Episode 2126 Scott Adams: Walls Closing In On Trump, Biden & Wray, And Possibly Me, AI Girlfriend

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. There's never been a finer time in your life. It's only going to get better from here. But if you'd like to get a little bump of dopamine, possibly a little oxytocin, then all you need is a cup or a mug or glass, a tank or jealous of style, a canteen joker, flask of vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day. I was just saying. I knew I was forgetting something, and it was my microphone. Sure enough, here we go. I knew something was wrong, and now we're all good, aren't we? Aren't we? Everybody's happy now. All right, how would you like to do the simultaneous sip? It happens now. Go. Ah, delightful. I saw a conversation on Instagram yesterday, a little reel. Which means. I don't know if there's any real science behind it, but the claim was this. Have you ever heard this? That the free market and the business world is designed for dopamine feedback, Meaning that if you do something well in the free market, you get a raise or some kind of victory, you get a little dopamine hit. That's good. People like dopamine. However, the claim was that men operate on dopamine rewards and women work on oxytocin rewards, and they're different. Which means that if you insert a woman who uses oxytocin as her operating system into a financial system that's dopamine based, might not be a perfect fit. Is that interesting? Now, of course, everybody uses both. I mean, we all like dopamine and we all like oxytocin, but oxytocin is the drug that makes you feel bonded and secure and in love, basically. And dopamine is just the one that you just had a good time. So men are operating on having a good time, and women are operating on trying to get that bonding feeling going. And you can see why we would be confused about each other. We are literally not the same operating system. Some say, well, I saw that there's going to be a new release of Hunter's laptop pictures. And you know what we can't get enough of? I don't know about you, but just today I was thinking, there's only one thing that could really make my life better. I would like to see Hunter Biden's penis from every angle. Am I alone? I don't think I'm alone in that. Yeah. We need to see it from every angle. We need to see close ups. Yeah, we need to see the whole thing. If you leave out one angle, I'm not even going to know what I'm looking at. So good news for everybody. We'll see lots more dirty hunter pictures. Meanwhile, in Canada. Canada has decided that it's not good enough to put the warnings on cigarette packages. They're going to start putting the warnings on the cigarettes themselves, so there'll be a little message along the length of the cigarette. So some of the things they're going to say are like, cigarettes cause cancer, of course. But here's my favorite one. Cigarettes cause impotence. Do you remember when people used to smoke cigarettes because it made them look cool? Well, I can't think of anything less cool than smoking something that says it might cause impotence. Right on the. Right on the cigarette. That takes persuasion to the point of cruelty. It's like, wow, that's persuasive. But I think they can take it to another level. What do you think? I think that it's not enough just to print right on the cigarette. In Canada, cigarettes cause impotence. I think there should be a law that the cigarette can't be just a tube. Right now, it's just like a long tube. It needs a couple of balls on the end. So there should be, like, some requirement that your cigarette has balls. So when you put it in your mouth, it might look cool for some segment of society, but for others, maybe it would be one more reason to quit. Who knows? Who knows? Just a thought. So Tara Reid, the woman who famously accused Joe Biden of some sexual stuff that was never proven. She moved to become a citizen of Russia. Now, let me give you a little whist blower tip, all right? If you make a claim about somebody in our government and then you end up moving to Russia, that does not help your claim. It kind of makes you look like maybe it was Russian all along. Now, I'm not saying it was. I'm just saying it's a bad look when your mysterious accuser suddenly moves to Russia and is fully embraced. Yeah, yeah. She's afraid for her life in the United States. Okay? I mean, she might be. That could be true, but it's a bad look. Don't move to Russia is what I'm saying. If you're. If you're claiming anything that's controversial at all, all right, I told you yesterday, I guess, that there was this new battery technology using a material called vanadium and apparently it would be a really big deal if it could be developed further. Now, I didn't, I didn't know at the time that it's already being refined. So this vanadium stuff is not so much hypothetical. But there are three places where it's being refined I learned today. Russia, Brazil and Arkansas. Those are the three places that are big with vanadium. Vanadium is a new material for making batteries that could be way better than the current technology, or at least as good, and that would be a big breakthrough in cost and reliability and all that. Yeah, so apparently the best refiners of vanadium is in Arkansas. So it could be that Arkansas will become, you know, a big battery making center of the world. Maybe because we don't want to depend on Russia or Brazil for our supply. We've certainly learned that. Well, let's put this next story in the category of the most predictable story of all stories. Is anything more predictable than the fact that in the news today, there's a tech developer who's going to clone his girlfriend with ChatGPT and he's making an AI version of her and apparently she can even take AI versions of selfies and send to him. So was that the most predictable story in all of technology? There was no way that wasn't going to happen. So now we have AI that can make an avatar of a person. So obviously you can make an avatar of your chosen mate. The then you could give that person a voice that mimics the voice