Episode 3060 CWSA 01/02/26

Not bad.

Stocks are up a little bit.

Tesla's up a little bit.

All right, we're starting the year off, right?

Excellent.

Let me make sure I can see your local comments and then we'll have the show you've been waiting for.

The show of shows.

All right, that's working.

Oh, come on.

Typing through tears.

Let's just enjoy our morning.

Okay.

How about the simultaneous sip?

Cuz I know why you're here.

>> It's working.

>> Whoops.

Stop it.

I inter I interrupted myself.

Okay, we'll try that again.

All you need is a copper mug or a glass of tanker shell sting can eaten sugar flask a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.

The dopamine of the day.

The thing makes everything better is called simultaneous sip.

It happens now.

the simultaneity.

It never disappoints.

So, one of the things I told you I like a lot is when people who are way smarter than me, agree with me because it makes me feel smarter.

So the CEO of Perplexity, that's one of the big AI apps, Arvinas, he says, "The biggest threat to data centers is intelligence that runs locally on your device." So I think I've been telling you for a while that the big AI companies are building enormous multibillion dollar data centers.

And as an investor, I would be concerned that things could change instantly.

And one of the things that could change instantly is if somebody figured out how to do AI without the data center.

Now it seems impossible but on the other hand um if you started with the data set of training and then just added your own intelligence and your own stuff, how close could you get to a working AI that didn't need to be connected to a data center?

I think that's coming.

Anyway, speaking of AI, Sam Olman of J GPT and OpenAI, uh, apparently he's got a different vision than Elon Musk does about what's going to happen to your your apps.

So, in his world, Chat GBT will have its own app store and maybe replace the Apple App Store.

But so far, they have not really been successful.

So they have some apps, but they're not, you know, it's not doing everything a phone could do.

So they think their big competition is Apple and the i.

Phone, but they can't quite get apps to work.

I don't know if they will.

Now, the difference is that Elon um says there won't be apps per se.

There might just be one one version of AI on your on your device which would look nothing like a smartphone except a screen and a you know some basics.

So we'll see that that's a pretty big deal because whoever whoever ends up owning the app or replacement app environment is going to have a business that's worth trillion dollars.

According to someone on X named Ming, I love it when I take random people I don't know about on X and act like they're uh they have a special insight.

Maybe he does.

Yeah, maybe Ming knows everything.

Or maybe Ming is making it up because I don't know who he is.

But he says that the mass production audit for Tesla's Optimus version three, that would be the robot, has been completed.

And here's the new part.

Seven Chinese companies would be core suppliers.

So for different parts of the robot, uh Tesla would employ seven Chinese companies.

Now, a lot of it I assume would be made in the US, but they would be getting parts from China to to assemble.

Now, you remember I was telling you that the CEO of uh Andreil was saying that basically every electronic component that came from China had some kind of a listening device in it that might be as big as a grain of sand or grain of rice.

Not sand stupid rice totally different.

So how much can you trust uh robot parts that came from China?

Do you think that's safe?

And what would Tesla's um security be?

Would they make sure that every component was free from some kind of spy device?

I assume so.

It's a weird it's a weird time in history where we we assume that China would put, you know, malicious code or malicious hardware into every device at the same time, you probably can't make the robots without China.

So, is China Tesla's friend or is it just another way China can get some control over the United States?

But more to the point, so they want to make they want to be ready to make 50 to to 100,000 units.

That would be robots um in Q1 2026.

So, remember how I keep asking, how in the world will robots be like generally intelligent and act like a butler if we haven't seen it yet?

And I always mock the videos that show some robot doing exactly one thing.

So, today there's a video I saw about some Chinese-made robot that could play tennis, but they don't really show it trying to make every kind of shot.

So, it probably can't even do tennis unless it's like a a ground stroke that's kind of close to his forehand.

So once again, every time we get try to somebody tries to trick us into thinking that robots are ready, they'll show a demonstration of a robot doing exactly one thing.

Now, obviously, if you could get a robot to play tennis, that would be pretty impressive, but it wouldn't be the same intelligence that would make it make it a Butler.

So here's my question.

What does Elon know about AI?

The AI that would go into his robots that we don't know.

Does he have this?

Does he have this bastard?

Because why would you even gear up for making that many robots this soon, first quarter, unless you solve the general intelligence problem?

And how in the world would we not know that he has solved it?

Or is it optimism?

Does he feel that he's close enough that if you give it three more months that you'll be able to do whatever you want to do?

I don't know.

I'm genuinely curious because, you know, Elon's not going to waste a bunch of money on a robot that doesn't work.

So he must think your work and when I say work I mean be generally trainable.

So you could just teach it a new thing on the fly spaces.

All right.

Tesla is a surveillance company.

You say, "Well, not by design, but uh I don't know what could reveal anything better than that." You know, nobody's ever asked me to teach a robot how to be funny.

I'm seeing that in the comments.

Um, but I think I could.

I think it would have been within my ability to teach a robot how to be funny.

Not positive, but I think I could.

Nobody else has.

Well, remember I told you yesterday, I think it was yesterday that sometimes I cheer for the wrong people.

You know, you've seen movies, TV shows where the bad guy is actually the charismatic one.

You remember uh the TV show Dallas and J.R.

Ewing was the bad guy, but he was the most interesting person in the show.

So, he ended up cheering for the bad guy.

And I told you that that started to be my feeling about that tanker.

It's an empty tanker that the US Navy has been chasing.

And remember I told you that um he did a U-turn instead of surrendering, which was ballsy.

And then they painted on the side of their ship a Russian flag to try to get Russia's protection.

And it looks like it might have worked because apparently Russia has now asked the US to not not take the tanker.

So, I don't know if it's really a Russian flagship or if they changed it to a Russian flagship, but if he gets away with this, if that if that tanker captain actually pulls it off and gets away, that is going to be the coolest criminal thing I've seen this year.

So, I'm trying not to not to root for the other team, but he's a ballsy captain.

All right.

Well, good luck, Captain.

So, here's some good news.

Lee Zeldon is reporting that uh the Trump EPA just completed a risk evaluation of, and I think I'll be pronouncing this right.

It's spelled P H T H A L A Ts.

So, obviously that would be pronounced fullness.

I think I nailed that right.

So, apparently the chemicals are going to be banned because they're bad for you.

Um, Lee Zeldon says the MA activists were right and the Trump EPA strongly agrees that exposures in certain settings exceed safe levels and could cause endocrine endocrine disruptions.

So if I could give you any advice, it would go like this.

Stay away from the flat platith.

All right.

Now I I try to be useful.

So here I am teaching you how to pronounce this difficult to pronounce word one more time.

It's pronounced flatties.

Yeah, that's a word.

But good job Trump administration.

I like the fact that RFK Jr.

is leading the do science better push.

So this is one of many things in which the gold standard of science will be applied and apparently has never been applied before which is the weird part.

How how long ago was it that you learned that science was mostly fake or at least at least the science that we cared about?

You know, we never really had safety tests for a lot of medicines, but we thought we did.

I mean, I think I thought the same thing you did for years, which is the most the most tested would be pharmaceutical stuff.

Turns out that was never the case.

And then secondly, you would assume that food and food safety would also be among the top things that our science did right.

Well, turns out that's all wrong.

That we didn't have science to support our big meds and we didn't have science to support our big food.

But and and of all people of all people, Trump is the one who's making this, you know, real science.

So there's there's more on that in a minute.

Um I'm seeing some reporting about uh Trump's approval levels being high.

I think it was Harry Anton on CNN who said they've never seen this before which is a president in his second term who's uh been better more approval than his first term because first terms you tend to get a little bit of a you know honeymoon but Trump is actually more popular now than any time in his um first term.

That's impressive.

Now how popular he is is a matter of dispute.

So there are various different polls.

They have very different answers.

I think one said he's 44% approval which wouldn't be bad.

