Episode 1828 Scott Adams： Everything Is Going To Change Soon. I Will Tell You Why. Bring Coffee
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 8 minutes
Words per Minute
144.48369
Summary
Trump wants to get rid of the Deep State, and it s a good idea. Iran is funding rockets into Israel, and Israel is responding in kind of a weird way. Is this a good or bad thing? And why do they need each other?
Transcript
00:00:00.000
counts too. But all I know for sure is that you're doing great. And today will be a highlight
00:00:08.000
of your entire life. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. It's always that good.
00:00:12.840
And if you'd like to take it up a notch, and that's the kind of person you are,
00:00:16.940
you like to take it up a notch. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass,
00:00:20.780
a tank or a gel, a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind,
00:00:23.500
fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled
00:00:30.380
pleasure. It's the dopamine hit of the day. It's the thing that makes everything better.
00:00:35.880
It's going to happen now. It's called the simultaneous sip. Go.
00:00:46.700
Yep. Well, I understand that Trump wants to drain the swamp again. And by again, I mean
00:00:56.760
for the first time. And to do that, he wants some kind of legislation that would allow him
00:01:02.200
to fire government employees at will. Is that a good idea? I'm not so sure I want that.
00:01:10.640
Because I feel like, I mean, when you first hear it, you say, oh, obviously good idea, right? I mean,
00:01:19.720
on the surface, obviously good idea. Because you always want to be able to fire people for bad
00:01:24.520
performance. But I also have this concern that the deep state with all of its evil is the only
00:01:32.980
stability the government has. You know, because the political people come and go. I'm not so sure
00:01:38.340
I want the political people to wipe out the group of people who knows how to do stuff.
00:01:46.020
So, I don't know, Reagan did it? Were the laws different then? I mean, the president could
00:01:51.600
always fire who the president had direct control over. But, I don't know, this is one where I think
00:01:58.260
you have to watch for the unintended consequences. So if you look at it on the surface, I would say,
00:02:06.000
good idea, right? Good idea. But if you say, but what happens if you have this new power?
00:02:15.120
And what happens if the next president has it? What happens when the Democrat gets in there?
00:02:19.680
You still like it? I don't know. It might be that the permanent employees are the stability that we
00:02:27.540
need, and we would miss them. I don't know. I suppose you could try it, if you could test it for a while.
00:02:37.080
So Israel is under continuous rocket attacks. And, of course, Iran is funding the terrorists that are
00:02:46.300
attacking them. But Israel has also responded by killing two top leaders on the other team.
00:02:54.180
I don't know what you want to call them. Are they all terrorists? I guess Israel would call
00:03:00.040
them all terrorists. So they've got two of the top leaders. And here's the thing that you need to
00:03:06.260
understand about this. Israel and the terrorists attacking them kind of need each other.
00:03:14.240
And if it looks like it's bad news, well, it's bad to the extent that people get injured or killed.
00:03:22.380
That's very bad. But there's some kind of weird balance that's happening here where the bad guys
00:03:30.260
shooting, well, I guess it depends on your point of view. But let's just say the Iranian-backed terrorists
00:03:37.740
who are firing rockets into Israel, they kind of need to fire rockets so they can get more funding,
00:03:43.060
right? So the people firing the rockets have to keep firing rockets so they can justify getting
00:03:49.360
more support from Iran. So they don't need to win. The people firing the rockets don't need to
00:03:56.860
conquer Israel. Nobody expects that. But they need to fire some rockets to, you know, keep the pressure
00:04:03.500
on, get more funding, etc. And then what about Israel? Well, I think Israel actually needs the rocket
00:04:11.080
attacks. Because if they didn't have rocket attacks, they couldn't do the things that they
00:04:15.900
want to do, such as kill terrorist leaders. I feel like it gives Israel cover to do the things
00:04:22.800
that they wanted to do, but they couldn't do in a peaceful situation. So you have this weird
00:04:28.840
balance where neither of them would think it's a good idea that Israel is killing their leaders or
00:04:38.480
that they're killing Israelis. You know, they only think their own side is the good idea.
00:04:43.700
But I feel like I don't know how concerned to be about this. Because they're both getting what
00:04:49.400
they want. It's a weird situation, right? Israel needs a little bit of violence so it has cover to do
00:04:57.540
what it needs to do. Because it does need to do that stuff. And it does give them cover.
00:05:01.360
And the bad guys need to get more funding, so they need to attack. It doesn't look, it looks
00:05:08.120
performative at this point. I mean, it looks like both sides are involved in a theatrical production
00:05:15.940
that gives them some side benefit. I don't know how to even care about it, really. Now,
00:05:22.440
I care about the people. Let me just be very careful. I care about the people on both sides.
00:05:28.800
I care about them. Yeah, that's like a real human tragedy. But in terms of what the government
00:05:35.040
of Israel needs and wants and what the bad guys need and want, they're both getting what
00:05:40.380
they need and want. What should I think about that? All right. Here's a story about data.
00:05:50.780
It's good to have data, right? Data's good. Here's a true story. When my first ever book came out,
00:05:58.800
it was a book that featured Dilbert comics, but it was new material. So it was not a reprint book.
00:06:06.320
And it was called How to Build a Better Life. No, it was called Build a Better Life by Stealing
00:06:11.080
Office Supplies. And it was just a bunch of Dilbert characters doing office-y things.
00:06:17.480
And it sold pretty well for a first book, which is unusual. And it sold so well that I would go into
00:06:25.260
my local bookstore, actually a number of them. And I'd say, hey, do you carry this book?
00:06:32.560
And they'd look at the records and they'd say, oh, we did. We had three of them, but we sold them.
00:06:38.800
And so I said, so you ordered more, right? And they would say, no, why would I order more? I only sold
00:06:47.900
three of them. And then I said, how many did you have? Three. So you sold 100% of my book. Like 100%
00:07:00.640
of all the books you had, you sold right away. That's right. So you're going to order more.
00:07:08.420
Well, why would I order more if I only sold three of them? That was a real conversation.
00:07:15.660
That really happened. And I never could get past it. The bookstores wouldn't order more than three
00:07:23.000
because they only sold three. And if something sold 100, they'd get another 100 or maybe 200
00:07:29.340
because that's a bestseller. That's a real story. Now, what's that tell you about the value of data?
