Transcription
And here I am. Just checking on your stocks and they look to be up. Stocks are up. Inflation rose by 2.3%. Which I think is good news, right?
All right, let's get my comments working and then we got a show. Then we got a show. Come on in here. You'll love it. Oh, a mystery just got solved. Uh, I can't tell you what it is, but in the comments, somebody just solved a mystery for me. Good.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's the best thing that ever happened to you. But if you want to take a chance on taking this up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need is a cuper mug or a glass of tanker cheline in a canteen jug or flask. A vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine end of the day. The thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens right now. Go. Perfection.
Well, let's talk about the news, shall we? We'll start with some science. Get you warmed up. Uh, USA scientists, they found a molecule they think could cure baldness. So, they got a cure for baldness, they think. Do you know when was the first time I read a news story that said science had a cure for baldness? Probably 50 years ago. Do you know when was the second time? Probably 49.5 years ago. Every six months I see a story that baldness has maybe been cured. Do you know how much baldness has been cured in the last 50 years of great advancements in curing baldness? Not a lot. And generally, if they find something that does cure your baldness and makes your penis not work, it's pretty much a pretty much a guarantee. So, no, I don't believe anything about any story that says they're going to cure my baldness or anybody else's.
According to uh, story in Newsweek, psychopaths are more attractive. Did you know that psychopaths are more attractive and therefore, um, because people trust attractive people? They shouldn't, but they do. Uh, the psychopaths can get away with more because they get trusted because they're attractive. Now, here's my question to you. Where's the cause and where's the effect? If psychopaths are more attractive. I've told you this story before about when I was very young. I remember looking in the mirror and saying to myself, "Looks like you're not going to play in the NBA. Probably not. You know, chances are you won't play in the NBA." And so I planned my life around the alternative, which is, you know, go to college and build up my brain. Do you think the psychopaths when they're very young, they can tell they're unusually attractive already? And they're not psychopaths yet, but they quickly learn that because they're attractive, they can get away with murder. So I think being attractive turns you into a psychopath because you don't need to worry about consequences whereas I have to worry about consequences. So I'm that's why I'm such a nice guy. But you know you've heard that uh, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Is that all that's going on? Could it be that the attractiveness power of the psychopath uh, well it starts maybe it just starts as attractiveness power but then they just become psychopaths. I don't know, just my hypothesis.
Here's a uh, study that's I found interesting that if you want to change your location, um, well apparently Nobel Prize winners are more likely to be Nobel Prize winners if they have changed their location more times. So in other words, if you used to live in one place but then you moved and maybe you moved again, you're more likely to become a Nobel Prize winner. And there's a reason for that. If you were uh, let's say you were a a genius and you were born in Silicon Valley with other geniuses, you would fairly soon become like the other people. So it would be really good that you were around other geniuses. That would be a real advantage, might make you smarter, but only to a certain level. And then you would be sort of into group think. This this is the the thought from this study from the Ohio State University. But if you were, let's say, a scientist and you learned everything from the other scientists who lived where you live because you'd have some association with them and then you moved, you'd get a whole new bunch of scientists and uh, that could take you to another level. But I would uh, I would extend this from Nobel scientists to just ordinary creative people trying to create because one of the things I noticed is that changing where where I am physically, you know, not the city but just changing well sometimes city but changing the um room you doing some work at Starbucks. Uh, I've tried going to the library. It all works. Every time I change my location, uh, you know, I can do more work. So, try it. Change your location if you're not being creative enough.