Another poll I think said 50% approval which would be very impressive 50%.

But you know how much you how much you really trust um claims of popularity or approval, I guess.

But here's what Trump does.

So, in the midst of these sketchy numbers, uh Trump says that uh uh the polls are rigged and he claims his real job approval rating nearly a year into a second term is 64%.

64%.

No, I don't.

As a representative president, it was 64%.

I think there were maybe around the first what what was Bush's approval during the first Gulf War?

It was really high, right?

So Trump says he's got, he goes, the real number is 64%.

And why not?

And why not?

Our country is hotter than ever before.

Uh isn't it nice to have a strong border, no inflation, blah blah blah, happy new year.

So if if you're a Democrat, would this drive you crazy?

If you saw that the president was claiming a 64% approval but had no poll whatsoever to back it, it would make you crazy.

How does it make you feel if you support Trump?

Well, I'm in that category.

And to me, it's just as funny.

I I love the fact that he just throws that out there because he knows that his critics are going to go crazy and it doesn't make any difference whatsoever to his supporters.

We just watched the show.

So when he does that salesmanish thing and he just, you know, throws out this giant number that can't be supported, it just makes me laugh.

And I don't think anybody else would know that that could be like a workable strategy instead of insane.

Oh, speaking of which, so Trump also had a physical.

He claims he claims he's in quote perfect health and that he aced the third cognitive exam he's been asked to take in his time as presidents.

Um he says the White House doctors have reported that I am in now all caps perfect health and that I aced capital all capitals uh meaning was correct on 100% of the questions asked for the third straight time.

My cognitive examination something which no other president or previous vice president was willing to take.

Trump wrote.

Now again, do you hate the fact that he's claiming his, you know, cognitive test success?

No.

Will it bother his critics for whatever reason?

Yes.

So if it bothers his critics and it doesn't bother his supporters, that's a sweet spot.

He has a sweet spot.

Well, over in Israel, apparently Netanyahu and the Israeli government is going to enforce a ban on 37 NOS in Gaza.

So, they believe that at least 37 of them are maybe sneaking in bad guys or doing something that Israel would not want them to do and is not in their charter.

So if you had heard this story a few years ago, what would you assume was happening?

You might assume that Israel was being mean and they were removing the sources of charity for the the region that they that they conquered.

And you might say, "My god, these brutal monsters, they're cutting our NGO support." But what are you thinking in 2026?

in 2026 now that we know the NOS's are massive money laundering schemes and probably in this case being used as some kind of some kind of disguise for moving in things that you know could be weapons for example may maybe it's other terrorists.

So it makes me wonder is there ever been an NGO that was good or are all NOS's just automatically a signal for fraud and a signal for something you don't want to happen?

I don't know.

But I'll tell you, um, it does seem to suggest there's never been a good NGO and that every single time you hear about one, there's something sketchy going on probably.

All right.

Well, here's here's a story that was just complicated enough that I don't fully understand it, but I'll try.

So, according to Jennifer Okonnell writing for Red State, um Trump has already this year vetoed two things at least.

And one of the things he vetoed was a decades old legislation that was tied all the way back to John F.

Kennedy 63 years ago where they had put together a deal where the federal government would pay for this massive pipeline project.

But the the way it was supposed to work is that the federal government would pay for it, but then they would be paid back over time with interest by the state local authorities.

So on paper sounds pretty good, right?

the uh the locals get a source of water.

I'm sure they needed it and uh it's all funded, but that was 63 years ago.

So, apparently all they do is they keep kicking the can down the road.

Uh I think very little or nothing has been built.

So, it's a little bit a little bit like the allegations about the California highspeed rail.

Um, but Trump just canceled it.

So, I feel like that's the right play because if something has lasted 63 years and they haven't built anything and it probably doesn't have a good audio feature because, you know, one does.

Uh, and there's probably no way that the feds would ever get paid back.

I think Trump can cancel that.

So that does make sense to me and it makes me wonder how many things are going to get cancelled because they never really made sense or because it's been decades and the money just disappears.

So, how much of I don't know how much money was ever allocated to it, but once again, no surprise, we learned that any big federal project or state project is probably just a way for somebody to rob us.

Speaking of which, uh, the Trump administration has extended its ban on child care payments uh, until the states could provide evidence of legitimate spending.

I saw this on one American news network.

So the Department of Health and Human Services, which had uh already suspended these federal payments to one state, I think it was just uh Minnesota, um has now made that a, you know, national thing.

So do you think that's a good idea?

probably because as far as we can tell uh all the payments of this type were massively fraudulent and it probably affected every state and it's perfectly reasonable to ask them for evidence that the money is going to the right place.

So, it's not that they can't get the money, it's that they will have to uh demonstrate, you know, with receipts and photo evidence and show that the funds are actually be being used in the right way.

Now, here's my takeaway from that.

I'm trying to imagine any other president who could have done this.

You know, even though we recently learned uh that that all these things were giant fakes, do you think that a Democrat would have just said, "All right, we're going to stop paying all of you until you can prove it's real." No.

And I'm not even sure a Republican could have because there would just be be so much push back.

But here's why a regular ordinary Republican and definitely a Democrat president could not have pulled this off, which I think will be an important move.

The first thing you had to do was dismantle DEI.

If you had not dismantled DEI, then cutting funding in this way would automatically be called racist.

But Trump is the only one with enough balls to say, "You could call me racist if you want to, but I'm still going to do it." So, you had to have a anti-dei president.

No one else could have done this.

No one else.

Would you agree?

I'm looking at the comments right now.

Would you agree that no other person as president would have had the tools and the right personality and the guts to do this?

Um, secondly, and this is important, the only way this would get done if he is if he wasn't in on the scam.

Now, even if you say, well, no, no other president was in on the scam.

But their supporters were, so they would have they would have had a base that said, "What are you doing?" their base would have stopped that president because they were in on it.

So Trump, whether or not any Republicans are in on it, and certainly some must be, that didn't stop.

So he's not stopped by the DEI attacks, let's call it the racism attacks.

He's not stopped because somebody on his team is in on it.

And lastly, you need a, you know, basically balls of steel to do something that people will interpret, the bad guys will interpret as killing children.

So, a Democrat probably couldn't survive doing something that people would say, "Hey, you take that money away and it will kill the children." But Trump would be smart enough, tough enough, strong enough to say, "Well, all you have to do is prove that you're real.

You can have the money right away." So, I don't know that any other president could have done this.

is sort of the perfect combination of the person who needed to be there at the right time.

Otherwise, I think we're just doomed.

Just doomed.

All right.

I've asked you this before, but I'm going to add a little details.

I have a favor to ask.

Um, you'll you'll see a post that I pinned to my X feed.

It's the one at the top in which I'm asking you if I helped you in any way or let's say my work if my work helped you in any way to uh leave a message in that post because my good friend and now biographer Joel Pollock um I've asked him to write my biography and a big part of the biography will be you know some notion of what I added to the universe.

So, if you have a story to tell or you know somebody that does, um, do me a favor and leave a comment, uh, just so we know what the general th thrust is.

And then follow Joel.

You you'll see his, uh, you'll see his exh handle in my post.

give him a follow because if he sees something in the comments that would look good or or he wants to follow up with in the book, he will have a way to contact you so he could follow you back and DM you.

Okay.

Um and that would be a big favor to me.

I would appreciate that.

Well, Iran apparently is having some big protests uh in the street.

So, I saw some reporting that we'll we'll see if I've trained you well enough to spot this.

The claim is that now there are now 32 cities uh where there will be protests.

32 cities.

Now, give me the give me the filter on that.

Do you think that 32 cities are really going to have protests?

All right, here's the filter.

We'll see how many of you got it.

How big would the protest be in those 32 cities?

Because I heard yesterday that the 32 city thing might be true, but some of them would be small crowds.

So there's a big difference between a small crowd of protesters and overwhelming number.

