Episode 2014 Scott Adams: Project Veritas Intrigue, Nord Stream Pipeline Intrigue, And More Fun

Good morning everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. There's never been a finer moment in all the world. Looks like I forgot to tweet that we were going live. So we might have a. I have a low crowd here today on YouTube, but that's okay. Yes. Did you notice the printer sarcophagus? So let me give you an update on my printer and then we'll do the simultaneous up. So it turns out that if you destroy your printer, your HP printer, in front of a live stream audience, HP will call you. So I got a call from HP and here's the good news. So the good news is that HP has a really effective quick response for stuff like this. So big companies often have like a quick response complaint group for any high level complaints. So they were on it right away and they offered to switch out my printer, which the problem was I bought a printer. Assuming that all printers, all high end printers. I assumed all high end printers had WI fi. That turned out to be a dumb assumption. So I didn't really look very closely at the specs because who would make a printer in 20, 22 or 23 that wouldn't have WI fi? But it didn't. So while I would say that was a user error, when I looked through the documentation and it had all kinds of instructions on how to activate your WI fi and I use the software and has instructions on how to activate the WI fi in the tiniest little letters. In the tiniest little letters it says asterisks. Tiny little letters, asterisks. Only if your model has WI fi and it did not, so they offered to switch it out. I bought it through Amazon, so I'm just going to return it and get one that has WI FI on it and then we're set. Have you ever heard this? Now the question you're going to ask me is this. Why do I keep buying HP products if I keep having trouble? Well, first of all, I believe that all printers have mechanical troubles. I don't believe there's any such thing as a printer that doesn't break after a while. Yeah, I know you got your favorites, but I don't believe it. Secondly, have you ever heard that when a customer complaint is satisfied, they become more loyal customers than if they'd never had a complaint in the first place? Have you ever heard that? It's a pretty well established thing, especially in restaurants. You know, that's where I heard it first. When somebody takes care of your problem, you feel like there's a reciprocity thing going on. And so they were so nice to me and so accommodating to fix the problem that I don't mind buying their new product because, like I said, I think it's a good product. It just. All printers are going to have issues after a point. But now the simultaneous sip. And if you'd like to enjoy this and take it up to a notch, a level, a dimension heretofore unknown, all you need is a cup of mug or a glass of tanker shells. A sign, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join us now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the Simultaneous Sept. It happens. Now go. So here's to you, hp, for having an excellent customer response group. Very well done. Nicely done. But since I don't have a printer at the moment, allow me to go to my notes on my phone here. So, no, I don't want Dilbert ideas. You don't need those. How many of you think that Bill Gates is a hypocrite for flying on a private jet while complaining about climate change? Go. Bill Gates, hypocrite or not, hypocrite for flying his private jet. Don't care. Well, he was asked by the BBC and you would not be surprised to hear that he had an answer to this. Now you can decide if this is a good answer or not. His answer is that he also invests billions of dollars into a company called Climeworks, which sucks carbon out of the air at scale. And he's also invested in a number of other green technology businesses. And so his. His argument is this. If he can fly around on his jet efficiently and allocate his capital toward saving the planet, that he personally is very, very much, very much net positive. Now, he would acknowledge that the jet uses more fuel than some other mode of transportation, but overall, he's saying, you know, I'm saving the world, but it costs a little to get there. How's his argument? What do you think of that argument? What's wrong with it? You don't like it because it doesn't agree with you, but what's wrong with it? Is that a bad argument? Really? If every person did what he did, we'd be in bad shape. If Everybody subtracted more CO2 than they added, we wouldn't be in good shape. I see you saying it's a weak argument, but what's wrong with It. I'm looking at your comments. Yeah, it's one of those arguments that you don't want to accept. It's like painful to, it's painful to imagine that he's helping in any way. I know he's so. I think he's got the golem problem. Do you know what I mean? There's something about him, his