aising Mamdani's communication skills about the word affordability, somebody pushed back on me on X and said, "Scott, politicians have been promising affordability since the beginning of time. Why is that so new?" To which I said, "Really? Which politician was using the word affordability? Can you think of one? Can anybody think of one who used the word not the concept? I'm talking about the word affordability. I don't remember anybody doing that. They may have used it in a sentence once, but it was never a key part of any platform that I'm aware of. And so the my critic after I said I'm not aware of anybody use it. Um said he did a search and he put affordability in quotes and asked if anybody had pushed affordability in quotes as a politician. And guess what? It turns out that if you put it in quotes, people have done it. But that's not the same thing. I'm talking about the actual choice of the specific word affordability. It doesn't count if you were talking about lowering costs. You had to use the actual word. I don't remember anybody doing it. I saw some people saying Kemp and Clinton, but I was alive then. I don't remember that. Don't remember it at all.

All right. There's a study, University of British Columbia, Tom Leslie, is writing about this that uh if you talk with your hands, there's a way to do it that makes you more persuasive. But it's not just moving your hands randomly. So, I have trouble lifting my arm now. But if you were just going blah blah blah randomly with your hands, that doesn't add anything. But if you use your hands to tell the story, apparently that registers quite uh strongly as making you more persuasive. So the example they use is if you caught a fish and you're telling the story, it helps to, you know, use your hands to show the size of the fish because then it becomes like a visual slash verbal story. So just ask me, Scott, if you use your hands to make the story more visual, will it be more persuasive? Yes. I've been teaching you for years that visual beats purely audio. If you add the two of them together, it's better than either one. Either one by themselves.

Japan's going to team up with the US to mine some rare earth in the Pacific. So Bloomberg is reporting this. That seems good. They're going to go into that rare earth rich mud that's 6,000 feet down. I don't know how much work the US is doing on that, but I'm pretty happy how the administration is capitalizing on our on our allies, which might be leaning on them. We might be leaning on them a little bit, but they need the rare earth, too. So, if us plus them can get us, you know, both more rare earth, win-win. And I don't think there was a better way to do it. Don't think there was a better way to do it. But here, let let me give you an instant prediction that I've never made before because I never thought about it until right now. If the biggest problem in the world turns out to be not enough rare earth minerals, how long will it be before Elon Musk looks at all of his assets and says, "You know, robots could dig a lot of rare earth materials." You know, the electric cars could carry them away. And now he's introducing the electric uh the all electric big trucks, the big rigs. So, he can transport it. He can dig it. He can dig it. I don't know if they need satellites to locate it, but he's got those. Uh, and he would be the best engineer to figure out how to do it safely. Maybe just with robots. So, my prediction is this. If we don't get on top of this problem soon, I think there would be pressure on Elon to solve it because people would say, "We're pretty sure nobody else could solve this. It would just be capability. He'd be able to do it. Maybe nobody else could. They would just ask him ask him to step in. Could happen."

And let's see. Um, as you know, the Colombian is reporting, Kelly Livingston, that the Department of Energy wants to quadruple our nuclear power uh over the next 25 years, but that would require tripling our workforce that that are trained in nuclear stuff. We are very under skilled for nuclear compared to how much we want to build it out. So, does that seem un that that seems solvable? I think if you took a bunch of engineers or engineering students, you said you got you got three or four years to learn nuclear, they'd be in pretty good shape after three or four years. So, as long as we're producing them at the source and that enough people are