Well, if you haven't seen the videos, uh, Saudi Arabia is really rolling out the the red carpet, as they like to say, for Trump, who has arrived there today. Um, they had three Saudi jets uh, give him give Air Force One an escort, um, which I don't think was necessary for any additional protection, but it just made it look like a big deal. Um, it was kind of impressive because they had the videos of the Saudi uh jets, you know, just sort of following him in. Then the uh crown prince uh met Trump on the tarmac, which apparently is not their normal protocol. So, that was another another gesture of respect. And what I didn't know, I I thought it was just going to be the crown prince and and Trump, but apparently this is an enormous um event with the top billionaires, at least the top American billionaires from Black Rockck, Blackstone, Croup, Qualcomm, IBM. So, so you're getting the the richest people in the world, but you're also getting So, these these are people who are going to be at the same lunch, right? If if you know the drama involved in these personalities, it's really funny that the the same people, this group of people will be at the same table for lunch. Elon Musk, Larry Frink, Sam Alman, and Reed Hoffman. Now, there'll be lots of other people there, so but I'd love to see the seating chart. Can you imagine if they put Elon Musk between Sam Alman and Reed Hoffman? If you don't know the background, you Elon Musk has a little bit of friction with those two guys. a little bit of friction and even Larry Frink, you know, was the main DEI guy and ESG guy for a long time. So even he couldn't necessarily sit next to Elon Musk. So I think there's a possibility of a fist bite. But the the other thing that um I'm wondering is apparently the people who were smart say that this kind of a trip is always associated with pre-arranged deliverables, meaning that the deals have already been made but they'll just be sort of announced and make it look like it was because of the trip. Yeah, I guess indirectly it is because of the trip. Um, but when you have this many billionaires and CEOs, I feel like the quantity of potential deals might be pretty tremendous. And and I'm guessing that Saudi Arabia will be the uh the source of the money and maybe a lot of these people who are showing up think that they will be the beneficiaries of some of that flowing money. So Trump has said something like bringing a trillion dollars of investment back. Um, I think that might happen. He might come back with a trillion dollars worth of investments.
Well, in un in other news, uh, you know Elon Musk has the Boring Company. That's that big machine that digs tunnels and they just uh upgraded it so it doesn't need a person on the inside. It's a total robot tunnel digger and it's a they finally achieved what they call zippit zpit zero people in tunnel. So it's just a robot tunnel digger. Now I would like to see two things. One, I'd like to see those tunnels be about five times bigger because they're still tiny little tunnels. I don't I don't know if I'd want to be inside one of those tunnels if I could if I knew I were inside it. The other is I'd love to see some technology for digging straight down. It's impressive that that this tunnel digger can go from left to right. Uh, but wouldn't it be great if you could if you could find some way to economically dig far enough that you could get to geothermal power? If you go down deep enough, you have unlimited energy because the, you know, the geothermal um situation. It would be different everywhere. You know, how I guess how far you'd have to dig and how hard it would be. But wouldn't it be amazing to have something along the lines of the Boring Company? It would be all different technology because it would be drilling, not tunneling. But that would make everything work. You would have unlimited energy and it would be clean. Everybody would be happy with it. All you need is technology to be able to drill a a really deep hole where it gets really hot and do it reliably and economically. I'd love to see that.
Well, here is the least surprising news of the day. PJ Media's reporting on this, Matt Margolus, that apparently the Joe Biden job creation numbers were more fake than we imagined. Now, how fake were they? You know, you're used to seeing job numbers come out and then then later they get revised down. So we're we're kind of conditioned for the idea that that employment numbers, you know, job numbers might be a little bit managed if you know what I mean. Well, how managed were they? Uh, according to the new figures, and this is from the government. So this is not an outside entity judging the government. This is from the government. According to the new figures, the 399,000 jobs that the Biden team claimed that they created um was not 399,000 jobs. So, let's round that off to 400,000. So, it turns out maybe Joe Biden did not own did not create 400,000 jobs. They're they're revising it down a little bit. Do you know what they revised it to? uh lost a thousand jobs. What uh or or there's I see another estimate that says instead of adding almost 800,000 jobs during the middle of last year, the economy likely shed more than 160,000. So it wasn't only that they revised it downwards. It went from wildly positive to well well it might have been negative, you know, could have been negative.