physicality, because he doesn't seem to take care of himself in terms of his health. He's got sort of a Gollum, oh, my precious kind of a vibe to him. You know, it makes me wonder if he looked like some, you know, healthy, good looking young person, would people have the same opinion about him? I just have a theory that his physicality is 75% of white people have an opinion of it and then his wealth would be the rest. And then of course, your wild allegations, and I don't know if they're true or false, but they're certainly not confirmed. All right, here's a good example of how the news tells you what to be mad about. Do you believe that you wake up every day. Sorry, I just saw a comment that was funny. Do you believe you wake up every day and you look at the news and then you decide on your own, just all by yourself, what things are important and what things you're going to get all worked up about? Is that your, let's say, your worldview, that you look at the landscape of all the possible stories and then you, on your own, with no help, decide which one's going to be important to you? Nothing like that is happening now. The news tells you which ones to worry about and it's almost random. If you looked at, you know, if you were to look at it objectively. And here's a perfect example of this, and this was I stole this from somebody else's tweet whose name I forgot to write down. So I apologize for that. But it was. How does Joe Biden get away with saying we're getting rid of oil and gas in a decade? So at the State of the Union, Biden said they wanted to get rid of fossil fuels in 10 years. Now shouldn't that be the biggest story in the world? Because if he actually accomplished that, it would destroy civilization. And it looks like he's actually trying to do it. Now how is that not the biggest story in the world? Which is the point of the tweet. The point of the tweet is we've decided it's not. And I don't mean we, I mean the media. So if I had gone, if I had gone to the Fox News website today and that was the main story, I'll bet a lot of you would be pretty worked up about it because, you know, Fox News could have made that the big story. They talked about it a lot, but it wasn't like the big story. If they just decided that's the big story, a whole lot of people would be worked up about it. But as it is, we just think, oh, old man said, strange thing, doesn't make, you know, won't make much difference. But instead the main story that I saw in the Fox News today, it may have changed by now, but the main story I saw on Fox News was that Leah Thomas, the trans athlete swimmer a few years ago or not, I don't know when it was changed in a dressing room, the girls or women's dressing room, and her penis was showing and the other women are upset about that. So she showed her penis at the women's locker room and that was the big story. That was like the main story at Fox News. I know some of you are racist, not racist. Some of you are so close minded that when I say her penis, you're like, wait, wait, you mean his penis? But no, that would be wrong. So don't say that. All right, but do I make my pace? Did I make my case? You see it right? The things we decide to get worked up about, they're completely artificial. They're chosen from this large menu of things we could get worked up about. But I guess this week we did. Now, I think whatever is most clickable will always be where our attention goes, right? So the news, obviously the news, knows what you're going to click on. Do you think I clicked on the story about Lia Thomas showing her penis to the other swimmers? Do you think I clicked on that story? It has, you know, almost no importance to my life. Yes, I did. Of course I did. Have you met me? Of course I did. Yes. I spent some of my, some of my, you know, few remaining minutes on this earth. Well, I hope there's more than a few to look at that because it was very clickable. You kind of needed to know if it had been another story about inflation, possibly the biggest problem, would I have clicked on it? No, probably not. Because, you know, I know what the inflation story says already. So we're pretty much driven by clickability. Here's a controversial little idea from I saw this on a Tracy Follows tweet, which is a great name for a Twitter account. Her actual last name is Follows Tracy Follows all right. Anyway, Tracy tweets that a 2013 study on social conformity found that extroverts are more willing to go along with the opinion of the majority. Even if it's wrong. Even if it's wrong. I don't know if they know it's wrong when they go along with it. That's a little unclear. And then the introverts are more likely to buck the system. Now consider the mandates and vaccinations and masks and all that stuff when you. Which are not vaccinations, by the way. Let me clarify. Do you think that the fact that the people you hear the most from are all extroverts? Because