Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1742 Scott Adams： Late And Sleepy But Here For The Simultaneous Sip

00:00:00.000 meaning late. I call that a special time. I used to be in the restaurant business.

00:00:07.160 One of the secrets I learned is that the special of the day is decided based on what you have too

00:00:13.480 much of. So if you bought too much of a certain kind of meat or protein, that was your special

00:00:19.960 of the day, next day. Now I don't have my cup of beverage right now. So we're going to interrupt

00:00:29.040 in the middle to do that. It might be a closing sip. I know, it's backwards. It's going to

00:00:33.600 bother you. The screaming birds on the beach here are added again, but weirdly, I'm getting

00:00:40.440 used to it. Literally, there are screaming birds every night. They sound like babies. It's

00:00:46.620 a terrible situation. Hey, what's happening today? Anything exciting happening to you?

00:00:52.320 The Guatemalan screaming baby birds. Okay. Now, I went to look at the news today, as I always

00:01:03.740 do, and it turns out that now all of the news is about Elon Musk. It's like there's no other

00:01:12.940 news. Let's talk about crypto. Is everybody doing great in their crypto wallets? Crypto is

00:01:24.060 looking pretty scary right now, isn't it? But here's the question I ask you. Does it seem

00:01:30.900 as if the United States, at least, is spending money as if they've decided money will no longer

00:01:37.380 be useful? Does it feel that way? Because I've been trying to decide, why is it that the

00:01:44.780 United States thinks it can spend infinite money? Because we just keep printing it. And

00:01:50.400 it feels like, I hate to say this, because I'm sure this isn't the case, but it's starting

00:01:55.980 to feel like somebody in power has decided that money will no longer have value. So we better

00:02:02.940 spend it now while it still has value. It's like somebody assumes that the dollar will

00:02:07.600 be worthless at some point. Now, that wouldn't make sense with crypto going down at the same

00:02:12.220 time. It doesn't really make sense that everything goes down at the same time, except real estate.

00:02:17.220 I guess real estate will have to take a pause as well. Rand Paul stopped $40 billion going to

00:02:23.900 Ukraine. He's delayed it, right? It's not really stop, stop. I don't think it's stopped.

00:02:29.360 Well, it sounds like my coffee is just about done brewing. I feel as if, before we talk

00:02:38.160 about everything being about Elon Musk, that I should go get it and do the simultaneous sip.

00:02:42.760 What do you think? I know. You agree. You agree? So if you don't mind, I'll be right back.

00:02:59.360 Oh, hot and perfect. A lot like me. All right. So you can actually hear the sound of the ocean?

00:03:23.160 Okay. So something amazing happened in, uh, in my weird little life yesterday. How many,

00:03:34.380 how many noticed it? I don't know if there'll be any articles about it, but we'll talk about it.

00:03:39.660 All right, people. I don't remember the simultaneous sip. Something about a vessel to put coffee in.

00:03:49.960 I know you remember it. So imagine that I'm saying it now and then when you're ready for the dopamine

00:03:58.060 the other day, are you ready? Okay, go. Oh yeah, that's good. That's good. By the way,

00:04:08.740 if you add things to your coffee, such as sugar and cream, well, I don't know why you do that.

00:04:18.620 Say it like Brandon, you know the thing? Yeah.

00:04:21.320 All right. So here's what's happening. All things Elon Musk. So Musk has put the Twitter purchase on

00:04:28.500 hold, he says. What? Why would you put that on hold, you ask? Well, it turns out he's asking for a

00:04:35.620 verification or confirmation of Twitter's claim that fewer than, uh, or less than 5% of all Twitter

00:04:45.340 users are bots and whatever. So Twitter will now have to show him data to support their notion that

00:04:54.820 less than 5% is fake accounts. What do you think is going to happen?

00:05:02.220 I feel as if, well, first of all, it's a reasonable thing to ask for because it would be the thing that

00:05:07.180 you would most, you would most wonder about, right? So I'm not so concerned about the number of users,

00:05:12.980 but the, the amount of interaction. Cause I think, I think the fake accounts probably do more

00:05:18.560 interaction than they are numerically. Um, what do you think he's going to find?

00:05:26.740 Do you think? Uh, yeah, it sounds like babies, but it's, it's actually birds who just scream all

00:05:34.440 night and sound like babies. If you're just joining us. I don't know. I, I think Twitter's numbers might be,

00:05:40.720 they might be right, but it's also a corporation. So you, so it makes you wonder, uh, it makes you

00:05:49.380 wonder if they can support it. Well, we'll see, we'll find out. So that's the first Elon Musk story.

00:05:53.180 He's, he's doubting the 5% number. Secondly,

00:05:57.820 and this is the most interesting story for me. So there was a, uh, some viral stuff going around

00:06:08.320 about the, uh, uh, uh, what the so-called directory of, uh, misinformation. And the idea was to,

00:06:16.460 um, uh, well, this is some fake news from the post-millennial. So I always give you fake news

00:06:22.420 from the left-leaning outlets, but you know, fake news doesn't only come from the left, right?

00:06:30.220 So here's what I consider fake news from the post-millennial. So it's an article about Biden's,

00:06:35.540 uh, ministry of truth, so-called ministry of truth director. And, uh, according to the headline

00:06:42.040 and the tweet of the post-millennial, this is how they say it. They said the director wants to,

00:06:47.140 she wants verified people, that would be people with blue checks on Twitter, like her, to be able

00:06:53.580 to edit people's tweets so they can, uh, quote, add context to certain tweets. Is that a true story

00:07:01.220 or a fake story? So the post-millennial says that the ministry of truth wants people with blue

00:07:07.780 checks like me to be able to edit people's tweets. Do you, do you think that the, uh, woman in charge of 1.00

00:07:15.880 the so-called dis, disinformation group, do you think she actually said that?

00:07:22.320 And somebody said they said it on Zoom and you saw it yourself, right?

00:07:26.500 Now she may have used the word edit, I don't know if she used it, but it wasn't what she was talking

00:07:31.260 about. No, it's not a true story. It's a totally fake story. And here's the fake part.

00:07:38.160 They're, they're, they're treating edit as if it means changing the original tweet.

00:07:42.520 Nothing, nothing like that is being contemplated, right? The Biden administration is not, is not

00:07:48.880 suggesting that anybody's tweet could be edited by somebody else. That never happened.

00:07:54.740 What was suggested is that blue checks, and this is controversial, would, uh, be able to add

00:08:01.680 context and that it would show as a, add additional context. Now what I didn't know is apparently this

00:08:07.060 is already being beta tested. Did you know that? It's, um, so there's, there's, there's some kind of

00:08:13.960 test, I don't think that I'm part of it because I've never seen this, but there's some kind of, uh,

00:08:17.960 Twitter thing that comes up and it says that readers, there's a Twitter message now that comes

00:08:23.080 up for some people that said, uh, readers have added context to, to a tweet. Now if you saw that banner,

00:08:29.800 you might click on it and see that context, would that be bad? Well, here's the argument. The

00:08:38.640 argument is you don't want to give blue check people too much power, uh, because it would be 0.96

00:08:44.680 unfair, right? Why, why should blue check people have this special ability to, to change the 1.00

00:08:49.760 conversation? But here's what I would like to add to that. Uh, don't assume that Twitter would

00:08:57.920 implement such a thing in the worst possible way. Cause this is what a lot of people do when

00:09:02.300 they look at ideas. They say, okay, I understand the idea. Now to evaluate the idea, I will assume

00:09:08.680 that they will implement it in the dumbest way that anybody could do something. And then they, 0.71

00:09:13.540 and then they give an opinion based on the dumbest way you could do something. Is that the way things 0.97

00:09:18.320 happen? I mean, I get the cynicism of, oh, we'll find the wrong way to do it. Like the government,

00:09:23.620 of course, but for a corporation, a high tech corporation that has experts on the interface,

00:09:30.860 experts on developing, you know, new features, et cetera, do you think that they're just going to

00:09:35.920 like slap something together? So here's a basic question. Do you think if such, if such a thing

00:09:43.460 were added to Twitter, don't you think people would have an option of whether they see it or not?

00:09:47.920 Because that would be consistent with what Musk usually likes to offer, which is giving people

00:09:54.080 a choice of how they want to consume their own information. So don't you think that they would

00:09:58.380 give you a choice of either seeing context or not? Now does that sound abusive? Well, here's a choice.

00:10:06.580 You can look at it or not look at it, but it's a little more prominent. Now some people said,

00:10:12.140 Scott, Scott's got that. Not only is it completely unnecessary and it would destroy the world if

00:10:18.040 people could edit people's tweets, but it's already a feature because that's what a reply is.