But we don't see how many of the 32 are going to be big or have been big and how many of them are just a few hundred people took the streets so they they added it to the count.

But what is new and interesting is that uh Trump weighed in on this.

I thought he would stay out of it because you don't you don't want the Iranian people to organize against the US.

You want them to keep their focus on their own government.

And like I said, I don't know.

Is it a color revolution?

Is it completely organic?

Or is it really something that the US and Israel are behind?

I would be surprised if it's 100% organic.

You know what I mean?

So, I don't think we can tell from here um how effective those things are going to be.

But here's what Trump said on true social.

He said, "If Iran, if Iran kills peaceful protesters, we will come we will come to the rescue locked and loaded and ready to go." So Trump is basically saying that the US would get involved militarily if the regime murders any of the peaceful protesters.

Is that a good idea?

Here again, I'm making an assumption because it's not the way we've acted in the past.

But my assumption is that Trump knows more about this than we do.

So it could be that he has information that things are teetering on the brink.

Now if things are teetering on the brink and a little, you know, giving a little boost to the protesters makes sense, then it's a good play.

But doesn't it seem to you like Iran has had many many periods of protests and they eventually just get suppressed?

So if it just gets suppressed um I don't know if this helped.

So once again I'm going to make an assumption that Trump knows more about this than we do.

So he knows what's behind the scenes.

It could be that there are insiders in Iran who are ready to take over and make a deal with the US.

It could be that Trump just always takes the strongest play.

I've been telling you this for a while.

If there if there are a couple of ways to go on any topic, he he picks the one that's the strongest.

And the strongest would be to say we'll weigh in militarily.

So, I have to say I'm not optimistic that there will be regime change in Iran because of this.

That feels a little too optimistic, doesn't it?

Um, but possible.

Like I say, if if Trump knows something we don't know or if Israel knows something we don't know, maybe.

We'll see.

Well, Zoran Mandani held a uh what he called a block party to celebrate his election.

And apparently that became a little bit of a problem because his block party did not include food, music, or bathrooms.

No food, music, or bathrooms.

It was also really, really cold.

So, here's how I'd summarize that.

First day of socialism not so good.

May maybe they show less of capitalism there to sell bathrooms and food.

Uh but then he said this which is getting quoted a lot.

Madi said we will replace the fragility of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism collectivism.

I wonder if the warmth of collectivism is actually the urine that's running down their legs because they don't have bathrooms.

Just wondering.

I I would beware of that warmth of collectivism.

So, first day not so good.

Speaking of food, uh the FDA plans to update the food pyramid.

I think that's what it is.

but they say guidelines um and they would do it based on real real science.

Now, one of the pro one of the things I didn't know was a problem, but the FDA is looking to fix it is that the different states have different standards for what is ultrarocessed.

So, in one city, ultrarocessed means one thing.

In another state, it means another.

But they're looking to get some kind of a federal standard, which you would sort of need.

If you're going to have a standard for food, you would need it to be federal.

Will the states um disagree?

And will the state say stay away from our state?

We have our own food standard maybe.

I don't know.

But I do wonder if the FDA can do this now.

without the undue influence of big food because the food companies obviously are going to weigh in, they have a big influence.

Um, is this only because it's a it's a Trump administration?

Is that the only reason that they can even maybe have a chance of good food guidelines?

Mostly I think they're going to get rid of additives and color food coloring and stuff like that, but there might be a lot more.

I you know if you if you thought about it if the only thing that the Trump administration accomplished the only thing was to improve the guidelines for food and the testing of meds that would be pretty successful because those have you especially food has such a leverage effect on everything else.

You know, if you get your food right, presumably your health care costs go down, right?

So, you get a lot done if you can just take care of the food.

Well, on X, a gentleman named Kevin Bass um did some number crunching and he found out that states that have no effective voter ID requirements average nearly eight times more welfare benefits to illegal immigrants compared to states that require voter ID verification.

So it is literally the case that states are importing and paying illegals for votes.

And uh Elon Musk weighed in and said yes is the biggest crime in American history.

Um I think he means the the larger crime of essentially paying people to come into this country and then shipping them in so you could control the vote.

I'm not sure which part is illegal, but it does feel like the biggest crime does feel like the biggest crime in American history.

So imagine if Elon Musk didn't exist.

So I just gave you a whole speech about Trump as the only person who could have, you know, attack the fraud effectively.

But I don't think even that would have happened without Doge and without Elon putting his finger on that button continuously.

So somebody told me that uh the Nick Shirley um account which you know blew up and became a giant thing was primarily because Elon boosted him.

Is that true?

I I was trying to understand why since 2018 local news and others have and whistleblowers have been pointing out this massive fraud, but it took Nick Shirley and his work to make us all pay attention.

Now, it could be that I'm in such a bubble that I think people are paying attention, but not really.

I said this the other day that if you if you just walked onto the street and tapped on somebody's shoulder and said, "Hey, what do you think of the Nick Shirley videos?" They would have no idea what you're talking about.

But I live in a bubble in which, you know, the Nick Shirley videos are big.

So it's I see it every day.

Every day.

And then versions of it every day.

So, but I I think Elon just giving that a boost might make all the difference.

So, again, I say what would it be like if we didn't have an Elon?

Everything would be different.

We we wouldn't even know about a lot of this stuff.

Now, Mike Benz, of course, would also be critical to to our current understanding.

All right.

So, the Washington Examiner Drew Bond is writing that can AI help lower our energy bills.

Now, that sounds the opposite of what you thought, right?

If the big data companies or the big data centers that drive AI need massive massive amount of energy, wouldn't that compete with the domestic, you know, residential um need for electricity and power and wouldn't it necessarily make your energy costs go up?

But here's a version of what probably will be happening that suggests that the data centers will make your local energy prices go down.

So already we're seeing that that the big companies, the massive companies who need to build these big data centers, they're they're augmenting the existing power by building their own power sources in the same places as the data centers.

So they're using natural gas, they're using solar, geothermal, wind, and small nuclear reactors and battery storage.

So, if they use all of those things and they keep it local, they can pay for basically all the energy they need.

But here's the new part.

What would stop them from making extra?

If you're already going to put in this power source and you're going to use it just for yourself, how hard would it be to make it twice as big and then provide even cheaper energy to the local community?

And I'd never really thought of it that way, but if they if they have enough regulatory relief, it seems to me that something has changed in regulations because why is it suddenly so easy for these big companies to build their own power plants?

I feel like building a power plant would be the hardest thing you could ever get approved, but suddenly, you know, there are lots of them and they're they seem to get approval.

So, is that a Trump thing?

Did Trump um did did the administration remove a bunch of regulations to make this practical?

It must they must have, right?

So, again, could any other president have pulled off the AI revolution?

I don't know because you would have to go massively after the regulatory structures in order to even imagine that private companies could build their own power plants on site.

Yeah.

Anyway, an update on the LA fires.

Postmillennial is reporting Hannah Nightingale that just 13% of homes destroyed in the LA fires have a permit to rebuild.

Now, uh do you know why it's taking so long?

It's not all because of the state, although much of it is.

Number one, there's no way to get fire insurance.

Would you rebuild a home if you knew you couldn't get fire insurance, especially a place where they had a big fire?

So, some of it is the insurance companies and the homeowners not being able to, you know, do a deal.

Secondly, especially if you didn't have enough insurance before the fire, if you're a homeowner, you're probably short on cash.

So even if you could get approval to build, how many people would have enough to to just rebuild a new house?

That's got to limit.

That seems like it would limit you.

And then then of course there are endangered plants.

So apparently getting around the fact that there are endangered plants is slowing down permits.

But as somebody asked in the comments where I saw this, how how did the endangered plants do during the fire?

Isn't a fire worsen building?

Yeah.

So, we'll keep an eye on this, but it does seem to me that if there's no way to get fire insurance, it's going to be a long slow hall.

Maybe maybe they can clean it up.