what do you need to be to run for government? Members of Congress? Are they not extroverts? So we have a government of extroverts. So we basically have a government of people who are selected for a trait which makes them go along with the majority. Then what about the pundits and the TV personalities? Extroverts or introverts? Well, you could have some introverts who are on tv, but probably extroverts. A lot of extroverts. So what happens when you've got a situation where there's social conformity pressure and then you, as a member of the public, are trying to get your. Try to get some insight from all the experts in the government and the pundits. But if they're heavily. If they're heavily extroverted, because there's a selection thing, right? The people who are famous usually tried to be famous. So there's something extroverted about them. Kind of makes you understand how people, you know, how the top. Anyway, the people in charge. It really makes you understand how they could so quickly conform. If it's true that extroverts conform now, it does make sense. Here's why this makes sense. The reason extroverts are extroverts is they like putting themselves in front of people and getting a good reward for that. Like it. They get a good feeling, literally in their body, in their mind, from exposing themselves to people. But they wouldn't want to. Yeah, they like getting attention. So you'd have to think that that's part of what happened. And I've also speculated that maybe 10% of the people who were against vaccinations, which are not vaccinations. How many times do I have to tell you? They're just Covid shots. But how many of those do you think were mostly because they were afraid of needles and then they reasoned backwards from Their fear of needles. Everything that I know about psychology assumes that there are some people in that group, because that's the way the brain works. The brain works. You know, you start with your irrational fear, and then you work backwards to your rationalization of why it all made sense in the first place. Yeah. You know, it's not. I don't think it's 90%, but it might be 1%, might be 10%. Yeah. But I wouldn't ignore it. All right. The big fun show on the news is the Twitter hearings in Congress. And oh, my God, these are brutal. Have you watched any of the clips of Yoel Roth sitting there and just having his life destroyed by the members of Congress? It is brutal. Oh, my God. He's being accused of being, let's say, pedophile friendly. And I'm not going to say that. Right. This is not my interpretation of anything he did. My interpretation is that he did some academic stuff on some very controversial stuff, but it's being mischaracterized. So in my personal opinion, he's being mischaracterized. Now, how I feel about it, I'm having trouble sorting it out because I also felt like I was being shadow banned. I don't know if I was, but I felt like I was. And I felt that people who at least agreed with me in some ways were being shadow banned, and I hated it. And therefore I had, you know, bad feeling about anybody who would have been involved in doing it. So the. The animal part of me just wants to, you know, hate this Yoel Roth guy and, you know, grind him into the dirt for being on the other side for me and people I like. On the other hand, I'm a big fan of innocent until proven guilty, and there's a lot of accusations thrown around about this guy that I'm not comfortable with coming from government officials. You know what I mean? Like, it's one thing for, you know, some idiot to say, oh, I think you're pedo friendly or something. It's another thing to have a member of Congress say it in public about you while you're sitting there on camera. I thought it was too far. I thought it was too far. Yeah. But, you know, the animal in me wants revenge. So I'm like, the socialized human in me says that's too far because that's a little bit too much. Guilty until proven innocent when it comes from a sitting member of Congress, it just feels. It feels like the powerful hitting the less powerful. But just like most of you, I have that revenge lust as well. And I'm a little uncomfortable with my own feelings about it. I want the revenge, but I don't think that. That I wasn't comfortable with it. Just wasn't comfortable with it. Which is not. Which is not defending him. Right. So I'm not defending anything he did. I'm just saying I wasn't comfortable with it. Not. Not my best feeling when I watched it. But on the other hand, my lust for revenge was somewhat satisfied. And I'm not happy about it. Like, you can't be proud of that, but it's true. So Yoel had to answer for having called the Trump administration Nazis in the tweet. He said he regretted the language. But here's the fascinating part. I read an opinion piece from who is it? What's his name? Oliver Darcy on cnn. So I watched those Twitter files and the Matt Taibbi Twitter files, Twitter