00:10:25.160 A reply is basically editing or adding context to somebody's tweet. That's what replies do or can do.

00:10:32.720 It's one of the things they can do. So really all that's being contemplated is an improvement in the

00:10:37.460 interface. Basically it's just improvement in the interface. Who is it who doesn't want an improvement

00:10:44.120 in the interface? So this whole post-millennial story of turning, of turning, adding context into

00:10:51.000 editing the tweet, that's just fake news. And it's pretty, pretty direct fake news.

00:10:58.940 The other thing that people don't understand is how features are tested in the tech world.

00:11:03.940 If I say to you, I have an idea for a Twitter feature and you say, it's a bad idea. 0.80

00:11:10.520 You're already not smart. And I haven't even said what my idea is. Do you get this?

00:11:15.900 I'll say it again. Forget about what the suggestion is. Just say the general idea that I make a suggestion

00:11:21.900 for a feature. And then you say, no, that's a bad idea. That'll never work. You're wrong.

00:11:28.000 Because the right answer is, I don't know if it'll work. But you could test it. You could

00:11:34.080 test it with a small group of users. You can wall them off. And you can see what happens

00:11:39.220 if a hundred people use it. I mean, you can limit it to such a small amount of users that

00:11:45.940 it would have no impact on anything. And you would be smarter when you were done. So anybody

00:11:50.880 who says this will work because they will create it poorly, I say, well, you don't understand.

00:11:55.660 Every product is poor. On the first draft, everything's poor.

00:12:04.960 So I would say that this is the sort of thing that we could give a try.

00:12:09.780 Now, somebody said, and it's a good comment, why should blue check people have this extra 1.00

00:12:15.100 power in society? Does that seem right or fair or good or efficient or is it good in any way?

00:12:23.340 Can anybody defend that? Could any of you defend me having a greater voice than you if you don't

00:12:31.620 have a blue check? Somebody says, no fair. Somebody says, I'm seeing lots of yeses and noes.

00:12:40.340 All right. Here's the way I interpret it. And again, this has to do with the interface.

00:12:44.960 Keep in mind that Elon Musk has already said that he'd like the verification process to be more robust

00:12:52.620 so that more people can have their true identity and be verified. So when Musk is talking about

00:12:59.000 being verified or being a blue check, he's not talking about being a special celebrity.

00:13:04.480 He's talking about the future when it just means that you are the person you say you are,

00:13:08.460 which is a more useful thing to do. So is it bad for the public if the people who are willing to

00:13:16.840 identify themselves and say, I am this person, if they're the ones who have the context and you

00:13:23.000 can't get context from an anonymous account, are you worse off or better off? Worse off or better off

00:13:30.140 if the only people who can add context are people who will tell you who they are?

00:13:38.640 I don't know. Again, if you said that's definitely better or you said that's definitely worse,

00:13:44.540 those are both the wrong answer. It's not definitely better. It's not definitely worse.

00:13:50.520 It's different and it's testable. That's all you need. If it's different and it's testable and there's

00:13:57.680 at least a theory of why it could be better, just test the friggin' thing. You don't have to wonder.

00:14:05.080 You know, the question of will it be a good idea is just not a relevant question anymore.

00:14:09.360 Not one you can test so easily and that applies to software. A lot of people don't understand how

00:14:16.140 easy it is to test without disrupting the whole platform. So if you understood how easy it is to

00:14:21.820 test, you wouldn't be asking if it's a good idea or a bad idea. That just doesn't make sense anymore.

00:14:27.680 All right. So the interesting thing about this story is that the minister, the so-called

00:14:37.040 minister of truth, as we like to call her, made the same suggestion that I did.

00:14:43.920 Now here's my, except I didn't have the blue checkboard about that, but here's my one defense,

00:14:50.140 and I think you could argue with this, so this is not the hardest opinion you'll ever see for me.

00:14:54.560 Here would be my defense of allowing the blue check people, or just verified people, to have a little 1.00

00:15:02.120 bit more influence on the conversation through adding context. It goes like this. Number one,

00:15:08.980 we are the people who will tell you our actual identity. That does help. I think that helps.

00:15:15.920 I don't want to see opinions from people who won't say who they are. Now I'd optionally like to see

00:15:21.840 it. I'd like to be able to turn that on and off. But where do you think the blue checks get their 1.00

00:15:27.520 information? Like, where do you think I become informed about what it is that is useful context

00:15:34.540 and what is not? I don't make that up myself. That all comes from the people who follow me,

00:15:42.500 who far and away are not blue check people. So most of what I contribute to Twitter comes,

00:15:51.220 I'd say 80%, comes directly from somebody who's not a blue check, who saw an article today, 0.51

00:15:58.320 for example. Andres Backhaus sent me an article which is really good context. I think I'll talk

00:16:06.000 about it in a minute. And it's something I wouldn't have seen otherwise. And so once I saw it, I said,

00:16:12.060 oh, this looks like something other people would like to see. So I retweeted it. Now, is that me?

00:16:17.100 Would you say that's me adding context? Or is the only reason that I could be the one who pushed

00:16:24.520 the button to add the context? Because Andres found it and gave it. It's the latter. It's the latter.

00:16:30.680 If you think that I'm an elite who's got, you know, thinks I have more, you know, more value

00:16:38.100 or something to the concept, that's not exactly how I see it. Now, that, both views would be fair

00:16:45.860 because this is subjective. My own view is that it's a service. I feel like I'm working for the

00:16:52.340 people who are not blue checks. I feel as though I have some obligation to sort of the Spider-Man

00:16:58.580 problem. You know, the Spider-Man problem with great power comes great responsibility.

00:17:04.520 If you have a blue check and you have a lot of followers, you have within the Twitter universe,

00:17:09.800 relatively speaking, more power. If you have more power and you're not a, you know, flaming

00:17:16.240 partisan, you feel a little bit of response. Well, not a little bit, a lot. I feel a lot of

00:17:21.880 responsibility. And so when people are sending me context, I'm not thinking, oh, watch me get this

00:17:29.600 partisan little bit here and put that out in the world. I'm usually thinking, oh, this would be

00:17:34.820 actually useful. And I could do something that would be useful to the conversation. I could add

00:17:40.120 some context. Now, in my specific case, I try to add context from both directions, as I just did in front

00:17:46.340 of you. So I, you know, I'm just damning the post-millennial at the moment. So you've seen,

00:17:53.280 you've seen that both sides can get some play, even if you think I'm playing one side more than

00:17:59.160 the other. At least there's a little bit of both sides. So now, and somebody, I was watching the

00:18:06.500 comments goodbye. Somebody said I'm romanticizing that a little bit too much. Maybe, maybe. That's a

00:18:12.560 pretty fair statement. So again, the plus side would be that a lot of the blue check people like 0.99

00:18:20.420 me, I think, and I haven't talked to anybody about this, but my belief is that there are a lot of

00:18:26.860 people with blue checks who feel responsibility and feel like it's a service they're providing to

00:18:31.940 filter things and boost things, et cetera. That's how I feel. But surely others would just use the blue

00:18:40.220 check to promote their side. So again, it's a good thing. You could just test it. Find out what you

00:18:46.220 like. Let's see what else is going here. Here's a PolitiFact fake fact check. And it's fake because

00:18:57.480 they, they, it looks like they intentionally worded it to be misleading. And I think it's time for a

00:19:04.060 second simultaneous set because the first one was too hot and I couldn't take a full meaningful

00:19:10.520 swig. And I feel like it's time. Swig hard. Oh yeah, that's better. Much better. All right. Here's

00:19:21.140 what PolitiFact said. I'm going to read their tweet and see if you can, you can find the fake part.

00:19:27.540 Okay. So the fake part is just in the tweet itself. It's the way it's written. So you don't

00:19:33.300 have, you don't have to have any outside information. So just to see if you can find the fake part.

00:19:39.220 I would say, PolitiFact says in a tweet, quote, there are longstanding false claims that gay,

00:19:46.400 lesbian, and bisexual people, men in particular, molest children at higher rates than people who 1.00

00:19:52.420 are not LGBTQ. And then they go on. Studies have revealed most child molesters identify as heterosexual 0.99

00:20:00.300 according to the zero abuse project. Where's the fake news? Did you see it? This one's kind of clever.

