o war is the right answer. Take it to the next level. Give me another detail on that. Somebody says China. Give me another detail. All right, I'm not alleging this. All right, there's no allegation. I'm just saying how it feels. There's one thing I'm looking for here. I haven't seen it yet. There we go. Somebody got it. I knew you'd get it. David, I think David said it first on Locals. It looks like a cyber attack. I'll even take it to another level. I'm accepting cyber as close enough. Looks like an AI attack.

Yeah. What did that just do to your brain? Right? First time you heard that. I don't think anybody else has mentioned it. This feels like an AI attack. So it feels like — now I would not allege that because I think you'd have to have some kind of direct evidence to say that. But if we ever get an AI attack, what's it going to look like? It's going to look like a whole bunch of things seem to stop working right at about the same time. It's going to look like we can't quite identify the source of the problem, but our systems aren't working. The things that used to be smooth just stop being smooth, and we don't know why.

Now again, let me be very clear. I'm not alleging that this is some kind of an AI attack. I'm only alleging that it would feel and look exactly like this. I don't think you'd know you'd be attacked. When you think of an AI attack, you think they're going to turn the lights off or you think they're going to break the hydroelectric dam or something. You know, you think of it like a terrorist attack. But I think AI would attack without telling you they're attacking. What's the point of having artificial intelligence if it's dumb, right? You don't want dumb AI. That's no good. A smart AI wouldn't tell you it's attacking, would it? It'd be a sneak attack. So an AI attack that was worth anything would be a sneak attack because you don't want some kind of a response.

What did I do to your brains today? Because for the first time you realize that — and again I'm not saying this is an AI attack — the first time you realize that this is what it would look like and how it would feel is disconcerting, isn't it? Pretty disconcerting.

Now let me add a little meat to that. The way an AI attack would work would be just to hit enough systems that are related to the same process — in this case the supply chain — to have enough misinformation and enough persuasion just inserted at the right points. There's several things seem to be breaking at the same time, and you wouldn't know why. Just a little — everything's just a little bit broken. You know, nothing exploded. Just everything's a little bit broken. And then the supply chain just goes crazy.

All right. Newsweek had a story today in which they referred to the fine people hoax but linked to an article that seemed to treat it like it was true. Now I was informed that Newsweek did in fact put the clarifying statement in there that Trump said he wasn't talking about the neo-Nazis. But in its entirety and with the link, they're still spreading the fine people hoax in 2021. The most debunked hoax of all time still being at least couched in a way that they're making it look like maybe it was true based on the linked article.

And so I said to myself, how could you not know that in 2021? So I googled it. Google "fine people hoax" and put a plus in front of hoax so you make sure that an article that comes up that says hoax. Do you know what will come up? Articles that say it's true and don't have the word hoax in them. Now I only did this quickly so I didn't confirm this, but I think that's true. I think the top searches for the thing that requires the word hoax to be in it don't have the word hoax in it. You have to go down pretty far to get something from Politico or from me. Right? Try it yourself and just — can somebody confirm that? So this is an unconfirmed claim I'm claiming because I didn't open all the articles, but I doubt those articles had the word hoax in it. I kind of doubt it. It feels like they're artificially pinned to the top. Not sure, but it looked like it.

All right. So do you know Robert? Everybody know Robert Reich, economist and Democrat? And he's a super partisan tweeter and pretty active on social media. And here's my problem with him. I think it's because he's an economist that I have more problem with his bias than I do with other people's. You know, if you see a politician or somebody's working for a politician or clearly an activist and they say things that are just amazingly biased and one-sided and basically just looks like a lie, you say to yourself, well, they're a politician or they're working for a politician, and you sort of discount it as being just ridiculous. But when a famous, at least notable, economist says something, you try to think, well, you know, at least maybe he's right about that. But he is so insanely biased that it just disgusts me when I see his tweets. Because I hate to see somebody who's an economist throw his entire profession under a bus. If you're an economist and you can't treat things objectively, you need to give your degree back, right? You should just give it back because you didn't earn an economics degree if you can't even attempt to be a little unbiased.

All right. So he tweeted — he said there's something talking about the bill to strengthen the voting rights that got rejected. So Congress rejected it, but there were enough people to have gotten a majority but not enough to beat a filibuster. I think most of you are well educated on the process, bu