threads and all that, and I came away with a certain set of beliefs about how bad the Twitter files were. In other words, what bad behavior they showed. But then you read Oliver Darcy on cnn and he says there's a Republican distortion field. He said, there's no evidence that FBI or government influenced Twitter on speech. How many would agree with that characterization? That of all the Twitter files, there's no evidence of FBI or government influencing Twitter on speech. That feels like exactly the opposite of what we saw, isn't it? So apparently the CNN or at least some members of the left are just going to say, nothing happened. So we're in this weird situation where the thing in the news is irrelevant because the people on one side will say, this thing in the news is super important and look at all this evidence. And then the other side will say, I didn't see anything. I'm looking right at it. So you take January, January 6th. The Democrats say, look at all this evidence of horrible things. And everybody in the right says, I'm looking at the same stuff. I don't see anything. Where's your insurrection? They go, right here. Look at it. All the. I'm looking at it, too. I don't see any. And then it's reversed. The situation is reversed now that. Now the one side is saying, hey, look at all these FBI Twitter files, Democrat operatives like Jim Baker and all this influencing. And the Democrats are literally saying, I'm looking at the same stuff. I don't see it. I don't know what you're talking about. No, look, look here and here and here on the laptop, here's Hunter's own words. And it's all connected. Uh huh. I don't see it. No, it's right here. It's right here. Right here. I don't see it. That's the world we live in. And by the way, it does work both ways. It works both ways. The other side, whatever the other side is, literally can't see the evidence or they see evidence that doesn't exist. So I don't know how much is lying anymore, do you? Because there's definitely a cognitive phenomenon which is convincing people that their side is right, both sides. But we're at the point where the actual facts of the story don't have any role whatsoever on anything. Again this morning I'm arguing with somebody on Twitter whether Long Covid should have been part of the. Part of any decision making. And I'm thinking, really, there's actually somebody who says that Long Covid definitely doesn't exist. Now maybe it doesn't. Maybe I'm hallucinating. Maybe the people who say the anecdotal reports and the VAERS report are telling you something important, but all of the anecdotal reports of Long Covid are telling you nothing. And I don't know how you can hold both of those things in your head. I hold both of them in my head equally. I say the VAERS report is not proof. But man, there's so much on it. That's a pretty strong signal. You better take that seriously. But I also say all the personal, individual reports from credible people who had Long Covid for months anyway, I take those seriously. But also, it's not a randomized, controlled test. So why would you say that? VAERS you can consider, but Long Covid, all those you don't consider. I know to me, the whole world is going crazy and we're just seeing what we want to see at this point. Like always, I guess. Like always. Well, I didn't get canceled this week and I'm a little surprised. And I'm feeling a shift in the woke stuff. Does anybody else feel it? Does anybody feel that we have reached peak wokeness and it's either plateauing or starting to decrease? Because let me tell you what I said that I feel like I would have been canceled for two years ago. And I got basically no pushback at all. It was this tweet. I already told you about this tweet, but the update is that I'm not canceled. So I tweeted, I wonder if any sober person with an IQ over 110 has ever been killed by police after resisting arrest during a traffic stop. Now I feel like I would have been canceled two years ago for that. But today I don't think anybody wants to touch it because I'm perfectly willing to have that conversation. I think stupid people and inebriated people get killed by police for resisting arrest. And if you think that has anything to do with race, I don't know what. You show me a stupid inebriated person, male, almost always male, and I'll show you somebody who's got a real risk with police. Show me somebody who's smart and sober, and I'll show you somebody who could get into trouble, but they're not going to be murdered by police. I mean, unless it was just the weirdest mistaken identity situation, which is a whole different story. But let's stop pretending that people being killed by police while resisting arrest is anything about anything except stupid people. It's just stupid people. And if you want to tell me, no, no, Scott, it's a problem with the black community, then I say to you, why are you infantilizing black Americans? Do you