00:20:10.140 So they conflated two completely different things and hoped you wouldn't notice. One is the rate of

00:20:17.400 this abuse. And what they say is that the claim is that there's a higher rate among the LGBT

00:20:26.840 community, which by the way, I don't think there's any evidence to that. So that's the claim they're

00:20:32.520 evaluating. And then to debunk it, they say studies have revealed that most child molesters identify

00:20:39.620 as heterosexual. Wait a minute. Isn't that because most people are heterosexual? So they went from

00:20:46.920 talking about the rate, you know, what percentage of LG, well, men, mostly gay men, I guess. What

00:20:53.340 percentage of them were trans? I don't know. I'm not exactly sure how they define men in this

00:20:58.740 context, which is dicey, isn't it? As soon as you're talking about LGBTQ and then you put it in the

00:21:07.160 sentence, men in particular, you have to say, okay, I have to think about what they mean about that.

00:21:14.960 All right. I'm not sure I understand it, but they go from the rate of gay men doing this crime 1.00

00:21:22.840 to the raw number of straight men doing the crime. Do you think you've done something useful

00:21:28.540 when you compare one group's rate, the percentage, to another group, which is 10 times the size

00:21:35.420 or nine times the size, whatever it is, and their total number? This is clearly, clearly disinformation.

00:21:44.720 Am I right? Now, by the way, I have no opinion about the content because I don't know what's true and

00:21:51.220 what isn't, but I've never heard that there's any higher rate in any group of people. So I'm guessing

00:21:56.840 that there's no real difference. That would be my assumption. So that's interesting. Now,

00:22:05.920 what makes this interesting, as some people pointed out in the comments, is that where does this stand

00:22:14.340 mean in terms of people being born the way they're born? All right? You always have to ask the

00:22:22.340 question, how much is social, how much is, you know, the way you're born? And we're not going to sort

00:22:27.500 of put that out today. Um, more stuff on Musk. So, in my tweet, I told you about the disinformation minister

00:22:37.500 and how I agreed that Twitter should have a similar feature for context. As part of the replies to that,

00:22:44.500 and part of my tweeting about it, I mentioned that, um, Twitter doesn't work the way it is now because

00:22:52.500 some people said, oh, the replies are all you need. As long as everybody can reply, you're going to get

00:22:57.500 all the context you ever need. To which I say, if it's millions of bots and, you know, partisans replying,

00:23:04.500 you're not going to be able to find the good context. They'll just be lost in the noise. And so I use as an

00:23:11.500 example of that, if, if the current Twitter system worked, we wouldn't believe in the, in what's called

00:23:17.500 the, uh, the drinking bleach hoax. So that, you know, half of the world or more believes that Trump actually

00:23:24.500 suggested drinking bleach. And I said, half of the world wouldn't believe that if you could add context to tweets.

00:23:33.500 Because right now that's always in the comments, but people don't see it. So, um, as you know, I've been fighting

00:23:41.500 against the drinking bleach hoax for ever since it happened. And the big event was that, uh, Elon Musk

00:23:48.500 replied to my reply in which I was talking about the drinking bleach hoax. And he said, the drinking bleach

00:23:56.500 hoax is a hoax. That, that was a little tweet. So seeing that the, the person who's trying to buy Twitter

00:24:03.500 and probably will succeed, Elon Musk, has said unambiguously that drinking bleach hoax is a hoax. So, do I win?

00:24:14.500 Can, can I ask for a score? You've been watching me fight this mother, I'm sorry. I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna be

00:24:22.500 profane. I don't need to. You've seen me fight this thing. And other people, I'm not, I'm not alone. But you've

00:24:29.500 seen me fight this thing from day one. I've been just beating this, this horse. I mean, it's not a dead horse, but I've been

00:24:36.500 beating this horse like crazy. And finally, to get somebody at, uh, Musk's prominence in terms of attention, especially

00:24:45.500 given that he's got a, a buy order on Twitter, to have him say it clearly and unambiguously that it's a hoax, feels like validation.

00:24:56.500 And primarily, it's not, and it's not because it's just his opinion. It's because everybody's gonna see it. You can't ignore it anymore.

00:25:04.500 You know, if somebody prominent in the Republican Party had done this, that would have been just as good.

00:25:10.500 But having Musk do it, I mean, I'll tell you one thing, he's not afraid. How many times have I told you that

00:25:19.500 not being, not being, that not having a, uh, embarrassment problem is a superpower? Would you agree with me that

00:25:31.500 whatever is true or not true about Elon Musk, it appears to be true, and in every possible way it could appear that way,

00:25:38.500 that he is not influenced by potential embarrassment. True or false?

00:25:45.500 Now, we can't, we don't know what's happening inside his head. I never will be that guy.

00:25:51.500 I'm just saying that, can you imagine another billionaire who, uh, when the camera is rolling, will dance on camera

00:26:01.500 in a way that people are not gonna necessarily say, you're sure good at dancing. Right?

00:26:08.500 I mean, he dances on camera. So wading into the fine people, I'm sorry, the, uh, maybe the fine people hoax will be next.

00:26:16.500 But wading into the drinking bleach hoax at the same time he's buying Twitter, it's sort of a ballsy thing to do.

00:26:22.500 And it, every time you do something that's a little outside what I would imagine is other people's comfort zone.

00:26:30.500 Um, you wanna see the view? Somebody has to see the view, so I'll show it to you. You wanna see the view?

00:26:37.500 Alright, so the locals people are looking at it now. There's the view. Pretty impressive, huh?

00:26:44.500 Alright, you two, do you wanna see the view? I'll turn it up. There, there's the view. Pretty impressive, huh?

00:26:52.500 I don't think you, I don't think you realize how early I have to get up to do this.

00:26:59.500 I tried to be online at 4am, which would require me to wake up at 3am, which is a little tough to do after flying.

00:27:09.500 Um, so I couldn't quite get in there and hear what I wanted to.

00:27:13.500 Alright, so there's no view yet. Just a lot of crying baby birds out there.

00:27:18.500 So I'm gonna say that this feels like a good day for me, just cause I got that, that wind.

00:27:25.500 Feels like a wind.

00:27:28.500 Alright.

00:27:30.500 Rasmussen asked a poll today, did a poll.

00:27:34.500 Yeah, they asked how many people trust the political news they get.

00:27:39.500 What would you guess as a percentage?

00:27:41.500 Total number of likely voters in the United States.

00:27:45.500 What percentage do you guess trust the political news?

00:27:49.500 I'm seeing the locals platform, 25%.

00:27:52.500 You're all guessing 25%, interesting.

00:27:55.500 What a wild, wild, crazy thing for you to say.

00:28:05.500 Why are you all so sure it's around 25%?

00:28:08.500 You're so wrong.

00:28:09.500 You're so wrong.

00:28:10.500 It's 31%.

00:28:11.500 Completely different than 25%.

00:28:13.500 Okay, it's roughly about 25%.

00:28:16.500 31.

00:28:17.500 31%.

00:28:18.500 31%.

00:28:19.500 31%.

00:28:20.500 31%.

00:28:21.500 So, I saw this and I said, are you kidding me?

00:28:25.500 31% of people trust the political news?

00:28:29.500 32%.

00:28:30.500 And so, here's the second question.

00:28:32.500 How many of them are Fox News viewers?

00:28:36.500 What do you think?

00:28:38.500 Versus CNN viewers.

00:28:40.500 I have a feeling that conservatives are less likely to even trust their own news.

00:28:46.500 Is that not true?

00:28:48.500 Don't you think this is probably three to one Democrats trusting the news?

00:28:53.500 It's probably three to one.

00:28:55.500 I'm guessing.

00:28:56.500 Don't know. 1.00

00:28:57.500 It would be, well, actually I'm an idiot. 0.97

00:29:01.500 I don't know why I'm guessing because Rasmussen actually sent me the breakdown. 0.94

00:29:07.500 If I looked at the thing they sent me, it would tell me which are Republicans and which

00:29:11.500 are, but I forgot to look at it before I signed on.

00:29:14.500 But anyway, when it comes out, you'll be able to see it.

00:29:19.500 I'm just amazed that there could be anybody who could actually trust political news.

00:29:26.500 Does that mean they don't watch it?

00:29:28.500 Or does that mean they only watch CNN?

00:29:31.500 Because if you were never exposed to anything but CNN, I think you'd trust it, wouldn't

00:29:37.500 you?

00:29:38.500 Because you'd never seen any reason not to.

00:29:40.500 You would say, well, that's the news.

00:29:41.500 That's the news.

00:29:42.500 I guess that was the news.

00:29:44.500 You would have no reason to know anything was wrong.

00:29:47.500 So I've got a feeling that the people who trust the political news only watch one side

00:29:52.500 and they're never exposed to the other side.

00:29:54.500 That's my guess.

00:29:58.500 Somebody says it means they work in that industry.

00:30:00.500 Yeah.

00:30:01.500 Maybe that's some of them.

00:30:03.500 That's probably 6%.