Now, how many of you remember when uh I had my Democrat uh debate friend on uh comedian whose name I can't remember right now? Can anybody remember his name? Um, and he now has a show on CNN, the humor show. And uh, I said something about the Biden employment numbers always getting revised down. And he he doubted me because my source was not good. Black. Yes. Uh, yeah. Mikely Mikey in black. and he challenged me because I did not have a source, which was a good challenge because uh I was under the impression that his numbers always got revised, but I didn't have the data at hand or a source or a link or anything. So, that was a perfectly reasonable thing to ask about. But turns out uh that my that my instinct about this was right on point. right on point. It It's sort of stunning the degree to which the Biden administration was a complete lie. Uh, the funny thing is that uh Democrats are so hypnotized by their own media that if you ask them uh could you compare the truth or the honesty of the Biden administration versus Trump? Every one of them. Every one of them would say, "Oh my god, Trump's this big old liar. Lying liar. All he does is lie." Uh, it's a good thing that Biden never did that. Everything that Biden did was a lie. From the from the Biden crime family stuff to the jobs reports to how well his brain was working. Everything just everything about Biden was a lie. Now, it might be that, you know, most things about presidents are not exactly true, but uh it it would be amazing. I saw somebody do this. Was it Scott Jennings maybe challenged somebody on the panel on CNN? Uh and and he just laughed when they said that Biden was, you know, more honest.
Anyway, um RFK Jr. was praising uh he was praising Trump for his uh executive order that would lower pharma costs in the United States and uh would make us pay no more than other countries, which would be a gigantic reduction in costs. Um, but RFK Jr. was doing his little public statement about it. Trump was there. And here's what he said. He said, "I have a couple of kids who are Democrats, big Bernie Sanders fans, and when I told them that this was going to happen, um, they had tears in their eyes. So, this is something that Bernie wanted, you know, the lower pharma costs, but they could never get it done." Um, and even, uh, RFK Jr. thought it would never happen in his lifetime. So, here's the fun part. Apparently, Bernie Sanders is so on board with Trump's executive order, but he doesn't think that it will necessarily survive a a court challenge. Now, now, who the who the hell is going to challenge it in court? I I get that you shouldn't do everything with an executive order. I get it. But is there really going to be a Democrat or or group of Democrats who insist that we pay more for pharmaceutical stuff? Bernie thinks so because uh Bernie has said publicly now uh he goes further as Trump well knows his executive order will be thrown out by the courts. Will it? It will only be thrown out if a Democrat takes it to the court. How in the world are they going to survive that politically if they take that to the court? But I suppose Bernie probably knows his party better than I do. I guess I would reflexively disagree with anything Trump does. But uh here's the good news. He says if Trump is serious about making real change rather than just issuing a press release, oh come. It's an executive order, not a press release. He will support legislation I will soon be introducing to make sure we pay no more for prescription drugs than people in other major countries. Major countries. Ah maybe he'll limit it to major countries. We'll see if Republicans and Democrats come together on this. We can get it passed in a few weeks. So unless there's a trick in there and maybe the trick is the major countries. Um, it looks like Bernie Sanders is fully on board with Trump's uh executive order. He just wants to make it stronger and make it part of uh part of the law. So, we'll see if that's real or that's not real. But I I can't wait to see which Democrat would take a chance on challenging this in court. Do Do you think that's possible? I'm I'm going to make a prediction that even the Democrats are not dumb enough to go allin on we should pay more for pharmaceutical cuz we hate Trump. I don't think they can do it. I mean, they've done some crazy things just to be on the other side of Trump, but I don't think they can do this. And you know, even Jasmine Crockett can't do this. She might try though.
Anyway, uh as you know, uh Trump has allowed uh refugee status for the uh Africaner the the white African South Africans who are want to escape the possible genocide in South Africa. Now, there's some disagreement. If you watch MSNBC, you'll find out there's there's no white genocide in South Africa. And and there's violence. You know, everybody has violence. So why would we be favoring the white people in South Africa, says MSNBC, when everybody's, you know, it's a dangerous place? And, you know, there's just very, very little uh evidence that many farmers have been, you know, lost their land or been killed or anything. But it's only like 59 people, I guess, at least initially. And I just love the I love the trolling aspect of this combined with the fact that I do think that if if I were living there based on what I've seen in the news and what looks like is coming and it's more about what's coming because if you look at the rhetoric the rhetoric in South Africa is looking it's looking pretty dangerous. So, if I were a white resident of South Africa, I feel like I might want to get out of there. And the fact that uh, you know, Trump's all in on that, it just gives MSNBC something to talk about that doesn't matter. Now, I don't know what's, you know, true or what's not true in South Africa, but the fact that it just gives gives MSNBC something unimportant. I mean, you know, if you look at the whole world and the country, it's not the most important thing happening. There's 59 people. So, anyway, uh I guess I just enjoy the fact that they don't like it.