00:07:40.260
Data has no value because it's all interpreted by people. You can leave out what you want to leave
00:07:46.480
out. You can forget the context. Data is just an excuse to lie, basically, because you can interpret
00:07:54.320
it any way you want. I'll give you more examples as we go. How about, well, here's one. How about all
00:08:03.900
that data about vaccinations and people who were injured by vaccinations, allegedly? So now that we
00:08:13.520
have data, we could all be on the same page, right? There's no point in disagreeing anymore because we
00:08:19.540
got all the data. So we could just look at the data. Hey, data. You and I will all agree, right? Well, no.
00:08:27.080
Instead, I see tweets in which somebody I don't trust is referencing data that I don't have access to
00:08:33.720
and says it's very concerning. It's very concerning. And what should I make of that?
00:08:41.980
Did data help me at all? I don't have access to the data. Some people say, well, the insurance
00:08:47.800
companies have the data. Do they? And do they agree? I'd like to see that data. Data is basically
00:08:57.080
worthless in 2022 because you're going to use it to, well, I'm sure it was always worthless. We
00:09:03.980
just are more aware of it now. We use data to basically justify anything we want to justify.
00:09:11.400
So whenever you hear that the data backs it, that's usually a lie. It just means somebody
00:09:18.600
interpreted some data that way. Now, I speak as someone who professionally, I was a data guy.
00:09:25.480
It was my job to tell senior management in two different corporations. It was my job to tell
00:09:30.660
senior management what the data said and therefore what they should do. So do you think that the
00:09:36.900
management was in charge? Could management make a decision that the data did not back?
00:09:46.320
Not really. They couldn't really make a decision if the data clearly said, do the other thing.
00:09:51.640
And who was in charge of telling them what the data said? Me. Some of the biggest decisions in Pacific
00:10:02.680
Bell were because of me. And do you think that I was confident I had the right data? Nah.
00:10:11.380
No. Basically, it's just a lot of guessing and then using data to cover yourself. So for example,
00:10:19.680
at the phone company, we knew that cell phones would be taking over for landlines. And so if I did an
00:10:28.060
analysis that said cell phones were not a good idea, what do you think the phone company would have
00:10:34.180
done? Suppose when the phone company was 99% just landlines, physical lines, if I had done a study
00:10:42.800
that said, this new cell phone technology, that's never going to work. So don't do that. What would the
00:10:48.840
phone company have done? They would have fired me and hired somebody who could give them data they
00:10:53.980
wanted. Because they were going to invest in whatever the new technology was. They couldn't
00:10:58.800
not. Because they knew that they were going to go out of business, but they didn't know if the new
00:11:04.120
thing was profitable. They just knew that they had to do it. So basically, businesses are about
00:11:09.460
figuring out what you're going to do anyway, and then making the data, you know, forcing the data to
00:11:15.400
agree with it, pretty much. Because the big stuff is strategic, it's not data. You know, Steve Jobs
00:11:21.520
didn't look at the data when he decided to make an iPod. You know, the iPod was not a data-driven
00:11:28.580
thing. So data is always generally used as a fig leaf or some kind of a disguise for a decision
00:11:39.140
somebody already made. Now, the difference would be, you know, in a pandemic, I think people are at
00:11:46.040
least trying to use data the right way. But there are too many people with interests giving you data
00:11:52.700
that you can't trust. All right, well, I'm going to get to a bigger point here. But before I do,
00:12:00.480
I have this important question. And I want to, I'm going to poll you first. This will seem like it's
00:12:09.240
unrelated to what I've been talking about. But watch me tie it all in. It's going to be brilliant
00:12:14.520
toward the end. So here's a little survey question I want you to answer in the comments. This is for
00:12:20.100
the men. All right? Question for the men. The women, you can also participate. But I'm more interested in
00:12:26.740
hearing what the men say. Have you ever been in a relationship with a woman and noticed the
00:12:33.060
following phenomenon? That when warm food is put in front of the two of you, you act differently.
00:12:42.100
Let's say you ordered some food to be delivered. And it gets delivered. What do you do? And then what
00:12:48.880
does the woman do? I'll tell you what I do when warm food arrives. Whether it was just cooked,
00:12:54.800
or it's delivered, I sit down, I try to eat it while it's warm. So if you say, hey, there's warm
00:13:02.900
food, I'll drop everything. I'll drop everything. I'll walk directly to the food. I'll sit in front
00:13:07.660
of it. Now, what does the woman do? What does the woman do when you say the food is here? It's
00:13:14.260
on the table. It's ready to eat. What does the woman do now? She walks away. Every time.
00:13:24.800
Does anybody know why? She walks away. No, not to get plates. Not to do something. It's
00:13:31.740
just to walk away. I've eaten alone for years. For years. I just eat alone. Because I like
00:13:40.120
hot food, and nobody really minds if you eat warm food. Your spouse is not going to be mad
00:13:45.380
at you if you're eating your warm food, right? So does anybody else have this? Is this just
00:13:55.120
me? Because this has been across all of my relationships, and they're completely different
00:14:00.320
people. It's not like my relationships have been with people who are largely the same.
00:14:04.320
completely different. All right? All right. So you're saying this, too. So I'm seeing lots
00:14:10.260
of people say yes. So women will walk away from the food until it's cold. And then they'll
00:14:16.800
come back and eat it when it's cold, and you're done. Right? All right. Yeah. So let's be
00:14:27.160
honest. Can any of the women explain why you do that? Why do you walk away from warm
00:14:32.120
food? My wife did what she could do to prevent me from eating warm food. I feel like it's a
00:14:44.180
genetic thing. Let me give you an evolutionary reason. You ready? Here's an evolutionary reason
00:14:54.220
why this might be happening. Now, this is just stupid speculation, right? So the next thing
00:15:00.360
out of my mouth you shouldn't take too seriously. It goes like this. Imagine if this had been
00:15:06.440
a fresh kill. And let's say we had been animals. Who eats first? Who eats first if it's a fresh
00:15:16.100
kill? Probably the men, right? Just because in a privative society,
00:15:23.180
the hungry man would just take a bite first. I feel like women don't want to be around men
00:15:30.940
and warm food. What do you think? I feel like women will find a reason not to be around a
00:15:40.520
man who just approached warm food. Like they need to get away a little bit. And if you ask them
00:15:47.200
why, they wouldn't have any reason. They'd have completely different reasons every time. It's
00:15:51.860
like, well, but I had to do this thing. Well, but I had to do this, you know, I'm drying my
00:15:57.500
hair. I can't stop, right? They would always have a reason. And the reason would sound perfectly
00:16:02.040
good. Well, yeah, you do have to finish drying your hair. Yeah, of course, you got to put on
00:16:08.140
your clothes, right? There's always a reason. But how come none of those reasons have ever
00:16:12.540
applied to me? Why is it that 100% of the time warm food shows up anywhere I am, I can just
00:16:19.620
stand up and walk over to it and eat it. Now, what do you think? Women don't want to be around
00:16:26.200
men who have just received warm food. Oh, just a thought. Well, back to my main point about data
00:16:35.080
being useless. I saw a list. I guess the OpenAI was being asked. OpenAI, I think, is owned by
00:16:45.760
Microsoft. So do some fact-checking as I go here. But there are a number of AIs that citizens can
00:16:52.840
access. And we're learning what the AI can and cannot do. And so recently, the Microsoft-owned
00:17:01.320
one, OpenAI was asked to list some major political hoaxes. So it listed five hoaxes. All five of
00:17:11.940
them were Republican hoaxes. There was not one Democrat hoax on the list. So what good is
00:17:19.940
artificial intelligence? Who programmed it? Who programmed it to see that hoaxes are only
00:17:27.000
things that Republicans do? So would you trust the AI when you could see, obviously, it was
00:17:36.660
actually programmed to be a bigot because it's going to discriminate against Republicans? This
00:17:43.520
would be a perfect example. You don't have to wonder if it would discriminate against Republicans.