00:30:04.500 Yeah.

00:30:05.500 So, of the 31% who say they trust political news, somebody said that maybe 6% of them

00:30:13.500 are connected to somebody who works in the media industry.

00:30:16.500 To which I thought, well, that sounds high.

00:30:19.500 But if you considered everybody who's like associated family members and extended employees

00:30:24.500 and everything.

00:30:25.500 Maybe.

00:30:26.500 Maybe.

00:30:27.500 Maybe.

00:30:28.500 Once you get all the friends of friends and stuff included.

00:30:31.500 Could be.

00:30:32.500 Alright.

00:30:33.500 Let me make sure.

00:30:34.500 Oh, here's the weirdest little study.

00:30:39.500 I'm not going to tell you that this study is accurate, the one I'm going to talk about.

00:30:44.500 And the reason I'm not going to tell you it's accurate is, first of all, I don't know.

00:30:49.500 And secondly, when was the last time you saw an accurate study?

00:30:52.500 Is that even a thing?

00:30:57.500 Is anything accurate anymore?

00:30:58.500 It's like, it's not even an expectation anymore.

00:31:01.500 But the study, I think Jeff Seeger was tweeting this around.

00:31:07.500 This comes from the AP report.

00:31:10.500 It says that cleaner air in the United States and Europe is brewing more Atlantic hurricanes.

00:31:16.500 To which you say, what?

00:31:19.500 What?

00:31:20.500 Are you telling me that cleaning up pollution is making hurricanes worse?

00:31:26.500 That would be the opposite of the climate change argument.

00:31:29.500 Now we're talking pollution, not CO2.

00:31:31.500 So don't let me conflate that in your minds, right?

00:31:34.500 Pollution is pollution, CO2 is its own separate problem.

00:31:38.500 You can call it pollution, I guess.

00:31:40.500 But it's a separate topic.

00:31:42.500 But they're saying that the pollution part, by reducing it, which is exactly what you do when you go green, right?

00:31:50.500 It's not necessarily the reason you go green, but it does reduce pollution.

00:31:55.500 So apparently the more we pursue climate change, according to this study, which again,

00:32:01.500 if you believe one study on anything, you're probably a little bit gullible.

00:32:06.500 But it's fun to talk about.

00:32:08.500 Now, how big is the difference?

00:32:11.500 So the first thing I thought when I saw this was, alright, it's not going to be that big a difference, right?

00:32:16.500 They're going to find a 5% difference.

00:32:18.500 And then I'm going to say to myself, okay, 5% difference?

00:32:21.500 That sounds like you didn't prove anything.

00:32:23.500 Because I'm never going to buy a 5% difference in a study like this, right?

00:32:27.500 Studying the weather and telling me you've got a 5% difference, like that would mean anything to me.

00:32:32.500 It wouldn't.

00:32:33.500 It wasn't 5%.

00:32:35.500 Here's what they think it is.

00:32:37.500 A 50% decrease in pollution particles is linked to a 33% increase in Atlantic storm formation.

00:32:48.500 What?

00:32:49.500 Because the 50% decrease in pollution is real.

00:32:53.500 That's what we actually experienced, a 50% reduction in particles.

00:32:58.500 And that's associated with a 33% increase in Atlantic storms.

00:33:03.500 That feels like a really, really big problem, doesn't it?

00:33:08.500 A lost YouTube?

00:33:11.500 No, it's here.

00:33:12.500 I'm still seeing comments.

00:33:14.500 So, what do you think?

00:33:17.500 Do you think that's true?

00:33:19.500 I feel as if that could be true.

00:33:21.500 I've talked before how Atlantic hurricane formation is based on largely.

00:33:27.500 Oh, it looks like I'm going to lose my feed because I'm going to lose my battery here on the locals platform.

00:33:33.500 If the locals platform turns off, it's just that I'll be done for the day because I'm almost finishing.

00:33:39.500 But your battery's got a few minutes left on that device.

00:33:43.500 Yeah, correlation does not prove causation.

00:33:46.500 Thank you.

00:33:47.500 Thank you, you skeptical viewer.

00:33:50.500 That's exactly what you should say.

00:33:53.500 Oh, locals dropped?

00:33:55.500 No, it looks like it's still working.

00:33:57.500 And, so what would we do?

00:34:01.500 What would we do if it's true?

00:34:04.500 Suppose, yeah, it looks like it's back, everything's back up now.

00:34:09.500 Suppose it's true that improving the air gives us more hurricanes.

00:34:18.500 What the hell do you do?

00:34:20.500 So, there's just no solution?

00:34:22.500 Now, let me ask this question.

00:34:24.500 Let's say this study is replicable.

00:34:27.500 No, that's the wrong thing.

00:34:29.500 Let's say more studies back it up.

00:34:31.500 So, if more studies back this up, which part of the 100-year climate models knew that this would happen?

00:34:40.500 Because this is a gigantic thing. 0.92

00:34:43.500 Now, doesn't that prove that the long-term climate models are garbage?

00:34:47.500 Because this is a gigantic effect.

00:34:50.500 One of the major causes of disruption and death would be these hurricanes in the Atlantic, and it's going to make it worse.

00:35:00.500 Define new, right?

00:35:02.500 All right, because I don't have much time left, and I might lose my battery in a moment over on Locals, is there anything I missed today?

00:35:12.500 Is there an inflation gate?

00:35:15.500 You know, I haven't talked that much about inflation because it's just sort of boring and it just sits there.

00:35:24.500 It's not much of a topic.

00:35:25.500 It's just unpleasant.

00:35:27.500 And you can really feel it.

00:35:30.500 During the Trump administration, I had the experience of feeling like at least the country was getting richer.

00:35:38.500 I think I lost money during the Trump administration because, you know, if you talk about Trump, your customers go away.

00:35:49.500 So, all of my lines of business, you know, just got decimated.

00:35:55.500 And I'm using decimated in actually an understatement in this case, because decimated would be a 10% difference.

00:36:02.500 But my income took way more than a 10% hit during that period, and still does.

00:36:09.500 So, all of my lines of business are, like, heading down because of what I do.

00:36:14.500 And partly because I'm, you know, provocative.

00:36:19.500 You came here because I talked about Trump.

00:36:22.500 Yeah.

00:36:23.500 So, you know, at least I can compensate in some ways.

00:36:26.500 One of the reasons I'm writing a book is because my normal lines of business got so whacked.

00:36:33.500 I just felt like I wanted to add a little extra.

00:36:36.500 And a formula.

00:36:37.500 So, the baby formula thing, let me tell you something that is, I guess this is advice.

00:36:45.500 So, I'm watching Fox News in particular, talking about the baby formula change.

00:36:54.500 And there's a sub-story that somebody noticed that there's a whole bunch of baby formula, pallets and pallets of baby formula, going to feed illegal immigrant babies at the border.

00:37:06.500 And people are saying, where is our America first?

00:37:09.500 Why are we helping those babies when our own babies might starve to death? 0.72

00:37:13.500 Now, separate from the question of what's true and false about this story, because it's hard to know what's really true.

00:37:23.500 Separate from that question of factually, you know, knowing whether this is a credible story.

00:37:28.500 Don't make that argument.

00:37:32.500 How does it help you?

00:37:35.500 How does it help your credibility? 0.90

00:37:37.500 How does it make the world better to argue that the brown people's babies should die and the other babies should live? 0.99

00:37:49.500 I guess some of them would be, actually most of the babies that die in this country would probably be non-white. 1.00

00:37:55.500 Because poverty would skew in that direction.

00:37:57.500 Now, I don't know that any American babies are going to starve.

00:38:01.500 Do you?

00:38:02.500 Because I don't know what the alternatives are, etc.

00:38:05.500 But it feels to me that in America, we would be far more capable of adjusting and helping each other.

00:38:13.500 You know, citizens, the legal citizens, would be able to get each other's back.

00:38:18.500 Honestly, you'd probably see some wet nurses. 1.00

00:38:21.500 You might see some really innovative stuff that we wouldn't have seen otherwise.

00:38:25.500 And, while I'm not going to give you the opinion that we should or should not put baby formula in any place or not.

00:38:35.500 I don't know.

00:38:36.500 I'd have to look into it.

00:38:37.500 I'm only talking about the argument.

00:38:39.500 So, I'm not talking about the reality.

00:38:41.500 You know, I don't know what's the best thing to do.

00:38:45.500 Because it's sort of a moral, ethical question and you're all going to come up with your own decision.

00:38:49.500 And that's fine.

00:38:51.500 I'm just going to say that if you would say out loud in public that somebody else's baby should die because their mother made a decision that you don't think they should make,

00:39:01.500 it's just not a good look.