So the fire risk is actually lower there than it is in other places.

Um, fentinel.

Oh, here's another I'm seeing in the comments somebody saying that the fentinel overdoses has gone way down since Trump got in office.

I I have some questions about that.

I don't doubt it's true.

But I didn't think you could reduce the supply of fentinel coming across the border enough to make a difference just because it's so small.

You it's not like bales of marijuana.

Um you could put you could put it in your pocket enough to kill a city.

So how do you stop that?

So even though he stopped shipments from Venezuela, some people say that wasn't fentinel anyway, but he did stop traffic coming in from Mexico.

And I can't believe that the smugglers can't figure out how to just throw throw a bag of fentil over the fence.

So they must be doing something right.

But we'll give him credit for that.

And I don't think another president could have done that.

Well, Russia is still claiming, according to the Washington Times, that the attack on Putin's home was real.

And they now have a uh an unexloded drone that they're showing on video to prove, look at this unexloded drone.

It has evidence that it came from Ukraine.

Um, so remember, Ukraine said they didn't do it.

the US said the Ukraine didn't do it and that it was just an an attack on something.

It was kind of far away, but that Putin was just lying about it.

Well, here's what I would advise you.

Don't trust any report from a war zone.

So, maybe maybe Ukraine was behind it.

Maybe they intended to attack his residents, but they showed a picture of a uh a drone on the ground with, you know, no way to know if it's a real drone or if it's a real video.

But what they have not done is show the damage from the attack.

Am I right?

What is the main thing you would expect?

It's not as if no one's ever seen a picture of his um residence.

You don't think he'd be willing to show maybe just a closeup, but something that shows there was damage um on the actual residence because if you if the only thing you show me is an unexloded drone in the bushes, how do I know what that's about?

So, who do we trust?

Nobody.

I would not trust Ukraine who said they didn't do it, but I definitely wouldn't trust Putin who said they did do it.

I definitely wouldn't trust the United States no matter what side they were on.

So, it's kind of a weird one.

Probably works.

You know, maybe Putin get some propaganda benefit on that.

Um, so apparently Elon Musk has signaled that he's going to massively fund uh Republicans for the midterm because he thinks that America is toast.

Quote, "America is toast.

If the radical left wins, they will open the floodgates to illegal immigration and fraud and won't be America anymore." That feels fair.

That does feel fair, doesn't it?

That we're we're so close to fixing a lot of stuff, but at the same time, all it would take you is one election, especially if the election is rigged.

It would only take one election to reverse everything.

We are really teetering on the edge here, people.

And I saw the argument, I forgot who made it, somebody famous made the argument that if we if the Republicans don't get rid of the filibuster, getting rid of it would allow them to pass lots of legislation.

But if they don't get rid of it, um someday the Democrats will get in power and they will get rid of it.

And when they get rid of it, there's going to be a whole bunch of laws that get passed that you're not going to like at all.

So, what do you think?

Would it be smarter for the Republicans to get ahead of it and say, "All right, we know that you would get rid of the filibuster, so we're going to get rid of it first." And then you've got a few years, maybe less than a few years to to do a bunch of stuff.

I'm kind of mixed on this.

because you can't really predict the future that well.

So, I don't know exactly if getting rid of the filibuster would be the best we could do um or would be the biggest mistake we ever made.

It could easily go either way.

Don't know.

Well, according to scientist Sabine Hassenfelder, who's a fun follow on X, let me take a step and get back to that.

I'm massively dehydrated, but intentionally.

So according to Sabine Hassenfelder, there's a new paper that that has uh just dropped that says that scientists are 40% more productive when they use AI um and increase their paper.

And for non-native English speakers, it's even more up to 80%.

So apparently this only applies to the writing part.

So it doesn't apply to the actual science part, it applies to the writing it up and submitting it to uh to technical journals.

Um so as she warns that if the thing that got faster was not the science part, but the writing it up and publishing it part, the the scientific publications are going to be overwhelmed with what I will call science slop.

So if you assume that half of the science is fake anyway, which is what it is, if you increase the number of fake papers along with the number of real ones, are we better off?

Do you do you think the world is better if suddenly there are way more published papers just because it was easy to write them up?

I don't know.

I'm not sure that makes us better off.

Uh so more slop and I believe I saw RFK Jr.

say that the once credible technical journals are essentially owned by the pharma companies and the big big industry.

So that the what you thought was this credible process of peer review was nothing like that that basically it was a bought and paid for situation.

Owen says get rid of the filibuster now.

You might be right about that Owen.

Anyway, so RFK Junior says they're going to stop publishing.

I don't know how they do this.

Maybe just government publications, but they're gonna ignore the once credible publications because they're no longer credible.

And uh I think he wants to start.

You also had to pay.

You had to pay $10,000 to be published.

So that doesn't seem like a good model, but I guess RFK Jr.

is going to push for some government um government endorsed technical papers.

So if there's something in there, it would be a little more credible, a little more.

And then finally, um you may have seen that President Xi of China is ramping up the rhetoric about taking over Taiwan.

And you probably also knew that uh China was doing very aggressive um let's say military what do you call it drills in which they're you know surrounding Taiwan etc.

And I saw saw a post by Dustin Walper who is cautioning us that the risk of losing our chip access in Taiwan is not the biggest threat.

It's a big one.

But if China were to take over Taiwan, um it would have, as Dustin Walper says, um an a much bigger influence over Japan and and South Korea.

um and that Japan would consider it an existential threat to Japan if China took over Taiwan because apparently that would give them some access to the South China Sea that's you know more more militarily meaningful than what they have now.

So they would have unfettered access to the Philippine Sea and then China would also be in a position to more easily threaten harass Japan's trading routes with the US and Australia.

And uh he so Dustin reminds us that uh Japan owns about half the industrial robotics market as a critical alternative to China for everything that we do with machines basically.

So, here's my question.

Um, would they dare take over Taiwan while Trump is in office?

Or would it make infinite infinite more sense to spend three years preparing to do it and then when Trump is out of office, you know, maybe they have a a more greased path?

My guess is that that Trump does a good enough job of scaring people that they wouldn't do it while he's in office.

Um, would you agree that she would wait until um Trump was out of office?

I feel like that would be the smart play and they tend to be very patient, but it would suggest that uh their current moves are just preparatory and threatening, but we'll see.

Anyway, that's all I got for today.

That's your show for today.

I'll look at your comments.

It'll take a take a few minutes to catch up.

Um, don't believe the Congress actually wants to fix anything.

Yeah, scientific studies are not not too reliable, even if they're peer-reviewed.

Bobby Hasta journals.

Yep.

Everything except our elections are rigged.

Right.

All right, people.

I'm going to talk uh privately to the members in the local community.

To the rest of you, thanks for joining.

Sorry, my voice is kind of sketchy.

Sketchy.

Th this part of my jaw is still uh paralyzed as is the bottom part of me.

All right, people.

Here we go.

Privacy coming up.

Locals in 30 seconds.

Local support.

Not bad. Stocks are up a little bit.

Tesla's up a little bit.

All right, we're starting the year off,

right?

Excellent.

Let me make sure I can see your local

comments

and then we'll have the show you've been

waiting for.

The show of shows.

All right, that's working.

Oh, come on. Typing through tears. Let's

just enjoy our morning. Okay.

How about the simultaneous sip? Cuz I

know why you're here.

>> It's working.

>> Whoops.

Stop it.

I inter I interrupted myself.

Okay, we'll try that again.

All you need is a copper mug or a glass

of tanker shell sting can eaten sugar

flask a vessel of any kind. Fill it with

your favorite liquid. I like coffee and

join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure. The dopamine of the day. The

thing makes everything better is called

simultaneous sip. It happens now.

[sighs]

the simultaneity.

It never disappoints.