of the real person. So obviously you're going to make an avatar of anybody you want and they will talk just like that person and they'll be able to have a conversation. But you can also give it a personality because you could give it a body of writing, for example, and say this is your personality. Conform to this and it will just be that. So here's my question. Do you think he programmed it to have all of the, let's say, the less positive characteristics of his girlfriend, or did he just put in the good ones? For example, will his AI complain about him not doing enough? Do you think the AI will complain? Will the AI start a fight with him just to get attention, just to test him? Will the AI do that? Will the AI be really angry at him for no reason whatsoever? I don't know. And so here's the funny part. This guy is creating a competitor for his girlfriend that is a copy of his girlfriend, minus all the fucked up parts. How is she going to compete with that? You know anybody who's ever been in a relationship knows that it's no more than half good, right? Like after a while, after a while, it's no more than 50% good. And it's 50%, you know, terror and awfulness. What if he takes the 50% awful part out of the clone? How's the real one going to compete with that? I mean that literally. How could a real woman compete with that? Now, when I say I'm sure that everybody laughs, right? When I say how can a real woman compete with her own clone that removes her bad parts, you kind of think that's just funny, right? Oh, that's just like an amusing comedic, you know, observation. It's not. It is not a comedic observation. It might be the biggest problem in the world because it's going to make reproduction look like a bad deal. It really is. It really genuinely is going to make reproduction kind of a challenge and relationships and everything else. I once had an idea of producing what I would call G rated pornography for men. G rated pornography for men. And it would feature a man coming home from a hard day of work and his wife being really nice to him. That would be the whole show. That's it. She just really cares about him and asks him how she can make him happy and maybe brings him his favorite beverage, gives a little back rub, says she really appreciates all he does for her. And that's it. That's the whole show. No plot. So the reason I call it porn is that you wouldn't be watching it for the story you don't really care about their whole life. You're just like, oh, I'd like to see, what would that look like? To have a man who's just treated as a valued part of the household and stuff? That'd be cool. Yeah, sort of 50s style. Exactly. Now, I believe in modern lingo that would be called a trad wife. Have you heard that term T R A D, short for traditional, as in 50s, kind of, you know, man is out of the household, woman does the cooking sort of thing. Trad is everything is what I'm going for. Well, there you go. Well, so maybe that'll happen someday. I saw a story that at the close of the market yesterday, Someone unknown sold 33 million shares of Apple at the close. And that's $5.8 billion worth. $5.8 billion. Now, here's what, here's what I wondered. I wondered if whoever did that selling had the same experience I did. Because the reason I sold my Apple stock. So I don't Own any. And by the way, I'm not recommending this. I'm not recommending it. I'm just describing. Right. Do not do what I do. Financially, it is not a good idea. Trust me, it's not a good idea. But the reason that I got rid of my Apple stock is that I'd spend a week or two playing with AI and then I tried to use my Apple Siri. I don't want to trigger them to do anything. And as soon as you use the Apple version of, you know, that little thing you talk to and you compare that to any AI, it looks like they just gave up. I can't imagine a world in which Steve Jobs is behind on this technology. Can you imagine Apple being behind on this? Like, way behind, way, way behind. I mean, because Siri doesn't even look like a real product in 2023. It looks like a joke. Well, we'll see. We'll see if Apple can pull it out. If you had to bet, don't. Don't bet. My way, I think the safer bet is that Apple will do something really big with AI. They'll just wait and try to get it right. But at the moment, they really look like they're not a current technology. And my biggest fear is that the entire App Store concept of the iPhone, the entire ecosystem, doesn't make sense. If you could just have an operating system that's AI and it does all of those things. If you need a date, your AI figures out and do it. You don't need a dating app. If you need to do some math, you don't need a spreadsheet. Just tell the AI what you want and it'll produce it for you. So I think we're approaching the point where the only interface is you talking to an intelligent entity. Your AI Wife will sing the theme song from Miami Vice. That's very specific. Good comment there. All right, Mike M. Says, trad wives all day long. Men, how many of you wish you had a trad wife? Or maybe you do. If you have one, you could just say you want one. That's all the yeses. It's like a wall of yes. You had one, got one, yes. And you're happier because of it, right? Are you happier because you have a trad wife? Is there anybody who wishes that they had more of a. More of a feminist, independent partner? PJ Says, why are men scared of real women? Is that what's going on? Is that what you saw? Did you see men were afraid of real women? That's what you're picking up from this conversation. I don't think that's exactly what's going on. Not exactly. Well, maybe it's just going to be some reversion to the mean going on. Yeah. You know what's interesting is here's a hypothesis that's brand new. I'm just making it up on the fly. Would you say that men, as a strategy, try to figure out what it is that women want and then they try pretty hard to give it to them? Would you say that's true? Men try to figure out what women want and they try to give it to them. Now, where it all goes off the rails is that women lie about what they want, so you can never get it