Episode 1480 Scott Adams: Talking About All the Huge D*cks in the News Today. With Coffee.

Good morning everybody. And what a terrific day it is. Today is the day that you'll have an unexpectedly better day than you expected. Yeah, never start a sentence if you don't know how it's going to end, it ends up like that. But if you'd like to start something that does end well, well, let me tell you, I got something for you. It's called the simultaneous sip. Have you heard of it? Yeah. It's very big. It's all over the world. And all you need to participate in this mass exercise of unity is a copper mug or a glass of tanker, cellist or style, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid. I still like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And watch it happen. Now go. That's some good stuff. Speaking of good stuff, I once had the following idea, which is that we spend a lot of time in the bathroom. And wouldn't it be great if every time you entered, let's say, the bathroom that you usually use, because most of us are creatures of routine. If there was some kind of sensor that knew who you were, recognized you by your, I don't know, your Apple watch or something, and automatically brought up a two minute lesson of something useful that you could learn in two minutes. And I called it Turd University because you'd be doing your business and in about two minutes you'd learn a new skill and, and since you use the restroom every day, you'd learn 365 skills in one year with no effort whatsoever. You were going to be there anyway and maybe you didn't bring any reading material. And so I didn't realize that I had accidentally created Turd University, but I called it my local's subscription service. So in addition to my other content that's too edgy to be in the general public, such as my Robots Read News comic strip, here are some of the things that people are learning on the local subscription platform. I'll just give you an example. I think I've got hundreds of them now. So these are micro lessons, two minute lessons or so that I give people so you can learn how to maximize your creativity, how to set up your own livestream, when to believe the experts, voice variability, fun versus efficiency. Just give you some more. There are just hundreds of them controlling what you can control. Some of them are just funny. Determining your human value, managing your ego, learning to speak well, I've got one coming up that I'm going to record today on how to Brag Without Bragging. So those are the things. I've got my whiteboard all queued up. And if you were paying $7 a month to be on the local subscription platform, one of the things that I promise is that you will get hundreds of dollars of value every month in terms of how it makes your life better. All right, so let's see what's going on here in what we call the news. First of all, ISIS K may have just attacked in just before I got on, I saw that the Kabul airport had some kind of explosion and gunfire at one of the gates. Could be ISIS K. Now, I don't like ISIS K as a name because it's a little bit too cool. I don't like naming a terror organization after something that sounds like a boy band. It sounds just a little bit too attractive. Hey, have you seen what ISIS K is up to? What? I'd like to get their album. So I think we've branded them poorly. Just a little bit too cool. Now, if you don't know about ISIS K, they want to start a caliphate over there in the Afghanistanish territories. And the Taliban are considered too liberal for them. That's right. They're the natural enemy of the Taliban because the Taliban's a little too flexible. But ISIS K, not so flexible. And so the question is, and again, you have to wonder about this, don't you? Will the Taliban's control of Afghanistan make us more safe or less safe from ISIS K? I don't know, because the Taliban are their enemies and the Taliban could probably be more brutal and tracking them down and killing them than we would be. So isn't one possible unexpected outcome that ISIS and Al Qaeda are degraded in Afghanistan because the Taliban really doesn't want any more trouble with the rest of the world. They just want to run their little fiefdom there. So anyway, I'm not saying that's necessarily likely, but I don't think you could rule out the possibility that retreating gets us better protection from ISIS K. Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of no's. Yeah, I wouldn't say it's likely, but I think it's one of the possibilities. Rasmussen poll asked, is Afghanistan situation better or worse than the news portrays? 57% say worse. Really? Because it feels like the news is portraying it as pretty bad. This is the one situation where all of the news is on the same side. You rarely get that right. The entire news thinks this is pretty, pretty bad. Here is. Here's a little warning shot for you. Now, you all, of course, know about the controversy of Ivermectin, and boy, if you're on the side that thinks it works and you're wrong, I don't know if we'll ever know for sure, right? Are we ever going to know for sure? But let's say we could know for sure someday. If you're wrong about Ivermectin, it's going to be really embarrassing because the setup here is that. Let me just say what Chris Lizza said on cnn, and normally I don't agree with him, and I'm not saying I agree with him here, but the way he worded it is worthy of repeating. He said, owning the elites by taking a horse pill. So