Well, the Diddy trial is uh going now, and uh I guess the Diddy defense is going to be that the violence really did happen, but it wasn't part of sex trafficking. Boy, you know, you never want to be in legal trouble where your best defense is that your violence was real. Well, my violence was real. Yeah, sure. Uh, I did beat up some women, but uh, it was part of a consensual sex acts and you know, maybe they liked it a little bit or um, that's your best defense. Uh, but definitely wasn't sex trafficking. Oh, no. Oh, no. No. It was just violence, people. No sex trafficking. So, he's been accused of drugging people and bribing people and disgusting sex acts. And there was something about a male escort who was paid thousands of dollars to get with his girlfriend Cassie. Well, did he watched? Um, wow. This doesn't seem like the dangerous stuff yet, does it? Weren't you expecting that the Diddy trial would would present a whole bunch of things that were not just about Diddy? Like you'd find out about other people? I'm starting to think there won't be anything about other people, you know, at least other famous people. There there'll be other things about, you know, the male escort that he paid and, you know, the girlfriends that he did bad things to, but I feel like this is going to be really limited to just Diddy. Um, which, you know, has to be done. But, uh, if you were hoping for this to give you real news about other people, probably not.
Um the uh credentials committee in another story sounds like the same story because it's so disgusting but the Democratic National Committee the ones who had elected uh David Hog as their co-chair uh there's something called the credentials committee. So the Democratic National Committee has a credentials committee and they they voted that Hog the Hog election had not followed proper parliamentary procedures. Uh and then they'll have to decide whether he can run again. So, so the Democrats used a rules trick to get rid of their own guy, which is so Democrat. You know, we've been talking before about the Democrats uh they're not so much about policy and ideas because they don't have any policy ideas, but they're all about gaming the rules. you know, you know, I think Mark Elias just sued Wyoming for something again, trying to game the rules. So, they game the rules even on their they they've turned their weapons on their own uh people. So, they somehow they came up with some weird parliamentary procedure thing to get rid of David Hog, but he's not gone gone. I guess he could rerun for his own for his own seat, but the odds of him getting elected probably went way down. Um, and this is after David Hog was on uh Bill Maher's show saying something like uh that uh young men just want to get laid and have fun. And uh that's what the Democrats, I guess, didn't understand about young men. And I'm thinking to myself, I I think again, you're way off. Now, of course, young men want to do those things, but if you're if you're following the news or my podcast, you know that young men are the biggest uptick in church that there there's a much bigger trend toward young men wanting to become religious and wanting to become conservative. And um apparently enrollment in the military is way up which is mostly young men. Now why do young men volunteer to be in the military? Now in some cases they might think it's their their best, you know, economic play, you know, depending on how what they're prepared for. Um, but to me it seems like the trend is away from wanting to just get laid and have fun. Even drinking is down. You know, the the amount of drinking is down among the young. I think young men are seeking meaning. And uh I guess Charlie Kirk did a good job of of saying that that young men are far more if you're looking for a trend, they're trying to find some meaning. Because the old days, everybody was just getting ready to be a good husband and that option seems to be decreasing. I mean, they still might want it, but it just doesn't seem to be as available because of economics and other things. So, I think once again, the uh Democrats just don't understand their own public. Um, you know, it'll always be true that young men want to get laid and have fun, but the the search for meaning just seems like a bigger deal to me in terms of a you know, a direction for things.