00:39:03.500 It's not a good look.

00:39:05.500 If you're saying somebody else's baby should die because their mother made a decision about how to improve their lives and it's not the one you would have made or the one you would have encouraged, just don't do it.

00:39:17.500 Don't do it.

00:39:18.500 And, you know, my understanding of bureaucracy and supply chains and everything else is that there's probably an entirely different process that got this baby formula.

00:39:32.500 Probably it's been brewing for months and months before we knew there was a problem.

00:39:36.500 But what are you going to do?

00:39:37.500 Go empty those pallets and then the people on the border are like, well, there's no backup for you.

00:39:43.500 You know, there's nobody that's going to have your back because you're in detention centers or wherever you are.

00:39:48.500 I don't know.

00:39:49.500 I assume there's people in detention, right?

00:39:51.500 Detention centers.

00:39:52.500 So there's no good answer here.

00:39:55.500 No good answer.

00:39:57.500 And, yeah, there's some weird question about the government keeping the plant closed for safety reasons.

00:40:03.500 I don't know if there's anything to that at all.

00:40:05.500 Is that a fake ocean?

00:40:07.500 It feels like a fake ocean.

00:40:08.500 Are you talking about abortion now?

00:40:11.500 No.

00:40:12.500 Now, here's another question.

00:40:18.500 If I were, well, maybe it's a recommendation.

00:40:24.500 If I were a Republican running for office in this environment, I would say the following clever thing and then I would let the other side try to debunk it.

00:40:34.500 Now, like all political statements, it's not 100% true, right?

00:40:40.500 It's just something that would work as a slogan or an argument.

00:40:45.500 It goes like this.

00:40:47.500 Everything that's bad for babies, Democrats like. 0.93

00:40:51.500 Because you could almost, you could take almost everything that they suggest and you could make an argument that it's bad for babies, right?

00:41:02.500 So, you know, the baby formula question, the abortion question.

00:41:05.500 And again, this is, I'm giving you my opinion on abortion.

00:41:08.500 I'm saying that if you were one, if you were a pro-life person, talking about you, not me, if you were, you could make the argument that everything the Democrats do is bad for babies.

00:41:19.500 How about climate change?

00:41:21.500 Well, the Democrats would argue that what they're doing is exactly good for babies because the babies will grow up into a safer world if they fix the climate change.

00:41:31.500 But what do the economists on the Republican side say?

00:41:36.500 Well, they would say if you, if you suppress the oil and energy production, those babies will grow up, grow up into a worse situation, not a better one.

00:41:47.500 So, every argument that there are two sides for, Republicans could make an argument that it's bad for babies.

00:41:55.500 Because, basically, if something is bad for babies, it's really hard to get anybody on board with it.

00:42:02.500 Democrats, bad for babies.

00:42:05.500 Now, how do you like bad for babies?

00:42:08.500 Bad for babies kind of comes off your tongue, doesn't it?

00:42:13.500 You want to say it.

00:42:15.500 You want to say out loud, wherever you are right now, how many of you want to say bad for babies?

00:42:21.500 Say it.

00:42:22.500 Say it.

00:42:23.500 Say it.

00:42:24.500 Say it.

00:42:25.500 Say it.

00:42:26.500 I can hear you.

00:42:27.500 I know it seems like I can because of the technology and everything, but I can actually hear it.

00:42:32.500 Say it.

00:42:33.500 Some people are holding out.

00:42:37.500 Say it.

00:42:38.500 Bad for babies. 0.89

00:42:39.500 Alright, there you go.

00:42:40.500 There you go.

00:42:41.500 I think we all feel better now.

00:42:46.500 Thank you.

00:42:47.500 Thank you.

00:42:48.500 Bad for babies. 0.89

00:42:49.500 Biden is bad for babies.

00:42:50.500 Thank you.

00:42:51.500 Build Back Better?

00:42:53.500 Do you notice that Build Back Better turned out Biden is bad for babies?

00:42:58.500 Do you know who's going to pay for all the inflation? 0.95

00:43:01.500 Not the old people, because they're going to be dead. 1.00

00:43:04.500 It's the babies.

00:43:06.500 The babies.

00:43:07.500 You know, Build Back Better wasn't terrible.

00:43:19.500 Build Back Better was catchy enough that it has survived.

00:43:22.500 A lot of the attempts that the Democrats made for catchy statements, especially in Hillary's 0.74

00:43:27.500 regime, she would come up with one potentially catchy saying after another and they didn't

00:43:34.500 catch on.

00:43:35.500 But everything that Trump said caught on.

00:43:38.500 Build Back Better did, it lasted.

00:43:42.500 We all know it.

00:43:43.500 You know, we could all tell you what he's saying is.

00:43:47.500 So, on the normal standards I would apply to that, it's not.

00:43:53.500 Build Back Better is intended to be boring.

00:43:56.500 Don't you think?

00:43:58.500 Build Back Better, they're not trying to excite your passions.

00:44:01.500 It's sort of like, well, we'll just say a non-divisive, ordinary thing.

00:44:07.500 Let's build back, but why would you build back the same?

00:44:10.500 Let's build back better.

00:44:12.500 Now, you could argue that all this is Make America Great Again.

00:44:16.500 Build Back Better just sounds like some version of that.

00:44:20.500 But Biden is bad for babies.

00:44:24.500 Oh, that's a little sticky.

00:44:25.500 Because you throw that baby part in there, it gives a little thing. 0.97

00:44:31.500 Yeah, the no malarkey thing was instantly mockable.

00:44:35.500 That was like the worst idea ever.

00:44:38.500 Buildenburg, Back Better, I get that.

00:44:43.500 The World Economic Forum uses a phrase, WEF.

00:44:49.500 BBB.

00:44:52.500 Biden is bad for babies and birds.

00:44:56.500 All right.

00:44:57.500 Micro lesson on gesticulation, as in using your hands to talk.

00:45:03.500 Is that what you mean?

00:45:06.500 So, let me tell you that the reason I came to this remote location is so I could concentrate on writing.

00:45:14.500 How many of you have experienced that working at home is nearly impossible?

00:45:19.500 Does anybody have that experience?

00:45:21.500 That you went from working in the office to working at home and it became almost impossible.

00:45:26.500 I would say that for my kind of job, that is creative and you just need lots of alone time to do what I do.

00:45:35.500 All day long, my phone is ringing, my dog is bothering me.

00:45:39.500 Until recently, my cat had needs, medical needs.

00:45:44.500 I get emergency calls all day long.

00:45:48.500 Do you?

00:45:50.500 By the way, is it just me?

00:45:51.500 How many of you get emergency calls all day long?

00:45:54.500 And by emergency, it would go like this.

00:45:57.500 My phone battery is almost dead.

00:46:00.500 My car is broken down in a remote part of a dangerous part of the town.

00:46:05.500 And if you don't leave right now, I might die.

00:46:08.500 Please come pick me up.

00:46:09.500 No, I just made that one up.

00:46:10.500 No, I just made that one up.

00:46:11.500 I've never gotten that call.

00:46:12.500 But all day long, I get a version of that call.

00:46:15.500 Now, they're not always, I'm going to die, but they're, I'm going to lose money.

00:46:19.500 I'm going to miss a deadline.

00:46:20.500 I'm going to be late for the thing.

00:46:22.500 I won't make it to my own wedding.

00:46:24.500 All day long, there are problems that only I can solve.

00:46:28.500 And the only way I can solve it is to stop what I'm doing and do this thing right now.

00:46:33.500 And I don't even know how there could be that many things.

00:46:36.500 No, an assistant wouldn't help at all. 0.89

00:46:38.500 It wouldn't help at all.

00:46:39.500 Because the assistant would just come to me and ask me questions. 0.99

00:46:42.500 So having an assistant is not, does not make work less.

00:46:46.500 Trust me, I've tried it.

00:46:48.500 If you have the assistant, they bring as many problems as they solve.

00:46:52.500 It doesn't work.

00:46:54.500 The personal assistant model just doesn't work.

00:47:00.500 Buy an island.

00:47:02.500 So, and I found that it was literally impossible for me to sit down and write on top of my regular work.

00:47:09.500 So by coming out here, I've reduced the number of inputs to, I've reduced the number of like variables in my life to beach,

00:47:21.500 sleep, eat, work.

00:47:24.500 And that's about it.

00:47:26.500 I get no emergency phone calls.

00:47:29.500 My dog doesn't bother me.

00:47:31.500 Nobody checks in just to FYI me.

00:47:34.500 And I sat down yesterday and I just wrote for hours.

00:47:38.500 And it was easy.

