Real Coffee with Scott Adams - December 12, 2021


Episode 1590 Scott Adams： Science Has Proven That Talking About the Pandemic Makes it Worse. And More


Episode Stats

Length

1 hour and 2 minutes

Words per Minute

144.75304

Word Count

9,093

Sentence Count

677

Misogynist Sentences

8

Hate Speech Sentences

14


Summary

In this episode of Coffee with Scott Adams, host Scott Adams talks about a new report that says Chris Cuomo may have been behind a smear campaign against Fox News' Janice Devens, who was critical of the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo.


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Good morning, everybody, and welcome to another exciting episode of Coffee with Scott Adams.
00:00:06.480 And I dare say this will be the best one you've ever experienced.
00:00:10.440 Possibly the best thing that's ever happened in the entire solar system, at least.
00:00:16.540 That's the part we know about.
00:00:18.220 Could be more surprises a few parsecs away.
00:00:21.780 That's my new word for the day, parsecs.
00:00:24.780 And we will talk about all that.
00:00:28.720 But if you want to enjoy this at the maximum potential, and why wouldn't you?
00:00:34.900 I mean, you're already the sexiest and most well-informed and smartest people on earth.
00:00:41.280 Why wouldn't you want to take it to another level?
00:00:43.740 You would.
00:00:44.360 And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
00:00:50.640 Fill it with your favorite liquid.
00:00:53.400 I like coffee.
00:00:54.140 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that's going to make everything better.
00:01:04.240 It's called the simultaneous sip, and watch it do its work.
00:01:07.040 Go.
00:01:11.320 Mmm.
00:01:11.680 Antibodies.
00:01:16.700 Scott's finally awake.
00:01:20.360 You know, the trouble is I've been blocking people who say, Scott's finally waking up.
00:01:25.440 But now I can't tell who's joking.
00:01:27.740 Because so many people are saying it as a joke now.
00:01:30.420 It all looks the same.
00:01:31.280 All right, well, there's new news today that Andrew, not Andrew, but Chris Cuomo, was apparently reportedly, according to anonymous sources,
00:01:45.420 now, let's be fair, if there were anonymous sources saying something about Trump, would you believe it?
00:01:55.280 No.
00:01:55.860 Because anonymous sources have no credibility whatsoever.
00:02:01.040 But CNBC has some anonymous sources, which if it weren't already in the news, I wouldn't even talk about it,
00:02:08.120 because the credibility of these things is so low.
00:02:10.760 But accordingly to this source, Chris Cuomo worked with his brother's top aides to discredit Fox News meteorologist Janice Dean.
00:02:25.860 Because she was a big critic of the governor, you know, Chris Cuomo's brother,
00:02:31.440 for his handling of the nursing homes and her family members who died there.
00:02:38.420 Now, do you think that's true?
00:02:41.740 Do you think they, quote, targeted somebody because she was talking out?
00:02:46.980 Would that even work?
00:02:48.340 You know, she was already talking out, and we'll suppose it was a hit piece saying that she had, I don't know, strangled a puppy or something.
00:02:58.820 Suppose they could come up with some kind of a hit piece on her.
00:03:01.740 Would that have stopped her from talking?
00:03:04.980 I don't know.
00:03:06.380 That feels like a bad play.
00:03:08.620 Like such a bad play that you wouldn't even really consider it.
00:03:13.360 You know, if you're operating at the level of a sitting governor or a host on CNN, aren't you smarter than that?
00:03:24.160 I mean, I definitely can see going after pundits who are sort of full-time pundits.
00:03:29.680 Both sides are going after the pundits on either side.
00:03:32.180 So it makes sense that the right was going after Chris Cuomo, and the left was going after Tucker Carlson.
00:03:40.400 That makes sense.
00:03:41.800 But this Janice Dean thing was such a special case.
00:03:44.940 It was about deaths in her own family.
00:03:48.220 You can't shut somebody up about a death in their own family.
00:03:52.320 And it's not like she was some continuous critic of all things Cuomo.
00:03:58.560 She just had one very specific complaint that was quite valid.
00:04:05.560 Do you really?
00:04:06.920 I feel as if, yeah, they died.
00:04:09.840 Her relatives died in the nursing home.
00:04:12.560 Was it in-laws?
00:04:13.580 I can't remember.
00:04:15.120 But I don't believe this story.
00:04:19.720 I don't believe this story.
00:04:21.080 And the reason I don't believe it is that it wouldn't make sense for people who operate at this level of understanding politics
00:04:28.680 to take out somebody who had deaths in the family and really just had one topic of complaint.
00:04:36.800 You couldn't really take that person out.
00:04:39.260 I don't know.
00:04:40.180 But it does suggest that maybe it's a thing.
00:04:43.840 If this were true, it would suggest that taking out critics is an ongoing conversation.
00:04:48.920 I am so curious how many conversations have happened about me.
00:04:55.700 Are you?
00:04:57.420 Don't you wonder, like, who exactly is looking to take me out?
00:05:02.460 Because it's not nobody.
00:05:04.600 I just don't know if it's a lot or anybody who knows how to do it or anybody who'd be good at it.
00:05:10.480 I'd love to know what the secret file on me is.
00:05:13.420 Like, what is it that somebody has already found out or made up, I suppose?
00:05:20.300 More likely made up.
00:05:22.160 I don't know.
00:05:22.940 I would think that the top, I don't know, 20 or so effective people on each side are all targeted one way or the other.
00:05:32.720 I'm definitely in the top 20% of effective persuaders.
00:05:36.960 So, anyway, a little doubt on that one.
00:05:44.180 There was a Mike Cernovich tweet that I loved.
00:05:50.060 And the reason I love it is just because I like making trouble.
00:05:54.100 Can I be honest?
00:05:55.740 There are some topics in which I get all outraged about, you know, like anybody would.
00:06:00.600 And there are some topics that I think are just funny, even though I know they're kind of serious.
00:06:07.480 So, as long as nobody's dying or getting hurt, I often will find humor in things that other people are taking quite seriously.
00:06:16.520 And the topic here is the trans swimmer, a woman, by designation and by preference.
00:06:27.120 And she would say, by nature.
00:06:31.840 But it was somebody who was born and raised male and had all the testosterone advantage of that.
00:06:38.480 And so this person is just breaking all the swimming records at the college where she attends.
00:06:45.240 And the teams are very unhappy about that because they have no chance of winning if she's in the competition.
00:06:53.920 And this is what Mike Cernovich tweeted about this.
00:06:56.160 He goes, can't wait for this brave hero to break all the Olympic records for women swimming.
00:07:03.660 To which I say, could that happen?
00:07:08.740 Could that happen?
00:07:11.240 I mean, do the Olympics have rules that would prevent this?
00:07:16.020 And what's going to happen to the Olympics?
00:07:18.200 Because in the Olympics, why would you ever...
00:07:20.160 You know, if the Olympics allowed this, I'm saying no's.
00:07:24.600 But what specifically is the rule that would disallow it?
00:07:29.500 And how long can that rule last?
00:07:32.100 Would the United States have to pull out because they're discriminating?
00:07:38.100 They used to have rules.
00:07:40.180 It's allowed.
00:07:41.380 So there's some difference in the comments.
00:07:44.080 Somebody says no rules.
00:07:45.160 So why would any country field a woman's team that wasn't all trans?
00:07:53.260 Why would you even do it?
00:07:55.360 If the whole point is to win, the Olympics are pretty much about winning, right?
00:08:00.500 It's not so much about, you know, competing.
00:08:03.760 The whole point of the Olympics is winning.
00:08:06.700 You know, sure, sure.
00:08:07.660 We're, you know, it's all about fellowship, which sounds sexist.
00:08:11.880 East Germans used to do that, did they?
00:08:16.960 I don't know if they actually had trans athletes.
00:08:19.940 I think they just had injections, didn't they?
00:08:22.540 Anyway, I don't know the history of that.
00:08:24.700 But I do...
00:08:25.980 The thing that amuses me is that I think the Olympics should be cancelled.
00:08:30.220 Just for...
00:08:31.880 Because it's ridiculous.
00:08:33.360 It gives people the absolute wrong message in life.
00:08:36.240 It's the opposite of the message that I give people.
00:08:41.060 My message is, don't try to be the number one person in the world as some specific thing.
00:08:47.540 Because you're probably not going to be.
00:08:49.780 Instead, put together a set of talents that will serve you well in a variety of situations throughout your life.
00:08:56.080 And if somebody focuses all their time on, like, throwing a javelin, then they end up being a certain age and they have one skill.
00:09:06.760 They can throw a pointy stick.
00:09:09.660 Good luck with that.
00:09:10.900 It's a terrible life strategy.
00:09:13.480 Now, if you win the Olympics and get a gold medal, you might be able to parlay that into something.
00:09:18.440 But there's only one person every year who gets that gold medal for javelin throwing, to pick one example.