Um, now here's a uh here's a I don't know if this is a trend or just a a thing, but have you noticed that there's a gigantic difference in the let's say uh mental capacity of Democrat supporters versus Republican. Now, I'm not saying that if you measure the IQ of one group versus the other there'd be a difference. I don't know that there would be. But in terms of the people who were prominent, if you look at who's prominent on the Democrat side, you get people like Hog and Jasmine Crockett, you know, just to pick two. Now, they're not really the brightest people, at least in terms of politics. Um, but I've said this before. I think I said this on X and uh Elon Musk agreed with me on X that the smartest people seem to have all moved to the Republican side because it's the common sense side. It's hard to be smart and be opposed to common sense. But just just to give you a sense of the difference between the Democrat side saying just one crazy thing after another and the Republicans. The Republicans have um on their side I would say uh you've heard of Data Republican. So, Data Republicans, a woman who is just great with data and has uh surfaced things that would be hard to surface just because she's good with data. So, recently she put together a giant spreadsheet that you could download and you could check yourself that shows all where George Soros gave his money. So, you can see the Soros grants. I guess Alex Soros at this point. Now, isn't that useful to actually understand the real world? You'd want to know where Soros put his money. Now, who do who on the Democrat side could do that? They don't have they don't have data Republican. That's just something on one side. who uh who on the Democrat side has a Mike Benz who can explain to you in great detail all of the NOS's and how the money has been essentially laundered and you know how the CIA is all part of it etc. They don't have a Mike Bentons. What about Victor Davis Hansen? You know, they do have some historians on the Democrat side, but they just seem like crazy partisans. You know, they don't sound as, you know, authoritative or as smart or as balanced as Victor Davis Hansen. What about uh I'm I'm going to throw Charlie Kirk in here. If you haven't seen Charlie Kirk's videos of all the public events he's doing, where he does a public debate with anybody who wants to, basically, so people go up to the microphone and they challenge him with one thing after another. And one of the things we've learned is that Charlie Kirk is way smarter than I thought he was. you know, uh, it turns out he has a pretty deep, not pretty deep, but a very deep understanding of all of these topics. And watching him just dismiss one person after another, you think to yourself, "Oh my god, you know, I'm glad he's on our team." Um, of course, there's Elon Musk and Doge, smartest people ever on the Republican team. And I'm going to say maybe on the Trump team as much as the Republican team. A lot of it is uh yeah, a lot of it is uh Trumpish because Trump is the common sense guy. David Sachs, it every time I hear David Sachs explain something complicated, I think to myself, "Oh, now I understand it because he's just so freaking smart." And I'm going to throw myself in there because I've, you know, added to the persuasion understanding of
The of the Republican pro-Trump side. I don't think there are people like that. There's there's just a huge difference in capability of the people who are involved and, you know, publicly involved in stuff. So, is that just my impression? Because it's possible I'm just so biased that I can't see the difference. So, I see in the comments somebody throwing Megan Kelly in there. Yeah, let's let's throw Megan Kelly and Joe Rogan in there. Not as necessarily Trump supporters, but um, you know, important voices that are the best of the best in podcasting. I think the Democrats will probably catch up and have some big podcasts, but I haven't really heard of any. Um, that's probably just because I don't pay attention to that part of the world. Uh, oh, somebody's throwing in Jack Pabic. I'll throw I'll throw him in there. What about um Steve Bannon? Steve Bannon isn't just um the guy who needs a haircut who does a show every day. Steve Bannon is really smart. I don't know if you understand how smart he is. He's really smart. Like super smart. Even if you disagree with him, you have to give him that. So, it does seem to me like there's a just an enormous talent difference at this point. Yeah, you could throw—I'm seeing lots of other names go by. I won't uh I won't have to list every name, but there there's a big difference in uh capability at this point.
Anyway, uh Sam Alman was talking about where AI is going. He says 2025 is the year of the AI agent. Now, the AI agent would be—you can have an AI that acts like a person who does whatever you want it to do. Uh, you know, work tasks or personal tasks. I'm not so sure because I don't think there is yet an AI agent that won't hallucinate. If there is, you know, maybe I could be corrected on that, but I feel like they don't have a solution for AI agents. I think it would either be too dangerous. Um, I think they're close, but I don't know if they can close that last gap where the AI agent is dependable. So, we'll see. I mean, there's no reason I would be right on that where, you know, if you were going to bet, you would bet on Sam Alman. You wouldn't bet on me. But I'm a little bit skeptical cuz uh I—if it could be done, I think it would have been done already.