So, one of the things I told you I like

a lot is when people who are way smarter

than me, agree with me because it makes

me feel smarter. So the CEO of

Perplexity,

that's one of the big AI apps, Arvinas,

he says, "The biggest threat to data

centers is intelligence that runs

locally on your device." So I think I've

been telling you for a while that the

big AI companies are building enormous

multibillion dollar data centers. And as

an investor, I would be concerned that

things could change instantly. And one

of the things that could change

instantly is if somebody figured out how

to do AI without the data center.

Now it seems impossible but on the other

hand

um

if you started with the data set of

training and then just added your own

intelligence and your own stuff, how

close could you get to a working AI that

didn't need to be connected to a data

center?

I think that's coming.

Anyway, speaking of AI,

Sam Olman of J GPT and OpenAI, uh,

apparently he's got a different vision

than Elon Musk does about what's going

to happen to your your apps.

So, in his world, [clears throat] Chat

GBT will have its own app store and

maybe replace the Apple App Store. But

so far, they have not really been

successful.

So they have some apps, but they're not,

you know, it's not doing everything a

phone could do. So they think their big

competition is Apple and the iPhone, but

they can't quite get apps to work. I

don't know if they will.

Now, the difference is that Elon

um says there won't be apps per se.

There might just be one one version of

AI on your on your device which would

look nothing like a smartphone except a

screen and a you know some basics. So

we'll see that that's a pretty big deal

because whoever whoever ends up owning

the app or replacement app environment

is going to have a business that's worth

trillion dollars.

According to someone on X named Ming,

I love it when I take random people I

don't know about on X and act like

they're uh they have a special insight.

Maybe he does. Yeah, maybe Ming knows

everything. Or maybe Ming is making it

up because I don't know who he is. But

he says that the mass production audit

for Tesla's Optimus version three, that

would be the robot, has been completed.

And here's the new part. Seven Chinese

companies

would be core suppliers.

So for different parts of the robot,

uh Tesla would employ seven Chinese

companies. Now, a lot of it I assume

would be made in the US, but they would

be getting parts from China to to

assemble. Now, you remember I was

telling you that the CEO of uh Andreil

was saying that basically every

electronic component that came from

China had some kind of a listening

device in it that might be as big as a

grain of sand or grain of rice. Not sand

stupid rice

totally different.

So how much can you trust

uh robot parts that came from China?

Do you think that's safe? And what would

Tesla's um security be? Would they make

sure that every component was free from

some kind of spy device?

I assume so. It's a weird it's a weird

time in history where we we assume that

China would put, you know, malicious

code or malicious hardware into every

device at the same time, you probably

can't make the robots without China.

So, is China Tesla's friend or is it

just another way China can get some

control over the United States? But more

to the point,

so they want to make they want to be

ready to make 50 to to 100,000 units.

That would be robots

um in Q1 2026.

So, remember how I keep asking, how in

the world will robots be

like generally intelligent and act like

a butler if we haven't seen it yet? And

I always mock the videos that show some

robot doing exactly one thing. So, today

there's a video I saw about some

Chinese-made robot that could play

tennis,

but they don't really show it trying to

make every kind of shot. So, it probably

can't even do tennis

unless it's like a a ground stroke

that's kind of close to his forehand. So

once again,

every time we get try to somebody tries

to trick us into thinking that robots

are ready, they'll show a demonstration

of a robot doing exactly one thing. Now,

obviously, if you could get a robot to

play tennis, that would be pretty

impressive, but it wouldn't be the same

intelligence

that would make it make it a Butler.

So here's my question.

What does Elon know about AI?

The AI that would go into his robots

that we don't know.

Does he have this? Does he have this

bastard? Because why would you even gear

up for making that many robots this

soon, first quarter, unless you solve

the general intelligence problem? And

how in the world would we not know that

he has solved it? Or is it optimism?

Does he feel that he's close enough that

if you give it three more months that

you'll be able to do whatever you want

to do? I don't know. I'm genuinely

curious

because, you know, Elon's not going to

waste a bunch of money on a robot that

doesn't work.

So he must think your work and when I

say work I mean be generally trainable.

So you could just teach it a new thing

on the fly

spaces.

All right.

Tesla is a surveillance company. You

say, "Well, not by design, but

uh I don't know what could reveal

anything better than that."

You know, nobody's ever asked me to

teach a robot how to be funny. I'm

seeing that in the comments.

Um, but I think I could.

I think it would have been within my

ability to teach a robot how to be

funny.

Not positive, but I think I could.

Nobody else has.

Well, remember I told you yesterday, I

think it was yesterday that sometimes I

cheer for the wrong people. You know,

you've seen movies, TV shows where the

bad guy is actually the charismatic one.

You remember uh the TV show Dallas and

J.R. Ewing was the bad guy, but he was

the most interesting person in the show.

So, he ended up cheering for the bad

guy.

And I told you that that started to be

my feeling about that tanker. It's an

empty tanker that the US Navy has been

chasing. And remember I told you that um

he did a U-turn instead of surrendering,

which was ballsy. And then they painted

on the side of their ship a Russian flag

[laughter]

to try to get Russia's protection.

And it looks like it might have worked

because apparently Russia has now asked

the US to not not take the tanker. So, I

don't know if it's really a Russian

flagship or if they changed it to a

Russian flagship, but if he gets away

with this, if that if that tanker

captain actually pulls it off and gets

away, that is going to be the coolest

criminal thing I've seen this year. So,

I'm trying not to not to root for the

other team, but he's a ballsy captain.

All right. Well, good luck, Captain.

So, here's some good news. Lee Zeldon is

reporting that uh the Trump EPA just

completed a risk evaluation of,

and I think I'll be pronouncing this

right. It's spelled P H T H A L A Ts.

So, obviously that would be pronounced

fullness.

I think I nailed that right. So,

apparently the

chemicals are going to be banned because

they're bad for you.

Um, Lee Zeldon says the MA activists

were right and the Trump EPA strongly

agrees that exposures in certain

settings exceed safe levels and could

cause endocrine endocrine disruptions.

So if I could give you any advice, it

would go like this. Stay away from the

flat platith.

All right. Now I I try to be useful. So

here I am teaching you how to pronounce

this difficult to pronounce word one

more time. It's pronounced flatties.

Yeah, that's a word.

But good job Trump administration. I

like the fact that RFK Jr. is leading

the do science better push. So this is

one of many things in which the gold

standard of science will be applied and

apparently has never been applied before

which is the weird part. How how long

ago was it that you learned that science

was mostly fake

or at least at least the science that we

cared about? You know, we never really

had safety tests for a lot of medicines,

but we thought we did. I mean, I think I

thought the same thing you did for

years, which is the most the most tested

would be pharmaceutical stuff. Turns out

that was never the case. And then

secondly, you would assume that food and

food safety would also be among the top

things that our science did right. Well,

turns out [laughter]

that's all [clears throat] wrong. That

we didn't have science to support our

big meds and we didn't have science to

support our big food. But and and of all

people of all people,

Trump is the one who's making this, you

know, real science.

So

there's there's more on that in a

minute.

Um I'm seeing some reporting about uh

Trump's approval levels being high. I

think it was Harry Anton on CNN who said

they've never seen this before which is

a president in his second term who's uh

been better more approval than his first

term because first terms you tend to get

a little bit of a you know honeymoon but

Trump is actually more popular now than

any time in his um first term. That's

impressive.

Now how popular he is is a matter of

dispute.

So there are various different polls.

They have very different answers. I

think one said he's 44%

approval which wouldn't be bad. Another

poll I think said 50% approval which

would be very impressive 50%. But you

know how much you how much you really

trust

um claims of popularity or approval, I

guess. But here's what Trump does. So,

in the midst of these sketchy numbers,

uh Trump says

that uh uh the polls are rigged and he

claims his real job approval rating

nearly a year into a second term is 64%.

64%.

No, I don't. As a representative

president, it was 64%.

I think there were maybe around the

first what what was Bush's approval

during the first Gulf War? It was really

high, right?