right or they can't be pleased. Some would say there's nothing that makes them happy. So it's basically you end up being like a gerbil on a treadmill. I could make you happy today if only I'll do a little bit more. All right. That wasn't enough, but I think I can make you happy today. Yesterday was a loser. I did everything I could, but it didn't work out. But today I'm just going to work through your list of things you want me to do. I'm going to put that shirt on you want me to wear. I'm going to do what you want me to do. Won't work out. Won't work out. But do women do the same thing, aside from looking good, which of course women do put effort into looking good for men? Do they also put effort into doing whatever would make men happy as best they understand it? Is that a thing? We see some yeses. We see some yeses, but I think that's the trad wife talking about. Maybe the tradwives do. Maybe that's the difference. All right. Narcissistic abuse to put a man on a treadmill and never give him any positive reinforcement? It does seem like narcissistic abuse. You try very hard to please your husband. Well, all right, let me speak for a moment to the viewer who said, I try very hard to please my husband. I would like to put a little color on that comment. You. You try very hard to please your husband. So let's see what would be included in that Would. Would, let's say doing shopping for his clothes, maybe buying him a new shirt that he didn't ask for. Would that be part of it? Buying things for him with his money or with your shared money? I guess, yeah. Yeah. The problem is I don't know if women understand what men need, we just need a sandwich and a blowjob. Am I right, men? Because a sandwich and a blow job are both appreciation. They're basically physical manifestations of appreciation. And we work for appreciation. We're just appreciation animals. Oh, okay. As long as you appreciate it, I'll do that. Would you bang your head against this wall? Would you appreciate it? Yes, I would. Okay, I'll bang my head against the wall. I just need that appreciation. That's all I'm working for. So sandwich in a blow job is really just the physical version of the appreciation. All right. Well, if you understand what men want, then trying to please them seems like it'd be pretty easy. More examples of poorly run California, my state. That is total garbage. So some insurers are pulling out of the state, and I didn't know the details of why. This is going to make your head explode. This is why State Farm and some others don't want to offer insurance. Home insurance in California. California is the only state. I saw this in the Wall Street Journal. California is the only state that forces insurers to base their rates on the past. It's the only state. Do you know what's wrong with the past? It does not describe the future. In California, our forests are getting drier and less managed, so things are much more dangerous in terms of fire than they ever have been before. Now, insurance companies are fine with that. Normally they just say, well, you live in a combustible state. We'll charge you a lot for that and you'll have insurance and we'll make money and you'll pay too much for it. But that's not our fault. And then everybody have insurance. But in California, you have to set the rate based on what the forest fire situation used to be. Just think about that. You know, we've clearly entered a period where because of climate or forest management or whatever it is, the risk of a fire in California is way higher next year than the average of any year in the past. And the insurance company can't set the rates based on that. How much worse could you run a state? It's the only one. All of the other states don't have this problem just because they're not incompetent. They let the free market do what the free market wants to do. How hard is that? I mean, all the other states got it right. All the other states that California can't figure it out. So we don't get insurance. Our houses just burn up. Insane. Speaking of California, in Oakland, which you might know is One of the more dangerous places to go. I certainly would never step foot in Oakland. I've been invited to Oakland a few times in the past few years, and I always just laugh. I go, seriously, you think there's any reason that would get me to Oakland? There's nothing. There isn't anything. You could give me the Nobel fucking Prize in Oakland and I'd say, mail it to me. I'm not going to step foot in Oakland. That's just not going to happen. So there was a video of a meeting in which the citizens were outraged about all the crime, especially the violent stuff and the physical stuff. And there was a big crowd, people who had joined to say that the lack of policing had gone too far. And the woman who was talking asked a show of hands how many of them had been assaulted, Just physically assaulted. And an alarming number of people raised their hands. Physically assaulted. You know, I'm not talking about a property crime, just their body was physically assaulted somewhere in the street. And it's like everybody's raising their hand. How often do you get assaulted just walking down the street in Oakland? Looks like it's a daily occurrence anyway, so that's another poor California management. Another topic. I'm going to talk about this because it rhymes. Did you know that America has a birth dearth? Yeah, there's a dearth of births. So the birth dearth, which is really the only reason I'm talking about this story, is so I can say birth dearth. Now you're going to say it at home. You have to say it. Say it on your own. Everybody. You have to say it. Birth dearth. It's just too fun not to say. You can feel it, right? As soon as I said it, you said to yourself, I have to say that. Birth dearth. And then you felt, okay, well, so here's what makes me think we live in a simulation. How do you explain the fact that the human population is stalling and starting to decrease at exactly the time the AI is going to take jobs? Does that feel like a little bit too on the nose? Like, how could those two things happen at the same time? That