u have to understand it's what he said. It's a special case. There certainly are a lot of special cases, aren't there? Have you noticed how many special cases there are that all seem to go in one direction? Because I don't see a lot of special cases on the left. Just a lot of special cases on the right. So watch out for the special cases. They may not be as special as you think.

Tucker Carlson got fired from Fox News, but that was a special case because he said something about the elections, right? Maybe there are no special cases.

Speaking of Tucker, he said that he's got an interview lined up and he's going to talk to Zelensky. Zelensky's people said nope, nothing like that happened. There is nobody in Zelensky's office who believes that that's true. He has a full schedule and his schedule is not involving Tucker, and it's completely made up. And maybe he shouldn't believe things that Russians tell him. Do you think he got pranked? Do you think that some Russian pretended to be a Zelensky person? Yeah, how would you really know? I mean if somebody called me and said, "Oh, is this Scott Adams?" I'd be, "Yes." "Oh, this is Zelensky's office. This is my Ukrainian accent. You recognize it? Ukrainian accent. This is you Ukrainian office of Zelensky. We very much like to interview with you." How would I know it's not Zelensky? You know, I suppose you could ask the government, but if you're Tucker the government's not even going to return your call. It would be pretty easy to get pranked.

And I'd like to give you the extra, extra, extra caution. You have to stop believing every audio source for everything, even if it's live. You have to learn to not trust any audio source, even live, even if you're having a conversation live. You don't know if you're even talking to a person anymore. You really don't. Remember, AI has passed the Turing test. That means that literally, scientifically, a human can't tell they're talking to an AI all the time. Sometimes you can. So don't trust anything. Could be a prank, could be an AI, could be an op. There's just nothing you can trust.

Anyway, meanwhile up in Canada the woke Canadians are having an experiment with their first 15-minute city. So the city of Edmonton is going to divide itself into 15 little parts, and then all of them will be places that if you live in one of those little parts you'll be able to get whatever you want within 15 minutes. And it'll be mostly mass transit. So everything would be more convenient and closer. Don't need as much climate change. Don't need to spend as much money. We'll talk about climate change later. And of course my audience is concerned that this would be Klaus Schwab's dream of globalizing everything and taking away your freedoms. So you don't want your city to be convenient because it'll take away your freedoms.

Now I of course have given you a little pushback on the idea that living in a city that's well designed for your convenience is really a plot to control you. Maybe it's just good for everybody. But I do acknowledge that this change would give people an easier way to control you. Would you agree that the 15-minute city would give the people in charge yet another way to control you? And of course they would, because every time you give them control they use it. Can we all agree that it does create a situation where maybe you don't have a car? It just feels like they would be able to control you better if you're in your little 15-minute city. It's not that you can't leave, but you won't have a car so you'll have to work at it a little bit harder if you want to leave.

Well, here's my context. When the automobile was first introduced into America, did it give you freedom or take it away? Well, it gave you freedom, right? Because you got to drive around. Well, did it? Because it came with all kinds of rules, what you could do, what you couldn't do. And then you got to the point where you had to have a car. You didn't even have an option. So cars started out as, "Well, isn't that cool?" till they're mandatory. Really? How could you live a modern life without one?

You know, at some point. So then you had phones. When telephones were introduced, the government got a way to spy on all of you because they could tap your phones with any good reason. So was the telephone a good idea or a bad idea? Because it guaranteed you lost your privacy. You know the government could listen to anything they wanted. But the telephone was useful, you know, sort of like a 15-minute city. It's just that you gave up your privacy. But then you had a computer. Wow, computers were great, right? You could do so many things. But it gave the government a way not to just spy on one phone call but they could learn everything you've ever done, everything you care about, everybody you've talked to, everything you've said. You gave up all of your freedom because computers are really cool and they're useful and they're great. So were computers a bad idea? Well, they gave up all of your freedom. Depends. Do you like freedom? Because you lost it. But the computers are cool too. Games and you can do things. They have apps.

How about security cameras? You know it's great that you could have a security camera to feel safe. You know it keeps the bad guys away, easier to catch them. But then that meant you were on security cameras everywhere you went. So you gave up all of your physical freedom in the sense of people not knowing where you are at any given time because they also added facial recognition. So security cameras are great when you agree it keeps you safe. Also took away all your freedom. So now you don't have the ability to travel without being spotted.

How about facial recognition? Great stuff. The convenience of it. You could tell if somebody is a real person. We don't do this yet but we will. If you go to the store you don't have your ID, wouldn't it be great if they just use facial recognition? I mean I use it on my phone all the time. I hated putting in my password in my phone. Now I just, you know, phone just looks at my face. My God, that's great. That is a great, great thing that took away all my privacy.

I've got one of those digital devices from Amazon whose name I dare not say. It's amazing. I can't tell you how much my life is because I can just talk to that thing all day long. I'm talking to it. I've got one in all my major rooms. I talk to it all day long. I'm asking it questions and checking things. It's great. It also listens to everything I do or could. And if the government wanted to listen to me in every room they could. But it's really cool. I really enjoy it.

