difference in the comments on YouTube versus Locals. For those who said no, I guess it would be hard to ask the question. So I see more yeses than nos but I think the nos may be, yeah I mean I have a theory about the nos. I think the nos are people who don't want this to be useful. I think there are a lot of people who just want their drama. They want their hate. They want their helplessness. You can get real addicted to that stuff. So you're welcome to your feelings.

All right, Norway is going to be fining Meta for their targeted advertising. As you know Meta used to be Facebook and their entire business model and other online models is that they can give you an ad that's targeted just for you. But Norway says no to targeted ads, sort of on a privacy issue I think. But they're going to fine a hundred thousand dollars a day for Facebook and Instagram's business if they keep doing it.

Now whatever Norway does is not going to make or break Meta but it makes you wonder if this is something that could catch on. Would you agree that targeted advertisement is by definition a violation of your privacy? Feels like it. I mean I understand the argument but you know there are lots of situations where you're trading a little bit of privacy for a little bit of utility. So you always have to measure. Well I gave up a little privacy but I got a lot of utility. So I don't know. Norway might have the right idea on this one. I think this one's open for opinion but I'm leaning toward Norway.

But more generally I don't understand how medicines stay in business. Have you ever seen a business in your town that seemed to defy economics to such a degree that you think it must be a money laundering situation because they couldn't possibly stay in business for 30 years with the business model that you observe? It's like okay you're selling decorative doilies and you've been in business for 30 years and I never see anybody in your store. You're like something else going on there I think, right?

But that's how I feel about Meta. I don't know anybody who's happy about using it. Now Instagram of course is a monster and WhatsApp is a monster so they have sources of revenue. But the main business which I would say would be the Facebook part of old and now the virtual reality stuff, I think those are dead. Those both feel like dead men walking to me. I don't know how they could survive but we'll see. Zuckerberg has been right before. Zuck has been more right than me. So if I'm being reasonably humble, well he's probably got a better grasp on this than I do.

You think that history repeats? How many would say this is a fair statement? History repeats. Now we can't repeat, here's the problem with history repeats. Which history do you pick? Suppose you were looking at history repeats and you're looking at the news from 2015 to today and you wanted to use that as your model for history repeats. Which version of history would you use? The version that says that President Trump was a coup planner and insurrectionist and then you would say well that'll happen again? Or would you use the version of history that says that was always fake news and that nothing like that happened?

They're both history and they point in opposite directions. So if history repeats, which one do you pick? You see the problem. The problem is you get to pick the history you like. It's the opposite of science. If you get to pick the version of history that supports your point, it's not because history repeats. It's that you cherry-picked a little story that probably wasn't real to begin with because history isn't real and then you try to generalize it.

Now history repeats is ridiculous but we were brainwashed into thinking it. The only part that I would say history repeats is the human motivations are always the same. So for example if you created a large organization with no transparency and a lot of money is involved, what's the likelihood that it would eventually become corrupt? One hundred percent. So that's a case of history repeating but it's within the special case of people always act the same.

So instead of saying history repeats, change that in your mind to people are people. Follow the money. Follow the money will take it all. I mean follow the money gets you the whole answer. It's just always going to be right. So that's better than history repeats.

But I mentioned this because somebody else said San Francisco is in a doom loop. In other words is it just going to keep spiraling down into nothing? And somebody used the example of Detroit. Is it going to become like Detroit when manufacturing left? And my answer is no. San Francisco is not going to go to nothing and neither will Maui because Maui and San Francisco have a lot in common. The weather is unusually good. And even though San Francisco is cold for California, famously foggy and stuff, people like it. Something that people like.

So now if you have the best locations in the world, follow the money. The money says that you always build along the coast. There's just always going to be money for that. Now yeah there might be some companies leave and there's lots of disruption and stuff but San Francisco isn't going to be abandoned. There's just too much money involved in that location. Of course it'll be rebuilt. Of course it will come back. And Maui's the same. Nobody's going to leave Maui unrecovered. Way too much money in that.

So yeah but Detroit, once manufacturing left Detroit, who had an interest in putting a bunch of money into it to build it up? You still have Detroit weather. So follow the money. You don't say history repeats.

So I've got another theory. So you probably saw the news that Biden's been at the beach for a few weeks and then he was asked about Maui. And although I think he has put out an official statement, he was asked for comment live and he said no comment about Maui, about the fire that destroyed Lahaina and might be the worst disaster we've ever seen of fire. No comment.

Here's my interpretation. If you were Jill Biden and you had been either asked by others or you decided it was time and you were going to tell Joe that he's not going to be president. And by the way I do believe that Jill can just tell him that. Does anybody disagree? I believe that Jill, his wife, has the decision of whether he runs or not and it's not Joe's decision.

And I'm not doing the old oh the wife, the wife's in charge. It's not that. I'm not doing the old she's always been the puppet master. I'm not doing that. I'm saying that in any couple the older one needs to make this decision for me. Conceive it that way. But in a realistic sense when it comes to the big decisions of life, Jill's the decision maker in my opinion. That would be obvious by this point.

I don't think it was obvious four years ago. Four years ago I think Joe was in enough control that it was more like a partnership. In other words that both Jill and Joe had to be on board, which they were it looks like, and then they could go forward. But this time if Jill is not on board, that's the end of it.

Now if you were Jill and it was your job to tell your husband that he's not really going to run for president again, how would you do it and where would you do it and when would you do it? You would do it right now. You would do it on his summer vacation. And when you were done, what would Joe's frame of mind be? Because remember it wouldn't be his decision. It would be his wife telling him that was the decision.

And when he's asked about Lahaina after he's been told he's not going to be the president, how does he respond? Well one way he might respond is no comment. Not because he doesn't care but because he checked out and that his mind is entirely upon his own situation right now. Which would suggest a decision has already been made.

So here's my front-running of the news. The decision is made. Jill has been informed and you'll find out probably m