acle and Walmart. What do they have in common other than I guess they had the cash and the willingness to do it?

But there's some word that what China might do is keep the algorithm but sell the company to which I say how hard would it be for the United States to build its own algorithm? What if we took everything from TikTok, you know the assets, the customer base, but the only thing we got rid of was the algorithm? We just delete it and replace one that just says something simple such as you'll see more things from your friends, the people you follow, and maybe you'll see more things from, you know just some easy algorithm. But couldn't you put, given that it's mostly for children, it's young people who use it mostly, don't you think we should have an open algorithm that we can all see?

I feel as if the Oracles of the world and Walmarts, they should guarantee the government that the algorithm will be public so everybody can see what it does. Is that wrong? No I don't know. Maybe they can't make money that way but given that it's directed at children, well how about this for a law? How about a law that says if children use your platform you have to reveal your algorithm. Oh that's pretty good. I'm so happy I just thought of that. Has anybody ever come up with that idea?

You know the big platforms from your Facebooks to your Snapchats to your Instagrams etc. Twitter is a little different because kids don't follow politics and stuff so I'm not sure how many kids use Twitter compared to other platforms but less I guess. Wouldn't it be reasonable that given that we want to protect children more than we might want to protect adults who know what they're getting into, shouldn't we require that any platform that has children on it has to reveal their algorithm, has to be public? Anybody can see it so parents can see it. Now it would be hard to understand it but at least be public for people who do know how to read the code and look at the algorithm. That would be my idea.

All right, here's a little mind effort for you. You ready for this one? So there's increasingly news out of Europe that they're having another wave and that infections are spiking, coronavirus. And here was a statistic I saw that was useful because it simplified things. All right so hold on to just a few numbers here. I'll keep it really simple. Just hold these in your head. That Europe has 750 million people let's say. The US has 330 million. So we've got a little less than half as many people in the United States as there is in all of Europe. But although Europe has more than twice as many people they have almost the same amount of deaths. 217,000 ours is about 200,000. So about the same amount of deaths but Europe has a little bit more than twice as many people. So that's pretty clean, right?

That's one of those things where you can say oh okay now I see how the United States is really doing poorly because we've got twice as many deaths you know that they do relative to population. But I ask myself this. Are they the same? Is there something about the United States that's different from Europe on average? And here's one thing that's different. What's the black population of the United States? Because as we know the black population has something like four to five times the problem with coronavirus. It's a gigantic difference, right? It's something like four or five times worse if you're African American let's say black. Because we're talking about Europe it's about four or five times worse.

So wouldn't you expect that the country that has the biggest population of black residents should, all things being equal, would have way more deaths? Because unfortunately the coronavirus is not an equal opportunity virus. It's just slamming the black populations. Just slamming them, right?

So I said to myself well if it were true that the black percentage of black population is skewing our coronavirus death count you would be able to see that easily. For example you'd go to Europe and you'd say well if there's anything to this hypothesis if you looked at Europe shouldn't you see that whatever country in Europe has the most black population would have the highest death rate? And sure enough that would be France. So France not only has a close to nine percent I think black population but it is not too far behind the United States at 13. So this is just one data point so don't make too much out of one data point, right?

So the United States is doing poorly and also has 13 percent black population who are doing far worse. France within Europe, France is one of the bad ones, right? It's one of the worst countries in Europe and also has the highest percentage of black population, about nine percent.

Now is there any other country that you could look at that would be maybe confirming or disconfirming this hypothesis? So I took a look at Brazil. Now Brazil's a tough one because Brazil is like super racially mixed so they've got a whole bunch of wonderful stuff all mixed up. The people are just like almost every person in Brazil seems to be some mixture of interesting stuff. But we can glean a few things. I think they have nine percent black population but somewhere between nine and thirty percent at least partly black. So Brazil has an enormous percentage of black population and is one of the worst in terms of coronavirus deaths.

Now what about those countries in Europe that have almost no black population, below two percent? How are they doing? Pretty well. Pretty well it turns out. Turns out that having almost no black population really gets your death count down. Surprise? Shouldn't be because this is a well-known thing.

So let's say that's one normal calculation that needs to be done which is you have to normalize it for ethnic differences in terms of mortality. And what about differences in incentive for coding something a coronavirus death? Can you compare the United States where people get the hospitals anyway, we get a large dollar amount profit if they code something coronavirus whereas in Europe they don't. Do you think that you get the same count? No. In no world do you get the same count if somebody is monetized in one case and not monetized in the other case. You don't get the same result. Never. We don't live in a world where people are immune to monetary incentive. It just isn't a thing. Now it might be a five percent difference not a hundred percent difference but still that's something pretty important you need to calculate.

And then of course you've got the number of obese Americans which is greater than others. We're a bigger country. And then how about this? Is it fair to treat the United States as one big ball given that we have lots of states with power? You know we have an unusual situation. Our states have a lot of power. Shouldn't we be comparing each state to Europe? Wouldn't that be better? How many of the individual states in the United States are doing as well or comparable to Europe? And I think the answer is a lot of them. Right? Out of our 50 states 30 or 40 of them maybe, what would you say, 30, 40 are doing as well as Europe. So that's another way to look at it. Anyway there's a million ways to look at it and I don't believe we've looked at all the best ways.

