them because they're mentally insane or they're on drugs or whatever else. And he also pointed out, I didn't know this, that the economics of homelessness in California is that there's this whole industry of people get paid to take care of the homeless, as long as they don't solve their problem. If they solved their problem and these people were no longer homeless, which is sort of undoable, then they wouldn't get their collectively a million dollars a year to keep the people alive but homeless.

So if you followed the money, you would completely understand why there's so much homelessness. And that would be a way to think about it, wouldn't it? It's not the answer. It's a way to think about it. So if you change from, hey, if only we give these people homes, you know, then they would be on their way. They could do the rest. That way of thinking is a complete failure because it doesn't recognize that the whole industry is propped up by people trying to steal your taxpayer money and give you nothing in return.

Once Elon explains that we're trapped in this little system where the people who are running it are making a lot of money as long as they don't solve the problem, then everything makes sense, doesn't it? Now, that doesn't mean that we immediately have a solution, but at least you'd be solving the right problem, right? That's a big difference when you see the problem clearly as Elon explains it to us.

Then I saw Elon talking about how the only interesting simulations, because you know he believes that we're part of a simulation as do I, that reality is a simulation. He points out that only the interesting simulations would survive. And then he gives the reason because if we had a boring simulation we'd stop doing it because it wouldn't be doing anything for us. Just boring us. So the interesting ones are the only ones that can survive and therefore it's logical to assume that they're the only ones that do.

And I've got a version of this. So this is part of his explanation of why the world seems so interesting, I think, or why you could predict something based on how interesting it is. I have a version of that, but it's different, which is I believe that reality follows the three-act movie form. Now, that's something I've been saying since 2015, I think. And here's why I think it follows a three-act movie form. It's because we've all been trained in the three-act form. If we had not been trained in it, I don't know that it would happen.

But you take a bunch of human beings and you put them in a situation. Let's say Trump is nearly jailed and impeached. That would be a classic movie third act where, okay, there's no way he can get away from that. And then if I said, but what would it look like if it were a movie? And we would all have the same answer, which is, well, he would somehow not go to jail. Somehow the impeachment wouldn't take hold and somehow he would win re-election because that would be the most satisfying movie. Sure enough. Sure enough, that's what happened.

Now, I think that we live in a simulation and our expectations collapse reality. And so if enough of us are simply expecting things to go a certain way that it actually collapses reality in that direction. Now I wouldn't bet my life on it that my interpretation is correct but just so you know.

So also I've noted that you know how we all understand NGOs now. We didn't know what an NGO was a couple