lumn in the middle of it. And I would have an underground canal so that I could move those big blocks that are floating on wood into the middle of the pyramid. And then I would close off the place that the block came from and I would fill the column with water and it would float those big blocks all the way up to the top of the pyramid, whatever has been built so far. And then you just take it off and put it where you want it.

So you could actually float the blocks to the top if you sealed off the column and allowed the pyramid to just be a big column of water and you just put the water in there. So maybe. But there could have been other mechanical ways they harnessed the water power.

There are new scientists who claim that you can use AI to detect intelligence, sexual preference, and political leaning just by looking at faces. Do you believe that? Do you believe that you can tell with a high level of accuracy somebody's intelligence, sexual preference, and political leaning just by their face? How many believe that you could not every time but that you could usually tell by their face? I do. If you can't tell those things by looking at people's faces, there's something wrong with you. You're missing some kind of social skill. Yes, of course you can tell those things. It takes you about all of one second to tell somebody's general intelligence by looking at them. You know it's true.

Now sexuality, if they're not hiding it, it's usually easy to tell. If they're hiding it, it's hard, of course. And political leanings, weirdly yes. Weirdly yes, you can tell people's political leanings. But that's not the fun part. Here's the fun part. It can detect lies. Now I haven't seen anybody do it yet, but I guarantee that if humans can do it — and you've seen me do it a million times, right? The tells for lying are very clear.

I was watching who was it the other day? Chris Murphy, who supports Harris, Democrat. I was watching him with the sound off, and when he gets to the lying part, his eyebrows go way up and his eyes get wide. And then he delivers the lie that he knows is a lie. And you know it's a lie. But if he opens his eyes really hard, maybe he can make you believe the lie that he knows is a lie and you know is a lie. They're really obvious. So yes, AI will be able to determine who's lying. And I don't think we're ready for that. Do you think we're ready for that? Because it's going to be pretty accurate, except for the people who really practice their lies. Those would be hard to detect anyway.

Science has also determined that there's a key brain chemical that determines whether you choose to exercise or eat some unhealthy snacks. That's pretty specific. So in rats anyway, they can tell if the rat will want to do physical activity or just indulge in a treat based on how much of this one brain chemical is there. Something called orexin. Now they haven't tried this on human beings, but the thinking is that they could change your desire to exercise versus snacking based on how much you change this chemical composition in the person.

But do you know what the real story is? It's yet more proof that we don't have free will. If you had free will, why would it matter how much of this chemical you had in your brain? Because your free will would just say I choose to exercise or it might say I choose to eat an unhealthy snack. But if you have free will, how could it possibly be affected by a chemical in your brain? No, you don't have free will. Free will has always been the most persistent illusion in all of humanity. And we imagine we have free will because it allows us to not go crazy, I guess. But no, you don't have any free will.

Yeah, I think I first realized that — I don't know how many decades ago — but when scientists said, you know what, I think some people are born with a tendency to be gay, to which I said, well, wouldn't that mean they don't have free will? And then science said, you know what, turns out that people who become addicts and alcoholics are genetically different. In other words, there's some genetic inclination to addiction. To which I said, well, I thought they could just choose not to be addicted. They got that free will, don't they? And they eventually realize that anything we attribute to free will will eventually be identified as a chemical state. And then you'll realize it doesn't exist and then you'll have to deal with that. So I'm getting you ready decades in advance. You're welcome.

All right, another thing the science found out is that your moral values could change with the seasons. So the seasonality — and this has been studied. A UBC study has revealed that regular seasonal shifts in people's moral values. Huh. Let's say if your moral values can shift based on, I don't know, sunlight and diet and temperature, that sounds a little like you don't have free will, huh? You might notice eventually that 100% of science is all in the same direction on free will. Every bit of it. Every single thing that they discover about humans reduces what you could imagine was their free will. It has always been an illusion. Hypnotists learned that in day one. In day one, the hypnotist learned that we imagine free will but we're just programmed machines basically. You can't really even be a hypnotist unless you understand that free will is fake.