00:47:40.500 It actually, it actually took a very unpleasant process, writing, and turned it into literally pleasure.

00:47:48.500 Yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm sitting in a perfect environment.

00:47:51.500 Yeah.

00:47:52.500 I just pounded it down and it felt great.

00:47:55.500 So, um, and I had to do that by reducing all of my other distractions until writing was the most interesting thing I was doing.

00:48:05.500 Scott's just running cover for abusive parents.

00:48:09.500 What topic are you on?

00:48:12.500 Have you noticed that a lot of my critics aren't even on the same topic?

00:48:20.500 I'm the coolest guy you know.

00:48:23.500 You need to meet more people.

00:48:25.500 How can you write with those birds?

00:48:30.500 I can't.

00:48:31.500 Um, I have to wait for the birds to stop.

00:48:34.500 So they do this all night long, but they don't seem to start until something like the early afternoon.

00:48:41.500 So as soon as the sun comes up, they're going to stop making noise.

00:48:44.500 And then I'll have, uh, about six hours to write.

00:48:49.500 But, uh, if you missed it yesterday, this is hilariously true.

00:48:53.500 When I put in my noise canceling, uh, air buds, which are really, really good at air, at noise cancellation,

00:48:59.500 they don't cancel out these birds because the birds are just so freaking loud.

00:49:04.500 But if you, if you take a YouTube video of ocean noises that, you know, people use to go to sleep,

00:49:12.500 if you play fake ocean noises in your earbuds while standing next to a real ocean,

00:49:19.500 you think you're listening to that ocean.

00:49:22.500 Because all oceans sound the same.

00:49:25.500 So I put in my fake, fake ocean sounds that stand by the ocean,

00:49:29.500 and it just feels like I'm standing by the ocean and there are no birds.

00:49:32.500 It's the funniest freaking hack ever.

00:49:35.500 Like I completely eliminated the, you know, the actual experience of the ocean

00:49:39.500 and replaced it with a virtual version.

00:49:42.500 Just as good.

00:49:43.500 Just as good.

00:49:46.500 You need a picture of the birds?

00:49:48.500 I don't know which ones they are exactly.

00:49:50.500 Uh, no, I'm not in Bordemar.

00:49:57.500 Um, get a megaphone and yell at them to get off my lawn. 0.99

00:50:00.500 I did wonder if I could yell at them and make them stop, but, you know,

00:50:04.500 I'm sure there's some better protected species.

00:50:07.500 I'm not going to do that.

00:50:09.500 Um, do you know where your viewers are located?

00:50:19.500 Well, let's find that out.

00:50:21.500 Viewers, give me the location you are at right now.

00:50:25.500 Where are you right now?

00:50:27.500 Everybody.

00:50:28.500 Uh, and everybody look at these.

00:50:30.500 All right.

00:50:31.500 Wow.

00:50:32.500 All over the United States.

00:50:36.500 I'm looking for other countries.

00:50:38.500 Looks like everybody who's answering is in the United States on vocals.

00:50:41.500 Uh, and then over YouTube, a little more international.

00:50:45.500 I've got Australia in the house.

00:50:48.500 Finland, Germany, Mars, okay.

00:50:51.500 Hong Kong, really?

00:50:52.500 Israel.

00:50:53.500 All right.

00:50:54.500 Here we go.

00:50:55.500 International people coming in.

00:50:56.500 Uh, more Australia, Ireland, Philippines.

00:51:00.500 Hello, Philippines.

00:51:01.500 We've got one Albonium in the house.

00:51:04.500 Good.

00:51:05.500 Kapalua.

00:51:06.500 Are you really in Kapalua?

00:51:08.500 You're not really in Kanapali Shores, are you?

00:51:10.500 Are you just...

00:51:11.500 Are you really?

00:51:13.500 All right.

00:51:14.500 Is there anybody out here who is in Maui right now?

00:51:19.500 Is anybody in Maui right now?

00:51:21.500 Right now.

00:51:25.500 Because if you are, I'll, uh, I'll say hi.

00:51:28.500 Stop by the beach.

00:51:34.500 Are you really?

00:51:36.500 I figured somebody would be here.

00:51:38.500 But if you're here, you're not awake now.

00:51:40.500 Actually, that's how I know it's not true.

00:51:43.500 There's no way that there's somebody who lives here who is awake right now.

00:51:47.500 Uh, this is not the time anybody in Hawaii is awake except me.

00:51:51.500 You know, when I, when I go walking on the beach in the morning before the sun comes up usually,

00:51:55.500 Um, I always only run into the people who have, uh, weird sleeping problems out here.

00:52:01.500 So you see two kinds of people on the beach early in the morning.

00:52:06.500 You see the, uh, Instagram models who know that the light is best early in the morning or at dusk.

00:52:13.500 So you see a bunch of Instagram models just by themselves.

00:52:16.500 You can tell their husband or boyfriend or whatever slept in down there on the beach doing the selfies.

00:52:22.500 And the other is the young mother with a toddler because the toddler doesn't know what time it is.

00:52:28.500 And the toddler's been up since 3 a.m.

00:52:31.500 And, and finally the mother's like, all right, just, it's 6 a.m.

00:52:35.500 You're going to the beach.

00:52:36.500 And they just get out of the, out of the hotel.

00:52:38.500 So you see, you see those two categories all over the beach.

00:52:41.500 Um, that crying cat.

00:52:51.500 Yeah, it's birds actually.

00:52:54.500 This is my target demo.

00:52:57.500 Uh, yeah.

00:53:00.500 Or a crackhead's, I don't know.

00:53:02.500 Maybe.

00:53:03.500 It's a, it's a wedge-tailed shearwater is the bird names.

00:53:06.500 I think that's correct.

00:53:07.500 The birds are, I read this somewhere, a wedge-tailed shearwater.

00:53:12.500 That's the name of the bird.

00:53:13.500 No wonder they're crying.

00:53:15.500 They have such a bad name.

00:53:16.500 Oh, rename us.

00:53:18.500 Oh, we don't want to be wedge things.

00:53:21.500 We don't like that name.

00:53:22.500 It's too long.

00:53:23.500 Why are there three words in our name?

00:53:25.500 Ah!

00:53:26.500 That's what they're saying.

00:53:28.500 Yeah, I thought they were crying babies, too, until I realized there couldn't be hundreds of crying babies at the same time.

00:53:34.500 Alright, can you please take a look at the Ethical Skeptic's recent claims?

00:53:42.500 Um, let me make a comment on that.

00:53:44.500 So, there's a user on Twitter called TheEthicalSkeptic, who does lots of very data-driven analyses, which are often, you know, non-narrative.

00:53:54.500 They're on the side of the narrative.

00:53:56.500 And it's COVID-related for the most part.

00:53:58.500 It's, you know, excess deaths and stuff he's looking at.

00:54:01.500 Well, I can't understand his work.

00:54:04.500 So, sometimes I think I'll pick up what the top line is, like what the point is.

00:54:09.500 But there's something about the complexity or the style of communication, where when I look at his work, I think,

00:54:16.500 I sort of feel like I kind of know where you're heading with this.

00:54:20.500 I don't quite know why yours is different or where the data came from or, you know.

00:54:26.500 I just can't penetrate it.

00:54:28.500 So, I don't have an opinion about whether he's accurate or not.

00:54:33.500 I just know he has non-conforming opinions that seem to be based on a great deal of skill.

00:54:41.500 So, those are the two things I know.

00:54:43.500 A great deal of skill in data analysis, which does mean he's doing things right and others are doing it wrong.

00:54:50.500 I don't know that.

00:54:51.500 But he has a great deal of skill.

00:54:53.500 And he looks to be showing his work.

00:54:57.500 So, those are two things which I have immense respect for.

00:55:01.500 He has the skill and he's showing his work.

00:55:04.500 I believe.

00:55:05.500 I mean, I think you can look at the same data he's looking at.

00:55:07.500 And you can see if it looks right to you.

00:55:09.500 So, if you can do those two things, then you're automatically on my good list.

00:55:14.500 But I wish, I wish he had a little more, the one thing he needs to add to his talent stack is simplicity.

00:55:22.500 Because when I see his tweets, I go, ah, I sure wish I knew what that meant.

00:55:27.500 Because it looks like there's something there.

00:55:29.500 I mean, I think he's on to something.

00:55:31.500 It feels like it.

00:55:32.500 I just can't tell, really.

00:55:35.500 And keep in mind that, you know, again, I tell you this to the point of obnoxiousness, but it's important.

00:55:42.500 I did data analysis for a living.

00:55:45.500 You know, not at the level that he's doing it.

00:55:50.500 Like, he's at a higher level than I ever were.