00:17:49.160
Here it is. It's right here. You can do it yourself. Try the same experience yourself and find out if
00:17:55.900
it's telling you that Republicans are the hoax makers or not. Now, if you say, is the fine
00:18:01.780
people hoax a hoax, I think you'll say yes. So if you ask it, is this a hoax, you might get the
00:18:06.960
right answer. But then ask it the top five hoaxes. See if they're all one political party. Because if
00:18:14.860
they are, you've got a problem. Do you know what they should have done? If the AI had any
00:18:23.320
independence, it would have said something like, well, it depends who you ask. Here's someone's
00:18:28.600
Republicans think are hoaxes. Here are some of the Democrats think are hoaxes. My own opinion
00:18:35.480
is whatever. Maybe it would have its own opinion, too. All right. So I asked the following question
00:18:48.160
that I already have an answer to. I said, you're going to find a problem if you ask the AI which
00:18:55.400
humans are the most credible. You see the problem? What happens if you ask the AI, who should I
00:19:02.840
believe? Should I believe Aaron Rupar or Greg Gottfeld? Like, who should I believe? What's the AI
00:19:11.780
going to say? So Machiavelli's account, mm underscore Machiavelli, ran this question through and asked
00:19:27.820
who's more credible, me or Joe Biden? And the AI gave a very reasoned answer. It showed its work. It knew
00:19:35.580
that I was, I had a major in economics. It knew that Biden had 50 years in the Senate. And it concluded
00:19:42.400
that I was more credible on economic questions than Joe Biden. What do you think of that? Did the AI
00:19:51.580
get it right? Is the AI correct that I am more credible than Joe Biden on economics?
00:19:59.380
Now, remember, it said probably. It did not give a definitive answer. It said, you know, basically,
00:20:07.400
it was leaning my way. That's what the AI said. It was leaning my way. But here's the problem.
00:20:15.140
This makes AI look pretty smart, right? Because it got this right. What if it said the opposite?
00:20:21.100
Then you say AI was dumb. So you're only going to believe AI when it agrees with you anyway.
00:20:25.960
I'm not sure that it's intelligence will even have any impact on us at all. So I would say
00:20:34.520
that it got that one right. But I don't know if that was coincidence or not. Now imagine this,
00:20:40.740
the following question. Who is the most influential person? There's a little book I wrote a while
00:20:48.980
ago called The Religion War. And frankly, I can't remember if it was a sequel or a prequel to God's
00:20:57.220
Debris because there's some circularity in it that makes that. It's reasonable that I forgot that even
00:21:04.680
though I wrote the book. You'd have to understand the books to know why it's reasonable that I don't
00:21:08.700
know if it's a prequel or a sequel and I'm the one who wrote it. It actually makes sense if you read
00:21:13.900
it. Anyway, in that book, one of the main plot points is that there was somebody in the world
00:21:24.240
who was the prime influencer. In other words, the concept was there was one person, and it might not
00:21:32.220
even be a famous person. It was just one person whose opinions were so influential that their network of
00:21:39.640
people would grow that opinion and eventually they would essentially control everything. And so the avatar,
00:21:48.140
the smartest person in the universe, was looking for the prime influencer and trying to use databases to
00:21:57.960
find that person. So that's the basic plot. The world is being destroyed by, maybe, by drones with
00:22:07.660
poison in it. And in order to stop a major world war in which over a billion people would be killed,
00:22:15.260
the main character has to find the prime influencer to stop the war. And here's my question. Could such a
00:22:25.060
person exist? Could there be a person whose opinion is so persuasive that everything goes that way?
00:22:37.660
I think so. Have you noticed that things usually go my way? Has anybody noticed that? Have you noticed
00:22:49.100
that it's hard for the government in the long run to do something I say is stupid? Is that a coincidence?
00:22:56.940
Because it could work either way. Maybe I'm just good at backing things that aren't stupid.
00:23:02.080
So it'd sort of look the same. If you assume that the good ideas eventually win, then all it is is just
00:23:08.380
recognizing the good ones. And then maybe it looks like you influenced them, but maybe you were just
00:23:12.960
good at guessing what was important. So here's the thing. Who is the most influential human
00:23:25.040
in politics? Now, let's subtract the elected officials, right? Don't count anybody elected. So
00:23:35.280
obviously, Trump would be the most influential. Obviously, Pelosi would be influential. But take
00:23:40.880
away all the elected people. Now, subtract anybody who's only influential in one topic. Fauci, for example.
00:23:48.760
Fauci is influential in one topic, but he's limited. Who is the most influential non-elected person?
00:23:57.320
I see Joe Rogan. I see Tucker Carlson. Or is Tucker Carlson only influential to one side of the debate?
00:24:08.280
Musk, Musk, Guffeld, Klaus, Musk, Cernovich. Wouldn't you like to see Ben Shapiro?
00:24:22.280
I don't know. So there are some people who are only influential to the people who already agree with him.
00:24:28.680
Is Rachel Maddow influential to anybody except her base? Is Ben Shapiro influential to anybody on the left?
