sked the question, does Minnesota have a problem with gangs roaming the streets? So Klobuchar's answer was quote, "Every state has a problem with crime." Really, does every state have a problem with that kind of crime? Because that was a pretty specific question. The question that was not asked is, "Does Minnesota have crime?" Nobody asked that. Of course every state has crime. They're talking specifically about gangs roaming the streets. I don't know if you've ever been to Hawaii. Do you know what you never see in Maui? Gangs roaming the streets. Now, does that mean there's no crime? Well, even in Maui, which is very safe, there's a little bit of crime. I've never seen any, but I'm sure it's there. What about Alaska? What about Rhode Island? Is there a big problem in Rhode Island with the gangs roaming the streets?

All right. Well, so Klobuchar was not really finding a high ground and she was not really reframing it like Steve Jobs did when his phone had that problem with the antenna. You've heard me tell that story before. She just changed the subject, which is pretty much all you need to know about that.

Well, there's more news from Venezuela. Apparently, prior to Trump closing the airspace above Venezuela or declaring that it was closed, he had a conversation, which we didn't know about till now, with Maduro, a phone conversation I guess. And Maduro was apparently asking for some assurances that he would get some kind of, I think he and his family or maybe some of his top people would get pardons or I don't know what the right word is, but basically not be held responsible for, global amnesty. He wanted global amnesty for all of his alleged crimes and I think for some other people around him. Trump said, "Nope." Apparently it was a hard no. So nope. No amnesty. And Trump told him allegedly that his only option is to leave, to just literally get out of Venezuela and abandon his position. Or something very bad was about to happen. And we don't have to spell it out, but have you noticed that a big part of our navy is sitting off of your coast? Did you know that we have a lot of military assets that are within striking distance? And Trump has already said that the ground war against Venezuela is imminent. So Trump is apparently doing the Trumpian thing where he has the upper hand and he's giving up nothing. He's basically saying, "Would you like to be alive tomorrow? That's all you have to decide because there's one way you can do it. You have to leave right away with no assurances."

Do you think if he left with no assurances, Maduro, do you think if he left that we would leave him alone because hey, well, he's gone now? Well, I don't think he thinks that would happen and I don't think so either. I've got a feeling if he leaves the safety of Venezuela, it's not going to make him more safe. I feel like he might be doomed in every scenario, but he might be able to live a little bit longer if he leaves Venezuela. So Trump is giving him really no good choices or choices that would look good to him. I think Maduro tried to negotiate that he would still have some control over the Venezuelan military. Well, obviously that's a hard no. No, how about you have no control over the military and you just leave. So things are coming to a head there. And apparently after that conversation, which did not result in an agreement for anything, that's when Trump decided to close the airspace over Venezuela with military means. So Maduro's probably had a really bad weekend because he's deciding which way he wants to die or maybe be jailed for life. But the one thing that's not going to happen, I believe that Trump has removed from him any illusion he might have had that he can sort of keep the status quo, still be in charge. He's either going to be taken out militarily, that seems to be the clear indication here, or he can leave the country and be exposed to all manner of risks once he's outside of his little bubble. And those are his only choices. So given that he only has those choices and given that I'm sure Trump and the military will keep squeezing so that he knows that this is not a bluff. And by the way, this is not a bluff. You could tell the difference, right? And even we can tell the difference of what would be a bluff and what is okay, this is just going to happen. This is in the category of definitely not a bluff. I'm pretty sure that Maduro is not going to be there in a year. Maybe a month from now anything could happen, but I think pretty soon. Pretty soon. So we'll keep an eye on that.

Here's a thing I've been wondering about with AI. So Sam Altman, you all know him, creator, founder of ChatGPT, OpenAI, he argued in a blog post that he wrote earlier this year that the intelligence of an AI model roughly equals the log of the resources used to train and run it. So in other words that you could predict how smart your AI would be based on the inputs. If you gave it more input there would be some reliable way to know how much smarter it got from that input. And that there might be a predictable equation there. Now he's calling it the log of the resources used to train and run it. So that would be the equation essentially to predict. And then I saw an article that was sort of compared to Moore's law. You all know Moore's law with microchips. The idea that the number of circuits on a chip would double every x amount and that therefore the chips would get faster in a predictable way across decades. And then we observe that sure enough Moore's law has held amazingly over decades.

Now did you ever wonder why Moore's law works? How in the world did Gordon Moore know that the technology would increase at just this rate to get the doubling that he had predicted every x whatever? How did he know that? And what makes that necessarily true? And I still don't know the answer to that. So I asked Grok, you know, what's the logic behind Moore's law? We do observe that it seems to have been predictable. It did seem to predict from many years ago. It did predict where we would be now. So it's not nothing. I mean, it predicts. And I've told you before that the closest you can get to understanding reality is if your worldview accurately predicts. And this does. So that's not nothing. That's a lot. But why does it work? And Grok said the logic behind it is that the number of transistors on a microchip roughly doubles every two years while costs stay the same or drop. To which I say, why do the number of transistors on a microchip roughly double every two years? What is the law of physics or any other law that makes that true? And there's no real answer to that.

So here's what I think. I think it's marketing. If you were in the microchip business and you wanted to make sure that you could sell the upgrade forever, it's like, well, we got a great chip this year, but wait till you see what we have next year. So buy it this year. Next year you're going to want to get that doubling. Or two years from now you're going to want to get that doubling. So you better buy the new one. Oh wait, now we have another doubling. So I don't know this to be true, but for a long time I've suspected that we're being completely bamboozled by what is just marketing and that the marketing pretends that Moore's law is true and then the technology people design to that truth. So in other words, it's n