So Trump says he's got, he goes, the

real number is 64%.

And why not? [laughter] And why not? Our

country is hotter than ever before. Uh

isn't it nice to have a strong border,

no inflation, blah blah blah, happy new

year. So if if you're a Democrat, would

this drive you crazy? If you saw that

the president was claiming a 64%

approval but had no poll whatsoever to

back it, it would make you crazy. How

does it make you feel if you support

Trump?

Well, I'm in that category.

And to me, it's just as funny. I I love

the fact that he just throws that out

there because he knows that his critics

are going to go crazy and it doesn't

make any difference whatsoever to his

supporters. We just watched the show. So

when he does that salesmanish thing and

he just, you know, throws out this giant

number that can't be supported, it just

makes me laugh. And I don't think

anybody else would know that that could

be like a workable strategy instead of

insane. Oh, speaking of which, so Trump

also had a physical.

He claims he claims he's in quote

perfect health and that he aced

the third cognitive exam he's been asked

to take in his time as presidents.

Um he says the White House doctors have

reported that I am in now all caps

perfect health [laughter] and that I

aced capital all capitals uh meaning was

correct on 100% of the questions asked

for the third straight time. [laughter]

[gasps] My cognitive [clears throat]

examination something which no other

president or previous vice president was

willing to take. Trump wrote. Now again,

do you hate the fact that he's claiming

his, you know, cognitive test success?

No. Will it bother his critics

for whatever reason? Yes. So if it

bothers his critics and it doesn't

bother his supporters,

that's a sweet spot. He has a sweet

spot.

Well, over in Israel, apparently

Netanyahu and the Israeli government is

going to enforce a ban on 37 NOS in

Gaza.

So, they believe that at least 37 of

them are maybe sneaking in bad guys or

doing something that Israel would not

want them to do and is not in their

charter.

So

if you had heard this story a few years

ago, what would you assume was

happening?

You might assume that Israel was being

mean and they were removing the sources

of charity for the the region that they

that they conquered. And you might say,

"My god, these brutal monsters, they're

cutting our NGO

support." But what are you thinking in

2026?

in 2026 now that we know the NOS's are

massive money laundering schemes and

probably in this case being used as some

kind of some kind of disguise for moving

in things that you know could be weapons

for example may maybe it's other

terrorists.

So it makes me wonder is there ever been

an NGO that was good

or are all NOS's

just automatically a signal for fraud

and a signal for something you don't

want to happen? I don't know. But I'll

tell you, um, it does seem to suggest

there's never been a good NGO

and that every single time you hear

about one, there's something sketchy

going on probably.

All right. Well, here's here's a story

that was just complicated enough that I

don't fully understand it, but I'll try.

So, according to Jennifer Okonnell

writing for Red State,

um Trump has already this year vetoed

two things at least. And one of the

things he vetoed was a decades old

legislation

that was tied all the way back to John

F. Kennedy 63 years ago where they had

put together a deal where the federal

government would pay for this massive

pipeline project.

But the the way it was supposed to work

is that the federal government would pay

for it, but then they would be paid back

over time with interest by the state

local authorities. So on paper sounds

pretty good, right? the uh the locals

get a source of water. I'm sure they

needed it and uh it's all funded,

but that was 63 years ago. So,

apparently all they do is they keep

kicking the can down the road. Uh I

think very little or nothing has been

built. So, it's a little bit a little

bit like the allegations about the

California highspeed rail. Um, but Trump

just canceled it.

So, I feel like that's the right play

because if something has lasted 63 years

and they haven't built anything and it

probably doesn't have a good audio

feature because, you know, one does. Uh,

and there's probably no way that the

feds would ever get paid back.

I think Trump can cancel that.

So

that does make sense to me and it makes

me wonder how many things are going to

get cancelled because they never really

made sense or because it's been decades

and the money just disappears. So, how

much of I don't know how much money was

ever allocated to it, but once again,

no surprise, we learned that any big

federal project or state project is

probably just a way for somebody to rob

us.

Speaking of which,

uh, the Trump administration has

extended its ban on child care payments

uh, until the states could provide

evidence of legitimate spending. I saw

this on one American news network. So

the Department of Health and Human

Services, which had uh already suspended

these federal payments to one state, I

think it was just uh Minnesota,

um

has now made that a, you know, national

thing. So do you think that's a good

idea?

probably because as far as we can tell

uh all the payments of this type were

massively fraudulent

and it probably affected every state and

it's perfectly reasonable to ask them

for evidence that the money is going to

the right place. So, it's not that they

can't get the money, it's that they will

have to uh demonstrate, you know, with

receipts and photo evidence and show

that the funds are actually be being

used in the right way. Now, here's my

takeaway from that. I'm trying to

imagine any other president who could

have done this. You know, even though we

recently learned

uh that that all these things were giant

fakes, do you think that a Democrat

would have just said, "All right, we're

going to stop paying all of you until

you can prove it's real." No. And I'm

not even sure a Republican could have

because there would just be be so much

push back. But here's why a regular

ordinary Republican and definitely a

Democrat president could not have pulled

this off, which I think will be an

important move.

The first thing you had to do was

dismantle DEI.

If you had not dismantled DEI, then

cutting funding in this way would

automatically be called racist. But

Trump is the only one with enough balls

to say, "You could call me racist if you

want to, but I'm still going to do it."

So, you had to have a anti-dei

president. No one else could have done

this. No one else. Would you agree? I'm

looking at the comments right now. Would

you agree that no other person as

president would have had the tools and

the right personality and the guts to do

this?

Um, secondly, and this is important, the

only way this would get done if he is if

he wasn't in on the scam.

Now, even if you say, well, no, no other

president was in on the scam. But their

supporters were,

so they would have they would have had a

base that said, "What are you doing?"

their base would have stopped that

president because they were in on it. So

Trump,

whether or not any Republicans are in on

it, and certainly some must be, that

didn't stop. So he's not stopped by the

DEI attacks, let's call it the racism

attacks. He's not stopped because

somebody on his team is in on it.

And lastly, you need a, you know,

basically balls of steel to do something

that people will interpret, the bad guys

will interpret as killing children.

So, a Democrat probably couldn't survive

doing something that people would say,

"Hey, you take that money away and it

will kill the children." But Trump would

be smart enough, tough enough, strong

enough to say, "Well, all you have to do

is prove that you're real. You can have

the money right away." So, I don't know

that any other president could have done

this. is sort of the perfect combination

of the person who needed to be there at

the right time. Otherwise, I think we're

just doomed.

Just doomed.

All right. I've asked you this before,

but I'm going to add a little details. I

have a favor to ask.

Um,

you'll you'll see a post that I pinned

to my X feed. It's the one at the top in

which I'm asking you if I helped you in

any way or let's say my work if my work

helped you in any way to uh leave a

message in that post because my good

friend and now biographer Joel Pollock

um I've asked him to write my biography

and a big part of the biography will be

you know some notion of what I added to

the universe. So, if you have a story to

tell or you know somebody that does, um,

do me a favor and leave a comment,

uh, just so we know what the general th

thrust

is. And then follow Joel. You you'll see

his, uh, you'll see his exh handle in my

post. give him a follow because if he

sees something in the comments that

would look good or or he wants to follow

up with in the book, he will have a way

to contact you so he could follow you

back and DM you. Okay.

Um and that would be a big favor to me.

I would appreciate that.

Well, Iran apparently is having some big

protests uh in the street. So, I saw

some reporting that

we'll we'll see if I've trained you well

enough to spot this. The claim is that

now there are now 32 cities

uh where there will be protests.

32 cities.

Now, give me the give me the filter on

that.

Do you think that 32 cities are really

going to have protests?

All right, here's the filter.

We'll see how many of you got it. How

big would the protest be in those 32

cities? Because I heard yesterday that

the 32 city thing might be true, but

some of them would be small crowds.

