Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive October 9, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

sion. But the public isn't. The public, if we had a let's say a 75% opinion that businesses should be held faultless, I think Congress would have to do it, right? So have you seen any polls on whether Congress should go with the limiting the liability or not? Have you seen a poll on that? I don't know if there have been polls on that but I haven't seen one. Wouldn't you like to know if 75% of the…

← Previous segment →

ety of ways. So it feels as though the Trump administration — assuming Trump is still there to sign off on this thing — was doing maybe some good stuff on advanced nuclear power at least funding the research. And maybe Biden will do more of it.

But it looks like here's the biggest news in the world. The biggest news in the world is that you can write a tweet and say "green technology such as advanced nuclear power." You can write that sentence in a tweet in public: green technologies such as advanced nuclear power. And people will just read it and go, yeah that sounds about right. Do you know how big a deal that is? That's the bigger deal than anything in the news today. You know even if our elections were stolen — and I don't know — this is like the biggest deal in the world. Because the climate change, Green New Deal thing, even if you don't think it's exactly as scary as the proponents of that, if you do you'd have to admit it's a gigantic issue. Whatever you think of it, it's gigantic. It's going to determine the fate of the Earth, etc.

Now the biggest problem looks like it's solved. The biggest problem was psychological. Simply understanding that advanced nuclear energy was a green technology. And what else? It's a green nuclear technology. And the only technology that a lot of smart people say could do anything about climate change in the long run because the other technologies have their hiccups and problems and limitations. It's a big deal.

All right. I would say the most impressive thing about our election system is how amazingly poorly designed it is. Because think about a system where the system you know by its nature is subject to massive different ways to do fraud. So it's not even like there's just one way to do it. There might be a dozen or 25 different ways to cheat in an election. So you've got a system that's like amazingly transparent — I'm sorry, it's amazingly got holes in it everywhere. So it would be easy to cheat if that's what you wanted to do. You might get caught but it would be easy to do the cheating.

And at the same time we have a system which guarantees there'll never be enough time to look into any allegations of cheating. So this is by design. Our system, including the Constitution and all the ways we vote, these are systems. And by design — this is the freaky part — it's not an accident. Meaning that we know we did it. It's an accidental outcome but we designed it and it's doing exactly what anybody who looked at this design would say, oh yeah that's guaranteed to happen.

And here's what it is. We're guaranteed to have fraud because there are so many ways it's possible and the upside potential for getting away with cheating on election is gigantic. So if you have a situation where it's possible and the upside potential is through the roof, it's going to happen every time, guaranteed. But normally you'd still be okay because eventually you're going to catch it

Context —

and once you catch it the people who might do it next time are going to say, wow they always catch this. Why would I do it again? But we've designed a system with a compressed window and our courts don't want to get involved because our system keeps the courts a little bit of a distance from what the states want to do in their own state. So you don't really have a court that's designed to handle…

Next segment → →