00:09:25.040 So, I think Olympics are terrible, terrible role models.
00:09:33.440 Just the worst role models in the world.
00:09:36.920 They're wasting their lives preparing for something that doesn't have any practical use.
00:09:42.280 So, that's my opinion.
00:09:43.620 And so, when I see the potential that the trans situation could completely break the Olympics, I just think it's kind of funny.
00:09:52.460 I don't know.
00:09:53.000 I don't feel proud about that.
00:09:54.420 I mean, I'm not saying you should think it's funny.
00:09:58.520 It's probably just a defect in my personality that I like trouble.
00:10:03.240 But if it's bad for the Olympics, I'm all in for it.
00:10:07.960 Here's a question for you.
00:10:09.300 Remember I told you many, many times that you can have any worldview you want,
00:10:15.440 because our view of the reality is completely subjective.
00:10:21.280 Well, 95% subjective.
00:10:24.360 And you can have any one you want, but you should pick one that predicts.
00:10:29.320 Because the best filter on life for understanding it is the one that has a good record of predicting things.
00:10:36.320 If you thought that Trump was definitely going to jail for all of his many, many, many so obvious crimes,
00:10:44.660 are you confused that it hasn't happened yet?
00:10:50.220 Aren't you wondering why the news told you that he was definitely going to jail?
00:10:54.580 Well, oh, if there's one thing we know for sure, all these crimes, I mean, I can't even list them all.
00:11:01.440 Give me a longer piece of paper and a couple of sharp pencils,
00:11:04.640 because I don't have time to list all the felonies President Trump has created.
00:11:10.080 So, has he been handcuffed yet?
00:11:16.660 Nope.
00:11:18.400 Was there anything he did that looks like it's going to be a legal problem?
00:11:24.720 Haven't seen it.
00:11:25.840 Have you?
00:11:26.960 But there are secret investigations going on, and wait till we get those taxes,
00:11:33.200 and wait till we get those extra testimonies about January 6th.
00:11:37.340 We're almost there.
00:11:38.820 Almost.
00:11:41.080 And then we never get there.
00:11:44.700 Yeah.
00:11:45.660 Somebody in the comments says,
00:11:47.160 Trump will share a cell with Matt Gaetz.
00:11:50.440 Do you think Matt Gaetz is going to actually go to jail for any crimes?
00:11:56.520 I don't think so.
00:11:58.200 Whatever it is they have on him looks political.
00:12:03.520 Just like Gaetz.
00:12:04.840 Students who play games all day in hopes of being the next shroud.
00:12:07.940 Yeah.
00:12:10.080 Yeah, anything where you're trying to be the best in the world or even the top ten is pretty tough.
00:12:15.700 Now, I know that sounds funny coming from me, because in the world of cartooning, I'm in the top ten of working cartoonists.
00:12:26.500 Maybe not in the top ten of all cartoonists of all time, but in people who are still alive and still making comic strips, I'm in the top ten.
00:12:34.180 So do I look like a violation of the top ten of all time, because the way I got here was with a talent stack, where I'm not the greatest at anything, but you put them together and they work pretty well as a combination.
00:12:48.640 So, look at me as an example of a talent stack, not of being the best at anything, in particular.
00:12:58.800 Here's some CNN fake news, but it's real.
00:13:02.820 Well, it's fake news because of the way it's presented, but all the details, I think, are real.
00:13:10.440 So there's no question about any of the facts.
00:13:13.120 Just the way it's presented is a little fake.
00:13:16.200 All right, here's the topic.
00:13:19.040 Rising murders in cities.
00:13:22.820 Rising murder in cities.
00:13:24.540 And this is on CNN.
00:13:27.120 Now, does that surprise you?
00:13:29.620 The CNN would do a pretty big feature on the rising crime, especially murders, in cities.
00:13:38.900 So, you know, a story like that is going to be talking about all these blue cities, right?
00:13:44.280 Yeah, all these blue cities with their bad governance causing all the crime by defunding the police and stuff like that, right?
00:13:51.860 That's probably the story you're expecting.
00:13:54.540 Here's the headline.
00:13:57.380 Austin, Texas.
00:13:58.380 This is CNN.
00:13:59.880 One of the fastest growing cities in the country.
00:14:02.820 The capital of Texas.
00:14:05.100 Fuck you, Texas.
00:14:06.320 That's what they're saying.
00:14:07.940 Is nearing the end of its deadliest year on record in 2021.
00:14:12.260 As cities nationwide are experiencing.
00:14:14.360 Oh, can you name another city?
00:14:17.500 What would be an example of another city that's not in Texas?
00:14:20.660 How about picking one that's not in Texas?
00:14:24.540 No, let's focus on Texas.
00:14:27.700 So they find this city in Texas, presumably a red city, right?
00:14:33.660 Austin isn't blue, is it?
00:14:36.200 Can anybody confirm that?
00:14:37.400 Oh, it is blue.
00:14:39.820 It's the one blue dot?
00:14:41.600 I was wondering about that.
00:14:43.920 Okay, so people in the comments are saying that Austin is blue, but that's even better.
00:14:50.640 All right, so that's even better for the point I was going to make, which is why did they pick Texas for the focus?
00:14:57.800 Because Texas has a lot of gun rights, right?
00:15:02.320 So they make it a story.
00:15:03.740 So the emphasis of their story is that the problem in Texas, in their capital city, is guns and COVID.
00:15:12.660 So you've got a big problem in Texas with all the guns and the bad treatment of COVID, I guess.
00:15:18.960 Here's the other way this story could have been done.
00:15:26.720 The biggest problem in Texas is the only blue city, according to you guys.
00:15:31.780 And I'm going to assume you're right about that.
00:15:34.760 Defunding the police probably made more problems in other places.
00:15:38.280 But basically everywhere you've got, you know, Democrat leadership, you've got trouble.
00:15:46.380 I mean, that's how Fox News tells the same story.
00:15:48.840 So we have one story about rising violence in the country.
00:15:53.960 And if you look at how the left covers it, it's something wrong with the right.
00:15:58.400 And how the right covers it, it's something wrong with the left.
00:16:01.000 Anyway, I just thought that was hilariously, overtly propaganda-ish.
00:16:08.320 On both sides, by the way.
00:16:10.160 On both sides.
00:16:11.820 So it's not like one side is doing propaganda on this.
00:16:15.220 But I do think Fox News is probably closer to a correct context.
00:16:22.820 What do you think?
00:16:24.460 Do you think that, I'll call it the Fox News take,
00:16:27.540 which is it's the blue cities that are clearly the ones with problems.
00:16:32.800 Is that fair?
00:16:34.780 Does that, first of all, does that pass the fact check?
00:16:37.600 I haven't done any research on it myself.
00:16:43.080 Yeah.
00:16:48.320 Okay.
00:16:49.660 Well, that's enough on that.
00:16:50.540 I think I gave some terrible advice on Twitter yesterday, for the first time.
00:16:58.340 For the first time.
00:17:00.420 Aviva Fry was jokingly tweeting that he was considering cursing on Twitter.
00:17:07.020 And that he thought better of it because he realized that his kids' friends, you know,
00:17:12.800 see him on Twitter, too.
00:17:14.120 So, you know, maybe he won't.
00:17:15.580 Here's my advice, because I feel like I may have accidentally hurt some of you.
00:17:26.580 Like, actually, like in a bad way, career-wise or even socially or something.
00:17:32.100 And here's how I might have done it.
00:17:35.000 Don't tweet the way I do.
00:17:36.400 Because I worry that people see me tweeting and, you know, I have a lot of followers and
00:17:42.020 I get a lot of retweets and stuff.
00:17:44.140 And people say, oh, it's working out for him.
00:17:47.580 I think I'll be, you know, provocative, too.
00:17:51.780 Don't do it if it's not your job.
00:17:54.480 It's my job to be provocative.
00:17:56.560 Because, essentially, it's a marketing strategy for what I do, which is all public.
00:18:01.600 If you do things in public for a job, which is the only thing I do, I try to attract attention
00:18:08.920 to make my business model work, right?
00:18:12.100 So, if you have what I call, you know, F you money, so if I got banned from Twitter tomorrow,
00:18:19.600 it wouldn't make much difference.
00:18:21.380 It's not going to prohibit me from getting a job somewhere, right?
00:18:24.760 But if you do, you might not get a job.
00:18:28.160 If you say something that's a little too far on Twitter, you know, your dating prospects
00:18:34.980 will be lower, your ability to run for office will be destroyed.
00:18:40.640 So, don't use me as a role model for how provocative to be.
00:18:45.400 And definitely don't use me as a role model for how much you should curse.
00:18:49.840 Now, I know Viva was joking.
00:18:52.780 But it made me think that there might be people here who are saying, and I can think of one
00:18:57.780 in particular that I think maybe got in trouble with it.
00:19:01.560 You know, one person who might have said, I think I'll tweet like him.
00:19:05.340 And I don't think that works for the rest of you.
00:19:07.780 So, I'm just going to say, just know that the way I do it is because I'm literally a professional