know when I was smart enough not to pick a fight with a guy with a gun? Three years old. Seriously, at three years old, I already knew everything. I would know for the rest of my life on the topic of whether I should pick a fight with somebody who had a gun. Now, pick a fight means resisting arrest in this case, because I'm not a moron. So why do we think that the black community can't figure that out? Do you think that black people somehow can't figure out that you don't pick a fight with somebody with a gun? Let's just treat it what it is. It's not about race. It's about stupid people and inebriated people, or usually both, you know, stupid and inebriated. And we should just call it what it is. Stupid and inebriated people of all types, White, black, Hispanic, doesn't matter. If you're stupid and inebriated, you're at great risk. Everybody else, not so much. Not so much. But. But back to my original point, do you think I could have said what I said just now, two years ago, with no blowback? I've got no response. No blowback to that. It does feel different. Yeah, does feel different. And. And I know some of you want to go racial about it. Go, blah, blah, blah, percentages. This was. What does that have to do with anything? Like, to me, it's just, you know, a useless statistic. If you find any, you know. Well, anyway, that's enough on that. So there's some kind of intrigue with Project Veritas. And we don't know the details of it, but the reporting is that James o', Keefe, the founder and head of Project Veritas, apparently has a board, Board of directors of his organization, and they have removed him of authority and put him on some kind of administrative leave. Now, here's the first thing you should know about this story. We don't know anything about this story. It's disturbing. So we want to keep an eye on it because the timing of it is suspicious. So right after Project Veritas gets what looks like its biggest scoop, the Pfizer employee who said some stuff on hidden camera, that right after that the board of directors moves the guy who got the big win on that story. Maybe, maybe. But until you hear why he was removed, don't you think you ought to hold. Hold your opinion on this a little bit? I mean, you should be very curious. So your curiosity should be. As a citizen who's concerned that another citizen may be mistreated. We don't know. Don't know. But let's keep an eye on this one because there's certainly cause for concern, but it's way too soon to say that something that shouldn't have happened happened. We don't know what he's accused of. The. The reporting is that he was. He's accused of being hard to work for. What does that mean, being hard to work for? I. I don't know what the story is, but I have a feeling that hard to work for is not going to be the. The reason that we finally figure out in the end. Did I see the unarmed guy in the knees in the hotel hallway get murdered by cops? Yeah, but in every case, there's a special situation. There was something going on there, and it might have been the cops themselves. I don't know what the situation was, but those are special situations. It's not like there's some. And I'm not sure that that was actually. That wasn't the case of resisting arrest. Right. That was the opposite of resisting arrest. So he was a case of somebody who got killed, not arrested. Not resisting arrest. Right. So my entire point was resisting arrest. He would. He was the opposite. And he was drunk. Somebody says so. So my point was, if you're smart and not inebriated, how often do you get killed? Not often. All right, so let's keep our mind open on this Project Veritas. I don't know what's going on there. All right, Remember when I told you that when we heard that there was a story that the Nord Stream pipeline was blown up by Americans, do you remember I told you I'm not so sure about this story? Do you remember my skepticism at the initial reporting? Well, so apparently just there's this one American journalist, Seymour Hersh, who's the one who believes he has this inside information that U.S. divers planted their explosives during a NATO exercise, blah, blah, blah. And then I see Mike Lee, Senator from Utah, say he tweeted, I'm troubled that I can't immediately rule out that. The suggestion that the US Rule out the suggestion that the US Blew up Nord Stream. I checked with a bunch of Senate colleagues. Among those I've asked, none were ever briefed on this. If it turns out to be true, we've got a huge problem. So now we've got a problem. If it's true, Congress should have been part of the decision making, or at least they should know about it now, and apparently they don't. Apparently they don't. So here's. I saw in the comments. Is Seymour Hersh reliable? Is there any history of any big stories he's gotten wrong? He's the My Lai massacre guy. He goes back that far, huh? Long history of good stories. So maybe. But what do you