So you would think if you saw the 10-year-ago comic you would think that I wrote it yesterday. It was just spot on.

All right. According to one of my followers on X named Alex who is an engineer so he's probably right, he says that in 2024 alone the average battery price, we're talking about batteries for big things, prices fell by 40 percent. And it looks like there's going to be a similar fall for 2025. So he says that the economics of solar have now reached a crossover point where pairing solar with enough batteries to keep the electricity on at night when there's no sun shining is now an economically viable thing.

I know that many of you have been telling me for years, "Scott, Scott, Scott, solar power will always be limited because it doesn't work at night and it doesn't work when it's cloudy." And I would always say, but you can store it in batteries. And then people say, "Scott, Scott, Scott, Scott, you can store it in batteries, but you're never going to get close to good economics because the batteries are expensive to make and maintain and blah blah blah." And that was all true until apparently now.

So one of the reasons I continue to hammer on, more than I know you want to hear, but it helps you understand what's coming, is that there are so many advances in battery technology that you wouldn't have to wait too far. Given that it's a trillion-dollar market, multi-trillion-dollar market, you would know that the free market would be running as fast as it could to make better and cheaper batteries because the potential is insane. Then you add robots and auto caps to it and the market potential for batteries is probably higher than maybe anything. It could turn out that the battery industry is bigger than AI because you can't even have AI without an incredible battery industry.

So according to one engineer, Alex, if you're listening, Alex, hi, we may have reached crossover. That's one of the funny things about technology is that technology can be, oh it's boring, it's boring, it's boring, then suddenly it changes everything. It looks like we got to the changes-everything point.

Well, I saw a post on X by Charles Ford, not a famous person, just somebody who's funny, who said, and I quote, "Wondering if the Somalis will be eligible for reparations when that time comes. Will the Somalis be eligible for reparations?" And I posted back in a comment, paying for them or receiving them, because it's a complicated world, isn't it? Should the Somalis be receiving reparations or should they be paying them? It's not obvious, is it? There would be an argument in both directions. I'm not saying I agree with any of the arguments, but there would be an argument that they shouldn't receive them, and there would be an argument that they should be paying for them. Pick one. But it's pretty funny to highlight the absurdity of it that way.

Well, according to the New York Post, the southern states, not all of them, but southern states generally speaking, are doing much better than blue states in fixing their education systems after the pandemic especially. So there seems to be a clear correlation between whatever the conservative states are doing and whatever the liberal states are doing. So the liberals are not getting good results. The other states are.

Now there are a number of things that have been credited for why there's a difference. But we have a new entrant for why there's a difference. So there were some common-sense reforms in the southern states where they got back to basics that probably made a difference. So they went back to phonics and stuff. They went back to more of a merit-based sort of thing. The universal literacy screeners. Basically they went back to the things that we know work, and when you go back to the things that you know work you get a good result. Whereas the blue states were trying to relax their disciplinary policies, trying to find some more woke way to teach people, and that wasn't producing results.

But the new hypothesis according to some new study is that what might be the magic sauce is that the southern states are more hardcore about law and order. Meaning that they make sure that if you're a disruptor, you just get sent home. Sort of the old way. So they don't tolerate students who are disruptive. Whereas the blue states, their school system not only tolerates it but makes it easier for them to get away with whatever they're doing.

So do you think that's fair? I would say that there's no way in hell that a school that doesn't control student behavior could compete with a school that does. Is that not just obvious? It's obvious, right? If one school lets people run wild because they're woke and they don't want to punish them and they think it's racist to punish one group more than another, so they're trying to be fair and all that, there's not really any chance that they would perform th