very suspicious circumstances and it was ruled a suicide but didn't have the tells of a suicide. It looked very much like he got murdered according to evidence on his body etc. And the family hired a private pathologist that said that the gunshot and injuries are inconsistent with suicide. And I guess the police ignored that and they just closed the investigation saying there is insufficient evidence of homicide. Okay let's connect some dots. Now I don't know what's going on so this is just pure speculation. But we do know Marc Andreessen told us that the intelligence community in the United States has said directly to the people who would invest in new startups, don't invest in too many AI startups because we're going to make sure that just a few big ones dominate and we'll have connections into them basically. So in other words we do know and it's just common sense. It's just common sense if AI is going to be as powerful as everybody thinks then of course our intelligence people need to get control over it for their purposes. Now you might say no I don't want that and you might be right. So I'm not saying what's right or wrong. But certainly the same people who thought they needed to control all of the media, if they thought they needed to control the news and they thought they needed to control social media, do you think they're not trying to control AI? Of course they are. Of course they are.

But what's different from news and internet is that we're all convinced that whoever has the best AI, whatever country, will dominate the economies of the future. So our CIA and our intelligence people have first of all an interest because it's where people will go to get information. So they want to control the information just like they do in every other domain including foreign countries by the way. So the effort is not just domestic. So of course there is 100% chance that our intelligence people and therefore effectively our military thinks that a US very robust strong AI situation is the best for the country.

So what would happen if the most vulnerable part of the entire industry which is the copyright situation, what if that turned against the AI companies and in particular OpenAI which seems to be at least the most funded? Well that would give our intelligence community a reason to murder whoever was going to ruin the entire AI industry with some whistleblowing. Because all it would take is one victory over copyright violation and then the floodgates would open and then you would get other whistleblowers and maybe our entire industry might be crippled. Now this is a problem that China presumably won't have because they've got the dictator situation going on. So what would happen if America crippled its own AI for completely legitimate reasons meaning that there were people who had legitimate legal complaints and our justice system worked the way it's supposed to, took them seriously and maybe put an injunction on AI and said okay you can't develop this until we settle this case. It's going to take three years to get it through the Supreme Court. What would that do to American AI? It would destroy it and then we would fall behind and China and anybody else would take over. And then that would put us at what we would think would be a gigantic domestic threat.

So putting it all together, you're the CIA or you're the intelligence community of the United States and this whistleblower presents really an existential threat to the entire country. Now I'm not saying that's true. I'm saying that you could easily imagine they would think it's true. That he's an existential threat to the entire country because it could take down our biggest AI companies and stall them and then nothing happens and we lose the biggest weapon that's ever been developed. So under these conditions and the suspiciousness of the case being called suicide I think it's exactly what it looks like. I think it's exactly what it looks like. It looks like it's an inside job and somebody on what should be our team probably just killed him. And it might be exactly what it looks like because I'm trying to imagine the alternative. I don't think there's an alternative where our intelligence community would just let this run through the courts. It would be an existential risk and a really obvious one and one they had the ability to stop through the worst possible means. So I certainly have complete empathy for the family and the fact that they I don't think they'll ever have closure on this. But you could sort of see how the dots connect. I don't know. So I'm not saying that's true but I don't know how it could go any other way. I just don't know how there could be any other way this would have gone. I think under every situation the person who's this whistleblower with this claim who had documents, could prove it with documents, I think that person dies every time. And you can't be happy about that.

Well how many of you watched at least some clips from a US hockey team playing a Canadian team? I don't pay attention to hockey so is it some kind of playoff situation? It's a playoff right? And is that what it is? So give me a fact check. I don't know why the US team and the Canadian team were playing. Is it just a normal league play? They're in the same league? Is that a thing? All right well anyway. So for some reason it seemed like an important hockey game. And I guess the American national anthem when it was sung the Canadians booed which seemed quite disrespectful to the American team. So the American team just decided that they're going to start three fights in the first nine seconds or something. And of course everybody knows that hockey players fight a lot and it's a weird sport because the fighting is allowed up to a point. The refs actually stand back. So instead of breaking it up they stand back and they let the fight play out. Now they must have some kind of internal rules where if the fighters go down, like if one drags the other one down to the ice, they break it up immediately. But as long as they're both standing on their skates and they put their stick down — I don't think they can fight by hitting each other with their hockey stick. That probably would be out of bounds. But if the only thing they're doing is punching each other while they're standing apparently the refs let that go as long as they want, as long as the people want to keep punching each other. And I'm sure if the other teammates tried to get into it the refs would stop it. So it's such a weird little not really even a sport rule that you can punch each other all day long as long as you do it within these — you don't even need a reason. If the reason was the national anthem well good enough.

But watching how theatrical it happened and then watching what appeared to be nobody getting hurt whatsoever, it looked like they were throwing wild punches. They started throwing punches when both of them had helmets on and they're punching the helmets and then the helmets come off and then there's a whole bunch of more punching. But you really couldn't see anybody connect. It looked like they could just do these fake punching all day long because as long as they were sort of holding each other by the jersey they seem to be able to avoid the worst part of the punch. And it reminded me of — you remember when Jerry Springer was a huge phenomenon on TV and after a while there would be a fight every single episode? So somebody who was on the panel up there on the stage with Jerry Springer would always every single show attack somebody who they didn't like who was also on stage. And it would look wild and the punches would be thrown and the slapping and the hair pulling but eventually they'd be pulled apart. And I started thinking wow the first few times I saw it I thought wow that's lucky nobody got hurt. And then it would happen a thousand times in a row like every single week and never did anybody get hospitalized. I didn't even see a black eye. So it was obvious to me at the time that the fights were staged. But let's call it semi-staged. Meaning that they didn't necessarily say all right you can only be on TV if you get in a fight but we'll break it up don't hurt each other. I don't think they did that. But I think that once it was obvious that fighting was going to be allowed they maybe selected people who were a little bit more willing to do it. Maybe there was subtle encouragement. I think there was. But I remember talking to people who didn't understand that the fighting was all staged and people would say oh no I think they're just mad at each other and there's just a lot of fighting. And I would say okay you believe that a thousand times in a row that somebody decided to take a swing at somebody on stage