suppose his source was? Or sources? Because don't you think his sources were military spooks? See, here's my problem. If there was a real way that the thing was blown up and our military didn't want anybody to know the real way, wouldn't they leak a story about sort of a traditional way? So here's what I'm suspecting. I'm wondering if maybe we blew it up with some, let's say we had a submarine that could do that, or some other kind of asset that was not divers with bombs. We might want to put out the story that, yes, we did it, it was us, but we'd fool them about what technology we use. Because maybe that's the secret. That's a possibility. So that would be one reason to plant a false story, so that the other side doesn't know what kind of assets you have. Maybe underwater drone. Yeah, maybe we have submarine drones and we don't want anybody to know about it. The other possibility is that we're sending some kind of a message. Let's say it was an intentional leak or something like that. Do you think it would be a message to Putin to make sure that he knows how serious NATO is? Because if you're Putin and you imagined it blew up, I don't know, on its own or something. That doesn't really show you that the other side is serious about this war. But at some point, maybe you want to tell Russia, oh, yeah, we did this, and we would do things like this again. I don't know, maybe it's a way to show how serious we are. Message to the Germans. Yeah. Now, do you remember when the, the Nord stream first blew up and the US Said it was Russia blowing up its own pipeline? Do you remember my reaction to that about Russia blowing up its own pipeline? I called bullshit to that on the first minute. I think Tucker Carlson did as well. I think other people did as well. But as soon as I heard that Russia blew up its own pipeline, that wasn't even slightly believable. There wasn't a single thing about that that was in the same zip code of something you should believe. It was just ridiculously unbelievable. That was the opposite of all common sense. And sure enough, exactly like you thought it was a lie. All right, I'm very curious about Matt Gaetz and his take on Ukraine. So he's, he's pretty much stopped the funding for Ukraine and let's figure out how to end this thing. And many of his colleagues are on the opposite side. And I look at this as a long term Matt Gaetz political play, and I think he nailed it. And here's why. Is there much chance that at the end of the, if there is an end of the Ukraine, Russia situation, is there any chance at the end of it, citizens of the United States will be glad we did it? What do you think? Because it feels like this is just Iraq 2.0 or Vietnam 2.0. It feels like yet another war that was optional. And it feels like, here's my big insight on this. It feels like the only person who's playing it right politically is Matt Gaetz. Now, he might be also playing it right for what's good for the country. But just talking about politics for a moment, there might be a time in our not too distant future where Matt Gaetz is running for president. That's not much of a stretch, right? You kind of assume you're sort of angling toward the presidency at one point, and he might be running against people who voted for funding the Ukrainian war over and over again. He might be running against people who are all unqualified, because by then it's very likely the public will have turned on all this funding. Even if we get something like a good, that feels like maybe a good ish outcome, you know, of blunting Russia or Whatever. I don't think the public's going to see it that way. I think the public's going to see all the money we spent and we didn't get anything from it. And I think that Gates is going to be one of the only pure bloods. So I'm using that term ironically and jokingly, but he might be the only one who said I was against the Ukraine war from the beginning. And then I think people are going to say, oh, my God, my inflation is going crazy. What could we have done to avoid this? Well, one thing you could have done is what Matt Gaetz said. Don't spend all your money in Ukraine when there's nothing we could win. And it does seem more and more like the Ukraine war is an optional war for profit. That's what it looks like from my perspective. It looks like the military industrial complex is primarily behind it. Some of the, you know, maybe the Biden crime family has something to hide. Don't know. But it looks like a financial war. And certainly there might be some energy companies who want to take Russia out of the energy market. So doesn't it just feel like money? I've got a feeling that in the end, this is very much like anybody who just bets against the government. If the only thing you did is I'm going to bet against the government, you're going to have a pretty good track record. He's betting against the government, and I feel like it's going to pay off. You