Episode 609 Scott Adams Russia Collusion Dead-Enders, F35s and Iran, Executing White Supremacists

Hey, everybody, come on in here. It's time for coffee with Scott Adams. And in order to enjoy it properly, it's gonna require some coffee. You could use a beverage of your own choice, but I do not recommend holding your beverage in your hands. No, don't use your hands to hold your beverage. Instead, how about a cup or a mug or a glass? How about a steinicellus? A tanker to thermos, A flask, a canteen, a vessel of any kind except for your hands. Fill it with your favorite liquid and get ready to enjoy the dopamine hit of the day. The best part of your day, the part that gets everything going just right. Wow. It's going to be an amazing day. Join me now for this simultaneous sip. Oh, perfect. Nailed it. Stuck the landing. Good stuff. All right, so we're still dealing with the aftermath of the Mueller. Mueller conversation with Congress, and there's a lot of head shaking stuff going on. So let me just talk about it a little bit. The most amazing thing is that we're hearing reports that maybe everybody in Washington sort of already knew that Mueller had lost it a little bit. In other words, apparently it was a, quote, open secret among Washington insiders that Mueller was the Mueller that we saw testifying, which was not the Muller who operated at full speed of his youth, shall we say? Now, are you kidding me? Everything in the world in that town leaks. Except that of all the things that could have leaked in Washington. Of all the things that could have leaked, nobody leaked that. Are you freaking kidding me? Come on. So that's weird that nobody hinted anything was wrong with Muller the entire time. Now, the first time I had a suspicion that there was something wrong was when we saw some video of photographers circling Muller as he was trying to get in the car. And I remember looking at it and thinking, huh, Muller looks confused and frightened and not sure what he's doing. And all he's doing is getting in a car. And sure, there were people around him, but he didn't look capable. Now, do you remember that? Do you remember seeing that video of. It was nothing but him walking to his car and a lot of reporters and cameras gathered around to try to get him to quote. But he just didn't look like he knew how to get into a car that. Well, it just. There was something missing there. And I remember thinking, oh, maybe it's just because he's surrounded and he's sure shy or something. I don't know. But that should have clued me in. I did not pick it up as clearly as I Should have. But in retrospect, you could see it back then. So here are some things that are interesting. Some of you may recall that when the Russia thing first started, people were talking about the deep state, and there was a vast deep state, deep state conspiracy to overthrow the government and get rid of Trump. And I said, well, I'm not sure it's a deep space, deep, deep space, deep state conspiracy. I don't know that they all meet in, you know, meet in dark rooms, and I don't know that they're necessarily talking to each other, but it could be that there are lots of people who are independently doing things that when you put them all together, it looks like they're coordinated, but they're just all doing their own. Their own thing. I'm not so sure that's true anymore. Now, it's probably still true that not everybody who is, let's say, participating in one way or another, it's probably not true that they were all talking to each other. So I'm going to stick with the. The general statement that it wasn't a vast coordinated thing. But it's pretty clear now, or it's becoming clear that there were at least pockets of people who were doing some things that probably are going to send some people to jail. So, for example, I would not be surprised if at the end of. Is it Durham, who's the attorney who's looking into how the whole thing started? I would not be surprised if this ended with Mueller's attorneys, You know, the lawyers who were working for Mueller. I would not be surprised if some of them ended up in jail, would you? Because at this point, it's pretty clear that the lawyers working for Mueller have a lot of questions that need to be answered. And those answers are not obvious to me. It's not obvious to me how anybody can answer those questions, but that doesn't mean they can't. Lawyers are pretty good at coming up with reasons that things happened. So I don't know about Comey per se, and I'm not sure that Comey was part of any kind of grand conspiracy. But what does appear clear ish. All right, we'll get rid of that troll. What does appear clear ish is that Mueller's lawyers were not working for Mueller. The public needed to know that, because my understanding is that Mueller was the one chosen because of his independence and his credibility to be the leader of this effort. It was his credibility that really made the whole thing work. And now that he's lost his credibility by demonstrating that maybe he's lost his step. There are also reports that he wasn't really even hands on. In other words, the credibility of this most important project was somebody that. I don't know, nobody we know. So the entire process was not what the public signed up for. It was not credible, and it cost tens of millions of dollars. And they've got to explain why there were some alleged. Alleged exculpatory material that was left out of their reports and their FISA applications. I guess there's some evidence that there's a. In existence somewhere, a video. Not