I guess ivermectin is often used in veterinarian work. So owning the elites by taking a horse pill rather than getting the vaccine is really a telling commentary on just how much blind partisanship has taken over among Trump conservatives. Telling and terrifying. Owning the elites by taking a horse pill rather than getting a vaccine. That's pretty brutal. Now, what if he's wrong? What if Chris Eliza is the one who's wrong? Well, the joke's on you, Chris, because if it turns out that vaccines are bad and ivermectin is great, he's going to have a little egg on his face. Except that it won't be as easy to mock him because he's on the same side as science. So you don't want to be on the wrong side of science and also be promoting something that other people can reasonably call a horse pill. So persuasion wise, this is no longer a balanced situation if it turns out that the chrysalizas of the world who think the vaccination is real and good and ivermectin is not. If he turns out to be wrong, it's still not that embarrassing for him because he was in group, he was agreeing with the entire scientific community. Not entire, but, you know, the consensus. So if you agree with the consensus and you're wrong, it's not too embarrassing. But what happens if you take a radically different opinion from the consensus and then you're wrong? Not so good. Right? You don't want to be the one pushing the horse pills, the horse pills, if it turns out to be wrong. So one of the things you have to look at with persuasion is who's got the bigger downside, because we don't like downside. Right. So Chris Eliza is taking a Bet with not much of a downside. If he's wrong, well, so were a lot of other people. But boy, if you take the ivermectin side and you're wrong, you're the one pushing a horse pill because you were so partisan that you couldn't believe the other side. I guess personally I would say that I don't believe. I would say every day that goes by when ivermectin is not proven to be effective reduces the chances that it is because I don't know one way or the other. But I would say every day that goes by I would lower my odds. Same as I did with hydroxychloroquine. Every day that went by there when it wasn't proven to work, I said, well, I think the odds are going down every day. And sure enough, we still do not have evidence it does, but there's some, some high ranking doctor and some medical association in Japan who is saying ivermectin, he still doesn't know if it works. He's not saying it works. He says the evidence is ambiguous, but he's promoting it based on the cost benefit analysis. So that would be a big break with the rest of the medical community. I don't think it's necessarily government policy. It was just ahead of some medical organization. We've got 100,000 people hospitalized with COVID in the United States. We just broke last year's record. We're about at it. It's actually worse than last year, but does it seem worse? Why is it worse than last year but it doesn't seem worse? Well, some of it's the way it's reported. Right? Because once again, 100,000 people hospitalized, how many are going to die? Isn't that really different from last year? Wouldn't it be more fair to say X people died last year and this year very, very much fewer will die because of vaccinations and whatever and also because weaker people have already died. So a lot of people who could die from the vaccines are already dead. Not from the vaccines, but from the. And here's a statistic that I didn't know this, but see if you did that 48% of the US is still not fully vaccinated. Did you know that? I thought the number was much higher by now. I figured we were in the 60 plus percentage of already vaccinated fully, but we're 48% are not fully vaccinated. That feels like a gigantic number, doesn't it? Wouldn't you say? Could you not say that? Well, I suppose it depends on your point of view. But if the Biden administration is trying to convince you to get vaccinated, this is a complete failure, isn't it? Wouldn't you say 48% not fully vaccinated looks like a complete failure given the time and the fact that we have vaccinations. So, persuasion wise, how many people did the fake news kill? You see where I'm going with this? Why do you think that so many people are not vaccinated in the United States? I think that so many people are not vaccinated because there's no trust whatsoever in institutions. What is it that primarily has caused us to not trust institutions? What is the one thing that. That makes people so skeptical of everything? And maybe they should be? It's the news and it's the news. Dividing everything into a partisan world. And that partisan stuff works great if all you're doing is talking about politics. It's fun that way. But as soon as you get into a medical discussion and the world divides into its two camps, you just killed 100,000 people, right? Because you divided people into political camps. So they made a political decision on a medical decision. If you make a political calculation on your own medical decision, you're not going to get the right outcome. You need to make a medical decision on your medical decisions, right? So I feel as if you could make a case, and I believe that after all this is said and done, that people are going to do all kinds of economic studies and death studies to find out who killed than most people. How many people did I kill? It's not zero. Probably. It's probably not zero, right? Like, how