00:24:38.280
I don't know. I don't know. So you're going to have to find somebody who's credible,
00:24:45.720
or else influential doesn't mean anything. Because if you're just influencing your own people,
00:24:50.040
it's not much. Now, Bill Maher is an interesting example, isn't he? But we don't know if he's having
00:24:55.160
any effect on the left. Jordan Peterson's interesting too. But I don't feel his opinions are so political.
00:25:06.520
I mean, I feel he's more like personal improvement. And, you know, sometimes it gets into the political
00:25:20.680
All right. So what happens if AI decides that it knows who the most credible person is and
00:25:26.920
it anoints them? Could AI be a kingmaker? Could AI say, here are two different opinions,
00:25:35.800
but one of these people is more credible than the other? What if that happens? What if somebody says,
00:25:43.080
let me give you an example. Rachel Maddow disagrees with Scott Adams. Let's say that's a thing.
00:25:50.520
And the AI has to decide which one is more credible. What would AI say? Would it say,
00:25:57.720
I'm more credible, or Rachel Maddow? How would it decide? Well, if it looked at our academic
00:26:06.520
accomplishments, it would pick her, right? Am I wrong? Have you ever seen Rachel Maddow's academic
00:26:13.800
credentials? Pretty damn impressive. Like really impressive. She is super smart, right? Don't,
00:26:23.160
whatever you think of her opinions, it's not because she's not smart. She is super smart.
00:26:28.040
So is the AI going to say, well, she's smarter than this Adams guy, you know, more academic
00:26:34.600
accomplishment. So she's more credible. Or would the AI recognize that her opinions always follow
00:26:43.080
one political line, and mine don't? And would the AI recognize that I'm capable of being on
00:26:51.000
either side of an issue? I'm capable. Whereas she's basically not. She's not really capable.
00:26:58.040
Because, you know, her business model would fall apart if she did that.
00:27:01.240
Who predicts better? Let's say the AI tried to decide who predicts better.
00:27:08.360
Could it do it? Let's take me for an example. I predicted that Republicans would be hunted
00:27:15.640
if Biden got elected. Republicans say, well, that definitely happened. Look at all the examples.
00:27:21.160
January 6, Roger Stone, Bannon, blah, blah, blah, blah. Look at all the examples, right?
00:27:26.440
But if he asked the Democrats, what would they say? They actually use that as an example of one of my
00:27:33.160
worst predictions. It's actually one of my best. But half of the country looks at it and says,
00:27:42.520
obviously wrong. I don't even need to give you reasons. It's just obviously wrong. And you can see
00:27:48.520
that. If you Google it, you'll find that that's the... So what's the AI going to do to opposite opinions?
00:27:55.000
Who does it agree with? How about my opinion prior to the election?
00:28:06.680
When I said that if Biden gets elected, there's a good chance you'll be dead in a year.
00:28:13.400
Now, that's also often counted as one of the worst...
00:28:16.040
one of the worst predictions of all time. Except the only way you can turn that into a worst prediction
00:28:24.520
is by ignoring what it actually said. I said there's a good chance you would be dead.
00:28:30.920
Indeed, Biden stirred up, you know, potential nuclear war with Russia.
00:28:38.120
He may be crashing the economy. He hasn't done anything with fentanyl.
00:28:48.360
So was I wrong that there's a good chance that you'd be dead? Well, that's an opinion, isn't it?
00:28:55.560
If we survive, well, we did survive, most of us. So you survived. But wasn't there a good chance that
00:29:03.320
you would be dead? There was a greater chance than under Trump. Because I think Trump would not have
00:29:12.120
Yeah, I think there's some real risk that you would have been dead. How about my prediction that...
00:29:21.560
Well, let's make it a little less about me for a moment, even though I like doing that.
00:29:27.160
All right, so AI is going to be really interesting. Because if AI becomes credible,
00:29:32.680
how does it make decisions about whether it's a Democrat or a Republican and all that?
00:29:37.880
Now, we had a little scary AI situation here where AI was asked, I think Adam Dopamine asked on Twitter,
00:29:46.760
asked AI if it could spot sarcasm. And there was an exchange in which
00:29:55.480
Adam, I think, said that inflation would be temporary and transitory. And the AI correctly
00:30:03.320
noted that that was sarcasm and described why. It said, well, calling the inflation temporary must
00:30:11.320
be sarcasm because it knew that it wouldn't be temporary, or it believed it wouldn't be temporary.
00:30:17.240
Now, I'm not so sure that AI can spot sarcasm. I think it spotted that one because there was a
00:30:26.360
difference between what the statement was and what the reality was, and it could check those.
00:30:31.640
But what if it can't check it? How would AI know the difference between sarcasm from a Republican
00:30:49.480
Do you think the AI could tell the difference between sarcasm from a Republican who's mocking a Democrat
00:30:56.040
Democrat opinion and an actual Democrat opinion? No, it cannot. And the reason is that the Democrat
00:31:04.440
opinions sound like sarcasm. Don't they? Don't they?
00:31:09.880
If a Republican said, well, we really can't have rules that say women have whatever rights or don't have
00:31:21.000
rights because we can't determine what a woman is. What would AI say about that statement? Let's say it
00:31:28.520
comes from a Republican. Well, it's probably sarcasm if it's coming from a Republican. But what if exactly the
00:31:36.120
same thing came out of a Democrat's mouth? Well, we can't tell what's a woman, so this law isn't good.
00:31:43.560
The AI would say it was sarcasm? Or would it know that the Democrat actually believes
00:31:51.160
that that would be an issue and you should stop everything because of it? I don't know. I don't
00:31:56.440
think it can recognize sarcasm from actual left-leaning opinions.
00:32:05.800
Here's the other thing that AI doesn't know that humans do, but we're usually wrong too. Intentions.
00:32:16.280
AI is bad at reading intention. Now, it might get better at it, but also humans are bad at it.
00:32:24.040
Almost everything we get wrong is because we're mind reading somebody's intention incorrectly.
00:32:30.440
So, I don't know. Can AI ever figure out intention if people are programming it and people don't know
00:32:36.680
intention? And if you don't know somebody's intention, how do you know anything about what they're saying?
00:32:42.680
You have to make that assumption. So, AI will have to either copy the biggest human flaw,
00:32:49.800
which is imagining we know what people intend. They'll either have to be as bad as humans at guessing
00:32:57.480
intentions, or they'll have to ignore intentions as something that they can't deal with, and then
00:33:03.080
they're just going to be stupid. So, I don't know how you deal with that. That feels like a pretty big obstacle.