00:19:13.200 in this domain, and I can take risks that you can't.
00:19:17.560 Or at least reasonably, I can take risks that you can't.
00:19:20.540 So, don't be like me when it comes to tweeting or swearing.
00:19:24.460 I told you before that CNN was replacing Chris Cuomo with Smirconish, at least temporarily.
00:19:31.300 I don't know what they'll do in the long run.
00:19:33.140 And I told you that Smirconish is rare on CNN.
00:19:36.400 Oh, did, I'm seeing Matt is saying that Sertowicz and Pasabek made the same point.
00:19:46.000 Good.
00:19:46.720 Good for them.
00:19:48.780 That is something we all should have warned you about sooner, I think.
00:19:52.320 I feel like we all let you down, honestly.
00:19:54.880 So, Smirconish is, like I said, the most balanced reporter on CNN by far.
00:20:04.680 There's nobody in his class, I don't think, who's balanced.
00:20:08.700 And he just went hard at Biden.
00:20:12.900 He went really hard at Biden.
00:20:15.020 Now, he does it professionally.
00:20:16.560 It doesn't look at all like propaganda.
00:20:19.300 It looks like he's just laying out the facts.
00:20:21.560 But unfortunately, the facts are not working for Biden at the moment.
00:20:24.500 Here's what Smirconish is saying.
00:20:28.220 And he's mentioning that the revised CBO score, the, what does CBO stand for?
00:20:37.640 The Congressional Budget Office, CBO?
00:20:42.260 Congressional Budget Office, right?
00:20:45.380 Yeah, okay.
00:20:46.400 The Congressional Budget Office.
00:20:47.780 So, that's the entity that looks at all the budget propositions, proposals,
00:20:53.480 and says, what will happen to the economy if you do this or don't do this?
00:20:58.820 And so, they scored this Biden's Build Back Better bill.
00:21:03.940 Biden's Build Back Better bill.
00:21:07.180 I got to say that at least one more time because it's too much fun.
00:21:10.580 Biden's Build Back Better bill.
00:21:12.120 And unlike the first estimate that said it would be closer to revenue neutral, meaning it wouldn't increase the deficit.
00:21:22.700 It would actually help more than it hurt.
00:21:26.540 The Republicans cleverly asked for this.
00:21:29.760 Now, I would like to give the Republicans some kudos.
00:21:35.740 I'm not sure exactly which Republicans were behind it.
00:21:39.100 But thank you.
00:21:40.980 Thank you for good governance.
00:21:43.980 And what the Republicans did is said, hey, CBO, can you run this again?
00:21:48.860 Except this time make the following assumption.
00:21:51.340 That the temporary programs are not temporary.
00:21:56.980 That they'll last at least 10 years.
00:22:00.280 Turns out that if you make that completely realistic assumption,
00:22:04.480 because the government is not good at discontinuing giveaways, right?
00:22:09.560 If you do it with a more realistic assumption that the temporary stuff lasts forever,
00:22:14.280 or at least 10 years, which in financial terms, 10 years is forever.
00:22:18.420 How many of you don't know that?
00:22:21.000 Let me put that out there.
00:22:22.760 Most of you don't have any experience in financial projections,
00:22:27.780 but I have a lot of it for my corporate life.
00:22:30.940 10 years in the future is the same as infinity when you're doing a financial projection.
00:22:36.900 Because after 10 years, nothing's predictable after that.
00:22:40.440 Nothing.
00:22:41.780 The predictability drops to zero at about 10 years.
00:22:45.620 So the Republicans quite smartly picked pretty much the exact right number.
00:22:53.880 10 years.
00:22:55.020 Because you get the same benefit as if it had been a forever calculation
00:22:58.380 without being stupid about it, right?
00:23:01.420 Because infinity is always a bad assumption.
00:23:04.620 So very smart, very realistic ask of the CBO.
00:23:10.680 And when they scored it with these more realistic Republican assumptions,
00:23:14.900 it turned out to increase the deficit by $3 trillion.
00:23:21.780 Dream King, you're going away.
00:23:24.220 Scott Adams has gone downhill.
00:23:27.820 I've always been downhill, asshole.
00:23:31.640 Goodbye.
00:23:33.280 Also, don't do this the way I do it.
00:23:35.620 I also block a lot of people.
00:23:38.200 But as was noted on Twitter today, I block people because it's part of the show.
00:23:44.660 It's, you know, maybe bad for the people who get blocked, but I don't care.
00:23:49.080 They all have it coming.
00:23:51.760 So when I block, I always tell you why, and I just make it part of the show.
00:23:55.640 But if you're not doing that, you know, you might not want to block people like I do.
00:24:00.560 So it's notable that Smirkanish gave the correct context for this story.
00:24:08.560 I know that sounds weird.
00:24:11.020 You know, a new show is supposed to give you context, but it doesn't happen that much.
00:24:16.300 I just told you a story where it didn't happen on that Austin story.
00:24:21.340 But Smirkanish is good with context.
00:24:23.900 And I'm going to call him, I'm going to give him kudos for that.
00:24:27.160 He goes on to say that now that the Build Back Better bill looks like a dog,
00:24:35.900 and it looks like Joe Manchin is going to say no.
00:24:38.900 And here's why Joe Manchin is saying no to Build Back Better.
00:24:43.000 He says that they used budget tricks to make it look good.
00:24:49.140 So he's a Democrat who's calling out the Democrats for using budget tricks,
00:24:53.420 which is what the Republicans called them out for, too.
00:24:55.920 Literally a trick to make something very expensive look like it's free.
00:25:03.560 And so, do you remember, how many of you remember me telling you that Joe Manchin is actually running the country?
00:25:11.400 Before he was actually running the country.
00:25:14.460 Now it's very clear.
00:25:15.700 He basically makes Congress's decisions for him.
00:25:18.960 Probably one of the best decisions I've ever, or predictions I've made,
00:25:24.860 is that this one guy, by being the smartest guy,
00:25:29.220 I hate to say it, but, you know, at least on the Democrat side,
00:25:34.780 he is the smartest Democrat.
00:25:37.880 And here's why he's the smartest.
00:25:39.360 He realized that the world had simply handed him power.
00:25:47.040 And then he's responsibly using it.
00:25:50.240 He's responsibly using the immense power that the United States just handed him,
00:25:56.460 somewhat accidentally, because of the, you know, coincidental balance of power.
00:26:01.100 And coincidentally, he's, you know, one of the few people with, with Kyrsten Sinema who will cross the line.
00:26:08.260 So, I don't know if I can say enough good things about Joe Manchin right now.
00:26:13.840 I feel like he's holding the country together single-handedly.
00:26:17.400 Now, you know how great power corrupts?
00:26:20.880 You know, power corrupts and great power corrupts absolutely.
00:26:23.920 Somehow, the universe handed Joe Manchin great power.
00:26:29.700 Like, really great power.
00:26:31.900 So far, he is handling it responsibly, in my opinion.
00:26:37.340 Now, that doesn't mean he makes the same decisions you make.
00:26:40.360 That's a different standard.
00:26:42.140 The standard is, is he being the patriot that we want him to be, Democrat and all, right?
00:26:48.400 He may not be on your political side,
00:26:50.160 but is he being a patriot in exactly the way you wish any, any American would have been
00:26:57.180 if they found themselves in this situation?
00:27:00.400 I say yes.
00:27:02.420 I say yes.
00:27:04.200 So, I don't know if I've ever given a Democrat this much credit,
00:27:08.940 but, you know, if you had a Patriot of the Year award, to me, he'd be it.
00:27:15.460 He'd be it.
00:27:16.060 But, crossing party lines, for the benefit of the country,
00:27:20.600 literally the only person doing it in the whole, well, Kyrsten Sinema, too.
00:27:24.620 So, we'll give her credit, too.
00:27:26.100 Let's not be sexist.
00:27:27.980 Let's not be sexist.
00:27:29.240 Give all the credit to Joe Manchin.
00:27:31.400 Kyrsten Sinema's doing the same.
00:27:33.500 All right.
00:27:35.860 Then Biden, and Smirkanish is calling out Biden for this,
00:27:40.840 which is, again, is weird to see it on CNN.
00:27:43.580 Biden, there was a clip where Biden says,
00:27:48.100 the economy is doing great in every way, in every way, except inflation.
00:27:54.840 That's right.
00:27:55.620 The economy is doing great in every way except inflation.
00:27:59.100 That's what Biden says.
00:28:03.120 Meaning that the economy is great, except we all can buy less stuff,
00:28:08.060 or at least the low-income people can buy less of the stuff.
00:28:11.260 That's exactly what a bad economy looks like.
00:28:16.200 The whole point of the economy is to buy more stuff.
00:28:19.780 You know, I'm simplifying.
00:28:21.840 But if your economy is going great, but you all have less money to buy stuff,
00:28:26.280 that feels exactly like the opposite of a good economy.
00:28:30.120 I mean, I suppose it's good for paying for our military in some ways like that.
00:28:34.640 But if you're just a family or a person, and you're just trying to buy stuff,
00:28:39.160 it's definitely worse for you.
00:28:44.360 And then Smirkanish showed the actual inflation category,
00:28:48.320 so he was driving that point home.
00:28:51.060 And so, anyway, good job, Smirkanish.