00:55:53.500 But how would anybody else, if you didn't do it for a living at least, how would you penetrate what he's trying to tell you?

00:56:00.500 How would you possibly understand his point?

00:56:03.500 I can't.

00:56:04.500 I mean, I'm not even close.

00:56:08.500 All right.

00:56:11.500 That was my flashlight collection.

00:56:13.500 They keep breaking in storage, which is funny.

00:56:18.500 As a former teacher, you think I'm avoiding my writing assignment by doing this.

00:56:23.500 Ah, yeah, it's a little bit true.

00:56:25.500 But it's hard for me to write until there's at least a little bit of light over the horizon for some reason.

00:56:38.500 Okay.

00:56:39.500 Has Dilbert ever gone on vacation?

00:56:41.500 He has.

00:56:44.500 One of my favorite comics that I ever drew was Dilbert going on vacation.

00:56:54.500 Why do we care about his flashlights?

00:56:55.500 I've told people I have a flashlight collection.

00:56:58.500 But I've gotten rid of most of them because when you just keep them in storage, they all go bad.

00:57:03.500 They just sort of rot.

00:57:05.500 So they're no good.

00:57:06.500 Is weed legal where you are?

00:57:10.500 I think it's legal for medicinal users, which I am.

00:57:18.500 Yeah, we talked about Elon putting Twitter on hold.

00:57:23.500 No, God's degree has nothing to do with Dilbert not being asked on that platform.

00:57:28.500 All right.

00:57:30.500 Dead battery storage containers.

00:57:32.500 That is exactly what a flashlight is.

00:57:34.500 A dead battery storage container.

00:57:36.500 Thank you.

00:57:37.500 Good one.

00:57:39.500 Scott about critics.

00:57:40.500 If they aren't on topic or comment or others, they are likely bots.

00:57:45.500 When you respond to them, you only hope to train them to be better.

00:57:49.500 Maybe.

00:57:50.500 Well, let's talk about Ukraine.

00:57:51.500 Oh, let's talk about Ukraine.

00:57:53.500 As of today, it appears that the U.S. policy.

00:57:55.500 And I think it was...

00:57:56.500 Who said this directly?

00:57:59.500 Representative Crawford.

00:58:00.500 who said this directly?

00:58:04.320 Representative Crawford

00:58:06.800 saying that the U.S. policy of spending

00:58:10.920 $40 billion to degrade our enemy's military, meaning Russia

00:58:14.620 is money well spent. What do you think of that?

00:58:18.460 Suppose you knew that for $40 billion

00:58:20.860 you could essentially degrade

00:58:24.880 Russia's military until they're just not a powerful 0.81

00:58:27.800 essentially you could take them off the map.

00:58:32.360 Do you think that the U.S. policy

00:58:35.220 which seems to be an actual real policy now

00:58:37.620 is to take them off the map

00:58:39.380 and basically make them not an important power anymore

00:58:43.040 so we don't have to deal with them?

00:58:45.020 It looks like the United States has decided to just

00:58:47.900 degrade Russia permanently 0.98

00:58:50.280 and just take their military off the

00:58:53.120 important part of the map.

00:58:55.720 I don't know if it's a good idea

00:58:59.220 but it's definitely

00:59:00.720 maybe a once in a

00:59:03.180 once in a lifetime opportunity.

00:59:05.980 I do think there's an opening

00:59:07.600 to do it.

00:59:09.500 I do think it's doable.

00:59:11.620 I don't know about the price of it

00:59:13.040 but it looks doable

00:59:14.160 to degrade them to the point where they

00:59:16.420 are no longer an important military power

00:59:19.020 they just have nukes.

00:59:21.560 You know, a gas station with nukes.

00:59:23.220 So, I tweeted around

00:59:28.500 an opinion piece

00:59:30.600 that's actually an interview

00:59:31.920 with a retired Chinese diplomat

00:59:35.020 who we presume is speaking in a way

00:59:38.380 that is at least compatible with Chinese thinking

00:59:41.240 but he said

00:59:43.280 that the Chinese thinking

00:59:45.180 he said that the Chinese thinking

00:59:50.280 and we don't know that this is true

00:59:51.620 is that Russia definitely is losing the fight

00:59:55.860 because they can't fight against a modern military

00:59:58.960 and that's it.

01:00:00.740 So, there's one diplomat

01:00:03.600 who's willing to say this in public

01:00:05.180 that the Chinese opinion

01:00:07.000 is that Russia can't win the war.

01:00:09.360 It's not even an option

01:00:10.580 because they don't have a military

01:00:12.200 that can survive

01:00:13.160 the U.S. plus Ukrainian 0.87

01:00:15.220 higher tech forces.

01:00:18.420 What do you think?

01:00:19.180 I think it's all a question

01:00:21.960 of how much supply

01:00:22.800 you can get to the Ukrainians 1.00

01:00:24.200 and it looks like

01:00:25.200 at least in terms of small drones

01:00:27.200 that we're getting them a lot.

01:00:30.300 So, and by the way

01:00:32.620 it looks like

01:00:33.240 at least there's a claim

01:00:34.360 this is an allegation

01:00:35.420 that the Chinese drones 0.56

01:00:38.000 that China has a way

01:00:42.120 to give that data

01:00:42.920 to the Russian military

01:00:44.120 so they can tell

01:00:45.720 where the Ukrainian drones are.

01:00:48.900 You know, the small ones

01:00:49.740 that are just spotting targets.

01:00:52.860 So, I guess the nerds over there

01:00:55.540 are using the drones

01:00:56.580 the cheap drones

01:00:57.600 to locate targets

01:00:58.780 and then they use

01:01:00.020 the expensive drones

01:01:01.040 the kind that can hover

01:01:01.980 to go to those locations

01:01:04.540 so that the expensive ones

01:01:05.960 don't have to do a lot of hunting.

01:01:07.920 So, they use the cheap ones

01:01:09.260 for hunting

01:01:09.760 to find the targets

01:01:11.480 and then they send in

01:01:12.380 the expensive ones

01:01:13.380 to take care of the targets

01:01:14.360 and apparently

01:01:15.320 they're just lining them up

01:01:17.260 and knocking them down

01:01:18.120 because there doesn't appear

01:01:20.040 to be any defense

01:01:21.340 against this drone attack.

01:01:23.240 So, as of today

01:01:24.660 the news is that

01:01:25.920 there were no Russian advances

01:01:27.760 but there were Ukrainian advances.

01:01:31.260 So, there were Ukrainian counterattacks

01:01:33.180 and there were villages

01:01:34.500 that Ukraine has retaken.

01:01:36.560 But the news as of today

01:01:37.900 is that only Ukraine is winning

01:01:39.780 and Russia is in a defensive posture.

01:01:43.380 Now, who knows if that's true?

01:01:46.580 Do you think that's true?

01:01:47.940 Do you think that Ukraine

01:01:49.020 is already winning

01:01:50.260 and it's clear at this point

01:01:51.800 that they are?

01:01:52.520 That's one point of view

01:01:53.520 that's not necessarily mine.

01:01:55.720 And that Russia is already 0.91

01:01:57.100 basically they're in a

01:01:59.000 dwindling, losing,

01:02:01.620 definitely going to lose

01:02:02.360 situation already?

01:02:03.200 If that's true

01:02:06.800 who predicted it?

01:02:09.080 Well, I did.

01:02:10.800 So, I have both my best

01:02:12.180 and worst predictions

01:02:13.080 at the same time.

01:02:14.540 The worst prediction

01:02:15.760 was that Russia

01:02:16.560 would not invade.

01:02:19.040 But the reason I said that is

01:02:21.080 because they couldn't win.

01:02:22.900 So, my part about

01:02:26.420 they couldn't win

01:02:27.420 is the best prediction

01:02:28.800 I've ever made.

01:02:30.160 You know, a contrarian prediction.

01:02:31.920 It's probably the best

01:02:32.420 contrarian prediction

01:02:33.600 I've ever made.

01:02:34.580 Because it was literally

01:02:35.380 opposite of 100% of experts.

01:02:38.180 You know, when I said

01:02:38.880 that Trump was going to win

01:02:39.820 in 2016,

01:02:41.360 I was a contrarian

01:02:42.840 among people who

01:02:44.460 are talking in public.

01:02:46.700 But I certainly was not

01:02:47.880 a contrarian among the public.

01:02:49.740 Wouldn't you agree?

01:02:51.260 I mean, there's a reason

01:02:52.260 that Trump got lots of votes.

01:02:54.960 Because a lot of people

01:02:55.920 thought he would win.

01:02:57.280 So, among the public,

01:02:59.440 I wasn't that far

01:03:01.240 outside of normal thinking.

