nutes of the worst pain you've ever felt in your life. But have I ever told you about deciding versus wanting? Oh, I was doing a lot of deciding. A lot of deciding. So I got through it. So the happy ending is I got exactly what I wanted. But wow.

So I had some words with them about their communication style.

Moving on. Did you know that there was a new congressional investigation that discovered that Hunter Biden's paintings were all created entirely by autopen? I didn't even know autopen had any art ability, but apparently the autopen did all of his art. All right. How many of you believed that? Did anybody believe that? No. No, the autopen did not do Hunter's art, but it's kind of funny.

All right. I wonder if there's any science that you didn't need to read because you could have just asked Scott. Well, the American Psychological Association tells us that the study says that sharing positive emotions with a partner is good for your health. I'm pretty sure everybody knew that. You didn't even have to ask me that one. Is sharing positive emotions with a partner going to be good for your relationship? Yes. Is a good relationship going to make you healthier? Probably. Yes. Yeah. Easy. Next time, just ask me.

All right. Let's see if you can guess the outcome of this study based on my patterns. So ABC News is talking about this. So they did a study where they gave somebody a small dose of LSD to see if it would help them with their long-term anxiety. Now importantly they did not give it to him every day, just once. So just one dose. What do you think? What was the result? One dose of LSD. Did it have any lasting effects on anybody's mental health in a positive way?

You already know the answer to that because I talk about this almost every day. Almost every day there's a new story about a hallucinogen, usually not LSD but some hallucinogen that has exactly these properties, that it can fix somebody's mental health with one dose. I don't know how many studies we have to do to show that hallucinogens fix people with one dose before everybody tries one dose of hallucinogens. I mean, aren't we sort of on the cusp of everybody just saying, "All right, all right, all right, just give me some of that"?

According to Science Alert, chimpanzees can revise their beliefs when shown new evidence. Well, damn those dirty monkeys. They're smarter than humans. Humans don't change their mind when you give them new data, but chimps do. Well, I would say that humans do too. It really depends. But maybe the advantage that chimps have is that they don't get embarrassed. I mean, if you're a chimp, you're flinging your poo and probably trapped in a cage and you got bigger problems. But no, they will revise their beliefs based on new evidence.

However, there's no indication what political party they're supporting. I think what they did was maybe a test that had something to do with food or something. Yeah. Do you know what kind of opinion I would be willing to change easily? My food opinions. If the only thing they changed their opinion on was something about where the food was hidden, I'm not impressed. Chimps. Sorry, chimps.

Well, apparently Meta, the Facebook company, Ars Technica is reporting that they've been accused of using porn to train their AI. But do you know what their defense is? Because apparently there must be digital records of Meta accessing a lot of porn. A lot of porn. Because we're talking about training AI. If you're going to train AI, you don't need a little bit of porn. You need lots, lots of porn. Lots.

So they must have some kind of a digital path because there's a lawsuit. So Meta asked the US District Court to toss out a lawsuit alleging that they had basically torrented or streamed a bunch of pornography to train their AI. How much porn was it? And what was their defense? Their defense was it was all downloaded for personal reasons. So their actual court defense was, "No, no, we didn't need that much porn to train our AI. We needed it totally for jerking off." What? No. Really? Yeah. We didn't even touch AI with it. We did not get near AI with that porn. It was all for us just to whack off. That's a lot of porn. Well, we're young and there are a lot of us and we like our porn. So you know, why don't you get off my back, Dad?

Well, here's something that Elon Musk knew was coming, but maybe you didn't. Apparently there's a solar power boom because the economics of solar power just got really good. And one of the reasons it got really good, the economics for solar, is that there's some gigantic solar projects going on in China particularly and it basically is just creating a very robust competitive industry. So the prices for solar are going down and a lot more is being installed in countries everywhere.

The weird thing is that the economics of solar are so good now that even Saudi Arabia is installing solar. They have a lot of sun so it makes sense. But one of the biggest regular energy, carbon energy producers in the world, even for them the economics of solar are good. So I assume that maybe this has something to do with battery storage as well. But I guess we're in that realm where all power is good power.

So you might remember that this is in the category of Elon Musk being correct again. He's been saying for a long time that solar would be the economical, easiest, fastest, safest kind of way to go forward. Now obviously he's in the business so it's his job to say it's good. But I think he's right. You know, it looks like if I had to guess, the cost of nuclear power might go down as they develop new ways, but that is just sort of going to go up, I think, because new things that they have to do for safety and everything else. But solar potentially could just get cheaper and cheaper for a long time, and the batteries could get cheaper and cheaper. So I think Elon was right about the future of solar.