many people did I personally kill because of anything I said that had some influence on somebody who made a decision they wouldn't have made? Probably not zero, right? Because enough people watch this that there's probably a few people who died of COVID and maybe they didn't need to. Maybe I said something wrong. I don't know what that would be exactly, but maybe I said something wrong and killed somebody. That's very possible because that's sort of a risk that just comes with this kind of work. But what about Trump? How many people did Trump kill? Well, it depends if he was right about stuff or wrong about stuff, or if he didn't persuade enough or if he persuaded too much on, say, hydroxychloroquine. But you could probably figure out how many people he killed or how many people he saved. Maybe he saved more than he killed. Then you'd look at the net. But I would think that the biggest kill statistic would be the news, because the business model of the news forces them into the two camps. The two camps make people make bad medical decisions because they're really political decisions. Just dressing them up as medical decisions and then they die. So I think the fake News probably killed 100,000 people in the United States. And do you know where you'll never see that reported? The fake news. So the news is the only industry that can kill 100,000 people. And you'll never hear about it. The world we live in. All right, you may have heard that famous aging porn star Ron Jeremy has been indicted on the 30 counts of sexual assault and bunch of just horrible sounding stuff. And I had this observation about context. Now, Ron Jeremy is famous for having nearly a foot long penis. If you didn't know that, now you do. Now here's how context makes a difference. If I said to you, there's a famous porn star with a foot long penis, you'd say to yourself, well, that sounds about right. Sounds like he's got exactly the right profession. Indeed, if I were to watch said entertainment, I would expect exactly that. Exactly that. So porn star, gigantic penis. It's a really good fit. The trouble is, once you retire and you decide that you would rather look less like a retired porn star and you like to make a change with your physical appearance, you know, maybe exercise a little bit less and turn into something that looks less like a porn star and more like a, I don't know, meth addict, sort of a homeless meth addict. I don't know if you've seen him lately. It's not good. He looks like a hobo who's been in a fight. Now here's where context matters. If you got somebody who looks like a, a hobo on meth, and I told you that he had a 12 inch penis, you'd be twice as scared. Am I right? Because it just doesn't. It's not good. Hey, there's a hobo outside. What's your first thought? Hey, maybe I could give him a ham sandwich because it's a hobo. You know, maybe you'd like to help, help feed him. So you go and you make yourself a ham sandwich and you give it to the hobo and everybody wins. But suppose I came and said to you, there's a hobo outside your door with a 12 inch penis, would you make him a sandwich? I don't think so. I don't think he gets the sandwich because he's a Little too scary at that point. That's all I'm saying. Speaking of huge dicks, Governor Newsom is looking to be in danger. So if the recall gets 50% plus one vote, he's out. And the person with the next most votes of all the competitors is in at the moment, that would be Larry Elder. I was looking at Larry Elder's motto, and apparently it's the one he settled on, which is, because we have a state to save. And I'm looking at his profile on Twitter, because we have a state to save. What do you think? How do you like that as a political motto for California specifically? Because we have a state to save, like it or not. What do you say? I like it. It's short, it's right to the point, and it doesn't, you know, doesn't focus on any particular topic. So here's a hypnosis persuasion trick. If you said, I'm running for governor because we have these three problems, what do people say? Well, a lot of people say, you know, those are not my top three problems, so I guess I don't need to vote for this guy. But if you leave it open and you say, we have a state to save, everybody fills in the blanks with what scares them the most. And what scares me the most might be running out of water. What scares someone else the most might be the forest fires or the homeless people or drugs. So if you can make people fill in their own fear, you have freaking nailed it. So I have to say that my first impression the first time I saw this, because we have a state to save, it felt a little flat. It didn't have a little punch. But the more I look at this, it's really good. Like, really good. I'm wondering if he had some advice or maybe ab tested it or whatever he did. But. So that's just one thing it does, right? It makes you fill in the blanks of yourself, of the state to save. Secondly, it puts it in fear persuasion territory because he's saying the state has to be saved. So it's scary, right? It's not just, he'll do better. He. He's bringing us hope and goodness. It's not about the economy. He's stupid. He's saving the state. So it's a fear persuasion play. And appropriate to the situation, there is a genuine fear that matches the public. So he's got the fear in there. He keeps it simple. He matches the mood of the public, which is, we're feeling the same, and. And he leaves it