01:03:03.180 Just for people

01:03:04.200 who talk in public,

01:03:05.080 I was outside of them.

01:03:06.180 But when I said that

01:03:07.260 I believe that Ukraine

01:03:09.000 would surprise Russia 0.91

01:03:10.840 with their military capabilities,

01:03:13.140 I don't think anybody

01:03:14.680 agreed with that.

01:03:17.280 Can you remember anybody,

01:03:18.820 even in your personal circle,

01:03:20.440 just, you know,

01:03:21.740 your friends,

01:03:22.960 did anybody think

01:03:23.960 that this would be

01:03:24.600 closer to a Ukrainian victory

01:03:27.160 and a fair fight?

01:03:29.560 Some people said yes.

01:03:30.940 And I'm seeing in the comments

01:03:31.780 somebody said yes.

01:03:33.820 Anybody else?

01:03:35.500 I only saw one person say that.

01:03:37.600 But,

01:03:38.480 oh, here's a comment.

01:03:42.680 It's worth saying.

01:03:43.580 So, when somebody's saying

01:03:44.580 that Eastern Ukrainians

01:03:45.700 all want to annex to Russia, 0.88

01:03:46.940 it's pitiful that you have

01:03:48.700 never spoken about

01:03:50.200 them being slaughtered

01:03:51.220 for eight years.

01:03:54.940 I don't know that

01:03:56.140 that was especially

01:03:57.220 important to anything

01:03:58.600 I've talked about.

01:03:59.860 But it's nothing

01:04:00.600 I'm avoiding.

01:04:01.740 I just don't know

01:04:02.700 if it was directly

01:04:03.860 irrelevant to anything.

01:04:05.280 Because, remember,

01:04:06.100 I'm not pro-Ukraine.

01:04:07.260 And I've said

01:04:09.380 that both sides are bad.

01:04:11.520 So, once you've said

01:04:12.800 that both sides are bad,

01:04:14.400 I'm not sure that

01:04:15.280 the details matter that much.

01:04:17.720 So, when you say

01:04:18.760 both sides are bad

01:04:19.700 in this context,

01:04:20.740 I'm saying they're both

01:04:21.480 doing atrocities.

01:04:23.340 So,

01:04:24.420 I have a

01:04:25.380 clean,

01:04:26.980 clear view

01:04:27.640 that both sides are bad.

01:04:29.960 In a complete way.

01:04:31.880 Completely bad.

01:04:33.280 Now, in the real world,

01:04:34.300 you still have to take sides.

01:04:36.460 So, you're going to end up

01:04:37.500 taking sides

01:04:38.140 with a bad actor

01:04:39.320 because the alternative

01:04:40.720 is the other bad actor.

01:04:42.160 Or staying out of it.

01:04:44.220 But,

01:04:46.560 if there's somebody there

01:04:48.580 who wants to say

01:04:50.040 that I went easy

01:04:51.060 on Ukraine

01:04:51.740 in the context of them

01:04:53.880 battling with their

01:04:55.560 people who want

01:04:56.400 to be separatists

01:04:57.160 or whatever,

01:04:57.980 I'm not going easy on them.

01:04:59.820 I'm saying that

01:05:00.500 Ukraine is probably 0.89

01:05:01.600 shooting 0.91

01:05:02.220 probably executing 0.99

01:05:04.520 soldiers,

01:05:05.340 probably doing war crimes, 0.71

01:05:07.100 probably did lots of

01:05:07.960 war crimes

01:05:08.440 before this

01:05:09.200 action started.

01:05:11.160 None of them are good.

01:05:13.000 It looks like 1.00

01:05:13.780 just bastards 1.00

01:05:14.680 all the way 1.00

01:05:15.200 from top to bottom.

01:05:16.580 Honestly.

01:05:18.780 Now, again,

01:05:20.060 when you talk about,

01:05:21.020 you know,

01:05:22.160 the big group of people,

01:05:23.340 you're not talking about

01:05:24.140 every person in the group,

01:05:25.540 right?

01:05:26.160 I'm not saying

01:05:26.740 every Ukrainian is bad 1.00

01:05:28.200 or every Russian is bad. 0.99

01:05:29.540 Nothing like that.

01:05:30.480 I'm saying that

01:05:31.080 as organizations,

01:05:32.220 they have enough

01:05:33.080 bad people in them

01:05:34.140 that you can't say

01:05:35.260 either of them

01:05:35.700 is doing a good job

01:05:36.660 in terms of morality

01:05:39.180 or ethical anything.

01:05:41.220 So don't,

01:05:42.600 you know,

01:05:44.240 don't be,

01:05:45.020 don't be lulled

01:05:47.720 into thinking

01:05:48.320 that I'm pro

01:05:49.100 or anti one side.

01:05:50.380 I think they're both,

01:05:51.060 they're both 0.99

01:05:52.240 despicable 0.97

01:05:52.920 on some level.

01:05:53.800 but at least

01:05:56.080 on the Ukrainian side

01:05:57.120 you can see

01:05:57.620 why they're fighting.

01:05:58.960 On the Russian side 0.89

01:06:00.020 it's a little less clear.

01:06:02.020 I don't think

01:06:02.660 the Russians

01:06:03.020 are fighting

01:06:03.460 for a good reason.

01:06:05.100 The Ukrainians are.

01:06:06.240 They got a good reason.

01:06:08.000 So sometimes

01:06:08.720 it doesn't matter

01:06:09.320 what's right or wrong

01:06:10.120 and you're just observing

01:06:11.140 two people

01:06:11.960 duking it out

01:06:13.440 and there's nothing

01:06:14.120 you can do about it.

01:06:14.920 You're,

01:06:15.140 you're an observer.

01:06:15.800 War is never

01:06:19.280 a good thing.

01:06:21.920 I don't know.

01:06:23.480 I don't know

01:06:24.120 if it's ever

01:06:24.920 a good thing.

01:06:25.580 It's sort of like

01:06:25.960 forest fires.

01:06:27.380 Maybe.

01:06:28.460 You would never say

01:06:29.220 a forest fire

01:06:29.880 is a good thing

01:06:30.560 but you also

01:06:31.660 would say

01:06:32.960 they're necessary.

01:06:34.720 They're not a good thing

01:06:35.880 and they're also necessary

01:06:37.160 for, you know,

01:06:38.140 long term

01:06:38.700 forest management

01:06:40.200 and forest fires

01:06:40.920 end up being a good thing.

01:06:43.000 I think that's true.

01:06:44.340 Fact check that.

01:06:46.800 Um.

01:06:49.520 All right.

01:06:51.360 Just looking at your comments

01:06:52.480 and I think

01:06:53.100 we're done here

01:06:53.800 and I've got

01:06:55.220 a lot of writing to do.

01:06:57.960 Keeping NATO missiles 0.86

01:06:59.380 out of your backyard

01:07:00.160 is not a,

01:07:01.100 is not a bad reason

01:07:02.100 to fight.

01:07:03.200 Yeah, it is

01:07:03.880 because the alternative

01:07:05.220 would have been easier.

01:07:06.720 You know what the alternative

01:07:07.600 to going to war 0.70

01:07:09.660 to keep NATO's missiles

01:07:11.200 out would be?

01:07:12.880 Don't give them a reason

01:07:14.080 to put missiles

01:07:14.820 on your border.

01:07:16.800 How about

01:07:17.260 just don't act

01:07:18.200 in a way

01:07:18.540 that makes anybody

01:07:19.240 want to fight you?

01:07:22.640 How about just that?

01:07:25.020 All right.

01:07:25.740 That's all for now.

01:07:26.680 And I'll see you later

01:07:29.700 YouTubers. 0.92

01:07:31.600 Thanks for joining.

01:07:34.000 Oh,

01:07:34.460 assume that tomorrow

01:07:35.800 will not be

01:07:37.100 7 a.m.

01:07:38.840 or 10 a.m.

01:07:39.680 if you're in these scopes.

01:07:40.760 So just assume

01:07:41.520 that I'll get on

01:07:42.020 when I can.

01:07:42.940 I'm doing the best I can.

01:07:44.660 I just can't get up

01:07:45.420 that early all the time.

01:07:46.940 And I'm going to go back

01:07:48.160 to work

01:07:48.500 and I'll talk

01:07:49.860 to you tomorrow.

01:07:50.480 I'll talk to you tomorrow.

01:07:50.540 I'm going to go back to work

01:07:52.420 and I'll talk to you tomorrow.

01:07:54.600 You

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - May 13, 2022

Episode 1742 Scott Adams： Late And Sleepy But Here For The Simultaneous Sip

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript