ers on a romance in 2018. Summers was married at the time. And the men exchanged a trove of messages. Where did I get this from? Colin Rugg had a good summary of this on X. So apparently they had a lot of messages. So these two were really good friends.

So is Trump smart by throwing Larry Summers under the bus? Probably because it looks like Summers had a lot of interaction. So now let's add Larry Summers to the victim list. Again, I understand completely if you say, "No, Scott, he's that other list." Well, I don't have any evidence he broke any laws, but I can see for sure there's plenty of evidence that he's having a bad year because of Trump, because of Epstein. So and by the way, none of this needed to happen. Don't you think that Trump warned everybody? It's not like he didn't warn everybody, and it's not like he didn't give them an out. He gave them an out. They could have essentially just said, "Let's go on everybody. No harm, no foul. Your team won't be attacked. My team." They could have worked it out somehow. I mean, you might not have liked it, but they could have, but now those two are victims.

Let's see who else. All right. We'll get back to that in a minute.

So apparently Trump is going to meet with Zohran Mamdani in the Oval Office on Friday. And Trump is teasing him because apparently his middle name is Kwame. That's so Trumpian to emphasize his middle name so that you remember he doesn't have an American sounding name. Now, he doesn't say that that's a crime or that you should like him less or that he's less qualified because his middle name is Kwame. He just makes you think about it, which is really a dirty trick. Like I can't say I endorse that method of persuasion, but you can't argue it doesn't work. It totally works if it just takes your head to a place where you're like, I don't know. He doesn't seem that American to me, even though he's obviously American.

Anyway, so he'll be meeting with Trump. What do you think Trump's going to get out of this? Why would Trump meet with Zohran? Now, they have a lot that they need to work on. So there might be a few things he wants to coordinate with them. But don't you think Trump wants Zohran to fail? So if somebody comes into your office and you want them to fail and they want to succeed, what exactly is the middle ground? There might not be any middle ground. How in the world do they work anything out? Well, we'll see. But I wouldn't hold my breath for a good outcome there.

So Elon Musk was at that Saudi Arabia convention-looking thing. I don't know what the event was, but he says something interesting about engineering and poverty. So here's his quote. Elon Musk, I see poverty as more of an engineering problem than an unsolvable social issue. Have I said something like that? I've never said that. But haven't you heard me say that certain things are engineering problems and they look like they're something else? They look like social problems, but they're really just engineering problems. We just haven't engineered well enough. And the example would be as Musk points out that with Grok and Optimus, so that's the AI plus the robots, we could solve the labor shortage, drive cost to near zero, and create a future where poverty is statistically irrelevant. Musk says the scale of what's coming over the next decade is really easy to underestimate. Yeah, that's really easy to underestimate.

Now I've said the engineering thing about homelessness and I think a few other things that those are engineering problems not resource shortages and to hear the smartest engineer say that well makes me feel good.

Sam Harris has come back on the scene. So whenever Sam Harris does a major podcast, then all the right leaning podcast universe, including me, we've got stuff to talk about for two weeks because we'll be like, "Ah, Sam Harris, what happened to you? You used to be so smart, but now we don't know. What's wrong with you?" Well, he did it again. And I'm not sure that I care too much about the opinion as I am amused by the drama, you know, just the human drama of it.

So Sam Harris goes on the Triggernometry podcast, which you should all sign up for and follow and watch. It's one of the best ones. Triggernometry. So the first part is like a gun trigger. Triggernometry if you're looking it up. Always good stuff. So follow them.

Anyway, I guess Sam Harris believes that around the time of Charlie Kirk's murder, like right around the time that Elon Musk might have posted something that encouraged violence as a response to the murder. Now, I said to myself, what are the odds that Elon Musk encouraged murder? What I feel like I would have heard of that. So I wondered what the examples were. And sure enough, there were some examples.

Now, let's say if you see if you think the examples are as Sam characterizes them sort of encouraging people to act out or is it just a way of talking? Here's the examples. Elon posted right about the time that Charlie Kirk was assassinated, he posted on X, the left is the party of murder. Is that the first time that Sam Harris heard a notable person say that the left is the party of murder? That's such a common thing that maybe it's just that he doesn't hear it. But if you lived anywhere in the sort of universe that I do, you hear that all the time. Some of it's about abortion, right? They just treat abortion as murder and you say one side's in favor of abortion. We call it murder. So that would mean that that side is in favor of murder.

Now if you didn't know that the entire right, well not the entire right, but most of the right considers abortion murder and that that's the first thing they think of in this domain. Well, you'd be a little confused by that language, wouldn't you? And it would seem extreme. It would seem extreme. But there are other examples. We could go through the news and we could argue, well, that seems a little too friendly to murder. For example, is it the left or the right who is more likely to let somebody out of jail before they've served a full sentence? Which one would more likely do it? The left probably. And would that create more murders than if they didn't release these people who may have done some bad things already? Of course, it would create more murders. So you can make these arguments, and I'm not making the argument, by the way, but you can make the argument pretty easily that the one side is the party of murder.

But in any case, does that seem like a call to