00:28:56.060 I wonder if he can last on CNN by being actually even-handed and showing context.
00:29:03.220 I don't know if you can survive on the network if you keep doing that.
00:29:06.500 I guess we'll find out.
00:29:09.780 All right, here's my new...
00:29:12.060 I'll put this on the watch list.
00:29:14.080 I'm not totally convinced of this, but I'm watching it.
00:29:17.480 You know, I like to tell you the ways to spot cognitive dissonance
00:29:21.840 because people use similar language when they're in it.
00:29:25.440 And here are a couple that I think are showing me cognitive dissonance.
00:29:31.140 Could be something else.
00:29:32.580 Could be a false signal.
00:29:33.680 But here's what I think.
00:29:35.700 When people tell me, as I talk about risk management during the pandemic,
00:29:40.520 when people tell me that I'm, quote, panicking,
00:29:43.760 that I'm panicking about the virus,
00:29:49.240 and I think to myself, I was actually thinking to myself,
00:29:53.440 I can't think of any time I've ever worried about death.
00:29:58.880 Does anybody else have that experience?
00:30:01.860 Like, my whole life,
00:30:03.800 I can't think of any time I've ever worried about dying.
00:30:11.600 And, yeah, I think it might be unusual.
00:30:15.040 I definitely worry about getting hurt.
00:30:16.880 So I'm not trying to tell you I'm without fear.
00:30:21.240 I have, you know, a normal amount, I think.
00:30:23.800 You know, standard amount of fear, pretty average.
00:30:26.680 So I worry about, you know, injury.
00:30:29.260 You know, I'm going to wear a helmet if I use a motorcycle, et cetera.
00:30:33.020 But I don't think I've...
00:30:35.080 I can't think of any time in my life I've worried about death, per se.
00:30:39.020 And so when people...
00:30:42.780 And twice today, people told me I was panicking.
00:30:46.800 Just today.
00:30:48.500 Two people told me I'm panicking.
00:30:50.900 And, you know, if you look at the whole week,
00:30:52.980 it's just person after person.
00:30:54.580 You're panicking.
00:30:55.200 You're panicking.
00:30:56.420 And I think that this might be cognitive dissonance.
00:31:00.500 Because cognitive dissonance
00:31:02.100 makes you hallucinate the things that aren't there.
00:31:05.580 And I think this is a hallucination
00:31:08.760 that somebody just talking about risk management
00:31:11.460 who wants the mandates to go away, as I do.
00:31:14.620 I want the mandates to go away.
00:31:16.720 And I think we're already at a point
00:31:18.120 where we should just, you know, go back to normal
00:31:19.980 because we've got the therapeutics, et cetera.
00:31:22.360 You know, keep an eye on the ICUs,
00:31:24.480 but get back to normal.
00:31:26.580 So I think I'm about as close as you can get
00:31:29.020 to not being panicked as anything's ever been.
00:31:31.740 And because my fear of the whole pandemic
00:31:36.320 is, you know, reduced to not much anything
00:31:39.260 at this point.
00:31:41.340 So I think that's a tell.
00:31:45.780 If the only way you can explain my opinion
00:31:50.140 is by imagining I'm panicking,
00:31:52.520 which is not in evidence in any way,
00:31:55.340 then you're probably hallucinating
00:31:56.760 because there's something in your own thinking
00:31:58.560 that's not working.
00:31:59.340 There's a connection that's missing.
00:32:01.960 So you just hallucinate to fill in the connection.
00:32:04.920 Here's another one.
00:32:06.840 Also said of me many times,
00:32:08.860 and you've probably watched me block people in real time.
00:32:12.440 He's starting to come around.
00:32:14.640 Said about me.
00:32:16.080 He's starting to come around.
00:32:18.020 Oh, took you long enough to figure out
00:32:20.860 that the vaccinations are, you know,
00:32:23.000 all about the money or something.
00:32:24.820 To which I say, I was always there.
00:32:28.000 So was everybody.
00:32:31.220 Not only was I always concerned
00:32:33.580 that, you know, the pharmaceutical companies
00:32:36.460 might put profits over safety.
00:32:38.640 Everybody was.
00:32:40.300 There's nobody who didn't consider that.
00:32:43.580 That's...
00:32:44.620 So I'm not coming around to the idea
00:32:47.540 that the vaccinations might be dangerous.
00:32:50.140 There's simply different information.
00:32:52.340 There's more information.
00:32:54.320 We have, you know, therapeutics.
00:32:56.000 There are alternatives now.
00:32:57.040 There's absolutely nothing about the situation
00:32:59.840 that looks the same as it did at the beginning.
00:33:02.340 So if your opinion didn't change,
00:33:05.020 there's something wrong with you.
00:33:07.080 I mean, I should have modified a little bit.
00:33:09.320 If you have exactly the same opinion
00:33:11.040 you had at the beginning,
00:33:12.260 you have some explaining to do.
00:33:15.480 So, no, I didn't come around.
00:33:17.680 That's actually a hallucination.
00:33:19.720 I've always been exactly where I am now.
00:33:22.020 I just have different information.
00:33:23.120 All right.
00:33:26.000 Here's another bad argument.
00:33:27.920 I like to call out bad arguments
00:33:29.380 that agree with me.
00:33:31.480 Now, normally people call out bad arguments
00:33:33.560 that disagree with them.
00:33:35.360 But I feel embarrassed
00:33:36.840 being on the same side as any bad arguments.
00:33:40.580 Do you ever have that feeling?
00:33:42.140 Like your own argument you feel is pretty solid,
00:33:45.020 but there are people who agree with you
00:33:47.040 who have terrible arguments,
00:33:48.380 and you're like,
00:33:48.600 oh, don't tar me with that.
00:33:51.620 I don't want to be part of that.
00:33:57.600 I don't understand your comment, Chad.
00:34:00.180 It's a little over my head.
00:34:02.940 So here's the argument that I hate,
00:34:05.700 because I don't want to be associated with it,
00:34:07.300 even though it agrees with me,
00:34:09.080 that Twitter user Paisano said this today,
00:34:12.680 and this is just representative
00:34:13.760 of people who say it all the time.
00:34:15.100 Maybe if we all stopped reading and viewing
00:34:17.360 all the misinformation and hyperbole about viruses
00:34:19.800 that have always been with us,
00:34:22.000 then we can stop the irrational panic pandemic
00:34:24.260 over something that's been 99% survivable.
00:34:29.380 Now, what do you think of that argument?
00:34:31.620 That we should stop panicking about it,
00:34:33.700 which I didn't think I was,
00:34:36.260 because 99% survive.
00:34:38.320 Is that a good argument?
00:34:41.060 Well, here's my problem with it.
00:34:42.680 1% of the population of Earth,
00:34:44.840 if we imagine that everybody gets it eventually,
00:34:48.820 because we're now past pandemic into endemic,
00:34:52.200 you know, beginning of endemic,
00:34:53.780 endemic means basically everybody gets it.
00:34:56.620 So 7.8 billion people on Earth,
00:34:58.740 1% of them would be 78 million people,
00:35:01.540 roughly the same number as died in World War II.
00:35:05.140 Should we ignore a risk
00:35:09.640 that's the size of World War II?
00:35:13.420 Now, as someone pointed out,
00:35:15.540 the population of Earth was far smaller
00:35:17.820 during World War II,
00:35:19.460 so their percentage of death
00:35:21.320 was higher and touched more people.
00:35:24.180 True.
00:35:25.220 But when you're talking about fatalities,
00:35:27.680 percentages are
00:35:29.280 sometimes inappropriate.
00:35:32.900 because if somebody you know dies,
00:35:37.500 that's just a death.
00:35:38.740 It's not a percentage, right?
00:35:40.640 So I think the total number,
00:35:42.680 the raw number,
00:35:43.420 is a little more what I would focus on
00:35:45.680 than the percentage of people died.
00:35:49.400 You know, they both have their point,
00:35:50.880 but it's a real person, right?
00:35:53.420 I don't want to count them.
00:35:54.360 I don't want to just say,
00:35:55.000 oh, well, it's only 1%.
00:35:56.280 So that's the first thing that bothers me,
00:35:58.020 is just thinking of deaths and percentages,
00:36:00.580 even though we have to.
00:36:01.340 Obviously, I do it too.
00:36:03.640 But as a focus,
00:36:04.800 it's sort of obnoxious.
00:36:06.720 And here's what I would prefer.
00:36:11.360 And I know some of you are going to say,
00:36:12.860 oh, I got the numbers wrong
00:36:14.020 because it's not, you know,
00:36:15.300 it's well under 99,
00:36:17.000 and it's stratified,
00:36:18.940 and it's, you know,
00:36:19.740 the people with comorbidities,
00:36:21.480 it's not children,
00:36:22.680 we should...
00:36:23.180 And I agree with all that, okay?
00:36:25.500 But my only point is,
00:36:27.080 if you're going to make that argument,
00:36:28.680 just do it honestly.
00:36:29.580 Just do it honestly.
00:36:32.200 Here's the honest version of the 1% argument.
00:36:35.800 It says the same thing,
00:36:37.640 but it's more honest about it.
00:36:39.440 And it goes like this.
00:36:42.400 Just say that you don't care
00:36:43.760 if tens of millions of people die,
00:36:45.720 because that's not worth it
00:36:48.020 to limit the freedom of everybody,
00:36:50.720 and especially because many of them will be older.
00:36:53.340 If you say that directly,
00:36:56.560 then I'm okay with that,
00:36:58.360 at least as a coherent opinion.