know, it feels like foreshadowing of, I don't know, eight years from now or whenever he's running for president. He's going to be tough. All right, what. So here are some of the things that Oliver Darcy argues on cnn. An opinion piece. He's got a quote from James Baker, who is the. Was he the head. Head of legal at Twitter? And he says this is what Baker said. Quote, I am aware of no unlawful collusion with or direction from any government agency or political campaign on how Twitter should have handled the Hunter Biden laptop situation. James Baker, Twitter's former deputy counsel. Oh, he was a deputy counsel, okay. Told the committee while under oath. Now, here's what Oliver Darcy did not mention who James Baker is. Can you imagine quoting James Baker about what the FBI did or did not do without mentioning James Baker's role with the FBI and. And his prior role with the FBI and his connection with the Democrats? He just leaves that out. Don't you think that's, like, the most important thing to mention when you have a quote from James Baker, about the Twitter files. How do you leave that out? So it's pretty clear that the left wants to make the Twitter files all go away. Oh, and then we hear that Trump. So let me. Let me not do what I accuse others of doing. Showing one side of the story. So for the first time, I was hearing that the Trump White House attempted to censure Christie or Chrissy Teigen's tweets that were insulting about Trump, but he was ignored. Now, the fact that he was ignored, that probably should be the end of the story, because it's not much of a story. If the government asks Twitter to do something and Twitter ignores it, it's only when they act that it's a story. Ignoring it would be the right thing to do. And I don't have a problem with anybody asking. I don't have a problem that the Trump White House asked for insulting tweet to be taken down because the tweet that. I don't know what Chrissy Teigen's tweet was, but clearly whatever it was had nothing to do with informing the public. Would you agree? Like, whatever Chrissy Teigen's tweet was, it wasn't important. So, you know, I don't see anything there, but it is part of the story, so we won't ignore it because that would be unfair. All right. That, ladies and gentlemen, is about all that's going on. Is there anything else going on? It's kind of a slow news day. You know, once that balloon was shot down, we didn't have much to talk about. You saw the pictures of our divers picking that balloon out of the ocean. Makes you wonder how they found it. How did they find that in the ocean? Was that easy? Maybe. Oh. Oh, satellites. They probably tracked it all the way down. Yeah, they probably tracked it all the way down. Whoa, big spender. Somebody had two eggs this morning. Look at you. Good for you. Distraction. Balloon. It was a balloon. Pavement. Yeah. So Fetterman went in to the hospital, but we don't know anything about that. Right. He was lightheaded. Is there any news on Senator Fetterman? I haven't seen anything yet. All right. He was lightheaded. Digital IDs. Thoughts on digital. Is there something about digital IDs that's happening now? So. Oh, the turkey earthquakes. Yeah. Yeah. There's not much to say about earthquakes in other countries, except that they're tragic and we wish them the best. The only thing I would add to that is natural disasters. The earthquakes and the floods and stuff. These are the times when we can most impact world events. Because I feel like when you give somebody aid in a disaster, I feel like they don't forget it. Am I wrong? One of the reasons that France and the US Will probably be allies forever is that they each helped each other out in wars. That goes a long way. And if we wanted Turkey or Syria to be. Syria's a little more complicated. But if we wanted Turkey to be on our side, helping them during earthquakes is a good way to do it. And right now, the Russians are doing it and doing what they can. How about Boebert? So Boebert at the Twitter files was going hard at the Twitter people. Yeah, she was. She got Shadow banned for a joke. Literally a joke. And she got Shadow banned. And I guess that's well proven at this point. We aren't. Yeah, it's hard to help Syria because the Russian influence there. Plus, it's sort of a messy situation. Oh, yeah. So I saw that it looked like a DJ used AI to create a new album by Eminem or a new song by Eminem that Eminem had nothing to do with. It was just AI created it, and he played it live at an event, and people liked it. So here we are. Here we are. Now. I'm still holding on. I'm still holding on by my fingernails because AI still can't do humor, But I think that's all that's left. I think AI can do a hit song. I think AI could do music. I think it could write a book. I think it could do fiction. I think it can make a movie, but it can't do humor yet. Can't do humor yet. Poetry nobody cares about. Yeah, but