date, I think,

was the trigger. Um, but one wonders,

is the FBI now so good, and maybe they

have been for some time, so good at uh

catching things before they happen that

that's the reason there hasn't been a

911 again.

You know, of course, that would be

giving up all of our privacy, which

we've already done. But if you give up

all your privacy, which I'm pretty sure

we've already done, whether you whether

you know it or not, um, is that enough

to stop basically every attack?

You know, almost every attack. It might

be. [laughter] You know, I I've been

puzzling about this for what, 20 years

about why there haven't been obviously

more attacks. Clearly, you can get

people into the country. Clearly, those

people could be terrorists. Clearly,

they could get the kind of weapons you'd

use for an attack. Clearly, there's

people who want to do it. Clearly, there

are people who have tried to do it. Why

didn't it happen?

What's going on? Like, why didn't it

happen? The only explanation I can think

of is that whatever you think is the

amount of privacy that you've already

given up, it might be more than that.

[laughter]

Whatever our government knows about you

is probably similar to what they know

about every phone call and every

terrorist and everybody that had a bad

idea and said something on social line

anywhere in the world ever.

So

I don't know how to reconcile other than

100% loss of privacy but we just kind of

don't see it happening so we kind of let

it go.

I don't know. You think it's because

Saddamus is gone.

All right.

Here's something that you should have

seen coming, but but I didn't. So,

according to the Telegraph, Charles High

is writing that some gangs are using uh

gigantic drones, like super drones they

call them, to airlift inmates out of

prison. [laughter]

Now, I wasn't sure, I just skimmed this

before I got on. I wasn't sure if

they've already done it, but the idea is

that if you get a big enough drone, you

just drop that thing into the the yard

and and the bad guy grabs on and it just

flies him out of the prison. Now, I

guess you'd have to I don't know, maybe

use the drone to shoot the guards before

you did it or something. I I don't know

how the guards would ignore that, but uh

they can also drop weapons in. So even

weighing even less than an inmate,

it would be easier to bring weapons in

and then let the let the inmates sort of

fight their way out with their weapons.

But the the whole idea of an open air

prison seems to be just about over.

So, so we're probably at the end of uh

history

that would allow you to have an uh have

a prison that doesn't have a top because

now the top is 100% vulnerable to

escape. So, that's happening. Giant

drones.

[snorts] All right. According to live

science, Owen Hughes is writing this.

Here's a story I'm reluctant to believe

is true. that China solved a century old

problem with a new analog trip chip that

is a thousand times faster than high-end

Nvidia GPUs.

In theory,

and you you'd better put a big grain of

salt on this one, in theory, plucky

little China not having access to the

best of our chips has already leaprogged

them in terms of power and and not not

using electricity. It would like way

faster but also way way less energy use.

Do you believe that happened?

And that it's already done. It's already

done. They've already leaprogged us by a

thousand.

Uh yeah, but it's not programmable.

Somebody says,

"I don't know about that." I would say

this is probably getting ahead of

itself. I would say there it's unlikely

that this is exactly what it's being

claimed to be. But I will say you

remember my prediction about AI, right?

So I had I held some uh I do not give

investment advice. Let me say this. This

is not investment advice. This is a

description of what I did. And I'm not

good at investing and you should not

follow my lead. I'm really not. I'm

literally not good at investing. I don't

think almost anybody is because it's

mostly guessing and I don't I don't

really guess better than other people at

least on random things. So I held uh I

held some Nvidia when you know all the

AI noise started. It went up because

that's what it does. uh but I sold it

fairly quickly and the reason I sold it

was I could not imagine a future in

which some s some startup or maybe China

would come up with a uh leapfrog

technology and that we would have no

visibility on that before it happened

and that one day you just wake up and

somebody would say hey China made a chip

that's a thousand times better and a

thousand times less energy they're

shipping it tomorrow now again I don't

believe this story necessarily

But it seemed to me that the risk of

disruption

is higher than anything I've ever seen

in my lifetime because the money

involved is so much higher than anything

I've seen in my lifetime. If you tell

me, hey, if you come up with an

alternative technology, you can make a

million dollar.

Well, somebody would probably try to do

it, right? A million dollars. Sure. But

if you tell me, you know, if you come up

with a better AI,

you could make a trillion dollars. Wait,

wait, what? A trillion?

A billion, right? No, a trillion.