00:37:01.300 You know, I could disagree with it,
00:37:03.120 but it's a coherent opinion.
00:37:05.360 What I don't like is saying
00:37:07.920 that you want everything to open up
00:37:09.280 and pretending like that's not going to have
00:37:10.840 any impact on people dying.
00:37:14.740 So let me say my own opinion
00:37:16.360 in the most honest way I can.
00:37:19.280 I think we should go back to normal
00:37:22.520 because we have the therapeutics and all that.
00:37:26.820 You know, keep the people
00:37:27.680 who have the worst risks.
00:37:29.540 You know, they could take a little more care.
00:37:33.040 But I would go back to something like normal
00:37:35.480 with the full understanding
00:37:37.820 that at least a million people will die.
00:37:40.720 It could be a lot more.
00:37:42.340 It could be 5 million.
00:37:43.700 It could be 10 million.
00:37:44.640 But I'll say it directly.
00:37:48.060 If you can't say it directly,
00:37:49.280 I don't know if you belong in the conversation.
00:37:53.140 Ron says that's a dumb take.
00:37:55.500 Ron, if you had said almost anything else,
00:37:59.960 I wouldn't be blocking you right now.
00:38:02.620 Goodbye.
00:38:07.180 It's the risk, stupid,
00:38:08.620 and who gets to assess it?
00:38:10.260 Well, here's my point.
00:38:11.220 You should be able to say both the good
00:38:13.680 and the bad of your decision.
00:38:15.360 The good of my decision
00:38:16.580 is that we get back to normal life, most of us.
00:38:20.200 The bad is that maybe 5 million people would die.
00:38:23.600 They wouldn't necessarily die the same way.
00:38:27.540 Maybe there'd be a different 5 million
00:38:29.340 if you kept everything closed
00:38:30.680 and the economy sucked.
00:38:32.740 But what do you think?
00:38:35.240 What do you think it might take?
00:38:37.500 That I don't have a problem
00:38:38.720 with the 99% survivability.
00:38:41.220 As long as you're willing to take it
00:38:42.960 to its obvious context,
00:38:46.620 which is you prefer freedom
00:38:48.020 over the lives of 5 or 10 million people
00:38:50.820 that maybe you don't know.
00:38:53.280 I'll say it directly.
00:38:55.420 I'll say it directly.
00:38:56.980 But if you can't say it directly,
00:38:58.200 I just have a problem with your argument.
00:39:01.940 All right.
00:39:03.880 I have two solutions
00:39:05.340 for completely ending the pandemic.
00:39:08.740 I'll know some of you think it's already over.
00:39:11.600 But just bear with me here
00:39:12.680 because this is fun to talk about.
00:39:14.700 All right.
00:39:15.500 So the next thing I'm going to talk about,
00:39:18.060 I know a lot of you turn it off
00:39:19.660 when it's virus stuff,
00:39:21.480 but we're going to talk about
00:39:23.080 the engineering and the logic of something,
00:39:25.480 which I think is way more interesting
00:39:27.380 than just the usual lockdown,
00:39:29.760 no lockdown, blah, blah.
00:39:31.460 All right.
00:39:32.540 Here is a question I asked,
00:39:33.960 and I believe everybody got the wrong answer.
00:39:37.020 And I want to walk through it with you
00:39:38.580 and see what you think.
00:39:40.300 So I asked,
00:39:41.380 and again,
00:39:41.920 this is a non-realistic situation
00:39:44.280 just to isolate your thinking.
00:39:46.800 This is not about the real world.
00:39:48.840 Okay.
00:39:49.420 So I'm going to give you
00:39:50.180 a very artificial situation
00:39:51.800 that can never exist in the real world.
00:39:54.140 You've got two choices.
00:39:55.480 You've got,
00:39:55.960 you know you're in a room
00:39:57.040 with somebody who has COVID.
00:39:58.100 So that's the first unrealistic thing
00:40:00.820 because if you knew they had COVID,
00:40:03.320 you would probably get out of the room.
00:40:05.100 But suppose you were in a room
00:40:06.280 with somebody you knew had COVID
00:40:07.640 and you had two choices for dealing with it.
00:40:10.860 And again,
00:40:11.280 this is artificial constraint.
00:40:12.920 You always have more choices than this.
00:40:14.800 But one is to open one window,
00:40:17.060 just one.
00:40:18.780 And the other is to turn on the ceiling fan,
00:40:21.440 but leave the windows closed.
00:40:23.320 Now it's not a sealed room
00:40:25.060 with no ventilation.
00:40:26.660 Let's say it's the winter.
00:40:28.440 Probably the,
00:40:29.120 you know,
00:40:29.420 the heating is going
00:40:30.720 and circulating stuff.
00:40:32.300 And if it's the summer,
00:40:33.380 maybe the AC is going,
00:40:34.560 whatever.
00:40:35.380 So it's a closed room,
00:40:36.780 but you know,
00:40:37.360 with the normal circulation
00:40:38.980 of a closed room.
00:40:40.360 So which one would be more dangerous
00:40:42.460 in the comments?
00:40:43.960 Your closed room with the fan,
00:40:45.880 but of course there's some circulation.
00:40:48.140 Or the open window,
00:40:49.960 no fan.
00:40:52.880 Now based on what I saw on Twitter,
00:40:55.760 almost all of you
00:40:56.800 are going to say open window.
00:40:58.100 But I'm seeing more people say fan.
00:41:03.340 Interesting.
00:41:04.380 All right,
00:41:04.600 here's how you would decide this,
00:41:05.940 I think.
00:41:06.640 And I need some help with this.
00:41:08.780 What is more dangerous?
00:41:10.380 A plume,
00:41:11.680 in other words,
00:41:12.500 the virus that's coming out
00:41:14.460 of a speaker's mouth,
00:41:16.820 like going directly into your face,
00:41:18.580 is that more dangerous
00:41:20.200 than simply being in a room
00:41:21.720 where the, you know,
00:41:24.420 the average of the air
00:41:26.140 has some virus in it?
00:41:27.740 Which is more dangerous?
00:41:29.740 A plume,
00:41:31.260 or being in a room
00:41:32.700 that's got a rising amount
00:41:34.680 of virus in it
00:41:35.700 the longer you're there,
00:41:37.040 but it's just sort of spread out.
00:41:38.440 Those of you who said plume
00:41:44.500 might be right,
00:41:48.000 but doesn't it depend
00:41:49.860 how long you're in the room?
00:41:53.140 If you're in the room
00:41:54.180 for five minutes,
00:41:55.820 the plume is definitely worse.
00:41:58.120 All agree?
00:41:58.720 If you're only in the room
00:42:00.480 for five minutes,
00:42:02.280 plume is worse
00:42:03.240 than ambient
00:42:04.180 or whatever it is,
00:42:05.440 background virus.
00:42:06.400 I think we'd all agree with that.
00:42:08.640 But what if you're in the room
00:42:09.740 for an hour?
00:42:13.420 And apparently there are
00:42:15.080 CO2 sensors you can buy.
00:42:17.860 They're kind of expensive.
00:42:19.260 600 bucks or so.
00:42:20.940 You can put it on the table
00:42:22.140 in your conference room
00:42:23.100 and it will actually show you
00:42:24.680 a light to tell you
00:42:26.120 when your CO2
00:42:26.960 has reached a certain level.
00:42:29.520 Now, if the CO2
00:42:30.580 reaches a certain level,
00:42:31.900 that tells you
00:42:32.760 the ventilation is not good
00:42:34.340 because the exhale
00:42:36.260 hasn't been, you know,
00:42:38.020 left the room.
00:42:39.380 Your exhaling has started
00:42:40.880 to build up in the room
00:42:42.000 if the CO2 is building up.
00:42:44.240 Now,
00:42:45.340 would the virus amount
00:42:46.820 in the room
00:42:47.480 build up in lockstep
00:42:50.040 with the CO2?
00:42:51.460 What do you think?
00:42:58.140 Yeah, I still don't understand, Chad.
00:43:00.040 I don't...
00:43:00.640 I'm sorry,
00:43:01.220 I don't understand your context.
00:43:02.820 But I appreciate
00:43:03.560 that you're adding the details.
00:43:05.460 So that...
00:43:06.980 I appreciate
00:43:07.820 when somebody tries
00:43:08.760 to put the details
00:43:09.580 in a comment,
00:43:10.340 even if I don't get them all.
00:43:12.080 I mean,
00:43:12.580 that's the way to go.
00:43:15.040 So,
00:43:15.620 here's my question
00:43:17.140 for the experts,
00:43:18.180 and this is my missing
00:43:19.180 piece of data.
00:43:20.740 How many people
00:43:21.620 get COVID
00:43:23.060 just by being in a room
00:43:24.860 for any length of time?
00:43:27.920 Compared to the number
00:43:28.980 of people who get it
00:43:29.720 when they know
00:43:30.520 they were talking
00:43:31.120 to somebody with a plume.
00:43:33.040 Take Chris Christie.
00:43:34.080 Do you think
00:43:35.420 Chris Christie
00:43:36.120 got COVID
00:43:37.560 from Trump allegedly
00:43:38.740 because he was
00:43:40.120 in the room
00:43:40.700 or because
00:43:42.160 at some point
00:43:42.920 Trump spoke
00:43:44.280 directly to him
00:43:45.380 and plumed him?
00:43:48.140 Right?
00:43:48.660 Trump probably
00:43:49.360 plumed everybody
00:43:50.160 in that room
00:43:50.800 at one point
00:43:52.380 or another.
00:43:52.940 He was probably
00:43:53.340 talking directly
00:43:54.080 to everybody
00:43:54.680 who got infected.
00:43:56.200 Now, we don't know.
00:43:57.540 It was speculating
00:43:58.280 a little bit.
00:43:58.720 So, here's
00:44:00.340 idea number one
00:44:01.740 for ending
00:44:02.280 the pandemic.
00:44:06.880 Have the following
00:44:08.020 rule.
00:44:09.240 If you can't
00:44:10.200 open a window
00:44:10.900 and you don't have
00:44:13.280 like really
00:44:13.740 high level
00:44:14.700 ventilation
00:44:15.680 like an airplane
00:44:16.480 does,
00:44:17.320 if you can't
00:44:18.020 open a window,
00:44:19.640 you have to have
00:44:20.240 a fan on.
00:44:22.500 That's it.