So there's a big difference between a

small crowd of protesters and

overwhelming

number. But we don't see how many of the

32 are going to be big or have been big

and how many of them are just a few

hundred people took the streets so they

they added it to the count.

But what is new and interesting is that

uh Trump weighed in on this. I thought

he would stay out of it because you

don't you don't want the Iranian people

to organize against the US. You want

them to keep their focus on their own

government. And like I said, I don't

know. Is it a color revolution?

Is it completely organic?

Or is it really something that the US

and Israel are behind?

I would be surprised if it's 100%

organic.

You know what I mean? So, I don't think

we can tell from here

um how effective those things are going

to be. But here's what Trump said on

true social. He said, "If Iran,

if Iran kills peaceful protesters, we

will come we will come to the rescue

locked and loaded and ready to go."

So Trump is basically saying

that the US would get involved

militarily

if the regime

murders any of the peaceful protesters.

Is that a good idea?

Here again, I'm making an assumption

because it's not the way we've acted in

the past. But my assumption is that

Trump knows more about this than we do.

So it could be that he has information

that things are teetering on the brink.

Now if things are teetering on the brink

and a little, you know, giving a little

boost to the protesters

makes sense,

then it's a good play.

But doesn't it seem to you like Iran has

had many many periods of protests and

they eventually just get suppressed?

So if it just gets suppressed

um

I don't know if this helped. So once

again I'm going to make an assumption

that Trump knows more about this than we

do. So he knows what's behind the

scenes. It could be that there are

insiders in Iran who are ready to take

over and make a deal with the US.

It could be that Trump just always takes

the strongest play. I've been telling

you this for a while. If there if there

are a couple of ways to go on any topic,

he he picks the one that's the

strongest.

And the strongest would be to say we'll

weigh in militarily.

So, I have to say I'm not optimistic

that there will be regime change in Iran

because of this. That feels a little too

optimistic, doesn't it?

Um, but possible. Like I say, if if

Trump knows something we don't know or

if Israel knows something we don't know,

maybe.

We'll see.

Well, Zoran Mandani held a uh what he

called a block party to celebrate his

election. And apparently that became a

little bit of a problem because his

block party did not include food, music,

or bathrooms.

No food, music, or bathrooms. It was

also really, really cold.

So, here's how I'd summarize that.

First day of socialism

not so good.

May maybe they show less of capitalism

there to sell bathrooms and food.

Uh but then he said this which is

getting quoted a lot. Madi said we will

replace the fragility of rugged

individualism with the warmth of

collectivism collectivism.

I wonder if the warmth of collectivism

is actually the urine that's running

down their legs because they don't have

bathrooms.

Just wondering.

I I would beware of that warmth of

collectivism.

So, first day not so good.

Speaking of food,

uh the FDA plans to update the food

pyramid. I think that's what it is. but

they say guidelines

um and they would do it based on real

real science. Now, one of the pro one of

the things I didn't know was a problem,

but the FDA is looking to fix it is that

the different states have different

standards for what is ultrarocessed.

So, in one city, ultrarocessed means one

thing. In another state, it means

another. But they're looking to get some

kind of a federal standard, which you

would sort of need. If you're going to

have a standard for food,

you would need it to be federal.

Will the states

um disagree? And will the state say stay

away from our state? We have our own

food standard maybe. I don't know. But I

do wonder if the FDA can do this now.

without the undue influence of big food

because the food companies obviously are

going to weigh in, they have a big

influence.

Um, is this only because it's a it's a

Trump administration?

Is that the only reason that they can

even maybe have a chance of good food

guidelines? Mostly I think they're going

to get rid of additives and color food

coloring and stuff like that, but there

might be a lot more.

I you know if you if you thought about

it if the only thing that the Trump

administration accomplished the only

thing was to improve the guidelines for

food and the testing of meds that would

be pretty successful

because those have you especially food

has such a leverage effect on everything

else.

You know, if you get your food right,

presumably your health care costs go

down, right?

So,

you get a lot done if you can just take

care of the food.

Well, on X, a gentleman named Kevin Bass

um did some number crunching and he

found out that states that have no

effective voter ID requirements average

nearly eight times more welfare benefits

to illegal immigrants compared to states

that require voter ID verification.

So

it is literally the case that states are

importing and paying illegals for votes.

And uh

Elon Musk weighed in and said yes is the

biggest crime in American history. Um I

think he means the

the larger crime of

essentially paying people to come into

this country and then shipping them in

so you could control the vote. I'm not

sure which part is illegal, but it does

feel like the biggest crime does feel

like the biggest crime in American

history.

So imagine if Elon Musk didn't exist.

So I just gave you a whole speech about

Trump as the only person who could have,

you know, attack the fraud effectively.

But I don't think even that would have

happened without Doge and without Elon

putting his finger on that button

continuously.

So somebody told me that uh the Nick

Shirley

um account which you know blew up and

became a giant thing was primarily

because Elon boosted him. Is that true?

I I was trying to understand why since

2018

local news and others have and

whistleblowers have been pointing out

this massive fraud, but it took Nick

Shirley and his work to make us all pay

attention. Now, it could be that I'm in

such a bubble that I think people are

paying attention, but not really. I said

this the other day that if you if you

just walked onto the street and tapped

on somebody's shoulder and said, "Hey,

what do you think of the Nick Shirley

videos?" They would have no idea what

you're talking about. But I live in a

bubble in which,

you know, the Nick Shirley videos are

big. So it's I see it every day. Every

day. And then versions of it every day.

So,

but I I think Elon just giving that a

boost might make all the difference. So,

again, I say what would it be like if we

didn't have an Elon?

Everything would be different. We we

wouldn't even know about a lot of this

stuff. Now, Mike Benz, of course, would

also be critical to to our current

understanding.

All right.

So, the Washington Examiner Drew Bond is

writing that can AI help lower our

energy bills. Now, that sounds the

opposite of what you thought, right? If

the big data companies or the big data

centers that drive AI need massive

massive amount of energy, wouldn't that

compete with the domestic, you know,

residential

um need for electricity and power and

wouldn't it necessarily make your energy

costs go up? But here's a version of

what probably will be happening that

suggests that the data centers will make

your local energy prices go down.

So already we're seeing that that the

big companies, the massive companies who

need to build these big data centers,

they're they're augmenting the existing

power by building their own power

sources in the same places as the data

centers. So they're using natural gas,

they're using solar, geothermal, wind,

and small nuclear reactors and battery

storage.

So, if they use all of those things and

they keep it local, they can pay for

basically all the energy they need. But

here's the new part. What would stop

them from making extra? If you're

already going to put in this power

source and you're going to use it just

for yourself, how hard would it be to

make it twice as big and then provide

even cheaper energy to the local

community?

And I'd never really thought of it that

way, but if they if they have enough

regulatory relief, it seems to me that

something has changed in regulations

because why is it suddenly so easy for

these big companies to build their own

power plants? I feel like building a

power plant would be the hardest thing

you could ever get approved, but

suddenly, you know, there are lots of

them and they're they seem to get

approval. So, is that a Trump thing? Did

Trump um did did the administration

remove a bunch of regulations to make

this practical? It must they must have,

right? So, again,

could any other president have pulled

off the AI revolution? I don't know

because you would have to go massively

after the regulatory

structures in order to even imagine that

private companies could build their own

power plants on site.

Yeah.

Anyway,

an update on the LA fires.

Postmillennial is reporting Hannah

Nightingale that just 13% of homes

destroyed in the LA fires have a permit

to rebuild.

Now, uh do you know why it's taking so

long? It's not all because of the state,

although much of it is. Number one,

there's no way to get fire insurance.

Would you rebuild a home if you knew you

couldn't get fire insurance,

especially a place where they had a big

fire? So, some of it is the insurance

companies and the homeowners not being

able to, you know, do a deal.