ambiguous. So you fill in your best fear in there. But did you notice the first word? Because. Because we have a state to save. The first word is because. Where have you seen that before? I call it the fake because. Because studies show that if you start something with the word because people think there's a reason there and they respond to it. He actually gave them a reason to vote for the recall and allow him in. And you also fill in the reason. The because now we have a state to save tries to hint you at the reason, but you're filling in your own reason. So you are actually talking yourself into it through this slogan. That's good. That's like really good. Is something that allows you to fill in your own best slogan into his slogan. I don't know if I've ever seen this before. Well, you know, I guess you could argue that make America Great Again have that quality, because you did fill in. You filled in the blanks yourself. So. But it wasn't. It wasn't fear stuff is more hopeful. All right, so the best, I guess the best attack against Larry Elder, because of course, the Democrats have to come after him. They've got some allegations from an ex about brandishing a gun. Now, apparently there is no. No claim that he threatened anybody. There's no claim he threatened anybody. And there's no claim that he aimed his gun at anybody. He brandished it. So I guess there was some point where he was, I don't know, checking the ammunition of his gun or something while having a conversation. And I don't know if stuff got conflated, but I don't think it matters. And here's why. Nobody believes an ex. Am I right? Nobody believes anybody's ex. If you heard somebody's ex say that somebody brandished a gun, but no, they didn't threaten me with it. And no, he didn't point it at me. No, he didn't point it at me. And he didn't threaten me with it. He just brandished it. What's your first thought? Bullshit. Right? It's in the category of things that we sort of discount a little bit because an ex is always saying shit about you. Right? What do you say about your ex? Give me two sentences about whatever X you X last. Not so good, right? So nobody believes the X if that's the best they have. I think he's in good shape. Here's a question I asked on Twitter. When did we stop crowing about electing the first black. Fill in the blank. The first black president, the first black governor of California the first black Republican governor of California. Don't you think that if Larry Elder were a Democrat, all of the news coverage on CNN would be about, oh, we might get the first black Democrat president in California. Don't you think they would just talk about that nonstop? Yeah, they would. But here you have something more historic. What would be more historic than a black Republican winning in California? Because you could say to yourself, oh, sure, Tim Scott wins for the Senate, but I'm assuming he has a large black base. Or you could say, sure, Obama won the presidency, but he had to get 90 plus percent of the black vote to do it. Kind of special cases. But what the hell is this special case of a black Republican in California? That's the opposite of a special case. This is like the first case where race didn't matter, right? Has that ever happened before? Have we ever been in a situation where race was erased from the conversation? Larry Elder just did that. This is like one of the greatest accomplishments of any politician in the history of the universe. Think about this. Larry Elder took race out of the conversation. Why? Because he didn't put it in the conversation. He never put it in there. So I would say that Larry Elder has accomplished something more special than any, any politician has ever accomplished. He took race out of the conversation. I mean, that's crazy. Who else has ever done that? And how did he do it? He didn't do it by what he said. He did it by who he is. He did it by living the life he lives, by being the person he is. He took it right off the table. I mean, think about that. Who has ever done that before in the history of politics? Nobody. Nobody's ever done that. And we're going to ignore it. Joe Lonsdale asked me on Twitter. He said, curious why more people like you aren't talking about the elephant in the room, that they've changed the rules in California to send ballots ahead of time to everyone and allow unions to go door to door to help millions of people with them, which makes the recall very unlikely to pass. What do you think? Do you think that the rules changes are what elect our presidents? I think yes. We don't really live in a system where votes determine presidents anymore. We live in a system in which the rule changes determine the president. So if that happens in this case, it will be a giant recall in which the votes didn't matter. We would have spent, I don't know, what, two years on a recall to find out that the fucking votes didn't matter. And that's sort of where we might be now. I happen to think that there is so much dislike of Newsom that the polls are misleading. I believe he's going to. I believe Elder's going to win. And I don't think the rules changes, while significant, I don't even think the rule changes can get there. Maybe. I mean, it might. I mean, Newsom saying it's a turnout election and he could be totally right about that. So we'll see. So it looks like Covid is permanent. Now what. What would you feel about China if you knew that the pandemic they released or