[laughter]

You could [clears throat] make a

trillion dollars. How hard would you

work for a trillion dollars? I would

work pretty hard for a million.

I'd never sleep if I thought I could

make a trillion.

I'd just keep working until I died. Like

I can make a trillion dollars. A

trillion. A trillion. Anyway, so if you

assume that incentives are a real thing

and the higher the incentive, the more

somebody's going to work on it, there's

never been in the history of the world,

and maybe there never will be, a bigger

incentive than leaprogging AI. And so

the smartest people in the world are

working as hard as they possibly can to

make my prediction come true that

there's some secret technology we don't

know about in a garage that's going to

surprise us soon. So that's why I sold

my Nvidia. But remember, I'm a terrible

investor

and I don't have confidence that that

was the right decision.

But as long as you treat your

investments as part of a portfolio,

you know, even if you get some some part

of it wrong, you probably could still

get the rest of it right. So if you see

it as part of my diversification,

it would make sense. If you saw it as an

individually good decision, well, you're

just guessing. I don't know if it's a

good decision. I really don't know. All

right. Apparently, French President

Mcronone, according to the Brussels

signal, has reached a historic low

rating, 11%.

His approval rating in France is 11.

How in the world do you stay in charge

when your when your approval is 11?

Well, works in Chicago.

And in other French news, apparently

they've activated, so it's in production

now. the first highway that charges your

electric cars and trucks as they drive.

ZMA Science is writing about this. Mah

Andre and uh apparently they've already

put up a mile, a kilometer and a half,

which is about a mile. Uh and they've

turned it on and it works. Now I don't

know how much you can charge anything in

one mile. So it's just a proof of

concept thing, but they built it. It's

in the road. It works. They're testing

it.

Don't you think that would be ultimately

the way to do this? The the one thing I

don't like about the electric car

situation is that you have to charge it.

Now, if I had one, which I don't, I

would charge it at home and I would

barely ever need to charge it anywhere

else.

But

wouldn't it be great if you never had to

plug it in? [laughter]

Wouldn't it be great if at least, you

know, I'll just pick a random number.

Let's say 30% of your roads that were

the ones most traveled.

Uh or they don't even have to be the

ones most traveled. Maybe you could even

build the road just for that purpose.

But wouldn't it be great if you just got

charged by going where you're going?

It'd be hard to beat that as a business

model. Anyway, ladies and gentlemen,

that's what I had for you today. Let's

see. I feel like I'm forgetting

something. Am I forgetting anything?

Uh,

did I mention that uh on the all-in pod?

I saw a clip of the all-in pod. So, uh,

Elon was not only on Joe Rogan show, but

he also was on the all-in pod. One of

the one of the best pods in the whole

world, as they'll tell you. But uh

Elon was talking about some um

particular bureaucratic problem in com

companies and he made a Dilbert

reference and he said uh on the Dilbert

scale this would be 11 and a 10.

Uh yeah Owen will have his faces. I'll

mention that again. Uh so he mentioned

Dilbert on the All- In Pod. Um all of

the All- In Pod guys know me. They they

either know me or I've communicated with

them. I guess I've communicated with all

of them one way or the other. So, uh I

love those guys. They're they're just

the most useful. You know how I always

say that the goal of life is to be

useful. Not not just entertaining, but

to be useful. They are the most useful

podcast

probably in the world because you get

you get four brilliant Oh, I haven't

talked to Freeberg. So, I don't I don't

know him, but he seems cool. Um,

they're the most useful podcast by far

because you're getting four of the

smartest, plugged in, high talent stack

people

who know how to communicate really well

and, you know, get into the cool topics

and stuff. You can't beat them for being

useful. The they're top of the list

right there. But anyway, then Jason gave

me a nice call out. I appreciate that.

Appreciate that, Jason. You might be

watching.

So, we're at the end of the show. Uh,

I'm going to say a few words privately

to my beloved local subscribers. So, so

far every night, every late afternoon

for me, I've been doing a drawing lesson

from my man cave. Don't know how much

longer they'll go because my, you know,

my muscles are degrading kind of

quickly, [gasps] but at the moment, it's

really fun. You can watch my hand as I'm

drawing the cartoon and I teach you

little tricks about drawing that you

would wouldn't hear anywhere else. So,

probably we'll do that again. I don't

give a time for that because I just do

it when I when I can. But, uh, we'll do

some more of those. All right, locals,

come at me. The rest of you, hope I see

you tomorrow. Bye for now.