video, a audio recording of a conversation with Papadopoulos in which, if we were to hear that conversation, and some people have apparently, like Trent. Trent Gowdy, there's evidence that there is such a thing and that some people have heard it and that when we hear it, it's gonna make it look like the whole thing was a fraud. Now, everything we hear is different than the way we imagine we're going to hear it. When you hear news is coming and then you compare it to the news you actually get, well, they tend to be pretty different. So Trey Gowdy. Yes. Not Trent Gowdy. Sorry, I said his name wrong. Trey Gowdy. Not Trent Gowdy. There's no such thing as a Trent Gowdy. In the government, at least. All right, so here are the people who have the most to explain. Certainly Mueller's lawyers look like they were not credible players. Whether they were involved in an outright attempt to overthrow the government, I would say is not yet demonstrated, but they certainly were not. What's the best word? They were not honest and they were not ethical. So I'm going to say that for sure, because if Mueller's attorneys had been honest and ethical, they would have asked for Mueller to recuse himself from the situation because he wasn't in charge. So I think that if they were not reporting to Barr or anybody else, if they were not reporting that there was something wrong with the process, then they're not credible players and they're not ethical at the very least. Now, whether that means they also did anything illegal, I don't see any direct evidence of that. So I won't say that in public. But they got some explaining to do. So Mueller's lawyers don't look exactly like they're free and clear of suspicion. Then there's the FBI employees themselves, Strock and Page and whoever else was there. And, you know, were those people part of a conspiracy or were they just doing their job? Well, so far. So far it looks like maybe they were just doing their job. You can't really distinguish that from, you know, a plot to overthrow the government because the facts would look sort of similar if they were just doing their jobs. But they got some. There's some questions to be answered about that conversation with Papadopoulos about filling out the FISA warrants and all that. Then you've got Fusion gps. Well, they got a lot of questions to answer. Was it Great Britain, was it Russia? Who was behind them? Was it Hillary Clinton, Was it Obama? But it looks like almost everything sort of circles back to them. And then when was added to the story that Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS spend time with that Russian lawyer of the Trump Tower meeting both before and after the meeting. Well, now we've got some questions that need to be answered. I heard a theory yesterday about somebody who was behind it all. I'm not going to give you a name, but there is at least a theory out there that there's an individual who is behind it all. It's not George Soros, but we shall see. Now, if I'm right, we should be able to figure out who that individual is. In other words, it would be a trail that would lead back to an individual. Now, I don't know if that'll happen. I'm just telling you, sometimes I hear things ahead of time and there is an individual who should be worried right now. All right. Michael Moore says the Democrats can't win with their current candidates. And that's notable because Michael Moore said that Trump would probably win. So Michael Moore is an anti Trumper who for whatever reason doesn't seem to live in a wonder world of illusion. He sees that the Democrats have nobody who is a star. And while he likes Bernie, he is sort of discounting Bernie as a potential twin. So Michael Moore doesn't think Democrats can win. That's what I think. The slaughter meter is set at 300% unless something changes. All right. Did you hear? This was a small story, but the federal government is reinstituting the death penalty. Apparently that had been on hold for X number of years. I'm not sure the details, but those people convicted of federal crimes as opposed to state crimes where some states were still executing, but for the federal stuff, there was a moratorium on that. I don't know the details, doesn't matter. But that's ended. Now, what could be scarier? If you're an anti Trumper and you hear that the death penalty is reinstituted because you're already afraid, oh, he's the big old Nazi racist Hitler and he's going to start killing people. It's a sign of the end times. Well, that's why you might have thought, except as Joel Pollack pointed out, it turns out that the first person they're going to execute. Do you know who the first person they're going to execute is? A white supremacist. I'm not making that up. The first person that's going to be executed under the Trump administration's reinstituting the death penalty is a white supremacist. Why is that great and amazing? Well, the obvious reason it violates. It violates the hallucination that the President is a supporter of white supremacists. I mean, you can't violate that hallucination any harder than actually executing one of them. But it's even better than that, because the nature of this sort of story is that whoever gets executed first is going to get a lot of attention. Whoever gets executed second may be a lot less attention. So what you're going to remember about this whole story is that President Trump executed a white supremacist. And he didn't need to. He didn't need to. It was optional because he just could. He could have kept the law the way it was. Didn't need to do