the exact answer to AI taking all our jobs is fewer people. Right. Now, what's our other biggest problem? When you say inflation. Inflation is a terrible problem. Do you know what is the best solution to inflation? An improvement in productivity so that one person can make more stuff. Then that stuff will be less cost per unit because it was made more cheaply. And then people pay less for stuff. And that's the answer to inflation. So it's kind of weird that all of our problems, the big ones, I would argue that climate is also something that will be solved by AI. For example, if you wanted to have a proper fusion reactor, which would certainly get you closer to solving all the climate issues, if there are any. You need AI to keep your fusion reactor optimized. So there's a whole bunch of places where AI will probably figure out better battery technology and a bunch of stuff like that. So it's kind of weird that AI is coming along at exactly the time when it's the only thing that would solve our other biggest problems. Isn't that weird? Everything from climate and energy to too many people old, not enough young workers, inflation, even loneliness. What about loneliness? What about health care? These are all things that AI is going to be insanely useful for mitigating those problems. I don't know. It's such a weird coincidence that you could have 14 billion years of this universe and then in this little slice of time, that those things all happen at the same time. Now could be it's just a symptom of an advanced civilization. So maybe it's not a coincidence, but. But I'm glad it's happening. All right. Breitbart was reporting that according to polls, Trump beats DeSantis on essentially every important policy issue. It's not even close. Now, this unfortunately plays very much into the. Desantis is the tribute band. Yeah, it's the tribute band that's the problem most situations. Let's take a more classic example. Let's take Joe Biden versus RFK Jr. RFK Jr. Is not the weak version of Joe Biden or vice versa. It's not like one is just a little better than the other. They have different ideas. The things that RFK Jr would do are very much not the things that. That Joe Biden would do. So if you're looking at those two, that's a real choice, wouldn't you say? If you say, oh, I like a little bit more of these Biden opinions than these RFK junior Opinions, that's a real choice. But if you look at Trump and DeSantis, the only thing that's different because their policies are largely the same, at least the ones they're serious about. Right. They're largely the same. I don't know how DeSantis can make an argument, except that he would attract less negative attention. But what's happening? As soon as DeSantis gets some purchase, MSNBC starts calling him the tiny Mussolini, which is super racist by the way. Work with me here for a moment. True or false, if the Democrats are calling Trump Hitler because Trump is German by ancestry, and they're calling Desantis Mussolini, that's not racist. I mean, seriously, how is that not super obviously racist? Like, that's. That's right out there. Is there any interpretation needed? I don't think so. That, to me, looks 100% cleanly racist. Yeah, so. So if we get a Cambodian American guy running for president, are they going to call him Pol Pot? You betcha. You betcha. Do you know why? Because apparently they can be racist right in front of you without any kind of blowback. There's no blowback. They could just be overtly racist. It's not even a story because they decided it wasn't a story. And I can't make it a story. So it's just not. All right. This is the weirdest story. I do not know what to make of this story. So allegedly there is some document called An FD 1023, which I'm told they don't. This is an FBI document that writes up some story from an informant. Now, my understanding is that they don't use that form unless the informant is credible in their opinion. So in other words, the form itself is telling you that the FBI believes that is not necessarily true, but that the source has weight. It's a trusted source, and the trusted source. Allegedly. But the Republicans haven't seen it. They're asking to see it, but there's some whistleblower says it exists, and apparently Director Wray confirms it exists, and it seems to show documented evidence. This is the claim. This is not confirmed documented evidence of the Biden family taking money for political favors, which would be illegal. Now question number one. Do you believe that if we were to ever see this document? Because Comer and whoever else is trying to get a hold of it, but the FBI doesn't want to give it to him. Apparently Director Wray has offered that they can see it. So they can see it in a skiff. But then the Republicans are saying that's not good enough. Has to be released. Now, that's kind of interesting, isn't it? Because the SCIF would tell me that it's a pretty big. If you put it in the skiff, that means that nobody can take a copy. They can only go read it in a protected place. That would be for the most sensitive secrets. The most sensitive secrets. What is it about this document that makes it that. Why is this a skiff only document? Is it because it's so dangerous to Biden. Is it because they don't know if it's true? It could be that they don't know if it's true, which would make it dangerous, right? And that would be a good reason to restrict it if they didn't think it was true. Necessarily true. But here's the thing that's missing in the story. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at no time has Director Ray, who seems to confirm that this document exists. He has never characterized it. Is that true? He's only said it exists, but he's not characterized it. Isn't that like really, really missing? Let me give you an example. If he knew that it was a big nothing, don't you think he would have characterized it as a big nothing? But yes, you can see it. I'll let you see it in the skiff. But I'm telling you, you're wasting your time because it's a big nothing. So that suggests to me that Director Ray thinks there's some chance it's a big something. Am I wrong? Because otherwise. Otherwise he would either give it to him. Now, I do understand why you might not want to give sensitive things to people, even if they ask, even if they have a right. There could be real security reasons why you don't do that. But not characterizing it is really missing. Or how about this? Yes, the document exists and yes, I'll let you see it. But my issue is that it's not 100% verified, so it might cause more rumors than it should. That would be useful, right? Wouldn't you consider that good and useful characterization of it? We don't know if it's true. Therefore, if you look at it and get all worked up, that might be causing problems, but we'll put it into skiff so you can see for yourself. I would consider that fairly credible if he said that. But just saying we do have it and you can't get a copy suggests that they want to keep the ability to mischaracterize it. In other words, if they let the Republicans in to look at it but they couldn't take a copy and show it to us, then we would have to believe the Republicans point of view. And then the Democrats could simply say we looked at it too, and it doesn't say that. Right? And then that's the end of the story. The Democrats could say we looked at it too. It doesn't say that. That's all. That's the end of it. And we would never know because we can't see it then the Republicans would say, you're lying. It does say that. And the Democrats will say, well, too bad nobody else gets to see it. And we say it's not there. So it's a tie. Wow. Now, I've also heard that the reason the FBI or the Department of Justice is slow, allegedly slow, walking Hunter Biden's investigation is they're actually trying to slow walk it past the statute of limitations and they have a good shot at doing it. Is that like seven years or something? I don't know what the actual limit is for any various allegations, but it looks like they've gone four or five years. How many years have they dragged it down so far? And does that mean that Joe Biden. Does that mean that Joe Biden needs to have another four years to get Hunter over the statute of limitations? Because I think that nobody in the government is going to challenge the President. I think it's too dangerous. So I think that if Joe Biden can stay in office four more years, I think he can pull Hunter over the finish line, get him past the statute of limitations. Is that the whole. Is that the whole reason the country is, is being, you know, suffering under a Biden so he can keep his son out of jail? Because if you ask me why somebody who's 400 years old wants a second term, I can only think it's personal. That does not seem political to me. Right. It feels like Joe is only running to protect Hunter because he's the only one who can do it. He was the only one who can do it. You know, if you put, you put a Republican and their hunters in a lot of trouble, I would think, or Biden probably thinks. So let me ask you, given that there is one source saying this document exists and that it has damning information on it, do you think that that one source, the whistleblower, and maybe there's more than one whistleblower. Give me a fact check. Is there more than one whistleblower who has seen the FD 1023 form and says it's damning? Well, I'm saying yeses. There's more than one. Okay. More than one changes the story completely, in my opinion. If it were only one, then I would say, well, that's a wait and see. If it's two or three and they separately have the same story, then I'd start to think there's something there. But I guess I think I'm expecting to be underwhelmed if we should ever see it. I don't believe the wall is Closing in or the walls are closing. Do you, do you think Colmer has the goods this time? Because it feels exactly like Schiff chasing Trump. The walls are closing in. It just doesn't feel like it's going to close in. The FBI will release it after Trump's arrest maybe. All right, here's the latest hoax, Trump hoax. You know, there's going to be more, but this is what I call a double tap hoax. So a double tap Trump hoax is where they, they do the hoax itself and then Trump reacts to the hoax and the way he reacts to the hoax creates the second tap. So for example, they might say he's trying to overthrow the government and then he says, no, I'm not. And maybe I would fire the people who were investigating me for this because it's all bs. And then they take the fact that he would fire the people behind the hoax as proof that he's an authoritarian. So they get two taps out of one hoax, the hoax itself. And then when he says he'll react to the hoax, you know, by getting rid of the people who persecuted him, then he's an authoritarian. The second hoax, they can hoax themselves all the way to the bottom of the well. So the current one is that there's some existence of audio in which Trump says he kept some classified documents related to a plan to attack Iran. And apparently it was General Mark Milley's write up of his plan for attacking Iran, which it looks like Trump may have turned down several times. Now, why do you think Trump would want to keep that document of Mark Milley with an Iran attack plan? Why would he want that? Of all the things he could keep, why would he want that? I have a theory because it makes Mark Milley look like the dumbest guy in the world and a warmonger and somebody who's going to get you all killed. I think he, he wanted that document to prove that his generals were idiots, because he said that directly, which, by the way, just makes me love him. I've got lots of things I can complain about Trump, just like all of us do. I can come up with lists. It would look a lot like yours. But when he says that his generals are idiots, I 100% believe him. I actually believe that the man with no military experience, Trump would be far more trustworthy than any of his generals because the generals are locked into the military industrial complex and that makes them completely non credible. I wouldn't believe any of them. I don't think they have any credibility in our current system. And Mark Milley in my opinion, whenever I see him talk, I think to myself, why does he seem dumb? Because there are plenty of politicians that maybe are kind of dumb, but at least when they talk in public, they can put on a good show. Don't you think there are some politicians that you think are maybe not up to the job, but they can still do a speech and it still sounds good for their side. But, Mark, Billy, no matter what he talked about, looked dumb to me. Like, he just screams dumb. And that scares a out of me because he's the guy with the, you know, the military. Might I. My guess. This is just a guess, just speculation. I think Trump had the same opinion of him, that he's actually just dumb and he wanted a document that proved it. That might be why he had the document. I'm just speculating. I don't know. You can't read any minds. All right, So there's a study, CNN had a little article that says that people who swear have certain characteristics, and there are certain benefits of swearing. Do you know anybody who would fall into this category? Apparently, swearing is correlated with high intelligence, but only if you do it well. You know, if you're just doing F bombs and N words and stuff, you know that that's not the clever kind of swearing, but apparently it's correlated with high intelligence. Swearing is a sign of honesty. It can lower. It can improve your pain tolerance, and it's correlated with creativity. So do you know what I say when a study says that swearing is correlated with high intelligence, honesty, lower pain tolerance, and creativity? Fuck yeah. Yeah. All right. University of North Carolina Medical School. This is my favorite story of the day. They, too, had a DEI task force that came up with some suggestions. And when they came up with their suggestions and the University of North Carolina Medical School looked at the suggestions, they thought the best thing they could do was disband the DEI task force. I got a suggestion for you. How about, everything you did is a complete waste of time and ridiculous, and you're all fired? So that's what happened there. Some of the recommendations were that the medical students there would be required to study topics such as unconscious bias, awareness, understanding and responding to microaggressions, and, quote, understanding that America's medical system is structurally racist. The administrators of the school said, well, well, how about we just get rid of all of you guys and then everything's fine? All right, well, you can see more of that. So there's evidence now from the Democrats that the GOP apparently was willing to default to let America default on its obligations if they didn't get some changes to the, the debt relief and budget. Now I heard that described as Republicans being either reckless or bad or dangerous or something because it was Representative Lew who was saying it. So that was a Democrat's perspective, is that the Republicans were really, really on dangerous territory and were literally willing to let the country default, default if they didn't get their Republican stuff into the legislation. Now what do you think about that? To which I say finally, finally, they weren't bluffing. Do you know the best bluff, if you're negotiating the best bluff is not bluffing. You're actually willing to do the thing you're willing to do. And there's no doubt about it, apparently the Republicans, and I'm going to give them a sitting ovation for this, apparently McCarthy convinced the Democrats that in the real world they would prefer default over the Democrats plans. And do you know what? I agree. I would have preferred that the government default with all of the disruption that causes. I prefer that. And apparently the Republicans were ballsy enough to prefer it and also communicate it and they sold it because they got some stuff. Now nobody gets everything right. We get to complain about your own side. This is when you do that. But if I had a complaint about that, it would be that they should have gotten more. Here's what I'd like. I'd like to see some legislation that says if we don't, you know, reduce our debt by X amount in the coming budget requirements or budget negotiations, that there's no negotiations, that if we miss our target this year and let's say the national debt increases, if the national debt increases, I would like legislation that says next year every budget item will be cut by the same percentage. 1%, 5%, whatever it is. Do you don't think that every budget could be cut by 5%? Yeah, it could, it could. That's how every big business does this. Because I used to work in the budgeting and forecasting parts of big businesses. That was primarily my job, budget forecasting. And I can't tell you how many times I went through the following process. I would talk to each manager and find out what budget they needed for the year. I would sum them all up and take them to the big boss. And it would be more than the big boss thought he could get for his budget. And he'd say, all right, this is great, just tell everybody to cut by 10%. And I would say, oh wait, wait, that's crazy, that's crazy. These people did a lot of work to Figure out how much they really need to do the job. If you just cut them 10%, there'll be all these people who just can't do the thing. Your whole operational evaporate. And then the top manager looked at me and he smiled and he said, tell them to cut everything 10%. And I fussed a little bit more, and then he said, 10%, and I walked out and I told everybody to cut their budget by 10%. You know what happened? They all cut their budget by 10% and everything was fine. They all cut their budget by 10%. Everything was fine. Everything. Everything was fine. You don't think the government can do that? Of course they can. Of course they can. And the worst thing we could do is let Congress negotiate the details. That's the worst thing you could do, which is what they do. Don't let them negotiate details. Just tell them they have 10% less for everything next year and you're done. Now, suppose there's a new thing. You need some, let's say, AI legislation group, you know, some group that