ExxonMobil according to Zero Hedge is taking California to court over what they call compelled climate speech. So they're not complaining about what the state is making them do about climate. They're complaining about what they're making them say, which is actually pretty innovative. And what is it they want them to say? Apparently they're being forced by California law to publicly endorse opinions about climate change that they don't agree with. That does seem like something you should be able to sue your state for, right? It'd be one thing if they say the laws you have to do this, but seems like a violation of the First Amendment to say and when you do it, you have to talk about it this way. What? Really? The state is going to tell you how to talk about climate change? No. No. You don't get to tell us how to talk about it. We'll talk about it any way we want. But if you have some law about what we're supposed to do, well, maybe we'll do it, but we're not going to talk about it the way you want us to talk about it. No.

So I'm going to be on ExxonMobil's side in that.

RFK Jr. says there is not yet, maybe there never will be, sufficient evidence that Tylenol causes autism. Now I'm sure the Tylenol company, whoever makes it, has been talking to him. The Hill is reporting this. But they are in the process of looking into it. We're doing studies to make the proof. But Kennedy says there's a suggestive connection but not yet a scientifically demonstrated one. So he's going to make sure that the science is there before or if they say that it is a problem. So I like that they're doing the studies. This is exactly why I like Kennedy in this job. You know, the anti-Kennedy guys say he would ignore science. Well, he's clearly not. He's clearly not ignoring science. He's clearly creating science where there was a hole and could be one of the most important things anybody ever did anywhere if he finds out what's actually behind the autism. So yeah, that's why we like him.

Trump has apparently decided to encourage Republicans to go nuclear and scrap the Senate filibuster. Now my understanding would be that that change would allow them to pass the law without 60 votes. So they would just need a bare majority and therefore they would be able to control the budget and reopen the government and do everything else. The downside of getting rid of the filibuster is because the filibuster is sort of what keeps the safety valve thing alive as long as they're filibustering. But if you got rid of it, it would work both ways. Meaning that when Democrats eventually get in power, they would also have no filibuster. So if they had just one extra vote more than Republicans, which isn't too far away, that one extra vote would allow them to do whatever they wanted.

So right now the only control that Democrats have over Republicans doing anything they want is that they can filibuster and make this 60-vote threshold too high for the Republicans to get over. It would be quite the move to go nuclear because it would change everything forever. The government would never be the same and even Republicans don't want to do it for that reason. It would change everything forever and you might not like it because it probably wouldn't change back. I mean it could but probably wouldn't. So whoever was in power would never want to change it back because it would be the best power they'd ever had.

Anyway, I don't know if that'll happen or if it's a bluff. It's probably the right time to bluff it because Democrats are really, really not going to want the nuclear option to be used and they're really, really, really not going to want the filibuster to go away. But the Republicans have the power to do it. They can make it go away. So it could be that he's bluffing and negotiating and if he says I totally want the nuclear option and the Senate filibuster to go away forever that might be enough for the Democrats to say whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa okay let's talk. If that's what he's doing then it's exactly the right play. If what he's doing is he's definitely decided to get rid of the filibuster and he can convince the Republicans, which I don't think he can actually. I don't think he would. But if he could, would they go along with it? I don't know. I don't think he could get enough Republicans, but you know, he's really good at threatening Republicans with primaries, so maybe he could. He might be able to get them.

Here's the least surprising story of the day. According to the New York Post, Victor Nava is writing that the Department of Justice is investigating possible fraud within Black Lives Matter. So it's one particular part of Black Lives Matter. How many times have we heard that story that Black Lives Matter is being investigated for or suspected of money laundering and stealing money and corruption? Surprise.

But here's what's interesting. Apparently the investigation was launched during the Biden administration. So if you think it's some kind of racist Trump thing that they only go after black people, you should know that this would be a continuation of a Biden administration thing. However, I do have to wonder if Biden was slow-walking it because Democrats don't want to embarrass Black Lives Matter to which they had all bowed. So it might have been getting slow-walked, but it's not getting slow-walked now.

Looks like the civil rights division of the government is demanding, well actually the DOJ is demanding records on what they call unexplained anomalies in the 2020 election after Fulton County did not comply with subpoena. This is from the Post Millennial, Hannah Nightingale is writing about it. And I guess what this means is that in the past the Department of Justice had asked for some documents or something from Fulton County and never got them. And now people believe that there are unexplained anomalies related to the 2020 election.