it. So in terms of political cleverness, this is just a 10 out of 10. You know, you can draw your own conclusions about whether it's dirty pool and whatever you want, but from a political optical point of view, I don't even know if this is accidental. I don't know if they just blundered into this lucky situation, or somebody saw it and said, hey, you know, there's this situation. If we do this, you know, we can get a win. I don't know how intentional this was. If it were intentional, somebody's pretty darn smart. And if it's accidental, somebody's pretty darn lucky. But it was pretty darn perfect. Got into a little Twitter conversation with Representative Ted Lieu. So Ted Lieu was making an analogy on Twitter. He was saying that although Mueller did not conclude that President Trump was guilty of anything, that what he did provide was some ham and some sandwich and some, you know, some bread, and he gave you all the ingredients for a ham sandwich. And just the fact that Mueller doesn't want to call it a ham sandwich doesn't make it not a ham sandwich. If you've got bread and ham and you've put them together just right now, as you know, analogies are just terrific analogies. I'm joking, of course. I Make fun of analogies every day. Analogies never prove anything. But I joined that conversation and retweeted that with my own comment. And I said, if two people are standing in a room, one of them sees an elephant, and they're standing right next to each other, and the person next to them says, no, there's no elephant, which one of them has the right version of reality? It's always the one who doesn't see the elephant. Right? The person who's seeing things that the person standing right next to him can't see is the one that's almost always hallucinating. Generally speaking, hallucinations are additions to the. To the universe. They are not subtractions. Then, as somebody is prompting me here, Mark Cuban entered the conversation and responded to my response. And I wrote that down somewhere. And Mark Cuban says, not. When it comes to politics, partisanship via both parties has destroyed common sense and distorted reality. Well, I don't disagree with the general statement that people are irrational, but I responded that common sense has always been an illusion. There's no such thing as common sense, and politics certainly did not destroy it. Common sense never existed. We've never had it. We just didn't notice until recently. And it's the noticing that's what's different. It's not the fact that we're irrational suddenly. We didn't suddenly become irrational. We've always been this irrational. Exactly this irrational. No difference. We're 100% irrational. Always were, probably always will be until we merge with computers and maybe the computers fix us. But certainly there's no situation where things were pretty rational before. And then in the age of Trump, we all went crazy. That didn't happen. What happened was. And by the way, I predicted this publicly and multiple times before it happened, years before it happened. And when Trump was entering the race back in 2015, I said clearly and frequently he was going to change more than politics. He was going to change the way we saw reality itself. And he did. Because we now understand in a way that we never understood before that the facts don't change people's opinions. They don't. People do not change their opinion because of facts. Now, scientists have long known this. The people who studied, you know, the human mind and decision making, everything, they've known this forever. But. Or at least for a long time. I've known this for a long time. I studied hypnosis and persuasion, and anybody who follows that path understands it as well. But the general public still was under the impression that they were around 90% rational. Most of the time. Most of the time I'm rational. Every once in a while I get a little crazy. But really, reality is reverse of that. We are irrational 90% of the time on all the big questions, anything that has some emotion or complexity to it, and the little stuff that we don't have any emotion about, about, let's say, balancing your checkbook, I like to use that example, has no emotion to it. So we can be rational about the little stuff, but that's it. And then Norm MacDonald jumped into that string. So we had Ted Lieu, me, Mark Cuban, Norm MacDonald. It was sort of a minor celebrity. Well, I guess Mark Cuban's a major celebrity, but the rest of us are a little more minor. So then I think it was Norm who said that regardless, people weren't going to change their mind. So he pointed out that people aren't going to change their mind based on facts, which I agree. Now, if we were to look at my situation of the person who sees the elephant as the one hallucinating, not the person who doesn't see it, how often would that have been right? Well, it would have been right with Russia collusion, because a lot of people saw the elephant and then when it was exhaustively studied, there was no elephant. How many people heard the president say that neo Nazis are fine people? A lot. Tens of millions of people believe they saw. The President of the United States said that neo Nazis are literally fine people, except that it didn't happen. Another tens of millions said, no, that didn't happen. I was watching the same stuff you were saying, watching. And he said the opposite. And so when you look into it, the transcript is clear. He said that he wasn't talking about neo Nazis. He said that directly. No, I'm not talking about neo Nazis and the white