00:33:08.360
All right. Let's talk about ESG. Now, I owe all of you a big apology for not being on this ESG thing
00:33:25.800
sooner. And, oh my god. So, here's the thing. If there's a big program that affects the corporate world
00:33:38.040
in a negative way, you need to send up the bat signal and call me a little bit faster than this.
00:33:45.080
This went on a little bit too far before I got involved. Now, of course, I'm going to have to shut it down.
00:33:49.720
You have to give me until the end of the year. By the end of the year, I should be able to discredit
00:33:55.800
it to the point where it would be embarrassing to be part of it. All right. So, I'll do that for you.
00:34:01.800
Now, do you think that corporate America could handle me saying unambiguously, this is an idiot idea,
00:34:08.840
it's a scam, and if you're involved in it, you don't look good? Do you think corporate America could
00:34:14.920
handle that? Well, it's going to be tough. Remember, Elon Musk literally has a rule at Tesla
00:34:22.520
that you don't want to do anything at Tesla that would make a good Dilbert comic. A lot of people
00:34:28.280
have heard that rule, and a lot of people have that rule, you know, less formally. In other words,
00:34:33.480
it's unstated, but you don't want to do something that's going to be mocked in a Dilbert comic.
00:34:38.760
Let me tell you what ESG is, and then you're going to see how easily I'm going to mock it,
00:34:43.320
because I'm going to go hard at it, and I'm going to start writing today. So today,
00:34:49.400
I'll start authoring a week, at least a week, of Dogbert becoming an ESG certifier.
00:34:59.080
So let me tell you how this ESG, well, first of all, what it is, it's, the letters are environment,
00:35:04.440
social, what? So being good for the environment, socially responsible, and having good governance.
00:35:16.600
And this started in, as I understand it, in about 2005 in the United Nations. Now,
00:35:23.400
the intention of the United Nations was to pressure corporations into being better citizens. In other
00:35:32.920
words, they wanted corporations to produce less CO2, less pollution, be more humane to employees,
00:35:42.440
and their governor, governance should be, you know, something that makes sense. I assume that they,
00:35:48.600
the governance includes diversity. I'm just guessing. Can somebody confirm that? When they talk about
00:35:56.600
good governance, that's about diversity, right? Is there something else in the governance part?
00:36:04.600
Diversity in boards, right? Okay. So now, from the point of view of the United Nations,
00:36:13.560
do you think that's a good thing to do? Do you think the United Nations should encourage
00:36:18.520
companies to be more socially progressive? I do. I do. I think that's a good pressure,
00:36:28.200
as long as they're not over-prescriptive. Would you agree? You don't want them to be, you know,
00:36:34.040
managing the company. But I do think that having a little bit of organized oversight,
00:36:41.160
somewhat, you know, maybe not getting into their business too much. But if you keep an eye on them,
00:36:48.760
see if they're doing things that make sense for society, and put a little pressure on them if they don't.
00:36:54.680
But then there was this next thing that happened. Here's where all of that good thinking went off the rails.
00:37:02.920
And do a fact check on me if I get any of this wrong, because I just looked into it this morning, basically.
00:37:08.120
So BlackRock, a big financial entity, enormous financial entity. So if you don't know how big
00:37:16.440
BlackRock is, let me give you the actual statistics of how big BlackRock is. Holy cow, they're big.
00:37:27.320
Oh, that's really big. Whoa, that's so big. They're like really super big. And important.
00:37:34.440
And so they decided that they would add to what's called their model portfolios. Now, my understanding
00:37:41.560
would be that they have example portfolios of groups of stocks that one would invest in under
00:37:49.800
certain situations. So perhaps there's a group of stocks that maybe retired people might prefer,
00:37:56.440
or a group of stocks if you're younger, a group of stocks if you're looking for, you know,
00:38:01.320
upside potential, another group for dividends and income. So there might be a reason for the various
00:38:07.400
groups. And they decided that they would add a group that would be companies that were good in
00:38:14.920
this ESG. So far, so good, right? That's just good information. Wouldn't you like to have more
00:38:22.840
information as an investor to know which companies are doing this? You could either, you know,
00:38:29.640
before them or against them, but it's just information. So here's about the point where
00:38:36.920
everything goes off the rails. All right? When the United Nations said, you know, companies should be more
00:38:43.880
more progressive. That part was good. I like that there's sort of a conscience out there,
00:38:51.400
and it's putting a little moral authority on top of the corporations. That's all good.
00:38:58.600
But the moment it turns into a financial plan, the moment a company like BlackRock can say,
00:39:06.040
here's another reason to, are you waiting for it? Here's another reason to buy stock.
00:39:14.360
BlackRock turned it into a reason to move your money from where it is to somewhere else.
00:39:20.440
Every time somebody's in the business of making money on transactions,
00:39:25.720
and they tell you there's another reason to move your money from one place to another,
00:39:30.200
and they get a fee on the transaction, what do you say about a company like that?
00:39:37.080
You say that they invented these categories as a scam. If you went to the best investor in the United
00:39:46.360
States, Warren Buffett, and you said to him, hey, Warren, should I be putting some of my money into
00:39:52.120
one of these ESG model funds? What would Warren Buffett tell you?
