table, saucer, and then some third one like plate. The white applicants or the white test takers were more likely to say cup and saucer because they're literally a pair, cup and saucer. But if you were from a low-income house, what are the odds you'd ever seen a saucer? So it turns out that a lot of the low-income people didn't even know what a saucer was. Is that their fault? Is there something wrong with them that they'd never heard of a saucer? No, actually you would need to be at a certain economic level before you'd ever seen one. You'd never seen one, you know, so it's not even a word in your vocabulary. And I thought to myself, that's actually a good point. Well, do you agree with that one? Do you agree with that one point?

Well, here's what I would say. What did the poor white people do? Did the poor white people say table? So I don't know the answer to that question. But in both cases I was surprised that there could be a question that might actually have some racial bias to it. That was a better example than I was expecting. So I'm not going to say because I don't know that this test is unbiased and you know there's something wrong with the test takers. I don't know that. But we got questions. We got questions.

All right, here's some maybe good news, but it's good news I've been reading about for I know my entire life and it's never been true yet. So here's the thing that's never been true even once but it gets reported once a month forever. There's a gigantic breakthrough in cancer treatment. Now I get that the cancer people have actually made amazing strides in a number of different cancers. So there's been quite a bit of progress. But the major breakthrough, the one that gets all the cancers, you know, we're always hearing that. That's a week away. Never is. Nope. But this one is interesting, more interesting than most. So scientists at the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center in Sacramento, they think they found this thing called the CD95 receptor that can program a cancer cell to die. In other words, there might be a common element to all cancers that's a kill switch. Now all the other treatments have not looked for a kill switch. They've looked for a weakness. I mean this is my non-scientist explanation. They've looked for weaknesses they could exploit but they never found a kill switch. Like if you just tweak this thing, boom, just turns off. Now they don't have any, apparently they don't have any treatments that will turn it off, but they think that's potentially possible.

Now here's even the reason I'm telling you this story at all, because it falls into the category of things that they get real excited about because they cured a mouse and then it just doesn't work in a person. Right? I mean you've seen that a billion times, which is typical. Most of the mouse studies do not actually translate into humans. But it's better than not doing a mouse study. You know, if it fails in the mouse study you're probably done. But the humans just don't work like mice enough to think it's going to work because it worked in a mouse. But here's my question. If you were to look at the machinery of cancer, if you treat the cancer cell like it's a really complicated machine, if you're a human being and you're trying to figure out the machine, how many decades did it take us to find that there's this CD95 receptor? Like it took forever. And it might have even been an accident. I don't know. You know, maybe they just stumbled on it. But how many complications are there in a cancer cell if you imagine it like a machine? Because it is kind of a biological machine with parts. It may be too complicated that any human could even know how to get their head around it. But what about AI? Do you think AI could look at a bunch of cancer cells and a bunch of different situations and then use its advanced pattern recognition — and maybe the visual kind as opposed to the word kind — could it determine the mechanism that makes the machine work simply by seeing lots of examples of a cancer cell working? So you put it in lots of differ