nationalists, they should be condemned totally. So was the elephant there or was the elephant not there? It was not there. As soon as you dug into it a little bit, there was no elephant. So once again, the people who saw the elephant were wrong. What happened when the Covington kids video came out? A bunch of people said, hey, there's that kid being a real jerk, or maybe he's a racist or something to that poor Native American man. That's what I saw on the first blush. Other people didn't see it. There were other people who watched that and said, I don't see it. Even on the first video, people said, I'm looking right at it. I don't see it. I thought, which one of us was hallucinating? I was the People who said, I'm looking at the same thing you are, Scott. I don't see it. Who was right? They were. They were. The people who, who didn't see it were right. And you'll see this consistently. The people who see the elephant are the ones who are hallucinating. Yes. The koi fish situation, etc. I think I'll sip to that. Talk about Iran. So speaking of Joel Pollock, he had probably the best story in the news today. Most of the news today is reruns and uninteresting things. If I'm being honest. It's sort of a slow news day. The most interesting article is in Breitbart by Joel Pollack. I tweeted it so you can see it in my Twitter feed. It's about the F35s and there's rumors that the Israelis flew an F35, an advanced aircraft that apparently their engineers had improved in some way to get better range and had flown over Iran, maybe took some pictures or did some surveillance and flew home without being detected. What? They flew all the way to Iran from Israel, which normally would have required refueling, which apparently they didn't need to do, took some pictures and went home without being detected. Is it true? Well, there's a rumor that it's true. And part of the rumor is that perhaps the Russians had revealed to the Israelis the secret codes to avoiding Russian radar that was placed in Iran. I guess if you have the secret code, you can make yourself invisible to the radar, which would make sense that the Russians would have such a thing because they might want to be invisible to their own radar someday if they sold the radar to some other country. Now, is any of this verifiable? Not really. I mean, not at this point. So what if only part of that was true? What if it were true? Just that they'd flown an F35 over Iran and went home without being detected? If that's true, Iran is just completely helpless, defense wise, they're completely helpless. What if the second part is true, that Russia gave the secret codes to Israel? I would put that at less credible just because it's a military thing and nobody really gives a military secret to anybody else unless their own safety is at stake. I would think so. I would be highly skeptical about that part. But here's the thing. You can't rule it out, can you? Can't rule it out because there's the thought that Russia might not want war with Iran. And maybe this is one of the ways that Iran is convinced the starting war is a Very, very bad idea. Very, very bad idea. By showing that their defenses are useless. Well, to me, that's maybe stretching a little too far. But the F35 is real. And whether that F35 is enhanced and whether or not it can make it there without refueling or not, I don't know if that's the big difference. But if it can, that's pretty important now. I mean, it's important, but it wouldn't be the difference between war and not war, I don't think, because they can be refueled. It's just harder. Now, what's interesting about this is that it may be part of the tapestry of why Iran may be more flexible in talking peace than they ever have before. I've been telling you that the way Iran is acting, even though they seem like they're trying to provoke a war by, you know, messing with stuff in the Straits, it doesn't look like they're going too far. It looks like they're. They're keeping their problem making to a bee sting. You know, it's just a little pink, just a little pinch here, a little pinch there. It seems like they're very intentionally keeping it below whatever is the level that would cause an actual shooting war. Probably because they don't want war. They say that, and I think that that's true. So I'll say it again. You can never feel comfortable predicting that you'll have peace in the Middle East. It's sort of the hardest prediction to ever make. But I will say this. We've never been closer. We might never be this close again. Pretty much everything, partly by accident, partly by skill, seems to be lining up for something big. All it would require at this point, literally one person to change their mind. And when I say change their mind, he doesn't really even need to change his mind. I'm talking about the Supreme Leader of Iran, Commenty. If he decided to try to make peace, well, everybody else would be on board with that. And it's the last thing you would need. Literally one person and the whole region is going to change. Would that one person like to have peace more than war? Well, some of you say, oh, it's a doomsday cult and Iran just wants to kill themselves to bring back, I don't know, the 12th Imam or something. I never believe any of that. I do not believe leaders of countries want their country to be destroyed in war for some large religious reason. Certainly not Iran. There are too many people in the, you know, around the Ayatollah, such that even if The Supreme Leader thought that was a good idea. There would be enough people around to make