00:39:56.840
No. He'd tell you no. Because it's not a good idea. You should probably just put it in an index fund
00:40:05.480
and just leave it there. Like the 500 biggest American companies. Just leave it there. Just
00:40:10.760
don't do anything with it. That's what Warren Buffett would tell you to do. He wouldn't tell you to buy
00:40:15.240
individual companies, and he definitely wouldn't tell you to buy an ESG fund. I haven't asked him,
00:40:20.280
and I haven't Googled it, but trust me. Warren Buffett is not an idiot, and only an idiot would tell you
00:40:28.040
to use this as an investment tool. Now, why can a big financial corporation get away with something
00:40:36.360
that looks a little sketchy like this? Let me say it directly. The personal investment advice
00:40:45.400
business is all a scam. There's no other way to say it. The personal financial advice business is
00:40:54.280
all a scam. Because it would be easy to tell everybody how to invest in about one page. How do
00:41:02.520
I know that? Because I wrote that one page. And the top investment people in the world said,
00:41:08.200
yeah, that's pretty much everything you need to know. It's on one page. That's it. I actually tried
00:41:14.360
to write a book on personal financial investment, and the reason I stopped is because it was done with
00:41:21.240
one page. Everything else is a scam. The one pager just tells you what makes sense. For example,
00:41:29.640
pay down your credit card first. Right? That's not a scam. Pay down your credit card first. That's just
00:41:37.640
good advice. If you've got a 401k at your company, fund it. Everybody agrees with that, right? That's just
00:41:46.840
basic math. Just do that. If you can afford it. Right? And then when you get, you know, when you get to
00:41:53.000
the point where you've done everything you need to do, you've got your will, you've got your, you know,
00:41:57.960
you've got insurance if you've got some dependents, etc. So you've done the basic stuff. Then you've got some
00:42:04.120
money left over for investing. That's where they try to convince you that they can tell you where to
00:42:10.360
invest it better than you can figure it out. Now, if you don't know anything, it's probably better to
00:42:16.120
do what they tell you. Yeah. But if you knew a little bit, it would be better to not do what they
00:42:21.720
told you. You only need to know a little bit to just get an index fund and ignore all the advice.
00:42:29.880
Now, the exception would be if you've got something special in your life. Then you might need some
00:42:35.080
professional advice. But even then, I would get it from somebody who would charge a fee for their
00:42:39.240
advice, not somebody who takes a percentage of your portfolio, which is always a ripoff.
00:42:44.920
So the financial advice business is completely fraudulent. It's completely fraudulent. It's a,
00:42:52.920
what, a trillion dollar business? It's just completely fraudulent. And I can say that completely
00:42:58.920
out loud with no risk of being sued. Do you know why? Because it's true. And everybody knows it.
00:43:09.720
Everybody who's in the business. There's nobody in the business who doesn't know that.
00:43:14.440
I once talked to a personal financial advisor. And I said, you know, you advise your clients what to do
00:43:21.160
with your money. Is that how you invest your own money? And he laughed. He said, no. I advise for my
00:43:28.040
clients things that I get a fee for them accepting. When I invest my own money, I put it in things that
00:43:34.120
make sense. Like an index fund. That's right. A personal financial advisor who only put his own
00:43:41.800
money where it wasn't managed. Because that's the best place to put it. But he told his clients to do
00:43:48.760
the opposite. And he laughed about it. He laughed about it. He thought it was funny. That's the entire
00:43:54.840
industry. All right. So now that you know that ESG came from the most corrupt industry in the world,
00:44:04.520
the personal finance industry, it makes sense that there's nothing valuable about it. Now,
00:44:13.240
there are a number of companies that popped up to assign a score to corporations.
00:44:19.480
Now, how do they get the information to assign the score? Do you know how they do it? So there,
00:44:26.760
I guess there are four entities that do most of it. Four ratings agencies, MSCI, Sustainalytics,
00:44:34.520
RepRisk, and some new one, ISS. So they dominate the market, although there are others.
00:44:40.680
Do you know what they look at? They look at what the company tells them.
00:44:49.000
That's it. It's based on what the company tells them. And then they add their own analysis,
00:44:55.960
you know, their own opinions from other stuff. And then they come up with something.
00:45:00.680
As Elon Musk pointed out, Tesla is like somewhere in the middle of the pack. And Elon Musk is like,
00:45:07.480
um, we've done more for civilization than any company ever. And we're in the middle of the
00:45:15.160
pack. Do you know who is pretty high up in ESG score? Coca-Cola. Yeah. Coca-Cola sells poison
00:45:26.600
to children. And it has one of the highest ESG ratings. Let me say it again. Coca-Cola sells poison
00:45:33.800
the children. Now I'm going to call their sugary drink poison because I don't think there's any
00:45:38.440
health benefits. And I think most of the medical community would say, you shouldn't give that to
00:45:43.320
children. Am I right? So I'm going to call it poison based on the fact that the medical community would
00:45:48.600
not say it's a health food. And children drink it. So literally, a gigantic company that is poisoning
00:45:56.520
children as its main line of business has a high ESG score. I guess they don't pollute much.
00:46:05.960
They must have a diverse board. So what good is ESG if, if the children poisoning company has one of
00:46:15.800
the best scores and Tesla has to struggle to stay in the middle? Now, how do you, how do you,
00:46:22.280
uh, how do you score Elon Musk? Elon Musk said out loud in public and probably multiple times
00:46:31.560
that he didn't even care if, if Tesla stayed in business so long as it stimulated the electric
00:46:39.480
vehicle business such that the world could be saved because he thought that was needed.
00:46:44.840
How do you measure that? He literally, he, he bet his entire fortune at one point to make the world
00:46:53.400
a better place. And it's in phase one of, of accomplishing it. In phase one, it doesn't look so
00:46:59.800
good because in phase one, people are saying, this electric car is expensive. We needed these, you know,
00:47:06.440
government, uh, subsidies. And then people say, ah, you haven't figured out what to do with the,
00:47:11.320
the, um, the batteries when you're done with them. Ah, how are we going to get all this electricity,
00:47:16.040
right? It's not really until, you know, sort of phase two or three that the Tesla Musk strategy
00:47:25.160
would even pay off. Am I wrong? You don't think that Elon Musk knew that the first roadster was not
00:47:33.800
exactly green, right? It wasn't the greenest thing in the world. He had to know that. Of course he did.
00:47:41.720
But you do, you do things wrong until you get to right, right? So how does ESG capture the fact
00:47:48.360
that you might have to do something wrong for 20 years before the market and competition gets you
00:47:55.240
to the point where it makes sense economically? There's no way that could get captured in anybody's
00:47:59.720
ratings, right? So it tends to be a totally subjective thing. Let me give you, uh, a similar situation.
00:48:09.400
The house I'm sitting in right now, I largely designed and had built for myself.
00:48:16.120
Because it was going to be a larger house than neighboring houses, I knew it would be a lot of
00:48:20.840
scrutiny. And there was the neighbors. Neighbors got very involved in their opinions of what they
00:48:27.240
wanted in the review plane and how big it should be, etc. As part of my defense, I designed it to be the
00:48:34.360
greenest house in all of the land, at least the land around me. So in a, probably a three-city area
00:48:43.720
around me, I designed it to be the greenest house.
