A vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens right now. Go.

Gary, come over here. So good. Actually, it wasn't very good, but it's better if I tell you it was.

All right. Well, let me check the news to see if there's any science that maybe they could have just skipped by asking me.

Courtesy of Swansea University, Kathy Thomas is writing that it's not just how many sexual partners you've had, because you know how people always say, "What's your body count?" And they mean, you know, how many people have you had sex with? And allegedly some people don't want to have a life partner who have had lots of sexual partners. Now, how many of you are in that category? You would not marry somebody who had lots of sexual partners.

But this new information tells you it's not just how many partners your potential romantic mate has. It's also when it happened. But that makes sense because if somebody said to you, well, you know, honestly, I had 30 partners, but they were all in my 20s and since then really it's been one, I'd say, in my 30s a lot. But really, it only happened in your 20s and it's been 10 years. Yeah. Okay, that's not so bad. See, it's not so bad if it was a long time ago.

But alternately, you could say, "What's your body count?" And somebody would say, "Five." And you'd be all, "Five? Okay, in modern day, that's not too bad. I mean, you know, fewer is better, but five is not too bad." And then you say, "Five this morning," and then it suddenly seems bad again. See, it's all about the timing. Just have to ask me.

JP Morgan is predicting that Apple is likely to launch a foldable iPhone in September of 2026. Do you believe that JP Morgan actually knows what Apple plans to do in September of a year from now? I have my doubts that JP Morgan knows that at all, but maybe. I would love a foldable phone as long as it's not more unwieldy than my normal phone when I put it in my pocket.

There's a legal AI startup, legal meaning that they deal with the law, not that they just haven't broken it, and it's called Harvey. And it's already worth $100 million in annual recurring revenue. It's only a few years old. And I guess it does for lawyers what a lawyer would have to do normally. So it helps your lawyers be more efficient. So you need less of them I guess. So that's happening.

It does make sense that the legal profession, which if we're being honest, the reason that the law is as complicated as it is is so that lawyers can take your money. Because I'm pretty sure if the law said you must simplify everything you say in a contract that you wouldn't need nearly as many lawyers. But AI can do all the complicated stuff. So lawyers won't be able to say, "Well, you'll never be able to do this on your own, so I have to do it." You're going to be, "Well, I could just show this to ChatGPT, and it probably tells me what to negotiate, what to accept." So I do think the legal domain maybe half of it will be entirely just decimated by AI. Maybe half. I think there's going to be a half that AI can't do. A little bit more human-oriented, but maybe half of the legal profession will go away.

Apparently American Eagle stock, that's the company that Sydney Sweeney did her commercial for. You all know about that. And Trump said some positive things about the company and their stock was up 20%. Some said 23. I don't know if it's still up today, but the stock is up.

You know what the weirdest thing about the Sydney Sweeney having good jeans commercial is? We all just sort of accepted that she's a skinny woman with large breasts. Do you know how many skinny women who have large breasts got there because of good jeans as opposed to good doctor? Now, there is no indication that Sydney Sweeney has had a boob job. There's no indication that she doesn't. She says she has. Nobody else has either. And indeed, she said that she had big boobs when she was in high school and it was kind of a problem.

To which I say, there was something I learned in my 20s and I'm going to stick with it. And it goes like this. There's no such thing as a skinny girl with big tits. Not organically. There are plenty of them who got surgery which by the way I'm not judging. I have no bad things to say about it if it works for you and you want it and it looks good and you know you don't have any side effects great. But am I supposed to believe that she's the world's only skinny chick with gigantic boobs and it just happened 'cause she has good jeans? No. I'm sorry. I can't go that far.

Well, that could be the end of my show because I've got a cat laying on my notes who seems very, very happy being there. All right. But I can pull my notes out and she'll never even notice anyway. But like I say, maybe she's the only one who just has natural different genes. Maybe.

Tesla has decided that they've got some kind of a pay deal with Elon. You know, that they were going to give him many billions of dollars and some Delaware judge decided that he didn't earn it, so he didn't get it. But now Tesla has decided to give him 96 million shares of Tesla, which would be about $29 billion worth of value based on current stock price. But $29 billion might seem like a lot. Is that a funny statement? $29 billion. It might seem like a lot, but it's less than the $50 billion that he was actually contractually entitled to. So we'll see if anything happens there.

Meanwhile, in other news, Gary, in other news, NASA chief Sean Duffy has announced plans that they're going to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, the US's. So we're going to be racing China, mostly China I guess, to be the first country to have a nuclear reactor on the moon because whoever gets that going first is going to be able to do a base and whoever does the base is going to have some military control and functional and economic control of the moon. So let's get those nukes up there, huh? Shall we?

And then I saw a compilation clip yesterday of, how many of you remember this? Do you remember the 2016 election cycle and then Trump gets elected and then every time you turned on the TV, the bad Democrats were saying and I quote, "The walls are closing in on Trump." Do you remember that? And so I was watching a compilation clip of it from back in those days. It was just one weasel after another. The walls are closing in on Trump. What it usually meant is the Russia collusion hoax. And given that we know that they knew, at least the insiders knew it wasn't real, how many of the other people knew it wasn't real?

I feel as if everybody who used that phrase on TV, the walls are closing in on Trump, because even Biden used it, it feels to me that that revealed their entire network. It feels to me that if you just did a replay of all the people who used that phrase, the walls are closing in, you would know all the people who had illegally been part of the plot, 'cause it's just too big a coincidence.

And now we notice that all the bad people have moved to Trump as an authoritarian. And I'll bet it's the same phenomenon that there's a bunch of insiders who have colluded to say, "All right, we're all going to say that it's this or it's that. We're all going to say authoritarian." Now, can you correct me on this if I'm wrong? There's nothing like this on the right. Right? Because nobody has ever come to me and said, "All right, now we're all going to say this." I've never heard that. And while it is true that people on the right will end up saying things that they heard on Fox News and things, it's not nearly as bad as this, you know, where they just sort of mockingbird say that, you know, repeat the same thing. He's an authoritarian.

And the fact that they're calling him an authoritarian for firing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because she was completely wrong on her statistics. Isn't that usually why people get fired? All right. We're going to hire you to be the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and your main job will be to tell us how many new jobs were created. All right. Got it. If you're off by 10,000% and the entire news cycle has passed before you correct it, we're going to fire you because that's not really good in the statistics. Wouldn't that be fair?

But we're pretending that firing somebody for being consistently completely wrong about the only thing that they're there to do, which is present statistics, that's not a problem. Now, the background might be, I presume, that our statistics have always been that bad. But for whatever reason, we just started accepting it as normal. And Trump sees one example and he just says, "You're fired." That's the way you should run that. If they do it one time, come at you with numbers which are completely ridiculous. And here's the important point. They knew the numbers were ridiculous when they presented them and they didn't warn anybody.

You know, if they had said, "All right, we have preliminary numbers, but honestly, you shouldn't use them because in two months these will be revised and they could be revised just really radically. So you shouldn't make any decisions based on these numbers