You are noticing that the Ruth Bader Ginsburg stuff has just kicked everything off the news. It makes everything a little bit boring for a while because there's just really one story that's all we're going to talk about for a while.

All right, I'm watching your comments. A lot of people are agreeing. There's a 15 plus payment differential for coding COVID on medical bills. Yeah 15 is certainly enough. Too many variables to compare. That is correct.

Somebody's talking about putting, oh let me bring up this idea. So President Trump has said publicly that he's probably going to pick a woman and I think that's true. He probably is. Now here's what's wrong with that. And let me say before I start I am completely in favor of a diverse Supreme Court. I think we're all better off if we've got all the voices accounted for so long as everybody's capable to do the job. That's all great and obviously there are plenty of capable people. I'm just saying as long as you have capable people it would also be good to have them diverse.

But we have this thing called the Constitution and we have this thing called the Supreme Court whose job it is to uphold it. How is it constitutional for the president of the United States to say that he can't pick me for the Supreme Court because of my gender? Seriously I personally, this is there's no exaggeration here, I personally have been told by the president of the United States that I would not be eligible. Not that there was much risk I was going to get picked. Let's say Ted Cruz, you know somebody who actually would be in the top 20 or whatever, he can't get the job. Do you think that if somebody sued the president of the United States for job discrimination and said hey you're saying right out loud that you're not going to even consider a man, what's up with that?

And what about your genders that are not either male or female entirely? What about all of your in-between genders? You know your shades and your various, what would be the best way to say it, the rainbow of different genders. What about all that? Don't we care about that anymore? What about transsexual? If you're transsexual can you be on the Supreme Court? I don't know. Maybe that's okay as long as you've transitioned in the right direction. Maybe so.

So here's what I'd ask you. If somebody sued the president of the United States, which I actually think would be a good idea, if somebody sued the president of the United States and said that is job discrimination, you're saying that men can't have this job, where is that in the Constitution? I would like a constitutional ruling from the Supreme Court about whether the president can limit his choices to one gender. I don't think that's going to pass constitutional muster. Am I wrong about this? Can somebody who's smarter than I am about the law tell me? Am I just off in outer space here or is it completely obvious that what the president is doing by limiting his choice to a woman or even just saying it, you know we don't have the actual choice yet but even just saying it in public and saying this is what I'm looking for, is there anybody who could argue that that is constitutional? Because it looks to me like grossly illegal. It looks to me as illegal as anything could ever be.

Now I do not have this feeling about somebody running for office. Different situation. If somebody says hey I'm running to be a senator or a president and I think we need more women in this job, you know give us more representation or whatever, that doesn't seem illegal to me because that's a case of the public gets to vote and that's just one of the variables. It's like oh I care about that variable or I don't but I get to vote. It's not like a job. But the Supreme Court is picked like a job interview. It's you know I don't get to vote on the Supreme Court. If I did I'd be fine with that. If I got to vote on the Supreme Court along with all of you, you know if all the voters got to vote on the Supreme Court and somebody was saying yeah we should have a woman replace RBG, no problem at all. I would have no problem with that at all.

Somebody says I think you're off but what would be the reason? Somebody is laughing white privileged. I don't even know. See you can't tell a parody from reality anymore so people are making comments with little laughy faces and I don't even know if you're agreeing with me or disagree with me. That's how weird things are.

Somebody says this is playing the lefties game. Well saying in advance that you're going to pick a woman is definitely playing the lefties game. Maybe he was speaking of someone specific. I don't think that helps. I mean maybe that would be a defense but I don't think that's what's happening necessarily because there are, apparently there are two women who have risen to the top of the likely list so it's not just one woman. It's his choice man or woman. Well it is his choice but if you say to the public that you're limiting it by gender is it still legal? I don't know. It could be. I would be willing to believe that it wouldn't be treated like regular employment and if the president has complete power to do what the president wants well maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe he could be completely discriminatory and sexist.

President picks and he disclosed and you vote for the president. Read my comments and you will see the reason. Somebody says although I don't see where your comment is. As long as he gives the opportunity to all he can say anything. He's not giving the opportunity to all. That's the opposite of what he's doing. All right he's not discriminating. How is he not discriminating?

Who breaks a tie? That's a good question. What happens if the Supreme Court has a tie? You know one of the reasons you don't want to elect me for president is that I would lock up the Supreme Court if I could. I would try to make it a tie. So if there were more conservatives than liberals I would add a liberal. If it was the other way I'd add a conservative. And if I were president I would make the Supreme Court eight people, four and four. I wouldn't even replace a ninth person. Do you know why? The reason is this. If the Supreme Court can't make a decision that breaks out of the liberal and or conservative silos, hell with it. I don't want them to do anything.

If the only reason that a decision goes one way is you have more liberal or you have more conservative judges, if that's the reason the decision went the way it went that's not legitimate. I mean it's the law and it's legitimate in terms of that is the system that we've all bought into but it doesn't seem to me like a good idea. I only want things that somebody is willing to, here we'll take care of this for you. Whoever said boring and stayed on here, there you're blocked. It's okay to be bored and then leave but don't be bored and then tell me you're bored. Just leave. You got a choice.

All right, somebo