form surgeries they can't get doctor insurance. And if they try do you know if the doctor insurance specifically excludes in direct words it says excluding coverage for trans surgeries. It's actually the insurance specifically excludes it.

Now obviously the reason for that would be because they anticipate lawsuits right. So if doctors and it looks like this is going to happen pretty quickly it looks like the pushback from the right and the attention that it gave to the topic along with the actual statistics of how people are turning out with various decisions I think has activated the insurance market to just shut it down because nobody's going to do the surgery without insurance. That would be suicide for the doctor.

So it looks like some weird combination of what free speech we have left plus what free market activity still works in a free way. If you put them together it looks like it's going to create a solution for the people who don't want these surgeries on young people. Now but I think this is oh by the way was this for youth or all people? For minors. Oh I'm sorry there's an important glitch in this for minors. So that's different from insurance for adults but it's the minors that we have the most empathy and concern for. So you can't insure somebody who wants to go into the business of focusing on gender surgery for minors. Insurance companies are just going to say you know you're not doing that. So there you go.

So Paul Graham is pointing out that the New York Times when they're talking about the president of Harvard who was accused of plagiarism one of their headlines said in the New York Times that they found more instances of duplicative language. Duplicative language. And Paul Graham says you know something is bad when people have to invent a phrase you've never heard before in order to avoid using the ordinary word for it.

Now he's spot on but I will say this. I did see a number of examples of the alleged plagiarism and I'd have to say it is closer to duplicative language than it is to plagiarism. So I know you didn't see that coming but I'm going to back the president of Harvard on this one because the examples I saw were not content. They were not anything that was important to her PhD. Now there might be some of those but I haven't seen any. So when they say there's some duplicative language I'll give you an example. In the acknowledgements at the end of the book where you thank the people who helped you she apparently copied somebody else's language for thanking people and just put in the names of her people.

Now is that plagiarism? It's like bits of sentences but she put it in her own people. To me that's a little closer to duplicative language because it doesn't have any importance. It has no impact on the consumer. So the person reading it is not affected in any way. They're not being misinformed and she's not displaying any scholarship that is sketchy in an important way.

I'm going to support her and say if you don't have some better examples — I think there are better examples by the way so I'm open to that — but the ones we've seen especially the new ones are a little bit trivial. They're real and I acknowledge that. There's an argument that says if a student did the same thing they might get kicked out. I don't know if that's true. Do you think a student would be kicked out if the only thing they copied let's say hypothetically was some sentence fragments in the acknowledgement? Suppose that was the only copying thing would they get kicked out of Harvard for that?

Somebody says yes a sentence fragment in the acknowledgments there that has no impact on the content of the scholarship. You believe somebody would be kicked out of Harvard for a sentence fragment? I don't believe that. I do not believe that. No no I think it would have to have substance. Because when I saw the sentence fragments you know what I thought might be the case? It was not my immediate belief that she intentionally copied that stuff. My immediate belief is she might have a really good memory. Do you know what I mean?

Because I do this all the time actually. You've probably I think you've all seen me do it have you not? Have you now seen me do things that you know came from somewhere else but apparently I didn't know it but I probably did see it and I just forgot I saw it. Haven't you seen me do that? You've probably seen me do that live because I'm pretty sure I've done it a number of times. Now I'm not aware when I do it because you read something and it just becomes part of your brain.

But there's some people who can remember dialogue from shows in their exact form. I can't do that but don't you know somebody who can who can reproduce dialogue from a movie they saw once? Right now somebody who could reproduce dialogue from a movie they saw once has a pretty good brain right. Now if you're the president of Harvard you're a PhD you've got a pretty good brain and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if she had a brain that could reproduce dialogue intact. But if you have that kind of a brain I think you do it accidentally a lot.

I had a friend in college who could do this and he said he had a near photographic memory so he could reproduce sentence fragments he'd heard before that just sound really good if he puts them in his own sentences. So I would like to submit that although I do think she probably needs to quit the president of Harvard so I'm still on that side but these alleged instances of duplicative language I'm just not going to be on that page. You know I'll let her fight that out but apparently a billion dollars worth of funds are at risk at Harvard because the big donors are pulling out.

And what did I tell you about money? Money predicts. I believe that if the money keeps draining out of Harvard she will be fired. If the money is not drained out of Harvard at too large a rate because they have enormous funding already then she'll stay is my prediction. But I think it will come down to the money.

Have you ever heard of was it god damn it there's a fact check there's a fake fact checking site whose name I forget. I don't think I wrote it down. Maybe you remember but one of the fake fact checkers fact checked one of my pranks and decided that my prank was false and decided to smear me online with a number of other what they would call right leaning pundits who got everything. PolitiFact yeah it was PolitiFact.

So PolitiFact puts me in an article with other people they're smearing for being so wrong and the thing that they smeared me was that I'd said that the winners of the pandemic were the ones who got through the pandemic without having the shot because the dangerous part of the pandemic was over and Omicron was probably safer than the shot. Now she fact checked that as false. What about that is false from today's perspective?

Every shot you got in 2021 has no value to you today does it? Does science tell you that your shot last year is going to help you this year against a different variant? I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Pretty sure it doesn't. So how could you argue that you're better off today as you sit here today if you've got a vaccination in you that has at least rumored or suspected future problems? That's a risk that you wouldn't have if you didn't have it. You have no risk from the virus because it doesn't exist but you do have a risk for whatever is in your body that might have an unpredictable outcome.

How in the world do you fact check that as wrong? Now the context that she didn't also didn't understand is that I thought it was funny like a prank to say that out loud because I knew it would be misinterpreted and it was. So I did it to be humorously misinterpreted and what it caused was for this big outpouring of support for me saying that I was a good guy because I admitted I admitted I was wrong but I didn't ever admit I was wrong because I wasn't.

The decision I made was at a certain time with a certain amount of information and I was a special case of a certain age with comorbidities you know asthma. So you can't judge whether my decision was right or wrong the decision part but you can judge whether the outcome was right or wrong. So the outcome was wrong. If I had a choice I'd rather not have the vaccination in me sitting here today because it's not helping me in any way but it might hurt me. I don't know. I'm not aware of any hurt. It's the most obvious thing in the world.

Now if you want to argue whet