we believe they released, what if it's permanent? How does that change what you think about what needs to be done? If it's permanent, that feels different, doesn't it? It's one thing that they killed 600,000 people in America. If it passes, right, and it gets better. But what if it doesn't? I don't know. There may be some big reckoning coming here with China. CNN is still using what I call the anecdotal brainwashing technique in which instead of reporting statistics, they report this one guy had this problem and then they try to persuade you that the one guy tells you something about the big picture. Of course it doesn't unless it's a coincidence. But here are their offerings, just for today. They do this every single day. Here's headline, Fitness trainer decline vaccine. Stunning photos show what happened to him. Right? It's going to be a whole bunch of guy didn't want to take vaccine. Well, he's sorry now. Isn't this guy sorry? There'll be one every day, I'll betcha. Here's another one quote, I had to turn away a cancer patient that needed an emergency treatment. Florida oncologist Dr. Baba Perriani told CNN. Same trick, right? There's this one doctor who had to turn away one patient. Now, do you think the patient went home and died because it was an emergency treatment for cancer? So when he got turned away from the hospital, did he just go home and die? No, no, they don't mention what happened to him. He probably drove an extra five miles to another hospital, got the life saving. Probably. I mean, I don't know. But I would say this is a misleading anecdote. Edward Snowden is writing about Apple's new OS that apparently will spy on your photos on your phone and alert the police if you've got a lot of bad stuff there. I'm thinking, you know, various illegal porn, etc. What do you feel about Apple having an algorithm that will alert the police based on the pictures on your phone. What do you think about that? That's pretty bad. That's about as bad as it gets. And weirdly, Apple is the privacy company, but they're also the anti porn company. So they do have two branding things that are in conflict here. And I don't know, I guess it depends what you feel about, you know, underage photos on people's phones. Now, if you think that's the biggest problem in the world, then you'd be in favor of this. Maybe. If you think privacy being eroded is a bigger problem, well, you'd be on the other side. Obviously, I'm not in favor of those pictures on anybody's phones, but you have to look at Apple's privacy situation and it looks, it does look like an overreach, in my opinion. It's a rare, gigantic mistake by Apple. So that's my opinion. I would say gigantic mistake. I would also say that I don't think Steve Jobs would have done it because it feels like a gigantic mistake. And I think he would have felt it because he was a little bit more intuitive about the psychology of things. Apparently, employees are quitting in record numbers because they kind of liked working remotely. And the thought of going back to work just seemed so horrible that 68% of job separations were people quitting and 1 in 3 workers. This is from Media Insider, a tweet. 1 in 3 workers are considering leaving their jobs while 60% of them are rethinking their careers. Talk about a reboot. Basically, I think, you know, this is something I tell you a lot. This is another persuasion trick. People can get used to anything. So you tell people, hey, your commute's going to be half an hour. And they're like, I hate that. But it's half an hour and then traffic gets worse and they're like, hey, your commute is 45 minutes. You're like, well, it was already half an hour, now it's 45 minutes. I guess I can handle that. Next thing you know, you change jobs, but your commute is going to be an hour if you change jobs. You're like, well, it was already 45 minutes, so what's an hour? I think you can just get used to things because they gradually happen. And I think that people realized they had been living a nightmare of driving two hours each day to and from work. Just a nightmare. And when they got to work remotely, they just said, I'd rather starve to death than do this again. So I think that the reboot of the pandemic just changed how people just see their whole lives and you see it coming through the employment stuff. Apparently Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, lawyers for the, about the alleged election fraud. They were a federal judge. Federal judge ordered sanctions against them for their Trump aligned lawsuits challenging the election. And I guess the reasoning here is that their lawsuits were so frivolous and ridiculous that they need to be sanctioned for that. Now if you are checking people's predictions, what was my prediction when I heard Sidney Powell and Lin Wood say that there was that they had discovered that the software was, I don't know, somehow being manipulated by it had something to do with Venezuela and all that. What did I say when you first heard that? Now remember I was on Trump's side, right? I was on Trump's side and then I heard these claims and I said complete bullshit. Hey Kerry, thanks for the buck 49. And I don't know, this is what I predicted. So check your predictions in the comments. How many? Yeah, we don't know yet. Right. So who knows? But only I'm only talking about the, the Venezuela dictator stuff. That was in my opinion was obvious bullshit on the surface. You didn't need to wait for that. That