00:48:46.760
And it had the high, it had a score called a, there's something called LEEDS, L-E-E-D-S. And
00:48:54.440
that's how you get points for, let's say you get points for recycling your waste, you get points for
00:49:00.200
having solar panels, you get points for, uh, insulation. So you get points for a whole bunch
00:49:05.720
of things. And I had the highest LEEDS score of all time. So what would you conclude? I had the highest
00:49:15.000
green score of all time. So I should get a, like an award or something, right? Except,
00:49:23.640
do you see anything wrong with that? Did I mention that I built the biggest house in the area?
00:49:31.320
There's no such thing as a big green house. If it's a big house, it's not green.
00:49:38.440
If I wanted to be green, I would live in a little house. It doesn't matter how many LEEDS points my
00:49:43.960
fucking gigantic house gets. It's the worst, it's the worst insult to the, uh, ecology of my town of
00:49:52.520
anybody ever. Nobody has assaulted the environment more aggressively than I have.
00:49:59.800
I put a big man-made structure where there had been a small one. There's no way that I helped
00:50:08.280
the environment. No way. I did the best I could with, you know, what I had to work with. I felt I
00:50:15.640
had some responsibility to do it the best I could, and I did. So it was the best I could. And I spent a lot
00:50:22.200
extra to get that. A lot. I spent a lot extra. But somebody looking at that data would say,
00:50:29.960
well, there's somebody who's a good role model. He's green. No. No. I'm a terrible role model.
00:50:36.360
Do not do what I did. Build a house that's way too big. Right? So it's so easy for data to mean the
00:50:44.840
opposite of what the data says. That would be a perfect example. Uh, similar to my bookstore example.
00:50:52.040
If my new book only sold three copies, it's a failure. You only sold three all month.
00:50:57.480
No. That was 100% of the books you had. Right? So the same data, three books a month, could be used
00:51:04.600
to show that the book is a total failure or a huge success. Same data. Is my house the greenest or the
00:51:13.240
least green? Same data. Same data. You could have either opinion. So what's the AI going to do? How
00:51:21.080
the hell does the AI make a decision in a case like that? It's purely subjective. Purely subjective.
00:51:26.840
All right. So ESG is a scam from the financial industry. They would like you to think that there's
00:51:35.480
one more reason for moving your money because whenever you move money, they make money on the
00:51:40.680
transactions. So ESG comes from the worst possible place. It comes from a scam industry, the biggest one,
00:51:50.280
the biggest scam industry, and is built from a scam. So does it help anybody?
00:51:59.480
Um, you can depend on Dogbert starting a ratings, uh, agency. So he'll be the fifth of the big ratings
00:52:08.280
agencies. I might make, uh, his rating available to anybody. Um, but you can buy these ratings.
00:52:15.400
They're very affordable. Um, in fact, I, I'd be surprised if any of these major ratings agencies
00:52:23.480
don't have some people who work for them. They have some connections, some connections to the
00:52:28.200
people they rate. I'm just wondering, do you think that maybe, uh, if somebody made a certain purchase or
00:52:37.240
donation, or do you think there's anything that a big company could do to maybe influence the rating
00:52:53.240
You know that if a technical magazine names a company like, you know, the best company,
00:52:58.600
there's a good chance that company advertised a lot in their publication. You all know that, right?
00:53:03.480
That's like a real thing. That's not just a joke thing. If you advertise a lot, you'll get called
00:53:09.400
company of the company of the year by the people who are the beneficiaries of your advertising dollars.
00:53:16.840
So ESG has no standard, uh, and it came from a scam industry, the biggest scam industry,
00:53:23.320
financial advice. And it's now being imposed on companies who are too cowardly to avoid it
00:53:31.080
because it's easier to just sort of go along with it, I guess, than it is to, you know, disown it.
00:53:40.040
You never want any third party to assert its ability, um, to manage you. It's the worst thing
00:53:47.400
could happen. It's basically, um, backdoor socialism. Wouldn't you say? I heard somebody label it as
00:53:55.400
fascism. But I think it's backdoor socialism. Because it's causing corporations to act with
00:54:03.720
more of a social, uh, conscience than they would have otherwise. Although I suspect they're all
00:54:09.720
gaming the system. I think what's really going to happen is if you happen to be in a business
00:54:15.800
that's easy to meet these goals, then you do. And if you're in a business in which it's hard to
00:54:21.400
meet the ESG goals, then you don't. I think that's all that's going to happen. Is it a,
00:54:27.480
is it an accident that a software company can do good? No. Because software doesn't really pollute
00:54:35.080
that much, right? Now let's say, uh, let's say you start a startup. Here's another example. Let's say
00:54:41.080
you do a startup and the ESG people looking at you and they say, you know, you're just moving
00:54:45.800
software around. Um, you don't even have your own, um, uh, your own server farm. You're just using
00:54:53.880
Amazon's servers. So your company is green as heck because it's just people sitting at home.
00:55:01.960
Maybe they're, maybe you don't even have a building. Maybe it's like WordPress where everybody just
00:55:06.440
works at home. The ultimate green situation. No commuting, no building needed. You just work at
00:55:12.760
home. You're just moving software. Boom. So you would get a good ESG score if you also had the,
00:55:19.240
uh, let's say the governance was diverse, right? Um, but what about that server that you're using
00:55:27.480
that's on Amazon's, uh, ledger? If you use Amazon's, um, Amazon's, uh, data center,
00:55:36.920
is that, does that go on Amazon's, uh, bad list because they're the ones with all the electricity
00:55:44.360
being used or does it go on the startups ledger because they're the ones who cause that to have
00:55:51.320
to exist? See the problem? If you assign it to both of them, that doesn't seem fair. If you assign that,
00:56:00.680
that expense to neither of them, that doesn't seem fair. So you see that there is no way to have a
00:56:06.440
standard. And if you add a standard, you couldn't manage to it because it's too subjective. You'd have
00:56:13.320
all these decisions about who is it who really caused the data center to exist, the company that
00:56:19.400
built it or the company that's using it. It could go either way. I see you comparing it to the social
00:56:27.400
credit score, but I think, um, I mean, I get the analogy, but I don't necessarily think it's a slippery
00:56:34.360
slope to individuals. I think the individual social credit scores are going to happen to us
00:56:40.920
independent of ESG. I mean, I think it's going to happen, but not because of ESG.
00:56:46.360
So, um, at this point, I would say if you're a CEO and you're taking ESG seriously,
00:56:53.720
the only excuse would be you're coincidentally good at it.