00:44:24.060 And then the
00:44:24.600 pandemic's over.
00:44:25.380 Because in my
00:44:26.480 opinion,
00:44:27.560 a fan would
00:44:28.380 dissipate the
00:44:29.100 plumes so
00:44:30.140 effectively
00:44:30.700 that you'd have
00:44:31.800 to be in that
00:44:32.300 room a long
00:44:32.980 time to get
00:44:33.660 COVID from
00:44:34.300 the background
00:44:35.420 distributed
00:44:36.140 stuff.
00:44:37.680 Now, this is
00:44:38.300 of course
00:44:38.580 hypothesis.
00:44:40.160 I don't know
00:44:40.660 that anybody
00:44:41.060 has the data
00:44:41.740 that could say
00:44:42.260 this is right
00:44:42.820 or wrong yet,
00:44:44.540 but you could
00:44:45.740 A-B test it,
00:44:46.640 couldn't you?
00:44:48.100 Could you not
00:44:49.100 say,
00:44:50.600 all right,
00:44:51.020 the following
00:44:51.660 rooms this
00:44:52.520 winter,
00:44:53.520 we will have
00:44:54.200 fans on,
00:44:55.380 and it'll
00:44:56.160 be a
00:44:56.460 representative
00:44:56.940 of a bunch
00:44:57.300 of people
00:44:57.600 using this
00:44:58.140 room,
00:44:58.580 and then
00:44:59.180 there are
00:44:59.440 other ones
00:44:59.900 that we
00:45:00.280 won't have
00:45:00.760 a fan on,
00:45:01.400 it'll just
00:45:01.700 be the
00:45:02.000 normal
00:45:02.380 circulation,
00:45:04.200 and we'll
00:45:04.500 see which
00:45:04.920 one produces
00:45:05.660 more infections.
00:45:08.140 I feel like
00:45:08.720 you could
00:45:08.980 test it,
00:45:09.920 and I feel
00:45:10.760 pretty strongly
00:45:11.700 that if you
00:45:12.800 could get
00:45:13.180 COVID simply
00:45:13.920 by being
00:45:14.540 on the other
00:45:15.700 side of the
00:45:16.280 room from
00:45:17.280 somebody who
00:45:17.780 has it,
00:45:18.700 we would
00:45:19.120 all already
00:45:19.900 have it.
00:45:22.620 Why do
00:45:23.420 only 25%
00:45:24.480 of spouses
00:45:26.180 get it when
00:45:26.900 the spouse
00:45:27.300 has it?
00:45:29.100 Why do you
00:45:29.780 think that
00:45:30.140 is?
00:45:31.380 Well,
00:45:31.860 that dovetails
00:45:32.640 into my
00:45:33.140 next way to
00:45:34.380 solve the
00:45:34.900 pandemic.
00:45:35.460 You ready
00:45:35.740 for this?
00:45:37.760 We are very
00:45:38.960 aware that
00:45:40.000 breathing can
00:45:41.480 exhale the
00:45:42.400 virus, right?
00:45:44.780 But do we
00:45:45.560 not believe
00:45:46.160 that talking
00:45:47.180 is the
00:45:47.900 primary
00:45:48.460 spreading
00:45:49.940 method?
00:45:51.160 Fact check
00:45:51.700 me.
00:45:52.680 Is that
00:45:53.500 not well
00:45:54.080 understood that
00:45:55.640 the talking
00:45:56.460 and singing
00:45:57.780 in particular,
00:45:58.560 talking loudly
00:45:59.240 and singing,
00:46:00.300 are those two
00:46:01.200 things not the
00:46:02.300 primary thing
00:46:03.320 that spreads
00:46:04.320 it from the
00:46:04.960 spreader?
00:46:06.340 Right?
00:46:08.520 I think
00:46:09.300 that's true,
00:46:09.820 right?
00:46:10.940 Now, if you
00:46:12.280 have to be
00:46:12.800 talking to
00:46:14.260 spread it,
00:46:15.900 and only 25%
00:46:18.120 of spouses are
00:46:19.040 giving it to
00:46:19.540 each other,
00:46:21.260 does that
00:46:22.900 sound wrong?
00:46:25.020 Because I've
00:46:25.920 got a feeling
00:46:26.360 that that makes
00:46:27.040 perfect sense.
00:46:29.280 Under the
00:46:30.300 assumption which
00:46:30.980 is not
00:46:31.640 confirmed,
00:46:34.340 the spreading
00:46:34.920 is, let's say
00:46:35.640 spreading is
00:46:36.200 80% of how
00:46:37.480 you, let's
00:46:38.880 say talking
00:46:39.420 is 80% of
00:46:40.340 how you give
00:46:40.760 it to somebody.
00:46:41.800 Do you think
00:46:42.220 that that would
00:46:42.640 hold up?
00:46:43.620 Just a guess.
00:46:45.180 But suppose
00:46:45.800 talking is 80%
00:46:48.320 of it.
00:46:51.960 I think it
00:46:52.640 could be.
00:46:53.300 That would
00:46:53.660 completely explain
00:46:54.580 the 25%.
00:46:55.600 You know, I
00:46:56.900 was teasing the
00:46:57.660 other day that
00:46:58.160 when you're
00:46:58.620 married or in
00:46:59.600 a relationship,
00:47:01.080 your spouse
00:47:01.920 will try to
00:47:02.580 talk to you
00:47:03.040 while you're
00:47:03.440 standing next
00:47:04.440 to running
00:47:04.880 water in the
00:47:05.620 next room.
00:47:07.120 Because that's
00:47:07.780 how spouses
00:47:08.320 talk to each
00:47:08.920 other.
00:47:10.160 They shout at
00:47:11.060 each other in
00:47:11.580 the other room,
00:47:12.740 or they talk to
00:47:13.500 you as you're
00:47:13.880 walking by,
00:47:15.360 or they'll
00:47:15.960 yell something to
00:47:17.040 you that you
00:47:17.400 need to know
00:47:17.920 before you
00:47:18.440 get in the
00:47:18.780 car, or
00:47:20.340 you're opening
00:47:22.040 the door to
00:47:22.600 leave, and
00:47:23.720 your spouse in
00:47:24.340 the kitchen
00:47:24.660 says, oh,
00:47:25.240 you know,
00:47:25.480 today, blah,
00:47:26.040 blah, blah,
00:47:26.340 remember this.
00:47:28.920 I'll bet spouses
00:47:30.400 don't talk close
00:47:32.260 to each other
00:47:32.760 very often, if
00:47:34.280 they've been
00:47:34.620 married a while.
00:47:36.380 You know, if
00:47:36.760 you just took
00:47:37.240 the number of
00:47:37.700 people who
00:47:38.100 don't have
00:47:38.620 sex in a
00:47:39.360 two-week
00:47:39.740 period,
00:47:41.160 right, take
00:47:42.820 the number of
00:47:43.500 married people who
00:47:44.320 don't have sex
00:47:45.280 in a two-week
00:47:46.540 period,
00:47:46.900 and don't
00:47:49.740 even sleep in
00:47:50.320 the same bed
00:47:50.780 often, because
00:47:51.420 of snoring and
00:47:52.220 other things,
00:47:53.100 I'm not sure that
00:47:54.400 we should be
00:47:54.860 surprised that
00:47:55.520 only 25% of
00:47:56.600 spouses get it,
00:47:57.940 if talking
00:48:00.060 closely is how
00:48:01.600 it's mostly
00:48:02.080 spread.
00:48:04.420 I mean, that
00:48:04.800 would explain it
00:48:05.400 completely, right?
00:48:06.960 Because if you're
00:48:07.760 in, let's say,
00:48:08.380 a beginning
00:48:10.260 relationship, you
00:48:11.680 get really close
00:48:12.580 to each other
00:48:13.160 and talk a
00:48:14.120 lot.
00:48:16.320 But if you're
00:48:17.040 married, you
00:48:18.160 kind of shout
00:48:18.700 at each other
00:48:19.240 as you're
00:48:19.580 walking by, and
00:48:21.200 you're lucky if
00:48:22.080 you have sex
00:48:22.720 every two weeks
00:48:23.440 if you've been
00:48:24.100 in a standard
00:48:25.040 marriage for a
00:48:25.740 long time.
00:48:27.780 So, I don't
00:48:28.520 know.
00:48:29.360 So here is my
00:48:30.160 second suggestion
00:48:32.200 for ending the
00:48:33.640 pandemic.
00:48:34.440 Are you ready?
00:48:35.540 First one is
00:48:36.320 turn on fans in
00:48:37.340 any room that
00:48:37.880 doesn't have a
00:48:38.620 window open.
00:48:39.100 The second
00:48:40.120 one is we
00:48:41.760 all stop
00:48:42.320 talking for
00:48:43.040 two weeks.
00:48:45.300 Still
00:48:45.820 communicate, but
00:48:48.020 you can only
00:48:48.900 talk if
00:48:49.900 somebody is
00:48:50.500 across the
00:48:51.300 room, or
00:48:52.880 you text
00:48:53.300 them.
00:48:54.160 Just two
00:48:54.660 weeks.
00:48:56.420 No, I'm
00:48:57.000 not serious,
00:48:57.740 because anything
00:48:58.220 I say with
00:48:58.800 two weeks, you're
00:48:59.480 all going to
00:49:00.800 piss your
00:49:01.260 pants and
00:49:01.760 say, but
00:49:02.680 Scott, they
00:49:04.540 told us we
00:49:05.240 would flatten
00:49:05.800 the curve in
00:49:07.180 two weeks.
00:49:08.140 No, it's a
00:49:08.900 coincidence that
00:49:09.620 they're both
00:49:09.940 two weeks.
00:49:10.500 It has nothing
00:49:10.900 to do with
00:49:11.300 this idea.
00:49:14.160 How about
00:49:14.840 testing it?
00:49:17.100 Suppose you
00:49:18.280 took a high,
00:49:20.920 let's say, a
00:49:21.980 group that you
00:49:23.000 knew had some
00:49:23.800 COVID going
00:49:24.460 around, and
00:49:25.000 you said,
00:49:25.380 all right, for
00:49:26.340 this group of
00:49:27.020 people, just
00:49:28.420 stop talking for
00:49:29.380 two weeks,
00:49:30.040 voluntarily, right,
00:49:31.480 just to test
00:49:32.060 it.
00:49:34.720 I could go
00:49:35.540 two weeks
00:49:36.040 without talking.
00:49:37.560 In fact, I
00:49:38.120 went three years
00:49:38.720 without talking.
00:49:39.700 I had a
00:49:40.300 voice problem,
00:49:41.280 so I think I
00:49:42.000 have some
00:49:42.260 special insight
00:49:43.200 on this.
00:49:44.180 It turns out
00:49:44.840 you can go
00:49:45.440 two weeks
00:49:45.840 without talking,
00:49:46.840 and you're
00:49:47.600 not even
00:49:47.960 going to be
00:49:48.260 worse off
00:49:48.720 for it at
00:49:49.720 all.
00:49:50.660 It would be
00:49:51.360 like the
00:49:52.160 smallest
00:49:52.620 sacrifice you
00:49:53.500 ever made
00:49:53.900 in your
00:49:54.140 life.
00:49:55.640 And you
00:49:56.580 might even
00:49:56.900 be happier,
00:49:58.480 right?
00:49:58.960 Because you
00:49:59.320 can still
00:49:59.680 communicate.
00:50:00.520 You know,
00:50:00.740 most of our
00:50:01.520 communicating is
00:50:02.180 by messaging.
00:50:03.160 And now let
00:50:03.500 me throw in a
00:50:04.320 provocative
00:50:05.320 thought.
00:50:05.860 We know
00:50:07.380 that COVID
00:50:07.900 is highly
00:50:08.400 correlated with
00:50:09.100 age or bad