what happens if. Let me ask this. What happens if AI learned how to make humor and got really good at it, like, better than humans? Would it make us laugh all day long? It can't write Kashmir. You're right. It can't. Yeah. The one thing that humans still have is we have our. Our physical sensors for when something works or doesn't work for a human. And so far, the AI can't reproduce that because it has no sensors in the world that are analogous to our, you know, heart and circulation and. And that stuff couldn't get any worse for movies. Yeah. Neural link will give the bots an interface. Yeah. And I don't know exactly why AI can't do humor. It could be because I haven't taught it. Tied to a chair. Needs to be a Netflix series. Yeah, I agree. All right. I'm just looking at your Comments here for a moment because we've got not much else going on. Would AI cancel itself? Oh, Bert Bacharach died. Give us a new reframe. What would you like a reframe for? Does anybody have any particular problems you want me to fix? How people see things, sleep in the morning. Well, that's not a reframe issue. How to study harder or more effectively? I don't know if that's a reframe. Yeah, hoarding. Well, so here's your refrain for hoarding, but this is just one to try. So I think hoarding and OCD and the behaviors that you want to stop, you can do it with a fake, because. So the reason that you're doing your behavior, whether it's an OCD, repetitive behavior, or hoarding, these are irrational reasons, which you understand to be irrational. If you try to use rational reasons to talk yourself out of doing something irrational, like an OCD habit or hoarding, that doesn't make sense. Instead, use an irrational reason and one that I've suggested, but you could make your own, right? So you'd find the one that works for you. But the one I've suggested is, I don't need to do this because I. I already have too much. Now, that doesn't really quite mean anything because there's no standard by which to measure what is too much. But you just say it. It's just an irrational, repetitive statement where you just tell yourself, oh, I have too much, I have too much. And you can reprogram your brain through repetition. So if you think that your brain is programmed by good reasons and logic and facts, well, good luck with that, because nothing like that happens. We are reprogrammed just by repetition and focus. So if you put your focus on something and then you go back to it over and over, it will reprogram your brain. And it doesn't need to make sense. It can be. It's a totally irrational process. Whatever you focused on and obsessed on, that becomes your programming. So if you have an OCD thing when you're doing it, you're focusing on it and you're reinforcing it every time you do it, because it was never based on anything logical. It was just focus and repetition. And NOCD is nothing but focus and repetition. So the longer you do that behavior, the more it gets drilled in and becomes a part of you. So just do the opposite. Just repeat more often, oh, I don't need to do that. That's enough. Or three times is enough, or once is too many. Whatever the reason, is it doesn't have to make actual sense. Has to sound like it makes sense, but not really. It's not important. So you just reprogram your irrational parts with other irrational parts and see what happens. And I have heard that it works, by the way, in a different context. Oh, how to tolerate a long medical test like an MRI that I would use visualization for. Try to visualize yourself in the mri, you know, being. Being still. And visualize as much as possible so that once you know as clearly and as much, and then when it frightens you back out, right. You stop. Stop thinking about it for a while, but then rest a little bit, wait a little while, then just imagine it again. And the more you imagine it, in theory, you'll just sort of get used to it, because you can get used to anything if you do it long enough. But since you're not practicing the actual mri, sometimes you're visualizing it to get you there. Now, I would also try that Andrew Huberman breathing exercise. The two inhales in through your nose and one exhale out through your mouth. It really works. I'm so addicted to that. Two breaths in through your nose. I mean, I just did it and, like, my entire body feels different like that. Literally, just two inhales and an exhale, and I feel completely different. My torso just relaxed, totally. All right, what about Max Gates, ex girlfriend? Is there a story in the news? I don't know about that? Too much oxygen. How does it split into NPCs and non NPCs? Well, that has more to do with imagining. Imagining our reality as a simulation, which is by far my favorite frame on the world. All right, and that's all I have now. What comes to mind. Okay, that's all we have now. I'm going to talk to you later, and bye for now on YouTube. See you tomorrow.