He thinks 2026 will be the year of scientific research and breakthroughs. In other words, AI doing its own scientific research and breakthroughs. That could be true. Then 2027 is when AI and robotics um get together and then you've got robots and AI. Now in theory there will be Optimus Prime that will be driven by AI and that will be uh available at least in small amounts at the end of this year. I wouldn't be too surprised if that got pushed back. So, uh, I think maybe Sam Alman's estimate that it's 2027 is probably right. And I I think that that may have to do with the fact that you need—you can't quite trust the AI yet. So, putting it in a robot might be a little dangerous in 2025. I think it's doable. You know, you could have a robot in 2025, but probably 2027 is when we trust it.
Now, if you haven't seen it, there's a video of the Optimus robot uh doing jazz dancing. It's not just dancing, but but it's looking like an actual dancer. You know, it's got moves that don't look like a robot, looks like a person. And but but as I was watching this, you know, I was watching it with the sound off. And I thought to myself, how much does a robot weigh? Does anybody have an idea? How how much will the Optimus weigh? Because could you imagine having the apartment beneath beneath the apartment that has a robot in it? Could you just imagine what it would be like in in the first-floor apartment if the second-floor apartment has an Optimus? Clump clump clump clump clump clump. Hey, Optimus, show everybody you can dance. Clump clump clump clump clump clump. There's going to be a real problem with the with the downstairs apartments, let me tell you.
Uh, all right. Speaking of robots, um, I saw this I saw this story before and I skipped it the first time or two I saw it because I thought it was more of those uh, someday we'll be able to do this, which is way less interesting than we can do this now. But apparently this is a a real thing that exists now that China's doing. They've so they've got a robot dog, four-legged firefighting machine. So I guess it connects to a hose and it can go into the most dangerous places because it's really good at balance. So even if the stairs are giving out, it it can overcome that. It can cool itself if it gets too close to the fire. And it can shoot water like crazy because, you know, it carries a hose. And it can even shoot air because I guess sometimes a strong blast of air will kill a fire pretty quickly, too. Now, this is not—apparently this is not theoretical. It's already in play. So they're already fighting fires with a robot dog in China. So that's amazing. I the the story is coming from Mashable. Now I don't know if you can completely trust stories coming out of China, but if if this is true that they already have a robot dog firefighter, that's going to be pretty amazing. Could you imagine being trapped in a fire and the robot dog is the first one that gets there, but it can't really carry you out because it's just a robot dog. Doesn't really have enough hands for that. I guess we'll have the Optimus for that.
All right. Uh well, the uh Jake Tapper book is out with co-author Alex Thompson. Now, that's the one that promised to be uh we imagined would be full of really shocking things about Joe Biden from behind the scenes. And so far, the only thing I've heard uh from the book is that uh I guess it's out today, but uh that Joe Biden's physical deterioration was so severe that his advisors privately discussed the possibility he might need a wheelchair if he won re-election. Now, that's not too surprising if anybody saw him walk and fall over and stuff like that. So, and the fact it was privately discussed, that makes perfect sense. But is that the most shocking thing in the book of all the things in the book? We're not even going to talk about his mental deterioration. We're going to talk about his ability to walk. That I feel like I was expecting a lot more. Weren't you? So maybe somebody only read the first chapter or something, but shouldn't there be way more shocking relevant revelations? I'm a little low on shocking revelations here. So Jake, we're expecting more. I hope there's more of this going to come out.
Apparently uh Apple Apple is now working with a startup called Synchron to uh connect their phone to your brain directly. So this would be for disabled people at least initially. Wall Street Journal was reporting this. So they've they've got—so Synchron is trying to do the same thing uh that Neurolink does, which is literally physically connect some device to your brain. So they uh they have a stent-like device that's implanted in a vein at top the brain's motor cortex. Now that's kind of surprising. Does it surprise you that connecting to one vein near the brain would allow you to read brain signals? And that's pretty amazing if you could do that. Anyway, um and then it translates the signals into icons on screen. Now, I saw some critic in the comments saying that uh uh Apple hasn't developed basically anything useful since Steve Jobs left. Left as in, you know, died. Um and I wonder if this will be it. But even this is sort of a follower thing because you know Neurolink—it would be way ahead. Yep. Brain vein signaling. Anyway, so we'll see about that. It seems to me that if it starts with disabled people, it wouldn't be long before you would want to have one of those brain stents in in your own brain. How many of you would let somebody drill into your head and give you a brain stent just so you could control your phone better? I don't know if I'd be up to be the first person to do that, but you go first.