that not happen. You know, Iran is a dictatorship, but not really because even the Supreme Leader has to be appointed by the, I don't know, the council of other ayatollahs or whatever the heck it is. I forget the exact system. But you can't be the Supreme Leader unless the other religious leaders below you agree that you're the supreme Leader. So of course, once he's in power, he can do a lot of things to put pressure on everybody else. But the point is it's never really a one person decision. Not really. Even if there is a Supreme Leader, he needs the support of his people or else he knows he can't last and he needs the support of his generals, if you will, or he knows it can't work. So I would say Iran is teetering on the edge of being a productive part of the Middle east and we would welcome them because the Iranian people are awesome. I say this all the time, but it's worth repeating. The Iranian people are awesome people and I like to see more of them, not less of them. And if you've never spent time with any Iranians, you don't know what I'm talking about. But they're an especially warm, you know, they like the West. They're great people, all right, so let's not have any wars with them. Kamala Harris had an interesting idea. She doesn't call it reparations, but it gets pretty close. So Kamala Harris wants to invest $60 billion. She doesn't say where this is going to come from, of course, in science, technology, engineering and math education at the HBCUs. The HBCU is historical black Colleges and Universities. I think these are the colleges that are primarily catering to African American students. Harris herself graduated in 1986 from one of them, I guess $60 billion primarily aimed at African American students to get them more into STEM high pay jobs. This is very close to what I had floated once, but she's not, she's not selling it well. I had once floated the idea that if you were to do reparations, you should do them in the form of improving education for low income people, making it free or cheap or easy for everybody to go to college. If you make it cheap and free for everybody, that includes the black population. And that would be a gigantic potential for improving things. The way Kamala Harris is doing it, it looks like she's going to tax. We don't know who, but presumably people with money not poor people. And she wants to give it to historically black colleges. There's one problem with that plan. What is the one problem with that plan? It's racist. How else can you describe that plan except it's racist? I don't know how else to describe it. And I'm not. Even if you were to back up a little bit and say, okay, let's not be partisan, you know, let's just try to be as objective as we are, it is a plan that is aimed at a specific ethnicity. Explicitly. I'm not, I'm not adding that as my analysis. It's explicitly aimed at one ethnicity. And so I asked myself, where's the $60 billion for the white I'm sorry, where's the $60 billion for the poor hispanic citizens? Whereas the $60 billion for the poor white citizens? The reason that this can't work is that it's explicitly racist. It's explicitly racist. It's not even pretending not to be. Now, I liked what I've called the, the Hawk Newsom approach to reparations. I've said this before. Well, Hawk Newsom said, and I'm over interpreting his opinion so that, so don't, don't pin this on him. I'm taking something he said and extending it, which is that, and I'm not sure where he got this from, that whatever you do that's good for the black population in this country is going to be good for everyone. If you do it right so everyone works out, everyone is better off. If any kind of program is also good for black people, I would say that's right. If what you're doing is making sure that everyone who has no opportunity now because they're poor, and even though it's a country with plenty of opportunity, if you're poor, you have less, less of it. So if you extended the opportunity for people in the lowest end of the economic spectrum, you would get everybody. But it would necessarily help black people more than other people because there's a higher percentage of poverty in that group. So that would be a kind of reparations that I think somebody could sell. Here's another form of reparations. Are you ready? Border security. I'm not recommending this. So I'm just going to throw this out for some red meat for something to think about. But I'm not recommending it. I'm just saying who benefits the most from strong border security? Whether it's the wall or the wall plus better border security. Who is it who benefits the most from strong border Security, African Americans and everybody poor who's competing for. Competing for jobs at the low end. So it seems to me you could actually sell the wall as reparations, because it is. It would be money that would be mostly coming from. It would be coming mostly from rich people, because that's where taxes come from. They come from people who have money, not from people who don't. So if you were to tax the rich to pay for border security, you would end up with reparations. It would be rich white people paying a lot of money to literally protect primarily black citizens and also Hispanic citizens and any kind of citizens who are in the lower economic spectrum. The border is reparations if you do it. If you sold it that way. Now, I'm not suggesting that the president sell it that way because he would be mocked for that, but logically it is. Logically, it makes sense, but you can't. Politically, it'd be impossible, of