manages AI federally. So you need to fund them. Okay? 100% of all that money for the new thing comes out of the existing things in an equal way. So for the new thing, everybody is 0.01% less than their budget. So it's not just 10%, it's 10.02. Everybody could live with that. Now you say to yourself, well, but what about the things that are based on population, such as there are just more people who need more services. To which I say, figure it out. Figure it out. It's how businesses do it. They, they have to do more with less all the time. They don't have a choice. You're always doing more with less. It's just the basic management, you know, reality. So I would like. I would like our government to do less. And if they can't hit the. Well, here's the way I put it. Every one of the individual budget things that the government needs are important in their own way, but they're all subsidiary to the fact that you can't spend more than you have forever. So that just has to be a bigger objective. And if we can't agree on a budget that would reduce, just has to be 10% across the board or whatever the percent is, and just move on. All right, But I like the fact that the original debt ceiling idea from the Democrats was so bad that Republicans were literally willing to default the whole country to not do it. And like I say, that's a sitting ovation. I'D give you a standing ovation if maybe they got a little bit more or reduced the debt more or something like that. But that's a sitting ovation. That's adequate. That's an adequate job. So good on Adequate for McCarthy. All right. Not ideal, but adequate. Well, I'm pretty sure this is the best live stream you're going to see today. Is there any story I forgot? Anything that you were hoping I would talk about that I didn't? What convinced the Democrats they were serious? Probably just the way they acted and the fact that there wasn't much. There weren't enough people breaking with the majority, I guess. What companies have you successfully run with verifiable proof? Whenever you talk about your past, you always claim whatever the topic is you used to do. What made you such a douchebag? Was there something that hurt you and did somebody touch you in the wrong way? Why would you even ask that question in such an asshole way? I might be the most easily verifiable person in the world. Do you know how many thousands of people are completely aware that I had the jobs that I say I had and how easy it would be to check it? Has anybody ever doubted it? Like, you don't think I worked for a bank and did budgets? Really? Would I make that up? I just made up old job and I thought I'd get away with it. Is that what you think? Yeah. Trump increased the debt as well. Absolutely. Yeah. I think we can be adult enough to say Trump did some things great, some things average, and some things you absolutely wish he didn't do. Anybody have a problem with that? Why can't we just talk about it? Honestly? Some stuff great, some stuff average, some stuff totally wish he hadn't done, and that would be true for all the presidents, but, I mean, we're just going to be like idiots if we just say he's the golden boy and does no wrong. Yeah, I'm not on that train now. I know it seemed like that in 2016 because I kept telling you that the things other people said were mistakes were not mistakes. But that's because I was right. It's just because I was right. That's why I said it. All right. Oh, Twitter banned the what Is a woman? Documentary today for hate speech and misgendering. And Matt Walsh has threatened to walk away from Twitter. Huh? Twitter banned what is a woman? So that's the little Matt Walsh video. That's interesting. I need to know more about that. I don't know if that's a musk decision or not? Might be. By the way, Elon Musk is back to richest man in the world, although I don't think that's real. Do you think that we know who the richest person in the world is? Because I think you have to. You have to include the dictators as owning all of the wealth of the nation. Right. Because they have control over it. So I would imagine you've got some, you know, Arab nation, oil countries or bigger. Tate. Is there some Andrew Tate news coming out? Yeah, the Vatican may be. Yay. And Adidas. What's up with ye and Adidas? I don't know anything about that. Can you believe that ye got married? Isn't that weird? I was not expecting him to get married again. Yeah, he got married again to a woman. They say, why is RFK wrong that nuke plants should be able to get private insurance if they're truly safe? Well, he's wrong because the insurance company, the insurance business is probably looking at older models and looking at the past. So just as we're talking insurance should be able to look at the future. They should also be able to look at the past, but the past is misleading. So this is another case where if the insurance companies could base on what the future looks like versus how things have gone in the past, they would make different decisions. In my opinion, nuclear power plants should be insured by the government and the company itself, because the company itself might go out of business if something goes bad. But I don't think that private insurance companies should be in the business of insuring nukes. And the reason is that if anything goes wrong with a nuclear plant, potentially it could be really expensive. So that might be more than a company wants to take a risk on. So they might make all kinds of money for 20 years. One meltdown could wipe out their profitability for the whole 20 years. So from an economic model perspective, it's not that insurance companies are smarter than we are, it's just that the size of the risk is a government size, not a company size. Does that make sense? Did I sell that? It's just that the nature of the risk is. I think it's very small risk, but that's why you have insurance. You know, there's a small risk that I will die today, but I have insurance today. You know, even those are very small risk that I'll die today. So it's very common to have insurance for something of which the actual risk is very small. But