Well, um, as you know, one of the biggest problems in the United States for developing anything is it takes too long to get approval, especially in the uranium/nuclear front. But, uh, according to interesting engineering, the US is going to fast-track a Utah uranium mining permit. Now, how long do you think it would normally take to get a uranium mining permit? And I guess this isn't a mine that used to exist but got closed for some reason. They're reopening it. But what do—how long do you think it would take? Probably years, right? And why would it take years? Well, you know, there's always an environmental issues, etc. Um, but apparently they're trying to slash that to 14 days. 14 days. Do you think they're going to make that work? Because I always wondered why can't you do it in 14 days. Um, now I'm not talking about the analysis that would be presented to the whoever has to approve the thing. The analysis might take a while. You know, they might say, can you analyze the impact on the special frogs or whatever is there? So, I could see why that would take a while, but it seems like once you've done the analysis that uh getting the approval shouldn't take that long. So, do you think this will really get approved in 14 days? Because we need local uranium so we don't have to rely on Russia. Russia is one of the main sources of uranium. So, seems like a bad idea to depend on Russia for our uranium.
Well, when Trump uh Trump's talking he's still talking about the China tariff agreements and apparently there's a you know a deeper level of stuff that we don't all understand. So, one of the things I talked about is the tariffs, of course, but there was something about a whole bunch of other, you know, restrictions and things that China puts on people beyond tariffs that they're willing to relax. But, uh, Trump is very excited about the fact that China has agreed to quote, "Open itself up to American business." Now, what exactly does that mean? Because if you were an American business and you found out that China said, "All right, in the past we weren't allowing you to even compete in China because we wanted our Chinese businesses to, you know, thrive without the competition. But even if you could bring your business into China, wouldn't you still be worried that they would steal your IP and that they would bug all your devices? You you've probably heard that if you're a CEO of a company and you travel to China, you can't bring your regular phone because everything's going to be tapped and you know you're basically going to be surveilled the entire time. So, who would actually do that? Like even if you could do business in China and they opened it up to American business, is that real or would there be so many Chinese-specific problems that you'd wish you had never gotten near it? I still think China is too dangerous for business. It's too risky. And I don't see that changing because it would it would require a complete mindset change in China where apparently the current mindset—and you know I can't read minds but I'm going to only judge it from actions. If you look at the actions of China it's as if there are no ethical or moral limits on anything and that if they can steal from you they do. If they can abuse you, they will. If they can steal your stuff, they will. If they can um degrade you in any way for the benefit of the Chinese market, they will. How is that going to change? I don't see that changing, you know, if they don't have the mindset that, oh yeah, come on in and compete with our local businesses. Um, so I feel like that's overblown. I just I just feel like the I feel like there's going to be a soft decoupling. It's very smart for Scott Bessend to say directly and publicly that we don't want to decouple from China. That's exactly what I would say if I wanted to decouple from China. It's just that you can't do it quickly. Doing it quickly would be a disaster for both countries. But a soft decouple where we just sort of quietly develop locally the ability to make our own clothing I guess or to buy it from Mexico or or Vietnam. So I think we should say yes we want to do all kinds of business with you China. Yeah, bring it on. Let's do some more. Oh, the last thing we want to do is decouple. No, no, no. We don't want to decouple. And then decouple as fast as you can, but in a reasonable common sense way that doesn't destroy you as you're decoupling. So, I say don't decouple while you decouple. So, that's that's how I'd play it, too.