You might be amazed to find that there's a new study that says no amount of drinking alcohol is good for you. Huh. Who told you that first? Me, 20 years ago for the first time probably. But yes, there's no amount of alcohol that's good for you. And there's a new study that says that it is a carcinogen and your odds of getting basically every kind of cancer goes way up if you've had any alcohol at all. So any amount of alcohol increases substantially your risk of cancer. So don't say I didn't warn you.

Here's another one. There's a teen that's suing Meta — so that would be Instagram and Facebook — for $5 billion for being addicted by Instagram. So it's a 13-year-old New York girl and she's filed this suit. It's a class action suit so it would be on behalf of all the other people as well. And it argues that Meta implemented addictive features, the like counts and the stories, despite knowing they could harm teens' mental health. And it used manipulative tactics.

Now what part of this is not common knowledge? Would you say it's common knowledge that the social media platforms use science to figure out what is most addictive? Well yes. Yeah, yes of course. So nobody's questioning that basic fact, right? It's really the DNA of all social media that it's addictive. So if you know it's addictive, and then secondly the claim is that Meta knew it was addictive and therefore harmful to teens' mental health. Do you think they can prove in the lawsuit that Meta was aware of the effects it would have on mental health? I think so. I think they can do that.

And then I say to myself, okay, but is this really an important lawsuit or is it just somebody's taking a run at some free money and you'll never hear about it again? Well it turns out that the lawyer representing the minor is famous lawyer David Boies. Now if you haven't heard that name it's because you're not enough of a legal geek to know that there's some names that are associated with big cases. He's one of those names that's often associated with big cases. And he's won enough that he can be on big cases. So it could be a really big deal.

What would happen if social media had to remove their addictive qualities? Well, what would be left? But it also asks a bigger question. Aren't all products addictive even if you're not trying to make them addictive? Everybody who makes a product of any kind that would cause you to spend your time doing one thing versus another, there's some kind of attractive addictive quality if you're going to use it more than once. So on one hand I'm kind of fascinated and interested that somebody might be able to make a case out of it. On the other hand there's definitely an unintentional effect that could come from that. Like I'm looking at basically everything in my room and I think, well I mean I'm addicted to my coffee. I'm addicted to creating these live streams. I mean I get such a kick out of doing this every morning that I'm addicted. Chocolate, yeah chocolate's addictive. Food's addictive. So I don't know how far you can take this lack of free will I can addict you thing. Because if you prove that nobody has free will, well then your whole legal system is in trouble. So we have to at least pretend we have free will.

All right, there's a report that Elon Musk is going to host Donald Trump on the X platform doing it as Spaces. This does not indicate that Trump is coming back to X. That would be a whole separate conversation which I don't think is happening. But my guess is that Trump contractually or at least ethically can't leave Truth Social because if he left Truth Social all the other stockholders would get nailed. And I don't think he can do that ethically. But he may also have a contractual agreement that he can't go back to X because that would be bad for the platform. So he's got billions of dollars at stake in not going back to X. So I wouldn't expect it. And it doesn't seem to make much difference because everything he says on Truth gets picked up on X anyway.

Anyway, the other Musk news is that the X platform and Linda Yaccarino — if I'm saying her name right, the head of X — have announced going after GARM. I forget what the letters stand for but that's the big group of people who allegedly were behind some anti-competitive behavior, maybe even RICO. It could be so bad in which they organized boycotts of advertisers to suppress free speech, say X and Musk and Yaccarino. Now is that something that really happened? Was there an organization that organized to suppress free speech? Yes, that is easily provable public knowledge. They were an entity. We know all the people. We know what they did for a living. We know that they did organize to take down X. We know why. It was because they didn't like the free speech. They would say it's disinformation but of course that's free speech.

And Rumble's CEO says they've joined in on this. This could be a really big deal because I don't see how they could lose. They have the goods. I mean it's basically public information at this p