ecause we stopped doing transitioning youth? Is that the darkness? Feels like an upgrade. But as I've told you before, back in 2016 when the Democrats started calling everything that Trump did dark, you say that because you don't have specific credible complaints. You do it because it can collect all of your fears. The Democrats are not about policy. They're about fear and about personal attack. If they can make you afraid, then they can get elected. So when they say stuff like dark, but they don't give you any details of what exactly is the dark part, what are we missing? The reason they can't give you details is if they did, you'd say, "Oh, well, that looks like temporary." Or, "Well, yeah, that's true, but Trump's working on that." Or, "Nobody solved it before." Right? So they can't give you reasons because if they gave you reasons it would look weak and pathetic and not common sense but they can say it's dark. The dark days have come.

Eric Swalwell, I didn't even think this was real but I think it's real. When I first saw it I thought that can't be real. So Swalwell has said now on social media that the only Democrat candidate who would be the only valid presidential candidate for the Democrats would be somebody willing to say in advance that they would bulldoze the ballroom if they won. That's a real thing that happened. Swalwell actually, and by the way, if I'm wrong about it, please correct me immediately so I don't go too far. It doesn't look like something that's real, does it? It doesn't look like it's real because it's too on the nose. It's too on the nose for what the dumbest Democrat would say. But is it real? I believe it's being treated as real, right? And can you even imagine bulldozing a $350 million building that even the Democrats have been saying they've needed for decades? Is that the dumbest thing you've ever seen? And to imagine that maybe the Democrats have enough of a base that would agree with this that he would think that saying it would somehow boost his political situation. That's incredible.

Well, Russia Ukraine has turned into two movies on one screen. Depending on which propaganda site you look at, it's a completely different war. So there's somebody named Yasmina on X. Don't know anything about Yasmina. I do not believe that anybody on X is credible when it comes to the war. But I'll just give you a sense of the two sides what they're saying. Yasmina is on the side that Russia's economy is close to collapse and that's one movie and the other movie is that Ukraine is going to lose all of its energy resources before winter and freeze to death and that Russia has never been as serious as they are now about turning off the power in Ukraine and now that Ukraine is attacking them deep within Russia and taking out some of their energy resources that Russia will have no gating factor to keep them from taking out all of Ukraine's energy. It looks like what they want to do is make half of Ukraine go dark to force the people who lived in the dark part to move to the part that still has energy, which would essentially clear out a big swath that they can just reenter it. It would make it easier to conquer if they moved all the people who didn't have electricity. So that looks like the movie. Both of them trying to crush the other's economy and they have much better weapons this winter than they had last winter. So the odds of them being able to do it in both cases are now closer to I don't know closer to 100%. Maybe not 100%. But I don't think they could have done it before. I think they could do it now. And I guess Ukraine sent 193 drones at Russia just last night. So most of them get shot down these days, but 193 drones a night going after your energy resources. How many nights do you need before you get them all? So and I guess one of their biggest refineries got shut down in Russia, but again, you don't even know if that's real. So all the fog of war stuff is completely impossible to sort through. But the US is working on reducing Russia's access to oil. And again, it's two movies on one screen. One movie says that the US is making a big difference and that the sanctions that we put on third party countries like India and China are actually making them change their behavior. So in the short run, India and China aren't really changing their importing of Russian oil. In the long run, it looks like they might want to avoid the problems that the sanctions will cause them. So it looks like they might be looking for alternatives and that the only thing that would keep them from getting off of Russian oil, which would bring them problems in their own country from the United States, might be just having another source and that might not be impossible. So if things ramp up in other places, but we'll see. And then apparently there's not a glut of oil, but there's extra oil being pumped in the Middle East. That's probably at least partly from Trump's influence because if the price of oil stays around $60 a barrel, then our domestic industry survives, but Russia would have way less money to press the war. They would also probably survive, but they wouldn't have the extra for the war that they would want. So anyway, fog of war.

I saw an older post from February by AI pioneer founder kind of guy, Andrej Karpathy, and he had something interesting to say about intelligence versus what we call agency. Agency in this case is defined as a personality trait that refers to your capacity to take initiative, make decisions and exert control over your actions in your environment. That would be your agency. And what Karpathy points out is that we already have a lot of intelligence. So our AIs are doing good on intelligence. They can often or usually beat a human being on what they know. So that's a kind of intelligence, but what they don't have is agency. And that until you start building agency into the robots and the AI, you don't have what you need. So I don't know how you could give them agency without them being too dangerous. So we'll see where that goes.

General Motors says they're getting closer to what they call an eyes off vehicle. They want to make a vehicle where you don't have to watch. Sort of like the Tesla model, self-driving, but it doesn't look like they're that close. I think they've got one really expensive car that they think they'll be able to do it with, the Cadillac. And then they want to build Gemini AI into their cars, so you could just talk to the