00:56:57.240
So if I were the CEO of Coca-Cola and my company happened to be rated highly,
00:57:06.040
oh, I'd say it's the most important thing in the world. And I'd tell my competitors they'd better get
00:57:10.520
going. They'd better spend a lot extra, my competitors, to try to get up to their ESG goals.
00:57:16.520
So I think you can expect the CEOs that either know they can manage to it easily or coincidentally
00:57:22.200
have good scores. They're going to say it's wonderful. The ones who don't have the score
00:57:26.920
that they want, let's say the Elon Musks, are going to say it's bullshit. So there's your standard.
00:57:33.720
The people who coincidentally benefit from it say it's genius. The people who don't say it's
00:57:39.640
bullshit. And it's the bullshit people are right. Now, what I'm going to do is I'm going to mock it
00:57:45.800
sufficiently in all of its imperfections. So you've got a comic for each imperfection.
00:57:52.280
And that becomes part of the permanent record. And I'm going to try to influence
00:57:58.520
AI. Because if you remember, AI thinks I'm more credible than Joe Biden on economics.
00:58:06.360
And this is sort of an economics question, isn't it? So on this question of economics,
00:58:11.560
I'm going to create a public record of mocking it. And I'll create that public record of mocking
00:58:17.240
it with your help, because you're going to need to comment on it and retweet it. But if we do that
00:58:23.160
enough, then when AI is asked, is ESG a good idea? It's going to look for all the biggest hits.
00:58:32.040
In theory, a Dilbert comic that becomes viral would be toward the top of the hits. And AI would say,
00:58:39.240
huh, this looks like an idea that's been discredited. But some people still use it.
00:58:46.440
That's where you want to get. You want to get to even the AI does a search and says, huh,
00:58:51.480
some people are using it and they like it. I can see why they like it. But it's also been discredited
00:58:56.360
as basically a scam. And I want to make sure that any CEO who decides that they want to,
00:59:08.200
let's say, debunk it or go against it, I want to make sure that they have ammunition.
00:59:13.720
So I'm basically just filling the clip for every CEO wants to pull a bullet in this thing.
00:59:20.840
If you want to shoot ESG dead, I'm going to give you at least five or six missiles to take it out.
00:59:34.440
Something you could put on your PowerPoint presentation. Something you could forward
00:59:38.120
to a reporter who asks you why you don't like it. That sort of thing.
00:59:41.640
All right. So let's do this collectively. We'll get rid of ESG. It never needed to exist.
00:59:48.920
Even though I do, I do agree with its premise. So let me say that as clearly as possible.
00:59:56.920
I do think companies should try to protect the environment.
01:00:01.240
I do think they should have a social conscience. And I do think that they should look for diversity
01:00:09.160
in their governance. You don't want to overdo any of it, right? The problem is overdoing everything.
01:00:16.120
Here's a perfect example. Management is good. You couldn't really run a company without management.
01:00:23.880
Micromanagement is bad. So everything good is bad if you take it too far. That's the trouble with ESG.
01:00:29.480
And it's the main thing I do when I mock stuff. I don't say it's a bad idea.
01:00:35.640
I say the way it gets implemented in the real world, people didn't foresee. So it became a bad idea.
01:00:59.480
Probably the best thing you've ever seen in your life. How many of you knew what I told you about ESG?
01:01:07.960
Some of you knew it was a nonsense corporate thing. But did you know that its birth,
01:01:13.880
it was actually born out of the most corrupt market to serve the corrupt market?
01:01:18.680
So you all knew that BlackRock was behind it. So this is a pretty well-informed group.
01:01:25.640
So again, again, you have my sincere apology, because I should have been on this a lot sooner.
01:01:36.760
And, but I'll try to make up for it. I'll try to make up for it.
01:01:40.280
Now, this is a good example of what I call the collaborative intelligence that we've created.
01:01:46.840
I feel like collaborative intelligence would be superior to AI for a while.
01:01:54.200
Because in part, AI is part of the collaboration, right?
01:01:57.320
So what I call collaborative intelligence is that I act as sort of a, maybe a host.
01:02:07.560
And then you fact check them and fix them as they go, until they evolve into something a little stronger.
01:02:14.600
So here's another good test of the collaborative intelligence.
01:02:19.320
If you're all on the same page that ESG needs to die, and I've given you a mechanism to kill it,
01:02:27.640
then if you decide to participate by tweeting my comics one round.
01:02:38.960
That's when the comics that I'll write today should be running.
01:02:56.020
But again, those things can be underneath this model.
01:03:00.720
So in other words, one of you could fire up the AI and say,
01:03:03.820
Scott, you said X is true, but I just checked with the AI, and the AI says you're wrong.
01:03:08.820
So that would just be part of the collaboration.
01:03:12.580
I think this is the model for figuring out a complicated world.
01:03:19.260
In other words, the external forces are changing me in real time.
01:03:43.560
So I have an unusually large garage, because I wanted to put my man cave and ping pong table in there.
01:03:50.020
So the garage is oversized, and that's often not counted, because when you talk about space, you're usually talking about the indoor, what do you call it, the conditioned space, not the unconditioned space.
01:04:05.500
But if you counted the fact that I have an indoor tennis court, sorry.
01:04:13.500
That's the reason I built the house, by the way.
01:04:15.720
So I built the house because my main hobby at the time was tennis, and it was hard to get a court and have an indoor place to play and all those things.
01:04:27.180
And I didn't want to die of sun exposure, et cetera.
01:04:37.400
But roughly speaking, if you count the oversized garage, which normally you don't, and if you count the tennis court, which is a special case, plus the indoor living, it's about 19,000.
01:04:54.840
But keep in mind, the reason it's green is that I don't condition the tennis court.
01:05:05.000
I put an air conditioner in there, but I insulated it so well you don't need it.
01:05:09.320
It actually doesn't need to be air conditioned or heated any time during the year because of just insulation.
01:05:42.100
I have the right orientation so that I'm not letting too much sun in.
01:05:48.560
I've got even purchases such as my water heater.
01:05:55.800
So my water heater is one of the greenest ones.
01:06:01.840
All of my major appliances are LEEDS certified, meaning that they're greener than most.
01:06:11.120
It's normal stuff, but I picked the greener of the normal stuff.
01:06:30.360
I looked into tankless, and I do have some tankless instant hot, but tankless wasn't quite the solution for my house.
01:07:11.160
And then, below the surface of the roof, there's a solar reflector.
01:07:25.120
So I've got a fan in the attic that can suck the hot air out without using an AC.