was some online chatting about shooting something up on Halloween. And once I guess they called it pumpkin day online and once the FBI said, "Oops, they got weapons. They're talking about a big terrorist act and they've picked a date." That's when they moved in. The picking the date, I think, was the trigger.

But one wonders, is the FBI now so good, and maybe they have been for some time, so good at catching things before they happen that that's the reason there hasn't been a 9/11 again. You know, of course, that would be giving up all of our privacy, which we've already done. But if you give up all your privacy, which I'm pretty sure we've already done, whether you know it or not, is that enough to stop basically every attack? You know, almost every attack. It might be.

You know, I've been puzzling about this for what, 20 years about why there haven't been obviously more attacks. Clearly, you can get people into the country. Clearly, those people could be terrorists. Clearly, they could get the kind of weapons you'd use for an attack. Clearly, there's people who want to do it. Clearly, there are people who have tried to do it. Why didn't it happen? What's going on? Like, why didn't it happen?

The only explanation I can think of is that whatever you think is the amount of privacy that you've already given up, it might be more than that. Whatever our government knows about you is probably similar to what they know about every phone call and every terrorist and everybody that had a bad idea and said something on social media anywhere in the world ever. So I don't know how to reconcile other than 100% loss of privacy but we just kind of don't see it happening so we kind of let it go. I don't know. You think it's because Saddam is gone.

All right. Here's something that you should have seen coming, but I didn't. So according to the Telegraph, Charles High is writing that some gangs are using gigantic drones, like super drones they call them, to airlift inmates out of prison. Now, I wasn't sure, I just skimmed this before I got on. I wasn't sure if they've already done it, but the idea is that if you get a big enough drone, you just drop that thing into the yard and the bad guy grabs on and it just flies him out of the prison.

Now, I guess you'd have to, I don't know, maybe use the drone to shoot the guards before you did it or something. I don't know how the guards would ignore that, but they can also drop weapons in. So even weighing less than an inmate, it would be easier to bring weapons in and then let the inmates sort of fight their way out with their weapons. But the whole idea of an open air prison seems to be just about over. So we're probably at the end of history that would allow you to have a prison that doesn't have a top because now the top is 100% vulnerable to escape. So that's happening. Giant drones.

All right. According to Live Science, Owen Hughes is writing this. Here's a story I'm reluctant to believe is true. That China solved a century old problem with a new analog compute chip that is a thousand times faster than high-end Nvidia GPUs. In theory, and you'd better put a big grain of salt on this one, in theory, plucky little China not having access to the best of our chips has already leapfrogged them in terms of power and not using electricity. It would be way faster but also way less energy use.

Do you believe that happened? And that it's already done. It's already done. They've already leapfrogged us by a thousand. Yeah, but it's not programmable. Somebody says, "I don't know about that." I would say this is probably getting ahead of itself. I would say it's unlikely that this is exactly what it's being claimed to be.

But I will say you remember my prediction about AI, right? So I held some, I do not give investment advice. Let me say this. This is not investment advice. This is a description of what I did. And I'm not good at investing and you should not follow my lead. I'm really not. I'm literally not good at investing. I don't think almost anybody is because it's mostly guessing and I don't really guess better than other people at least on random things.

So I held some Nvidia when all the AI noise started. It went up because that's what it does. But I sold it fairly quickly and the reason I sold it was I could not imagine a future in which some startup or maybe China would come up with a leapfrog technology and that we would have no visibility on that before it happened and that one day you just wake up and somebody would say hey China made a chip that's a thousand times better and a thousand times less energy they're shipping it tomorrow. Now again I don't believe this story necessarily. But it seemed to me that the risk of disruption is higher than anything I've ever seen in my lifetime because the money involved is so much higher than anything I've seen in my lifetime.

If you tell me, hey, if you come up with an alternative technology, you can make a million dollars. Well, somebody would probably try to do it, right? A million dollars. Sure. But if you tell me, you know, if you come up with a better AI, you could make a trillion dollars. Wait, what? A trillion? A billion, right? No, a trillion. You could make a trillion dollars. How hard would you work for a trillion dollars? I would work pretty hard for a million. I'd never sleep if I thought I could make a trillion. I'd just keep working until I died. Like I can make a trillion dollars. A trillion. A trillion.

Anyway, so if you assume that incentives are a real thing and the higher the incentive, the more somebody's going to work on it, there's never been in the history of the world, and maybe there never will be, a bigger incentive than leapfrogging AI. And so the smartest people in the world are working as hard as they possibly can to make my prediction come true that there's some secret technology we don't know about in a garage that's going to surprise us soon. So that's why I sold my Nvidia. But remember, I'm a terrible investor and I don't have confidence that that was the right decision. But as long