was obvious. Now whether or not there's any shenanigans in the election, I think that's an open question because we can't check everything. But in terms of the, the, the biggest Kraken style things, I called bullshit on day one and it looks like that will be right. How many of you were right or wrong about that? If, if we assume that there's nothing to the Venezuela part, I think that feels safe at this point. No, I'm not saying it's BS because a judge said so. I'm saying that it's BS because by now we would know if there was anything to it and we don't. My guess is that they were fed some misinformation by somebody who wanted to discredit them exactly the way it happened. I feel like that was an intel or somebody aligned with them, something like that. There was some dirty tricks involved in duping these two into thinking that these ridiculous claims had some merit. So anyway, check your, check your predictions. Were you right on that one or not? All right, let me make sure that I've addressed all of the fascinating things in today's news and did not talk too much about those topics you hate. So now that I've gone a few days without talking about the forbidden topics, the ones which make you turn off this live Stream, you know what they are better or worse. Give me some feedback. All right, so I didn't do any, any deep vaccination stuff. I mean, you have to mention it because it's in the news, but I didn't do any deep vaccination thoughts or any deep mass stuff. People on. So he says worse. Well done. On the locals platform, it's universally, they like it better. So it looks like 100% there on YouTube a little, little more muted. But also it seems like people are on the same side. You know, here's. Here's the thing I want to ask you, though. I want to ask you this. You love the angry ignorant. That is, somebody said talk about vaccines more. Because I love the angry ignorant. Now I'm not sure which side you're calling the ignorant. So that's the fun part. But that is the fun of it. The fun of it had nothing to do with whether you should do those things. There was only, you know, exposing people's thought process. We need the age of those dying from COVID That is right. You know, I also wonder how many people are left. You know, if. If the only people who die of COVID are the, you know, 0.01% or whatever. Don't you get all of them pretty quickly or don't you get half of them pretty quickly? I feel as if we would just burn through the people who could be killed by it and you just run out of victims after a while. Talk about how India beat the Delta with only 4% vax rate. I don't think that happened. Most of what you see on the Internet about countries is wrong. I would say more than 60%. I would say anything you see on the Internet that says Country X had this experience automatically wrong. Let me give you some examples of things which are in the category of almost always wrong. You ready? You're not going to like this. I'll give you an example and you tell me if you think that they're usually right or usually wrong. There's a rogue doctor who made a video saying that all the experts got it wrong and what they're recommending is going to make it worse for you. That's all you know. I'm not referring to any specific doctor. I'm saying there's just a pandemic. Just imagine this is just imaginary. There's a rogue doctor and he's telling you that everybody got it wrong. What are the odds that the rogue doctor is right and everybody got it wrong? Give me the odds. I want odds. I don't want words, but you could put a number on it. I'm going to read some of your numbers. 90%. 5%, 20%, 80%. Look at that difference. 95%. 5%. 10%. 5 to 0. 05%. I'll give you my estimate. 95% chance it is not right. The lone doctor or the, you know, the three doctors. Any viral clip of the doctors disagreeing with the majority. In my opinion, based on life, 95% chance is bullshit. 5% chance you really have something. And if it's that 5%, it's world changing. I mean, it's a big, big, big, big deal if they're right. But 95% of the time they're not. Likewise, let's say you see a story about Sweden having a certain outcome. How much should you trust the Internet report of Sweden? Any country, it doesn't matter what country it is. Israel, India, whatever country you think you can explain. What are the odds that that story or the data about that one country is accurate and telling you something useful? No more than 5%. Everything about individual countries is bullshit, just all of it. So those are categories of things where you should automatically just say, well, it could be. And maybe we should pay attention and if the argument is good, maybe you follow it up a little bit. But Dr. Chang says. We listened. Dr. Chang Zhi. We listened to Sweden press conference. It's true, it's true. Because you listen to a press conference. Are you a Chinese spy? Are you? Because you look like a Chinese spy to me. Now here's an interesting question, at least on the YouTube feed. How many Chinese spies trolls are following this right now? I mean, I have to think I'm in the top 10American anti China persuaders. So if they're not following me, I don't know who they would follow. I mean, you should be following me. So I should have some Chinese trolls on there if everything I know about everything is right. All right, that is all we've got for today. And I'm going to go do some other things and I'll talk to you tomorrow. Yes, I hear some voices.