if it happened, it would be very bad. Right. If I died today, that'd be very bad but very, very small risk. So I think it's just a country size risk and not a insurance company risk. And the reason a country could take it on is because the country gets a benefit that the insurance company does not get. If you're managing a country, you want energy to be as available as possible. If you're managing an insurance company, then you're just looking at actuarial tables. You're not looking at the benefit of the country so much. Are the Rolls Royce new plants insurable? Good question. So Rolls Royce is making these small modular reactors and they are in the business of making them. They're not thinking about it, they're in the business of making them. Did they get insurance? That would be the question, right? Don't you assume they did? Because I doubt they'd be operating if they didn't have it. Maybe, I mean if it was. If they're still using some kind of venture capital or something, maybe they don't have insurance. I think State Farm is only not going to ensure for new accounts. So they're going to service. You know, if you already have the insurance, you're good. I don't know if you can renew it though. You might not be able to renew it. No, they don't. They're self insured. You actually know that there's somebody here who knows if the Rolls Royce plant is insured. How in the world would you know that. With Scott? Like a thorium reactor in his backyard or is he nimby? I think I would have the same opinion as everybody else. Wouldn't you all have the same opinion that you'd like it in somebody else's backyard if you have a choice? Is that dumb? But it's also true that I live near a nuclear facility. I do willingly live near a nuclear facility. So what's that do to your argument? I literally live within the blast zone of a nuclear facility and I chose to. I knew it when I built my house here. So I guess I passed that test. I passed the test of being near a nuclear site and it didn't. Didn't change any of my actions. Scott, you can still save your soul if I become a Christian. All right. Was land cheap. I don't know. Thorium reactors. Some people like them. Yeah. It's time to wrap up YouTube. All right, YouTubers, thanks for joining. And I will. I'll go save my soul. You know, the good news is I don't have one. So there's that. How many of you believe you have a soul? Mostly yeses, A smattering of no. Mostly s. And do you think you would define a soul the same way? Well, let me ask you this. Does your soul have a memory like a brain does? Does your soul have a memory? No. Yes. So some of you say that your soul has a memory, just like a physical brain or a computer does. What is a soul made enough that it can have a memory? I understand how a brain or a computer could have a memory because it's a physical change on a physical object. But a soul has no physicality. So what would be the mechanism for memory production? Yeah, you could be a spiritual being, but would your spiritual being have a memory? Because memory is part of the physical world, we don't have a sense of how that could exist in a non physical world. So is it consistent to believe that your soul is non physical, but that it has memory? Could a non physical thing have memory? Yes. So a non physical thing could have a memory. Even though the way we store memories is on a physical object, how would you store it? What would it be stored in? What would be the soup in which those memories are stored? Spirit bites. It's in the cloud. Yeah. Your soul has a history, but does it remember its history? And where would it store that memory? So I guess the part where I say that souls are imaginary. Well, let me put it a different way. I believe that I have a soul in a physical sense, but it's like a boundary thing, where you can see a boundary, but a boundary doesn't exist, right? If you look at the horizon, you can point to the horizon, say, all right, there's the horizon, but there's no horizon. You can't grab a handful of horizon, right? It's a concept. So it could be that your soul is more of a concept. And here's a concept that I, that I buy into that the things you do in your life create a permanent ripple into the future. Because energy never changes, right? It's always. It's always doing something. So whatever permanent ripples I put on history is my soul. For example, I introduced the concept of a talent stack, which you see in a lot of other books now. And people use it and talk about it. That's my soul. Not by itself, but the things which I changed during my life will ripple forever. Dilbert will probably be there for a while now. It might decrease in the sense that you can't recognize the impact. So after, you know, a generation or so, you might not see any direct thing that I ever left on this earth, but maybe indirectly you know, combined with all the other souls and their impact on everything indirectly, I might be, you know, some small percentage of what happened in the future. And I call that my soul. All right, so that would be an example of how you could have a soul that doesn't have. Doesn't need a memory. Right. So the soul that is just the ripple of your life, you know, the things that you did in your life, that doesn't have memory, it is simply cause and effect. But I would. I would buy into that as being a soul. If I'm an avatar, my soul is actually in my creator's experience, not mine. Yeah, boy. You know, and I'm seeing a reference here on YouTube, but I didn't realize at the time how much. How important it was when I was doing two live streams a day during the pandemic, during the lockdowns. People continue to tell me how that was a good mental health process, I guess. Yeah, I'm seeing lots of people saying yes to that now. Well, I'd love to think it saved lives. I don't know. Yeah, I thought it was important. I just didn't realize how important. Just didn't realize it. So I'm glad I did that, and I'm glad that that brought us together. And YouTube. I'm going to say bye for now. Just talk to the locals people a little bit more, and I'll see you tomorrow. Thanks for joining.