evidence. It doesn't sound credible to me. But I think it's probably a ploy to out him on his sexuality because it would make him look like a phony.

So the thing that Cory Booker has to worry about in terms of his brand and the attackers is that he might be accused of being sort of a phony. And his Spartacus thing plays into that. It's like you're just pretending to be some kind of hero. You're kind of a phony hero. So if he's also been less than forthcoming about his sexual preferences, which again I don't think anybody in the country really cares about, we're way beyond that being a reason not to be elected, we're way beyond that being a reason to judge him. I'd like to think at least the vast majority of the country could not care less about a person's sexual preference. I hope we're at the point where that's not a real issue. But what could be a real issue is not being forthcoming about it. So it would be a devastating blow to him politically if the people on his own team start asking why he has to hide his sexuality if in fact that's going on.

So I don't have any inside knowledge about Cory Booker's sexual preferences and I'm not interested in them and I don't think it should be any kind of disqualification for anything. Of course I think we're in 2018 it's not 1960 or whatever. But there is a question about why somebody would hide it if that's happening and I don't know if that's happening because I don't know his sexual preferences and I'm not going to pretend I do. I'll just say it doesn't matter to me.

Somebody says he's not gay my cousin works on his staff. Come on did you just write that? Somebody just wrote in the comments and I quote "he's not gay my cousin is working on his staff." You could have worded that differently.

All right so on that count, oh wait I'm not done yet. Remind me tomorrow to talk about self-driving cars. No I'm gonna do it now because it's interesting and fun. I keep forgetting to talk about this. Self-driving cars.

All right when you think about the idea of self-driving cars you think about them integrated on the highways with human cars for however many decades it takes until they're all self-driving cars I suppose. But you imagine self-driving cars and real cars driving together. That's the first thing you assume. Secondly you assume that each of these cars is an independent entity made by different companies perhaps but they all operate like they're aware of their surroundings but they're independent. That's the second assumption. Third assumption is that they would share the existing highways.

What if you throw away all of those assumptions? Let's say you say to Detroit hey Detroit we're gonna make you the automotive capital again and we're going to overlay a new highway right on top of Detroit which is just for self-driving cars. Now of course there are lots of regular highways so where are their regular highways? You're going to have to either go next to them. When you need to cross them you might need to bridge over them or tunnel under them. But there's probably enough blight in a place like Detroit that you could map out a whole parallel highway that would get you within walking distance of any destination in the city.

So now imagine that you build, you say to Detroit it's going to be the self-driving car test city and here are the rules. The highway we build is going to be an overlay to the regular highway system so the cars will never share a highway with human-driven cars. Secondly all of the cars on this highway have to be able to communicate in real-time with all of the other self-driving cars. So if you're an Apple self-driving car or a Google self-driving car you've got to be in constant contact. The reason for this is that if one of them