Now how long have we been hearing about these unexplained anomalies in Georgia? It's been years. For years. It's like every other day there's a story about an unexplained election thing in Georgia, but none of them have so far turned into the massive smoking gun that Republicans expect. So there's no proof that the election was thrown. But I do feel like every part of my body feels like it's coming, you know, just in the way that Bill Gates changing his mind on climate change. I felt like it was coming, but I wouldn't know if it was in 20 years or one year. Turned out it came kind of fast. So I don't know. We'll keep an eye on this. Yeah. Unexplained anomalies.

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz, I believe he's at an event in or was in Las Vegas, that's the Republican Jewish Coalition. And part of what Ted Cruz would like you to know is that according to him, the Republicans are drifting into antisemitism. He says, "In the last six months, I've seen more antisemitism on the right than I have in my entire life." He says, "This is a poison, and I believe we're facing an existential crisis in our party and in our country." And he noted that the Democrats had sort of the same problem and were too slow to disavow the antisemitism in their own party and that that was sort of a critical mistake for the Democrats that he would not want the Republicans to make.

And here's what I'm wondering. How much of it is because of the Gaza situation? And if Gaza had not happened, would he be seeing all this antisemitism? Because it looks like the way to understand the various complaints about antisemitism is that, and I'm going to deeply oversimplify now, there are some people like Tucker Carlson who seem to be criticizing the state of Israel, but there are some people like Nick Fuentes who appears to be criticizing Jews around the world. Totally different. Criticizing a country, fine. You'll still be called an antisemite, but at least smart people would consider that reasonable. But if you're criticizing people, well, you're not gonna get away with that. And Ted Cruz is calling it out.

So Ted is a very, very, very, very pro-Israel. He would be called by some people too pro-Israel. But again, if you're pro or anti a country, that's all legal, you know, as long as it's transparent and you're not hurting anybody and you're still putting your own country first, that would be important. That's one thing. If you're criticizing AIPAC or the ADL, that's okay. Those are organizations. That's not direct. Even if you were antisemitic, it would be okay to criticize an organization for what the organization's doing. So it looks like we're conflating the two conversations. You know, when is somebody saying something that's criticism of the country? When they've gone too far and said it's the people.

But I would say that what's changed in the last six months is that the Gaza situation reached some kind of a peak. Obviously that's going to have some impact. And that also maybe some changes in social media made Nick Fuentes show up on my feed every five seconds. Is anybody having the Nick Fuentes social media effect that he's just there almost every time I turn on any videos on X? He's in the top five. Now it is because I was curious like what's the difference between Tucker Carlson's view and his view and what trouble is he causing? Because when you hear things about him, you don't always hear the specific of what he did. So I wanted to see some specifics and I would agree that he comes off as antisemitic. I would agree if you watch him for a while it's hard not to get that impression. Now he might deny it etc. But let's just say the vibe is unmistakable.

Now he would argue I think you know I don't want to take his argument but at least in some cases he would argue that he's at least in other topics that he's talking about culture less than he's talking about people but I think that's not so much the antisemitism argument as it is his argument about other immigrants I think. So here's my take. Both Tucker and Fuentes can represent their own opinions. I will add nothing to their opinions nor do I care enough that I need to get into the weeds on that. But it does look like Tucker is playing with fire, but maybe still slightly on the side of going after entities and not people most of the time. I mean there might be some people he goes after, but they would be special cases. That's what it looks like. Anyway, so that's happening.

Cash Patel apparently found according to Just the News an October surprise that was happening back in two weeks before the election in 2020. So we know about the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, but did you know that on top of that they were looking to do something in 2020? What was it? Oh here it was. They were desperately, it looks like, they were desperately looking for something they could go after Trump for, but they didn't have much.

So here's how deep they went to try to find something on Trump. There was a memo. I'll just read what Just the News is reporting. There's a memo buried in the middle of a 235-page evidence production that Patel sent to the House Judiciary Committee this week that chronicles how the FBI's Washington field office rifled through financial records and campaign expenditure reports, producing what quote a tactical intelligence report trying to link payments from Trump's re-election campaign and a vendor named American Made Media Consultants to possible casino gambling. Did you get all that? Everybody follow all that? I read it. I don't even follow it.

In short, Just the News writes, the FBI agents believed an employee of the campaign, not Trump, just an employee, went gambling at a casino after this American Made Media Consultants thing. Got money for campaign work. Not exactly the crime of the century, says Just the News. How's that even a crime? What exactly was that? So look, I guess the bottom line is that the FBI was looking for just absolutely anything. They were digging hard to try to keep Trump out of office. That was the best they had. Some employee went to a casino.

According to the New York Post and some new surveys, nearly half of New Yorkers think the New York City crime is going to spike when he becomes mayor, who likely will. So about half. That's pretty scary if half of the people think that crime is going to go up. But I'll bet that's not too different from every other election. Half of the country thinks it's going to be a disaster.

