ng to escape the US Navy. And so they sent out a sub to maybe protect it. But I believe that as of just a few minutes ago, the US forces actually took it. So they boarded it and they took it before Russia could get any serious navy presence there. But obviously we had to hurry because we didn't want to do it when there was a Russian submarine ten feet away. So another success for the US military.

And my question is, what will Russia do now since we already boarded it? Are they going to pull up the submarine that they have and say, "Oh, you better give it back"? Or will they say, "Oh, don't do that again. We got here a little late, but next time we might not be late"? We're gonna have to watch that one.

I do think that the issue is not nearly big enough for Putin to say, "All right, it's war now." I think the only thing that's going to make sense is for Russia to say some tough words and then back off. That's what I think.

Here's some science. If you persuade people, and they did random tests, if you persuade people to be more afraid of climate change, you can actually change their minds. In other words, if you tried to scare them that climate change is a big risk, you could move the needle and people can be persuaded. But what they did not find is that by moving the needle and making it look extra dangerous that there's a climate crisis, that those same people did not open their wallets and donate more to change it.

Now, how strong is your belief that it's an existential threat if it makes no difference to what you donate money? Because money kind of tells a story, right?

So here's my take. I think that people are kind of tribal when it comes to climate change or anything else. And so if you give them a good argument to be even more tribal than they were, in other words to be more fearful of it, it makes them more tribal, but it doesn't make them more believing it more. So I'm not sure that they're really believing it more if they're not paying money for it. Anyway, according to the Brownstone Institute, Roger Bate is writing about this.

The Washington Post did a story recently showing that childhood vaccination rates in the US are falling sharply, especially for measles and blah blah blah. And what Roger Bate points out is that the Washington Post doesn't do a good job of diagnosing why it's going down, why the vaccination rate is going down.

Now, wouldn't you say that the main reason it's going down is that people stopped trusting the fake news and they stopped trusting the Washington Post to tell them what's good for their health? I think that's what's happening. But the observation by Roger Bate is that the Washington Post doesn't even take a stab at their own credibility as being part of the problem. And it makes you wonder, do they really not know? Does the Washington Post literally not know that they're a big part of the problem?

If you think the problem is that there are fewer vaccinations, we could obviously argue that having fewer vaccinations, a lot of people prefer that. So I wonder if distrust in the media should be a class that they teach at school. Wouldn't that be useful? Imagine taking a class that used my materials, for example, to teach all the tricks of finding BS. That would be so useful.

And I wonder if AI is going to replace the fake news. For a while there we thought, as long as we have AI, the AI will be able to pick out the fake news, but that's not what's happening. So far the AI is making the fakenes