ere's a futuristic dome for growing food. New Atlas has a story about this. So instead of the old greenhouse, they figured out this dome where the bottom levels of the dome are a variety of fish. I think there are several layers of just fish and then they contribute to the ecosystem that feeds the dome so that the dome is as close as you can get to a self-contained self-fertilizing situation and it requires a little bit of technology. So I think you need to move things around with technology and probably you need some AI to know what needs some attention. So you don't need too many humans in there. But apparently this is already built and already been demonstrated to work. So at the Expo 2025 Osaka in Japan, they've already produced one and it's a farm to table, but the farm would be just this dome. And let's see what else it says. The fact that it already exists makes this a lot more interesting. It's not theoretical. So it's a 7 meter diameter, 23 foot dome. And it's meant to sort of imitate what a real Earth situation would be for each of the levels. And it's a futuristic greenhouse. Well, I think that's where we're heading. So imagine if you started your city with a futuristic greenhouse that would serve every maybe 10 homes. And then you just build around that.

What salmon is the best to buy? Well, don't get me started on salmon. You don't want to hear it.

Well, in other news, Hawaii is suing TikTok for what they consider harm to children and they think that TikTok has built a platform to be dangerously addictive for young users. Now, do you think that that's true? Do you think that they built it to be dangerously addictive? Well, I don't think they meant it to be dangerous, but I'm wondering about where do you draw the line? If I sell you a Dilbert calendar for 2026 and you open it up and you go, "Oh, oh my god. Oh, oh my god, it's... Oh, these... I am so happy I got a Dilbert calendar." Wait, wait. Oh my god. There are cartoons on both sides. Oh, both sides. This is new. Oh my god. And then you can see my dopamine is firing. I can barely help it. I mean, I'm just like, now when I make the Dilbert calendar irresistible because it's so good. Am I going to get sued by Hawaii? Will Hawaii allow the Dilbert calendar to be sold? Good question, right? So although I'm joking sort of a little bit although I'm joking there is a real question here about freedom and about what's the difference between really really liking something and being addicted because of the dopamine hit. I don't know how you could ever make that distinction because again the Dilbert calendar's so dopamine tickling good that I don't know what you do. Good luck Hawaii. Good luck, TikTok.

I haven't talked about this situation with Tina Peters, who is a grandmother who was in jail, because she tried to find out if the voting machines were rigged and I guess she gave somebody access to them that she should not have given access to for the purpose of finding out if there was some crime that had been committed. Now, she's a cancer survivor. She's 70 years old and she got what? 9 years in prison. Now, can you think of a situation where somebody technically violated a law, which she did? She technically violated a law, but her intentions were good and there was no victim. You get nine years for that. Your intentions are good. Not for herself. This is very important. Her intention very clearly was for the public good. Let me say that again. Her intention very clearly was for a public good. What she did for herself was take a gigantic risk for the public good. And there were no victims. And indeed, I don't know what happened with the access and whether anybody found anything, but aren't you happy that she did that?

Now, I know you can't just let anybody break any law they want because they think it's a good idea to break it. I get that you have to have something like law and order for even things where it's not obvious there would ever be any victim. I get it. I get it. But what would be the right penalty for someone who took a risk upon themselves with nothing to gain for themselves for the benefit of the larger community and there's no victim and there wasn't really a chance that there would ever be a victim. It wasn't an accident that there was no victim. It's obvious there would be no victim. We would either find out something we didn't know or we wouldn't. That's it. Yeah. I'm thinking six months probation would be about the right thing for that.

Now, Trump has entered the debate on this and on her side. But he does not have the power to pardon her because I guess the charges are state charges. But I guess the Colorado Democrat governor Jared Polis is keeping her in and is not going to free her. I do think this probably needs to be a bigger issue. And I do think that if this governor gets reelected and is keeping her in jail for purely political reasons, I don't think he should be reelected. That's all I'm saying. That's just horrible behavior. Horrible. And I think Trump has accurately found another 80/20 issue. How many people think she should be in jail? Now, it's not even really Democrat versus Republican, is it? I mean, really, not really. So this seems like an 80/20 to me.

All right. Well, we wish her the best.

Here's another funny story. Apparently, I didn't know it, but there was a thing called the US Institute of Peace, which I guess the government, the federal government funds, but it supposedly operates somewhat independently. Trump is trying to cut their budget, but I guess they use the law to try to fight that off. So they're in some kind of weird gray area where the government gives them money but doesn't have full control over their activities. So what Trump did because he couldn't cleanly just take their funding away and close them down. He changed their name. This is very funny. He changed their name and put the new name on their building so that they can't even cover it up easily. And the new name i