course. All right, that brings us to the end of my prepared comments. Do you have any questions? Oh, I had one other thing I wanted to talk about. I saw a comment on Twitter. So this is just a person's opinion on Twitter. So it doesn't matter who it is. It's just a person on Twitter who made this statement which I found provocative. The statement is, the root cause of depression is lack of meaningful work. The root cause of depression is lack of meaningful work. And that depression could cause drug abuse and all kinds of other problems. Now, I do not believe that all depression is because of lack of meaningful work. There's a real organic. There's an actual mental health problem that is depression that is independent of what you're doing. So certainly there exists some forms of depression that have nothing to do with whether you're working or not working. So I think we can all agree on that. But the general sense that it seems to me that people are more anxious and more depressed than at any time in history. Maybe it's our smartphones, maybe it's modern life, maybe it's something. But I do. I do see this correlation. I see that when people have meaningful work, they seem to get along better in life. And so it could also be true that people who have. Maybe they're close to depression, but they wouldn't otherwise have it if they had meaningful work. I think there is something to meaningful work. I think we're built that way. And I think that as we have less and less of it, and I'm talking about even simple things, you know, my job sometimes is meaningful. It's Much more meaningful when I'm doing this. My drawing cartoons has its purpose, but it's not really meaningful, if you know what I mean. If Dilber stopped running tomorrow, the world would go on pretty well. And the other thing is that Dilber doesn't give me a physical sense of accomplishment. I mean, I draw it on the computer. It's a digital product. So I like doing the periscopes because it connects me better to the world. It's more meaningful. So what I'm doing right now is completely satisfying on a purpose of life level. Cartooning is a job, and they're different. All right, Do you remember what was the big scandal a few days ago? I'm already forgetting. It was the President's tweet. Oh, about go back home. Is it my imagination, or did that whole go back home thing just disappear suddenly when it turned out that the two members of the squad had been using that same language in public, telling other people to go back where they came from? Or is it just that the whole Mueller thing just eliminated it? Because it seems to me that the racism charge against Trump, a lot of the steam got taken out of that by the fact that, well, first of all, Kamala Harris is literally recommending a racist program and not even apologizing for it. It's literally racist. She attacked Joe Biden for being somewhat adjacent to racism. I mean, I don't think she actually accused. She didn't accuse Biden of being a racist, but he was sort of racist adjacent. He was in the neighborhood of a racist. He was sort of close to somebody who was almost one, but not really. And then, of course, the squad being racist, it just makes the whole racism thing look ridiculous at the same time that the Russia collusion thing completely fell apart. So what do they have left? What do the anti Trumpers have left? They started to pivot to health care at about the same time that we learned that pharmaceutical costs may have stalled or gone down for the first time ever. Ever. The first time ever. How do you run against that? How do you run a candidate against the best presidential performance of all time? And by the way, I say that without. I don't think that this is an exaggeration. Now, I could be completely deluded because, you know, everybody's in their own little bubble. But I've been saying this for a long time, and it just seems to be more and more true every day. It seems to me that President Trump's first term so far is the best presidential performance of all time. I would say he's got the most done productively of anybody, any president ever. I don't. I would love to hear a historian compare. Now, if you were to say who's the best president ever? People would say, ah, you can't, you can't say Trump is the best president ever, because look at the founders. You got your Jefferson, you got your Washington, you know, you got your Madisons or whatever. Madison. But how many of the founders were slave owners? Right. You can't really compare a modern president to a slave owner because we sort of automatically give the slave owner, okay, a lot of credit for some of the good things you did. But you own slaves. A modern president didn't own any slaves and just came in and did some good work for the public. So you're already starting in front. I think even Lincoln had some troubling racist beliefs, did he not? You know, Lincoln did a. Did a solid for the country, but I think he's got some things to explain far more than Trump. So we have an unusual situation in which perhaps John Adams wasn't. That is correct, my potential relative. John Adams was not only not a slave owner, but he was a lawyer who defended at least one slave in a very public case. But nobody thinks John Adams was a top president, so there's that. I think he was one term. Wasn't he? Wasn't John Adams one term? Do I have that wrong? I don't remember exactly. All right, that's all I got to talk about today. Go off and have a wonderful day, because it's going to be a wonderful day. That's all you need to know. Bye for now.