Well, I didn't know this, but I guess in the past Elon Musk has been not so much of a Bitcoin supporter, but as of today he says Bitcoin might be the thing because the thing that's different about Bitcoin is that it's sort of proof of real world power. I think that's what he was describing as but basically Bitcoin can only be created with energy. So energy is in a sense the thing that backs Bitcoin in the way that the old days gold would have backed the dollar. Not anymore. So Bitcoin would be one of the, well the only I think it's the only crypto that would be backed by something that has intrinsic value of its own, which is energy. So you need energy to make a Bitcoin.

And so Elon recognizing that, yeah he does, he says he doesn't hold any Bitcoin but energy is truth. So I guess the bottom line is that Elon is believing that Bitcoin is here to stay and that there's a reason that it's different from the other crypto. And I noticed that Bitcoin was up 3% this morning. I don't know what it is now.

BlackRock's Larry Fink said something that made news that I don't understand at all. See if you understand it. So Larry Fink says that the world is about to tokenize every financial asset. Do any of you know what that means? Tokenize. Now I think it means have some kind of a cryptocurrency that's backed on the physical thing. Would that make the physical objects that are about to be tokenized? No. But he's talking about financial assets. The world is about to tokenize every financial asset. I have no idea what that means. Do you? Yeah. I mean I understand they're talking about the blockchain blah blah blah, but what does it mean to tokenize every financial asset? Does that mean we're not going to have financial entities? Will we be able to do all of our financial stuff without Charles Schwab and without a bank? Is he suggesting that banks will go away? I don't know what this means.

Anyway, so Trump and Xi met the other day and allegedly made some deals. You saw my take on it yesterday in the morning and I said it looked like Trump got nothing. Well that's what the Wall Street Journal said too. It wasn't just me. So other people said the same thing. It looks like Trump got nothing. Well we'll never know because it's mostly promises. But it looks like we promised nothing and they promised nothing, but we made our nothing sound like something so it looked like something happened. But I think nothing happened. I think nobody agreed on anything that they're actually going to do. So that's weird.

But Trump did his usual thing where he claimed victory and it was a big win. That does work. You know if you're a Democrat you're just going to say he's lying. He's lying. He didn't have a big victory. He's lying. But I like it when he uses his hyperbole and salesmanship in these situations because if he can make Xi think that the two of them won something, that the two of them look good and they had a meeting and they both won something that they won, that might soften up Xi for the next time, you know. So that would maybe be good just good technique to agree that good things happened even if they didn't. So we'll see where that goes. I don't expect any change on fentanyl. There's no way China will do that.

The Daily Wire is reporting, Virginia Kruta is writing about this. There's some Democrat, who was it, Janelle Bigham, Democrat from Oregon. She's a representative. So she was being asked by the media about the clean CR, the continuing resolution. So this is what the Republicans say they want the Democrats to sign or vote for. That would just extend funding with no changes from what it had been before. So the no changes part is the important part. But Janelle Bigham says that that continuing resolution was not a clean bill and indeed that it had a poison pill in it. Meaning that something had been added that Democrats would definitely not want to happen. But if they wanted to open the government they'd be forced to sign this bill that also had this new add-on that they didn't want. That would be called the poison pill.

And then the C-SPAN media person said what is that poison pill? Can you name that? And she could not because there's no poison pill. Now have you noticed that the Democrats can make any claim whatsoever and nobody's going to really fact check it enough that only the nerds like us are going to fact check it but the regular public is just going to hear that and they're going to say, "Oh it has a poison pill in it." It has no poison pill in it. The poison pill is imaginary. It's just completely imaginary.

What do I tell you about Democrat beliefs and worries and policies? They're all imaginary. The more imaginary things you see come out of the left, the more you realize it's an imaginary party. Everything from climate change to authoritarianism to Trump becoming a king to the CR having a poison pill, none of it's true. To the drinking bleach to the fine people hoax to the Russia collusion hoax. None of it's true. None of it's true. So the imaginary party versus the real party.

The Wall Street Journal editorial was that the Republicans should kill Obamacare if they can, the subsidies. Now what would happen if these gigantic extra medical costs that have gone up, especially in the last five years? What would happen if the government just said, "All right, no more. It's just going to be a private market and you'd have to eat these expenses." Could they? It's certainly obvious that the Republicans were right when they said that Obamacare would be a disaster. They were right. Now Obama was right too in that he knew it would be a disaster but it would cover more people. So at least people would get healthcare while the disaster was running. He was right about that too. It covered more people. And just like the Republicans said, it's a financial disaster.