So I would argue that the most common thing for us — and we'll see it with AI as well. AI is really useful. It's great. Do you think AI will take away some of your freedoms? Of course it will. Do you think AI will take away your jobs? Of course it will. Do you think that your ability to even experience the feeling of free will will be diminished greatly by AI? Yes, yes it will. How about the robots that are going to be in your house? You can actually have a robot connected to the internet with eyes and a brain watching everything you do. But it's going to be so cool. I'm going to get one. I'm going to get one. Yeah. And it's going to be watching me just like a spy. And the government could probably take over that robot's brain anytime it wanted, watch everything that I do, and even tell the robot to look around.

I think that at some point the government, if it has a warrant, will be able to listen to this. The government will be able to order your robot to search your house while you're at work. Yeah, your robot will be ordered to watch your passwords as you type them into your computer. Oh yeah, that's coming. But are you not going to get a robot? You will get a robot. We're all going to have a robot. We're all going to have robots. And you're going to give away whatever's left, the last shred of your independence from the government.

So when you tell me, "Scott, you idiot, don't you understand that the 15-minute cities are part of the global conspiracy to take away your freedoms?" I say of course I understand that. I understood it about the phone, the car, the computer. I understand it about my digital devices. I understand it about security cameras. I understand it about AI. I understand it about robots. It's going to happen anyway. And I for one am in favor of designing cities to be more efficient. And if you're concerned about taking your freedom, I would say you're completely right and it probably doesn't matter because you've given away your freedom so many times there's no freedom left. And what the hell are they going to do to you that they can't already do? I mean really. You're afraid of the digital money because then they'll know exactly what you're doing with your money. If you're using a credit card they already know what you're doing with your money. It's only cash that matters. And cash is mostly used for sketchy reasons right now, to avoid taxes basically or buy drugs, I guess.

Anyway, here's a new report. I'm going to test your bias. The RNC research account on X reports that the official jobs number from the last two months has been revised downward by 111,000. So surprise, right? The jobs report looked really good and then just like you knew it got revised down quite a bit. Quite a bit. That's a big number.

Now here's a test of your knowledge of the news. True or false? Here's a true or false test. True or false: In the election here when Biden is in charge and therefore the government is sort of pro-Biden, one assumes that they are going to lie about the jobs numbers consistently while he's in office and then there'll be like a little correction later that they hope you don't notice. True or false? The news consistently says the jobs are good and then quietly corrects it later where you don't notice. True or false? I'll read your answers. True, true, true, true, true, true. You've all seen it. You've seen it with your own eyes. So therefore it's true. Yep, it's not true.

Do you know how I know it's not true? Because in my ongoing conversation with Michael Ian Black, who represents let's say almost the polar opposite of my political views, I mentioned that to him. I said, "You know, conservatives see this but you probably don't, that those job numbers that look good, they always — maybe not 100% of the time but pretty much you could depend — usually they're going to get revised down and then you won't notice the revision." And he said, "Well, that's not true." And I said, "Come on, it's the most obviously true thing in the news. How do you not know that? It's like almost every month it seems they say the numbers were good and then a month later they're not so good." And he said, "But I remember them being revised in both directions, not just one way. Sometimes they go up, sometimes they don't."

And I said to myself, well that can't be true because I only see them revised down. And so I checked. Turns out that they're revised up sometimes and down sometimes. And that a Republican entity will tell me when they've been revised down and they won't tell me when they've been revised up. So Michael Ian Black for the win. His version of the news was accurate. My version of the news was 100% win, which I told him by the way. 100%. His news was accurate. Mine was — and it wasn't wrong in terms of the accuracy. It was just what I saw. So I don't see anybody posting, "Well those numbers are way better than we thought." But today I saw the RNC research number telling me. And here's what Zero Hedge said, something like, you know, "Here it comes. Here it goes again," or something like that. So Zero Hedge presented it as the "here it is again, here's what they always do." But they don't. They don't always do that.

What is true is that when they do it you see it because Republicans are more likely to send that around social media. So if that tricked you the way it tricked me, do your own research. Just check. You'll see.

All right, here's another fake news. There was some news that there was some document suggesting that Mike Flynn would be the VP choice. He says that it's not true and that the filing — he debunked it. So basically Flynn says there's no filing. That's not a real thing. Now that doesn't mean that he's not going to be the choice for vice president. I don't think he will be. But it's just that this document is fake. So if you believe that document was real, check yourself because it was fake.

Now I didn't really have — I guess I suspected it was fake because I heard the story and yet I didn't think it was important enough to talk about. I think I mentioned it was new but it never seemed important to me. And it would have been important if I thought it was true. So I guess I never believed it enough to make it a big deal. So I guess I can take a partial victory in that I wasn't convinced of this one. But I could have made a bigger — I could have said more directly that I was skeptical. So I think I'll correct score on that.

All right. So I saw Tucker saying this the other day on a video that you really have to re