k about today or probably some other stuff too. So look for Owen Gregorian on X.

All right. Well this is hard to believe. Really unbelievable, but I said something incorrect yesterday and so I need to correct it. I was talking about the Tesla app, the robo taxi app. It was the number one download and I mistakenly thought that that app was to turn your own car into a robo taxi, which is coming. That'll be a real thing. But I was corrected that that's probably just the app for calling a robo taxi. So if you're in one of the cities where they roll it out, you'll have the app.

All right. Well can you believe it? I saw a story in the Daily Caller News Foundation. They had a story about sea levels have not been surging despite years of climate activists yelling that they would. So the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering published this peer-reviewed paper and as you know all peer-reviewed papers are exactly accurate.

Have you noticed that when the science is in the direction of something I want to be true or it makes me look like I was right about something that I automatically assume it must be some pretty solid science? The best you can do to block your own bias is sort of keep score and say to yourself, huh, it does seem to me that I don't do as much skepticism on the science that agrees with me and this would be more of that.

But apparently I think it is reasonably true that the sea levels have not been rising at a rate that would suggest the climate models were correct. And you know what I say about the climate models, right? Wait till they find out about the climate models.

You know, the best kind of predictions to make are the kind that really really can't be wrong. There's not even the slightest chance that if you went forward enough in time, there's not the slightest chance that the final verdict on climate models, there's not the slightest chance that in the future they will say, you know, those climate models, they really nailed it. You all know there's no chance of that, right? The only question is how long it takes.

So that's why I think it's funny to just keep asking the question and sort of tease it. When do you find out about those climate models?

Well, you've heard the stories about scientists and engineers could turn Wi-Fi routers into a tracking device that knows where you are and even who you are, I believe, and it could track you in your own home. Well now they've got some technology that could track heartbeats without you needing to put anything on your body. So your Wi-Fi router, if it were adapted to do it, I guess it would just be software, would be able to detect your heartbeat and your pulse, I guess. Is that the same thing?

And I wondered, it makes you wonder how many other passive health related things could happen. Could you imagine inviting somebody over to your house and they don't know that your Wi-Fi is measuring their heartbeat? Hey Bob, it looks like you got a little arrhythmia going. What? And based on what we've detected from your exhalations, your breath, I'd say you've got a little bit of whatever, which is probably not a thing.

Anyway, so somebody's going to build the world's creepiest house that can detect all of your medical problems as soon as you walk in.

Well, Google I guess lost some court case. They've been ordered to pay $425 million because they were indirectly tracking users who disabled their web and app tracking. So I guess the people who thought they were not being tracked by Google because they had opted out of it, Google just used third-party apps that they had connections with to track those same people. So apps like Uber, Instagram, and Venmo, somehow they could get information from them and they could just keep tracking people that didn't want to be tracked.

So that violation of privacy created a lawsuit that cost them $425 million. Although it doesn't look like it was intentional in the sense that it was somebody's plot. It was just that's what their technology did. They just had a workaround.

All right. And then was it Google also had an earlier case in Texas where they had to pay $1.4 billion for a settlement with Texas over alleged violations of some state level privacy rules. So that would be if you're keeping track about $2 billion that just Google has had to pay for violating privacy rules which I'm guessing they weren't even aware they were doing.

Do you think that it feels like the lawsuits are at a point where you would have to be the size of Google just to survive all the lawsuits?

Speaking of lawsuits, Apple's being sued by authors, you've heard this story before but not about Apple yet, over the use of books in their AI training. Newsmax is writing about this. So apparently this is another one of those situations where authors like me, although it's the first time I'm finding out about it, seem to have banded together for some kind of lawsuit over the use of their material to train the AI and Microsoft had that problem and Anthropic had that problem.

So this whole business of whose intellectual property is getting mined for AI is getting bigger. So yet again this is another industry that if it were not already gigantic, it wouldn't be able to withstand all the lawsuits. I mean there will just be nonstop lawsuits against every AI company, not just for this but for the fact that sometimes the AIs have encouraged peop