ding a quiet supersonic jet. So something that doesn’t go bam when it crosses the sound barrier. This one goes thud. A more acceptable noise in the atmosphere. And they’re already testing. It’s already built and they’re doing test flights and it works. And if it works and if it brings in a new era of air travel, it could reduce the time that you go across the country to I don’t know maybe half. So imagine flying from California to New York in three hours instead of sixish. That’d be a pretty big change.

Imagine I live in California. Most of the Californians who have a little extra money like to go to Hawaii. That’s sort of our closest tropical looking place. Imagine instead of six hours to Hawaii, it’s three. It completely changes the experience for me. For me, any kind of travel, when I could travel, was all about the time you had to be in the plane. If you can reduce the time when you’re on the plane, I’m all in. But if you’re gonna tell me I need to be on a plane for fourteen hours to go to Bora Bora or something, I can’t do twenty-eight hours of sitting on a plane there and back. But if you cut it in half, yeah, suddenly it looks kind of practical. All right, so we’ll wait for that.

Supersonic flights allegedly according to Dr. Singularity, who’s got some news on X. A number of the big AI companies have built an artificial simulated fusion reactor situation. So allegedly, I’m a little skeptical about this one, but let me tell you what it is. You know, we’ve been trying to get fusion energy, but it’s really complicated and hard. We know we can do it because fusion as a technology is a proven technology but not engineered to economic success yet. So there’s an economic iteration process that has to go through. We don’t need to prove it can work. We’re already past that. We just need to engineer it so it does work and it’s reliable and safe. Fusion should be safer if you do it right, should be safer than fission, but except for the Gen 4.

And so Nvidia and some other big companies have allegedly gotten together and built an artificial fusion situation so that they can iterate a bunch of different things within a virtual world and then that will tell them what to do in the real world. Now, do you believe that they can’t build a fusion reactor yet that meets all the requirements but that they could build an accurate AI simulation of it? Does that sound like something people could do? I’m going to say no. Sorry. I’m going to say no. I don’t think people could do that. It might teach us something or it might pop up a possibility that we had not considered but I don’t think it would accurately simulate it, do you?

And how would you know if it accurately simulated it because we can’t do it in the real world. So what would you compare it to to know that it had accurately simulated it so you weren’t wasting your time seeing what the simulation would do? So let’s just say, call me skeptical.

All right. Have you heard of my book *Loserthink*? Let me grab it off the shelf. Hold on. Oh, there it is. Coming. Sorry, I meant to be more prepared.

So my book *Loserthink* has many examples of how to poorly think so that you know not to do it. One of the more important points in the book is what I call word thinking. Have you heard me talk about that before? Word thinking. So word thinking is where you’re trying to make an argument that really just forces the other person to accept your definition of a word as opposed to an argument. So word thinking is the opposite of being rational and the opposite of making an argument. It’s just trying to browbeat somebody into accepting that the word you’re using for a thing is the right word because that carries the argument with it if you buy the word.

For example, if they can sell you that Gaza was a genocide, then they don’t need to make an argument. If you accept the word, they’re done, right? But it’s really more complicated than it is or is not a word. There’s a whole backstory. There’s a context, there’s everything. So whenever you see somebody trying to force you to take their word as their definition, that’s just propaganda. That’s just power. That has nothing to do with what’s right or wrong or logical.

Now, what do Democrats say about the government shutdown? Well, Governor Newsom’s press office says, quote, “If you control all three branches of government, how are you not in charge?” So they’re using the word “control” as the word that they want you to accept. If you accept “control,” then you have accidentally accepted that the Republicans are the ones that can open the government all by themselves, right? There’s no argument there. They just want you to accept “control.” If you buy into the definition of who’s in control and they’ve defined it as who’s got control of the three parts of the government, then you are in control and therefore logically only you can open the government.

Now, everybody who pays attention to the news knows that the Democrats would have to vote for it also in at least large enough numbers to get it passed, and they’re not. So the Democrats have complete control because all they have to do is say yes and the government opens because the Republicans have already said yes to a continuing resolution which would get it done.

Now you may have seen Jessica Tarlov arguing on *The Five* the same point and what she does is she uses a wording substitution. I think the word she used, if I remember, was “incumbent.” She said that if you’re the one who owns all the, if you’re in control of the three branches of government, as Republicans are, that it is incumbent upon you to negotiate with the minority, the Democrats, and give them something in return for them agreeing to open the government.

Now, do you see the word thinking there? That’s word thinking. There’s no argument there. She’s trying to replace an argument with a word: incumbent. It’s incumbent upon you. But where is the connecting tissue? Where’s the logic that says that you’ve got two teams. One team has already said yes to open the government. The other team has not yet said yes. Why would it be incumbent on the ones who have already said yes to give something away when they’ve already agreed to do the thing that’s the thing which is open the government and pay for it? They’ve already agreed. There’s no incumbent to anything. Who wrote that rule? Is there something in the Constitution about what makes you incumbent?

Now, I hope I’m using the right word. Was it “incumbent” the word she used on *The Five*? I didn’t write it down, but from memory I think that’s what. But if it’s not “incumbent” it’s a word like that. So it’s the same point even if it’s a different word. So how many of you recognize this now? How many of you recognize that this was always word thinking and that’s all it ever was? And that a great deal of the Democrat narratives and approaches are this. They just try to get you to buy into a word.

What are some other words the Democrats are trying to get you to accept? “Insurrection” when they talk about January 6th. They don’t want to give an argument because the argument would go like this. What did those people want to accomplish? Oh, they thought the election was rigged and they were trying to pause it to make sure that we had a fair election. That’s what an actual argument would look like. But if you can’t win the argument, you try to do it with word thinking. You say,