Secondly, especially if you didn't have

enough insurance before the fire, if

you're a homeowner, you're probably

short on cash. So even if you could get

approval to build, how many people would

have enough to to just rebuild

[clears throat] a new house? That's got

to limit. That seems like it would limit

you. And then then of course there are

endangered plants.

So apparently getting around the fact

that there are endangered plants is

slowing down permits.

But as somebody asked in the comments

where I saw this, how how did the

endangered plants do during the fire?

Isn't a fire worsen

building?

Yeah. So, we'll keep an eye on this, but

it does seem to me that if there's no

way to get fire insurance,

it's going to be a long slow hall.

Maybe

maybe they can clean it up. So the fire

risk is actually lower there than it is

in other places.

Um,

fentinel. Oh, here's another I'm seeing

in the comments somebody saying that the

fentinel overdoses has gone way down

since Trump got in office.

I I have some questions about that. I

don't doubt it's true.

But I didn't think you could reduce the

supply of fentinel coming across the

border enough to make a difference just

because it's so small. You it's not like

bales of marijuana. Um you could put you

could put it in your pocket enough to

kill a city.

So how do you stop that? So even though

he stopped shipments from Venezuela,

some people say that wasn't fentinel

anyway, but he did stop traffic coming

in from Mexico.

And I can't believe that the smugglers

can't figure out how to just throw throw

a bag of fentil over the fence.

So they must be doing something right.

But we'll give him credit for that. And

I don't think another president could

have done that.

Well, Russia is still claiming,

according to the Washington Times, that

the attack on Putin's home was real. And

they now have a uh an unexloded drone

that they're showing on video to prove,

look at this unexloded drone. It has

evidence that it came from Ukraine. Um,

so remember, Ukraine said they didn't do

it. the US said the Ukraine didn't do it

and that it was just an an attack on

something. It was kind of far away, but

that Putin was just lying about it.

Well, here's what I would advise you.

Don't trust any report from a war zone.

So, maybe

maybe Ukraine was behind it. Maybe they

intended to attack his residents, but

they showed a picture of a

uh a drone on the ground with, you know,

no way to know if it's a real drone or

if it's a real video. But what they have

not done is show the damage from the

attack.

Am I right?

What is the main thing you would expect?

It's not as if no one's ever seen a

picture of his um residence.

You don't think he'd be willing to show

maybe just a closeup, but something that

shows there was damage

um on the actual residence because if

you if the only thing you show me is an

unexloded drone in the bushes, how do I

know what that's about?

So, who do we trust?

Nobody. I would not trust Ukraine who

said they didn't do it, but I definitely

wouldn't trust Putin who said they did

do it. I definitely wouldn't trust the

United States no matter what side they

were on. So, it's kind of a weird one.

Probably works. You know, maybe Putin

get some propaganda benefit on that.

Um,

so apparently Elon Musk has signaled

that he's going to massively fund uh

Republicans for the midterm because he

thinks that America is toast.

Quote, "America is toast. If the radical

left wins, they will open the floodgates

to illegal immigration and fraud and

won't be America anymore."

That feels

fair. That does feel fair, doesn't it?

That we're we're so close

to fixing a lot of stuff, but at the

same time, all it would take you is one

election, especially if the election is

rigged. It would only take one election

to reverse everything. We are really

teetering on the edge here, people.

And I saw the argument,

I forgot who made it, somebody famous

made the argument that if we if the

Republicans don't get rid of the

filibuster,

getting rid of it would allow them to

pass lots of legislation. But if they

don't get rid of it,

um someday

the Democrats will get in power and they

will get rid of it. And when they get

rid of it, there's going to be a whole

bunch of laws that get passed that

you're not going to like at all. So,

what do you think? Would it be smarter

for the Republicans to get ahead of it

and say, "All right, we know that you

would get rid of the filibuster, so

we're going to get rid of it first." And

then you've got a few years, maybe less

than a few years to to do a bunch of

stuff.

I'm kind of mixed on this.

because you can't really predict the

future that well. So, I don't know

exactly if getting rid of the filibuster

would be the best we could do

um or would be the biggest mistake we

ever made. It could easily go either

way. Don't know.

Well, according to scientist Sabine

Hassenfelder,

who's a fun follow on X,

let me take a step and get back to that.

I'm massively dehydrated,

but intentionally.

So according to Sabine Hassenfelder,

there's a new paper that that has uh

just dropped that says that scientists

are 40% more productive when they use AI

um and increase their paper. And for

non-native English speakers, it's even

more up to 80%.

So apparently this only applies to the

writing part. So it doesn't apply to the

actual science part, it applies to the

writing it up and submitting it to uh to

technical journals.

Um so as she warns that if the thing

that got faster was not the science

part, but the writing it up and

publishing it part, the the scientific

publications are going to be overwhelmed

with what I will call science slop. So

if you assume that half of the science

is fake anyway, which is what it is, if

you increase the number of fake papers

along with the number of real ones, are

we better off?

Do you do you think the world is better

if suddenly there are way more published

papers just because it was easy to write

them up? I don't know. I'm not sure that

makes us better off.

Uh so more slop and I believe I saw RFK

Jr. say that the once credible technical

journals are essentially owned by the

pharma companies and the big big

industry.

So that the what you thought was this

credible process of peer review was

nothing like that that basically it was

a bought and paid for situation.

Owen says get rid of the filibuster now.

You might be right about that Owen.

Anyway, so RFK Junior says they're going

to stop publishing. I don't know how

they do this. Maybe just government

publications, but they're gonna ignore

the once credible publications because

they're no longer credible. And uh I

think he wants to start. You also had to

pay. You had to pay $10,000 to be

published.

So that doesn't seem like a good model,

but I guess RFK Jr. is going to push for

some government

um government endorsed technical papers.

So if there's something in there, it

would be a little more credible, a

little more.

And then finally,

um you may have seen that President Xi

of China is ramping up the rhetoric

about taking over Taiwan. And you

probably also knew that uh China was

doing very aggressive

um let's say military

what do you call it drills in which

they're you know surrounding Taiwan etc.

And I saw saw a post by Dustin Walper

who is cautioning us that the risk of

losing our chip access in Taiwan is not

the biggest threat. It's a big one. But

if China were to take over Taiwan,

um it would have, as Dustin Walper says,

um an a much bigger influence over Japan

and and South Korea.

um and that Japan would consider it an

existential threat to Japan if China

took over Taiwan because apparently that

would give them some access to the South

China Sea that's you know more more

militarily meaningful than what they

have now. So they would have unfettered

access to the Philippine Sea and then

China would also be in a position to

more easily threaten harass Japan's

trading routes with the US and

Australia.

And uh he so Dustin reminds us that uh

Japan owns about half the industrial

robotics market as a critical

alternative to China for everything that

we do with machines basically.

So, here's my question.

Um, would they dare take over Taiwan

while Trump is in office?

Or would it make infinite infinite more

sense to spend three years preparing to

do it and then when Trump is out of

office, you know, maybe they have a a

more greased path?

My guess is that that Trump does a good

enough job of scaring people that they

wouldn't do it while he's in office.

Um, would you agree

that she would wait until

um Trump was out of office?

I feel like that would be the smart play

and they tend to be very patient, but it

would suggest that uh their current

moves are just preparatory and

threatening,

but we'll see.

Anyway, that's all I got for today.

That's your show for today. I'll look at

your comments. It'll take a take a few

minutes to catch up.

Um, don't believe the Congress actually

wants to fix anything.

Yeah, scientific studies are not not too

reliable, even if they're peer-reviewed.

Bobby Hasta journals.

Yep. Everything except our elections are

rigged.

Right.

All right, people. I'm going to talk uh

privately to the members in the local

community. To the rest of you, thanks

for joining. Sorry, my voice is kind of

sketchy.

Sketchy. Th this part of my jaw is still

uh paralyzed

as is the bottom part of me.

All right, people.

Here we go. Privacy coming up. Locals

in 30 seconds.

Local support.