Is that fixable? I'd sure love to hear the Republican plan to fix it that doesn't put 10 million people out of healthcare. Is there any way to do that? I'm not even sure that's physically possible at this point. We'll see.

Speaking of Ted Cruz, he's also called on the House to impeach that judge Boasberg. And the impeachment would be in his opinion the reason for it would be that Boasberg had been behind approving the looking into all the personal phone records of a bunch of people including Ted Cruz. And I guess Boasberg justified looking into the records under what the judge wrote were reasonable grounds that the senator might destroy or tamper with evidence in the Biden administration's investigation of Jan. 6. And Cruz's response is, "There is precisely zero evidence to conclude that I am likely to destroy or tamper with the evidence or to intimidate potential witnesses." And I'll give him that. I'll give him that. You know whether you like Ted Cruz or not, there is zero evidence that he would tamper with evidence. You know it doesn't seem like he'd be the guy who would ever do a dumb thing like that. So he's got a good point.

Reuters says that China's factory activity is down a little bit, which would be a big warning sign. It might be down because they did a little extra before the tariffs. So it might be just an adjustment from a bump, but it doesn't seem to be affecting other countries. So it's a China problem.

Russia apparently used one of their best missiles. Must be something new in Ukraine. They've used it a bunch of times before, but using that missile is apparently what led Trump to quit the nuclear treaty that he'd like to get going. So these must be really good missiles if it ruined the nuclear conversation. And apparently whatever planned Budapest summit with Putin was going to happen with Trump is off now. So they're not going to do that.

But Putin invited journalists into the war zone. He wanted to show them that Russia had encircled, they claim, but Ukraine says this is not true. But Russia says they've encircled so that they could whenever they want destroy a large part of the Ukrainian army. You know, thousands of people are allegedly encircled and Putin wants to bring in the press and say, "See for yourself, they're encircled." But they say, "No, we're not encircled."

Well, Israel launched another attack in eastern Gaza because the ceasefire is having a little trouble holding. Like I say before, of course there will be violations of the ceasefire. Of course there will. But if they stay low grade, they can work through it.

All right, here's the dumbest thing I saw on the internet today. University of British Columbia is behind this, writing about it. They believe they have a mathematical proof that debunks the idea that the universe is a simulation. Do you believe that? That somebody has a mathematical proof that we're not a simulation? No. Of course they don't. They couldn't possibly because the simulation by its design would prevent you from knowing that it was something else. Who would build a simulation in which the people in the simulation could determine that they were not a simulation? It would just ruin the simulation. So as long as you can program a simulation such that all the people in it would have some point of view and can never be overturned, that's all you need.

So apparently their mathematical proof boils down to this. Since the fundamental level of reality is based on non-algorithmic understanding, that would be the reality we think we're in. Non-algorithmic understanding. What they mean is quantum physics. So they're saying that the world is not cause and effect, but it's sort of a quantum world where you don't know what's going to happen. So if you don't know what's going to happen, you couldn't really call that an algorithm, right? So therefore there can't be a computed simulation because what we observe is that we don't live in a world that acts like it's computed. It doesn't act like cause and effect. It acts like random things are happening.

Now what does that have to do with the simulation? You could build randomness into a simulation. You could build into the simulation that people think they see randomness. You can build into the simulation quantum physics. You could just say, "Act like there's quantum physics." And then the simulation would act like it had quantum physics. And then these guys in the simulation would say, "Look, it's acting like it has quantum physics. So therefore it can't be a simulation." Yes it can. It can be a simulation pretending to be quantum physics. It's not hard, people. This is easy.

All right. According to Reuters, the Pentagon's DOGE unit is going to revamp the military's drone program. Is that good news? Do you remember? It was just yesterday I was telling you that wars run on economics because if you got the best economics, you're going to have the best weapons. And I told you that the economics of drones and anti-drone technology, those two things might be the key to who has dominance in the future. Are you good at making lots of drones? And do you make really good drones? That's going to be who has power.

So putting DOGE, which are both geniuses and they're involved in costs. If you put the costs people in charge of the drone program, you've nailed it because you got to get the economics right so that you can make a billion drones at the cost that your enemy can only make a million. That's the whole game. So the fact that the military and Musk and Trump apparently understand that you got to get the economics of drones right, you don't just get the technology, you got to get the economics of it right. That's how you win.

So DOGE doesn't seem like the obvious people to pick for the drone program, but once you realize that economics and drones are really the same conversation, then it makes all the sense in the world. You put your geniuses where they can understand not just the technology, but also how the economics of it works. So that seems like real good news.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I