00:50:10.180 outcomes.
00:50:11.320 And the
00:50:11.680 older you are,
00:50:12.500 the more likely
00:50:13.060 you are to
00:50:13.860 have a bad
00:50:14.360 outcome from
00:50:15.000 COVID.
00:50:16.040 But old
00:50:19.740 people talk
00:50:20.820 in person more
00:50:21.560 than young
00:50:21.960 people.
00:50:22.960 Could it be,
00:50:24.020 I don't believe
00:50:24.580 this, by the
00:50:25.000 way, but it's
00:50:25.400 fun to talk
00:50:25.920 about, could it
00:50:27.080 be that one of
00:50:28.280 the biggest
00:50:28.660 reasons that
00:50:29.360 kids don't get
00:50:30.120 it is they
00:50:32.360 don't talk
00:50:32.820 in person?
00:50:35.820 Have you
00:50:36.500 ever seen
00:50:36.860 two teens
00:50:37.620 hanging out?
00:50:40.220 Let me give
00:50:40.880 you my
00:50:41.200 impression of
00:50:41.920 two teens
00:50:42.480 sitting shoulder
00:50:43.400 to shoulder
00:50:43.980 hanging out.
00:50:49.940 That's it.
00:50:51.140 That's my
00:50:51.560 impressions of
00:50:52.240 two teens
00:50:52.700 talking right
00:50:53.840 next to each
00:50:54.360 other.
00:50:55.300 They're both
00:50:56.020 talking to
00:50:56.460 someone else.
00:50:58.680 Right?
00:50:59.660 Everybody who's
00:51:00.540 observed children
00:51:01.900 knows this,
00:51:02.480 right?
00:51:02.620 They're talking
00:51:02.960 to someone
00:51:03.360 else.
00:51:04.000 Now, obviously,
00:51:04.700 there's direct
00:51:06.140 age-related
00:51:06.960 issues, the
00:51:08.780 ACE2, you
00:51:09.880 know, whatever
00:51:10.780 receptors, or
00:51:12.200 children have
00:51:14.260 more of them.
00:51:15.320 So there are
00:51:15.780 obvious biological
00:51:16.760 reasons there
00:51:17.360 would be more.
00:51:18.020 But on top of
00:51:18.860 that, I wonder
00:51:19.900 if below a
00:51:21.700 certain age,
00:51:22.280 people don't
00:51:22.720 talk to each
00:51:23.240 other in person
00:51:23.900 as much.
00:51:26.340 Just wondering.
00:51:28.940 A lot of
00:51:29.600 people went to
00:51:30.140 work when
00:51:30.840 people weren't
00:51:31.380 going to
00:51:31.840 school.
00:51:33.680 Governor
00:51:34.220 Newsom is
00:51:35.420 being smart
00:51:37.560 in a way that
00:51:38.140 you're not
00:51:38.480 going to like,
00:51:39.380 some of you.
00:51:40.900 He announced
00:51:41.600 that his
00:51:41.880 administration is
00:51:43.020 going to make
00:51:44.140 it easier for
00:51:44.920 private citizens
00:51:45.900 to sue people
00:51:47.100 who sell
00:51:47.800 assault rifles
00:51:48.620 or parts for
00:51:50.440 these ghost
00:51:51.060 guns.
00:51:53.080 Do you know
00:51:53.840 where he got
00:51:54.200 that idea?
00:51:55.920 Does anybody
00:51:56.380 know where
00:51:56.960 Newsom got the
00:51:58.140 idea of allowing
00:51:58.960 private citizens
00:51:59.900 to sue people
00:52:01.600 who sell
00:52:02.040 assault rifles?
00:52:04.780 Texas abortion
00:52:05.740 law.
00:52:08.580 I don't think
00:52:09.400 I saw this
00:52:09.940 coming.
00:52:10.500 Did anybody
00:52:10.920 else see it
00:52:11.400 coming?
00:52:15.600 Yeah.
00:52:16.080 So, from a
00:52:19.760 political
00:52:20.200 perspective, it's
00:52:21.380 kind of
00:52:21.740 brilliant, but
00:52:23.160 from a
00:52:23.800 health of the
00:52:25.040 republic
00:52:25.460 perspective, I'm
00:52:27.860 not sure either
00:52:28.520 of these is a
00:52:29.160 good move.
00:52:30.460 Because it just
00:52:31.080 creates a whole
00:52:32.440 new set of
00:52:33.280 things that can
00:52:35.000 happen that
00:52:35.820 maybe should go
00:52:38.320 through the
00:52:38.700 normal process
00:52:39.500 instead.
00:52:39.880 I don't like
00:52:42.760 using the
00:52:43.160 courts for
00:52:43.560 this.
00:52:44.800 That's my
00:52:45.380 take.
00:52:45.960 Anyway, but
00:52:47.060 it's smart.
00:52:49.040 You know, at
00:52:49.720 the moment, I
00:52:50.280 would say
00:52:50.640 Gavin Newsom
00:52:51.420 would be the
00:52:51.880 number one
00:52:53.000 potential
00:52:55.060 presidential
00:52:56.200 candidate who
00:52:56.980 could make a
00:52:57.560 dent.
00:52:59.300 Anybody
00:52:59.740 disagree?
00:53:02.960 Because I
00:53:03.700 can't imagine
00:53:05.520 Biden running,
00:53:06.580 I can't imagine
00:53:07.260 Kamala Harris
00:53:08.000 winning, I
00:53:09.560 can at all.
00:53:10.700 Now, I'm not
00:53:11.460 saying you like
00:53:12.200 him, I'm just
00:53:13.860 saying he has
00:53:14.260 the most skill.
00:53:16.780 Well, let's
00:53:17.540 take the two of
00:53:18.440 them.
00:53:18.760 Consider Mayor
00:53:19.620 Pete versus
00:53:22.040 Newsom.
00:53:23.420 I don't think
00:53:23.960 that's even
00:53:24.420 close.
00:53:26.100 What do you
00:53:26.500 think?
00:53:27.520 Mayor Pete
00:53:28.140 would look like
00:53:28.960 a teenager
00:53:31.980 compared to
00:53:32.780 Newsom,
00:53:33.720 wouldn't he?
00:53:35.600 Joe
00:53:36.080 Manchin,
00:53:36.580 interesting.
00:53:37.760 I'm not sure
00:53:38.400 Joe Manchin is
00:53:39.160 president
00:53:39.560 material, but
00:53:40.540 he's definitely
00:53:41.240 leader of the
00:53:42.800 Congress
00:53:43.100 material.
00:53:47.840 Pete feels
00:53:48.740 more trustworthy,
00:53:49.840 somebody says.
00:53:51.380 Well, maybe
00:53:53.060 trustworthy in
00:53:54.200 one way, but
00:53:55.240 I don't know.
00:53:56.560 Yeah, I
00:53:57.880 don't know.
00:53:58.280 That's subjective.
00:54:00.560 Newsom's voice is
00:54:01.500 irritating.
00:54:02.680 Does anybody
00:54:03.100 else have that
00:54:03.600 problem?
00:54:04.800 I don't know,
00:54:05.100 it sounds kind of
00:54:05.800 leaderly, his
00:54:06.520 voice.
00:54:06.880 Newsom versus
00:54:09.500 Trump, that
00:54:11.080 would be
00:54:11.380 trouble for
00:54:12.100 Trump.
00:54:13.780 Actually, I
00:54:14.240 think Newsom
00:54:14.700 could beat
00:54:15.080 him.
00:54:16.740 He's the
00:54:17.240 only one I
00:54:17.600 can think of
00:54:18.360 who would
00:54:19.360 have an
00:54:19.880 actual shot
00:54:22.020 at beating
00:54:22.500 Trump.
00:54:23.220 What do you
00:54:23.500 think?
00:54:28.720 His speech
00:54:29.580 pattern is
00:54:30.120 annoying.
00:54:30.440 Newsom would
00:54:37.560 beat Trump.
00:54:39.300 Yeah, I'm
00:54:39.940 not saying
00:54:40.340 you'd like
00:54:41.580 him.
00:54:43.440 With
00:54:44.000 vaccine
00:54:44.320 mandates for
00:54:44.960 kids, no
00:54:45.640 way.
00:54:46.380 But remember,
00:54:47.840 everything that
00:54:48.620 Newsom does is
00:54:49.440 at least popular
00:54:50.620 on his side.
00:54:52.300 That's
00:54:52.500 sometimes,
00:54:54.000 sometimes that's
00:54:55.000 all you need.
00:54:57.640 It's the
00:54:58.320 policies,
00:54:59.180 Scott.
00:54:59.560 No, not
00:55:00.040 really.
00:55:01.540 It's not
00:55:02.180 really.
00:55:02.840 We want it to
00:55:03.520 be about
00:55:03.860 policies, but
00:55:04.620 it never
00:55:04.940 is.
00:55:06.940 Tulsi Gabbard
00:55:07.840 could beat
00:55:08.240 Trump?
00:55:11.200 That would
00:55:11.800 be tougher.
00:55:13.700 That's an
00:55:14.160 interesting
00:55:14.560 matchup.
00:55:17.400 The reason
00:55:18.140 that's an
00:55:18.500 interesting
00:55:18.860 matchup is
00:55:19.520 that she
00:55:19.820 wouldn't
00:55:20.100 take the
00:55:20.520 bait, and
00:55:22.600 might be the
00:55:23.160 only one who
00:55:23.740 wouldn't take
00:55:24.180 the bait.
00:55:25.460 So I think
00:55:26.400 she would take
00:55:26.900 his energy
00:55:27.420 away, and I
00:55:28.080 don't know what
00:55:28.400 that would
00:55:28.700 look like.
00:55:36.940 Yeah, Mayor
00:55:37.720 Pete took
00:55:38.220 two months
00:55:38.620 off, that's
00:55:39.460 going to
00:55:39.680 haunt him
00:55:40.040 forever.
00:55:41.040 But I
00:55:41.920 actually support
00:55:42.700 him on that.
00:55:44.220 I don't know
00:55:44.560 if I said that
00:55:45.100 directly, have I
00:55:45.820 yet?
00:55:46.160 I actually
00:55:46.640 support Buttigieg
00:55:48.040 taking those
00:55:48.900 two months
00:55:49.580 off.
00:55:50.960 And here's
00:55:51.380 why.
00:55:51.620 everybody has
00:55:54.740 a reason not
00:55:55.380 to do it.
00:55:57.800 Everyone has
00:55:58.560 a reason not
00:55:59.280 to take the
00:55:59.780 two months
00:56:00.160 off.
00:56:02.840 Now you
00:56:03.400 could say,
00:56:03.820 but, but,
00:56:04.360 but, it's a
00:56:04.900 pandemic, in
00:56:06.240 which I say,
00:56:06.860 but, but,
00:56:07.360 but, he had
00:56:08.400 other people
00:56:09.000 doing stuff.
00:56:10.500 Now we
00:56:10.940 don't have
00:56:11.260 direct evidence
00:56:12.200 that his two
00:56:12.980 months cost us
00:56:14.120 anything.
00:56:14.740 If we ever
00:56:15.200 got that, then
00:56:15.840 I would revise
00:56:16.460 my opinion.
00:56:17.160 That would be
00:56:17.440 new information.
00:56:18.000 But as a
00:56:19.080 general, here are
00:56:20.780 a couple of
00:56:21.120 general things.
00:56:22.240 Sometimes when
00:56:22.840 you think there's
00:56:23.680 somebody indispensable,
00:56:25.380 but you want to
00:56:26.020 fire them, and
00:56:27.360 then you fire
00:56:27.880 them, and you
00:56:28.580 find out, they
00:56:29.380 were never that
00:56:30.020 indispensable.
00:56:32.360 So, sometimes,
00:56:34.400 you know, we
00:56:35.020 assume things to
00:56:35.980 be true that
00:56:36.560 just aren't
00:56:37.240 true.
00:56:42.800 Generals
00:56:43.280 don't.
00:56:46.040 Is that
00:56:46.600 true?
00:56:48.000 Why not?
00:56:48.820 Why wouldn't
00:56:49.240 a general?
00:56:49.920 You think that
00:56:50.680 there's only one
00:56:51.620 general who can
00:56:52.500 handle every
00:56:53.100 situation?
00:56:54.260 We don't have
00:56:54.780 like an extra
00:56:55.340 general who
00:56:55.920 could stand in
00:56:56.520 for two months?
00:56:58.560 If generals
00:56:59.560 don't, maybe
00:57:00.260 they should.
00:57:01.440 Maybe they
00:57:01.840 should.
00:57:03.060 Yeah, you
00:57:03.640 know, if you
00:57:04.020 look at the
00:57:04.660 value to the
00:57:06.660 family and to
00:57:07.600 the child,
00:57:08.180 especially, for
00:57:09.460 those two
00:57:10.100 months, you
00:57:12.080 know, such a
00:57:12.540 bonding experience
00:57:13.400 and stuff, we
00:57:14.120 don't know the
00:57:14.580 value of that
00:57:15.320 compared to the
00:57:16.440 value of, you
00:57:17.240 know, Pete doing
00:57:17.980 something instead
00:57:19.340 of his stand
00:57:20.040 and doing
00:57:20.380 something.
00:57:22.500 So, at the
00:57:23.360 moment, in the
00:57:25.700 absence of
00:57:26.520 direct evidence
00:57:27.600 that Buddha
00:57:28.800 judge's time
00:57:30.040 off hurt
00:57:30.740 something directly,
00:57:32.060 and I don't
00:57:32.520 have that
00:57:32.940 evidence, in
00:57:33.880 the absence of
00:57:34.580 that, I'm going
00:57:35.000 to support him
00:57:35.600 taking the time
00:57:36.260 off, because I
00:57:37.460 would do the
00:57:37.840 same for you,
00:57:39.260 right?
00:57:39.960 If you were in
00:57:41.080 a job that
00:57:41.720 looked critical,
00:57:43.720 you know, and
00:57:44.060 there's no way you
00:57:45.080 could take time
00:57:45.660 off, I would
00:57:46.060 still support you
00:57:46.740 taking that
00:57:47.160 time off, because
00:57:48.140 we always
00:57:48.560 figure it out.
00:57:49.820 We just always
00:57:50.660 figure it out.
00:57:52.200 You know, it's
00:57:52.540 one of those
00:57:52.860 things that looks
00:57:53.500 like a problem
00:57:54.120 until you're in
00:57:54.800 it, and then
00:57:55.100 you're like,
00:57:55.400 okay, that
00:57:55.980 wasn't so
00:57:56.400 bad.
00:58:01.360 He should have
00:58:02.100 publicly announced
00:58:02.820 it, and who
00:58:04.500 was stepping in.
00:58:05.180 I agree with
00:58:05.660 that.
00:58:06.360 Yeah, I agree
00:58:06.780 that the way he
00:58:07.680 handled it, and
00:58:08.600 not telling us
00:58:09.260 who was in
00:58:09.700 charge, when he
00:58:10.520 was going and
00:58:11.020 stuff, at least
00:58:12.320 telling the
00:58:12.720 public, that was
00:58:14.020 clearly a mistake.
00:58:15.780 Yeah, and I
00:58:16.840 think you can
00:58:17.640 ding him for
00:58:18.320 that, for sure.
00:58:20.380 What has
00:58:20.900 Mayor Pete
00:58:21.400 done that
00:58:21.880 impresses Scott?
00:58:22.860 Nothing.
00:58:23.820 Nothing.
00:58:25.180 I'm basing only
00:58:26.320 on his
00:58:26.960 intelligence and
00:58:29.480 his communication
00:58:30.460 ability, which
00:58:31.640 are both quite
00:58:32.720 good.
00:58:33.000 Good.
00:58:38.040 There was an
00:58:38.880 admiral at
00:58:39.500 Midway who was
00:58:40.260 replaced by a
00:58:41.060 fleet admiral
00:58:41.720 because he was
00:58:42.980 down with his
00:58:43.580 skin disease.
00:58:44.420 Well, there
00:58:44.780 must be plenty
00:58:45.480 of examples
00:58:46.040 where somebody
00:58:47.480 had to fill
00:58:48.360 in for
00:58:48.820 leaders.
00:58:54.880 Scott has a
00:58:55.820 soft spot for
00:58:56.700 gay or black
00:58:57.580 men.
00:58:58.480 That's true.
00:58:59.900 That's true.
00:59:00.740 I have a soft
00:59:01.420 spot.
00:59:02.540 I'm not sure
00:59:03.240 how to call it
00:59:03.680 a soft spot,
00:59:04.440 but I do
00:59:05.260 prefer the
00:59:05.920 underdog somewhat
00:59:07.720 reflexively.
00:59:10.120 I don't
00:59:10.740 apologize for
00:59:11.440 that.
00:59:11.720 How do you
00:59:15.120 know Pete
00:59:15.440 is smart?
00:59:16.160 Went to
00:59:16.760 Harvard and
00:59:17.340 he was a
00:59:17.880 McKinsey
00:59:18.400 consultant.
00:59:19.580 You can't
00:59:20.240 be a
00:59:20.460 McKinsey
00:59:20.820 consultant
00:59:21.340 unless you're
00:59:21.980 in the
00:59:22.180 top 1%.
00:59:24.260 If you're
00:59:26.640 in the
00:59:26.840 top 2%,
00:59:27.860 you don't
00:59:29.020 get to be
00:59:29.440 a McKinsey
00:59:30.340 consultant.
00:59:31.780 Top 2%
00:59:32.680 is literally
00:59:33.420 genius level
00:59:34.900 according to
00:59:35.900 Mensa,
00:59:36.760 but that
00:59:38.020 wouldn't be
00:59:38.420 good enough
00:59:38.860 to be a
00:59:39.720 McKinsey
00:59:40.060 consultant.
00:59:40.580 You'd
00:59:41.620 have to
00:59:41.840 be sort
00:59:42.180 of in
00:59:42.360 the
00:59:42.460 top 1%.
00:59:43.180 So we
00:59:45.340 know that
00:59:45.740 about him.
00:59:49.140 Top 1%
00:59:51.180 of memorizing
00:59:51.880 stuff.
00:59:52.880 Now McKinsey
00:59:53.600 is not
00:59:54.340 going to
00:59:54.660 pick people
00:59:55.140 who are
00:59:55.360 just good
00:59:55.680 at memorizing.
00:59:56.300 I think
00:59:58.340 their hiring
00:59:58.900 standards are
00:59:59.920 pretty good.
01:00:00.400 All right,
01:00:01.740 that's all I
01:00:02.080 got for you
01:00:02.440 today.
01:00:03.460 Today was
01:00:03.980 not a
01:00:04.300 very newsy
01:00:04.860 day,
01:00:05.180 but wait
01:00:05.540 for tomorrow.
01:00:06.640 Oh my
01:00:07.080 God,
01:00:08.300 tomorrow.
01:00:09.280 I'm working
01:00:09.860 on a
01:00:10.360 micro lesson
01:00:11.180 for the
01:00:11.660 folks on
01:00:12.100 Locals on
01:00:13.660 how to
01:00:14.120 predict.
01:00:15.340 It was a
01:00:15.720 little harder
01:00:16.220 than I thought
01:00:16.840 to put it
01:00:17.280 together because
01:00:18.360 the way you
01:00:19.060 predict is
01:00:19.760 different for
01:00:20.380 each domain.
01:00:22.120 So if it's a
01:00:23.040 relationship versus
01:00:24.000 politics versus
01:00:25.140 business.
01:00:25.600 So I'm
01:00:26.420 going to
01:00:26.540 try to give
01:00:26.920 you a quick
01:00:27.420 tour of the
01:00:28.180 best ways to
01:00:28.960 predict in
01:00:29.540 each of those
01:00:30.040 domains.
01:00:31.040 Almost there.
01:00:32.020 You might see
01:00:32.380 that today or
01:00:32.940 tomorrow.
01:00:33.940 And that is
01:00:36.140 all I've got
01:00:36.680 for you today.
01:00:40.720 Taiwan invasion
01:00:41.680 after the
01:00:42.080 Olympics.
01:00:42.500 I'm going to
01:00:42.820 make a
01:00:43.120 prediction.
01:00:44.140 No Taiwan
01:00:45.040 invasion and
01:00:46.440 no Ukraine
01:00:47.160 invasion for
01:00:50.040 the next 12
01:00:50.620 months.
01:00:51.980 That's my
01:00:52.640 prediction.
01:00:53.800 Now I think
01:00:54.460 probably
01:00:55.500 there will be
01:00:56.660 no invasions
01:00:57.860 ever, but
01:00:59.040 for the next
01:00:59.400 12 months I
01:01:00.080 feel confident
01:01:00.740 that neither
01:01:01.740 of those
01:01:02.060 countries will
01:01:02.660 do a land
01:01:04.000 invasion or
01:01:04.960 anything that
01:01:05.600 looks like an
01:01:06.100 invasion.
01:01:07.440 Ten years from
01:01:08.060 now, who
01:01:08.400 knows?
01:01:09.640 Wise guy.
01:01:11.920 All right.
01:01:12.740 That's all for
01:01:13.220 now.
01:01:14.500 Yeah, we
01:01:16.580 talked about
01:01:17.040 Craig Wright
01:01:17.500 already.
01:01:23.040 Australia
01:01:23.520 camps, yeah,
01:01:24.400 I've talked
01:01:24.740 about that
01:01:25.140 before.
01:01:25.500 Oh, if
01:01:30.200 you're on
01:01:30.500 Locals, by
01:01:31.140 the way, if
01:01:31.580 you're using
01:01:31.940 the app, don't
01:01:33.200 turn it to
01:01:33.860 landscape and
01:01:36.580 then back,
01:01:37.400 just lock it.
01:01:38.520 It's a bug
01:01:39.180 that we're
01:01:39.400 working through
01:01:39.820 at the moment.
01:01:40.580 But if you
01:01:40.920 use the
01:01:41.220 browser version,
01:01:42.060 you don't
01:01:42.280 have that
01:01:42.560 problem.
01:01:43.580 All right,
01:01:43.840 and Ghislaine
01:01:44.260 Maxwell, I
01:01:45.760 haven't heard
01:01:46.080 anything that
01:01:46.740 has come out
01:01:47.460 of that yet.
01:01:47.940 I love my
01:01:52.300 camp.
01:01:52.640 I love my
01:01:52.840 camp.
01:01:59.260 Oh, Herbert,
01:02:00.140 you'd be so
01:02:00.680 wrong.
01:02:07.580 All right,
01:02:08.300 similar,
01:02:08.820 blah, blah,
01:02:09.100 blah.
01:02:11.160 Low humidity
01:02:12.020 on planes
01:02:12.600 kills it?
01:02:13.440 Maybe.
01:02:14.640 Maybe.
01:02:14.940 What do you
01:02:17.860 do with the
01:02:18.280 money people
01:02:18.860 pay you
01:02:19.420 here?
01:02:20.420 That's an
01:02:21.000 interesting
01:02:21.320 question.
01:02:22.760 On YouTube,
01:02:25.080 most of it
01:02:25.680 goes to just
01:02:26.700 pay my
01:02:27.120 assistant and
01:02:28.700 pay my
01:02:29.320 taxes, and
01:02:30.340 there's not
01:02:31.080 really much
01:02:31.500 left.
01:02:34.500 Locals is,
01:02:36.420 if you want
01:02:37.040 to make money,
01:02:37.880 the subscription
01:02:38.480 service is the
01:02:39.260 way you do
01:02:39.540 it.
01:02:39.640 YouTube is
01:02:41.140 really more
01:02:42.120 of a marketing
01:02:42.740 device at this
01:02:44.440 point.
01:02:46.500 All right,
01:02:46.980 that's all I
01:02:47.360 got, and I'll
01:02:47.920 talk to you
01:02:48.400 tomorrow.
01:02:48.900 Bye.
01:02:48.980 Bye.