Um Gavin Newsom, our California leader here, has uh ordered California cities to shut down the homeless encampments. He says there's no more excuses. Blaze Media is reporting on this. The homeless advocates, of course, were not happy about this at all. Um so what does that mean? Doesn't it feel like there's something missing in that? If you close down the homeless encampments, which is basically the tents, and you get rid of the tents, where are they going to go? Isn't the the whole point of it is that they were unwilling to go anywhere else? So, if you said, "Pick up your tent and get out of here to where?" Now, they always had indoor options, right? For a long time, they've had indoor options. The reasons they stay outdoors is so they don't have to obey any of the rules of indoor living. In other words, they can just, you know, do their fentanyl and lay there and and they just prefer it. Now, the fact that you and I don't prefer it, it shouldn't be influential in your opinion. They prefer it. And it's hard to understand that, you know, at some point of addiction and uh mental illness, they prefer living outdoors. So, I don't know how this can work. There's just a part missing where where is it that they go? I've always liked the idea of creating a homeless encampment on public land that's just away from the other people. Like I don't mind how many homeless people there are as long as they're not on the sidewalk so that I can walk by and the freedom poopers will not be doing their thing. So if this is um somehow paired with there's a place you can go. It's just and it's a very nice place, you know. Maybe it's even has more trees. You maybe maybe has better—maybe they could give them some bathroom facilities. Uh maybe even some a little bit of healthcare or something. So, but if there's a place to go, I I guess so. So here again, you can see that Gavin Newsom is trying to be more of a centrist, which I define as trying to be a Republican without going all the way.
Well, according to MIT Technical Review, there is a new uh technology that police might be using soon that doesn't use facial recognition, but it can still recognize people. So without—because there's a controversy about using facial recognition, it's too uh intrusive. But apparently they can now—there's a technology that can identify people maybe less, you know, less accurately, but it can identify people by—let's see—um by their attributes like body size, gender, hair color, and style of clothing and accessories instead of their face. So, this made me think that criminals need their own AI consultant because if imagine you were a professional criminal, it used to be you just had to, you know, understand the current situation because it never changed much. But AI is changing so much about how the law enforcement people can do their job. It's like in order to be a professional criminal, you're going to need your own AI consultant. You know, it's like, all right, uh you're gonna have to start changing your clothes for each crime because if you wear the same clothes, they're going to identify you quickly. Now, how many of the criminals will be aware that uh how many of them read the MIT technology review to know that law enforcement can identify them by their style and their clothing and their accessories? It also says gender, but let's be real, it's men. I think the gender part's the least important because it's always men doing the serious crimes. Anyway, so crooks, you better dress differently.
Um, in related news, there's a rumor that is uh not confirmed and might not be true, but Reclaim the Net is saying that uh you know Meta has these new glasses, these Ray-Ban glasses. You you probably saw Zuckerberg wearing them. Um, and they they're sort of sort of limited in what they can do at the moment, but one of the things they're thinking about maybe possibly adding is facial recognition. Now, I don't know about the legalities of that, etc. And it's not a confirmed thing. It's only a—well, we think they're probably looking at it. But isn't that the most valuable feature? I mean, if I if I said to myself, what is the point of having these cool magic glasses that can help me, I don't know, hear things and see things and do things? Wouldn't the number one thing be to tell you more about other people so that you can remember their names? Like and that you can uh uh that you can instantly know what you have in common. You can know if they're dangerous. It would be super intrusive and the people who are being identified would hate it. But boy, it would be the single most useful thing you could have if you could have it. Um and and then you'd see some people that if they even saw you walk in the room with those glasses, they'd have to leave immediately cuz cuz if you were the one person who was, you know, had some serious crimes on your record or something, the person who walks in with the Meta glasses would be the only one who knows. So as soon as you see somebody walk in with those Ray-Ban glasses, you're like, "All right, got to go. I'm out of here." uh but would be the most useful thing you could do. You you would you would be able to talk to strangers all the time because you would see something in common. Can you imagine you meet meet somebody you've never met before but it can check their social media and it tells you immediately what you have in common. It's like oh you you both like to surf. Well, you know, if you know that right away that you met somebody new and they and you both like to surf, you already have something to talk about. It's like it would be so easy to make friends, but you can see the downside, too. So, there there would clearly be a dark side to it. However, I think it would be useful.
All right. So what we're expecting from this uh Saudi trip with the president is that there are a lot of deliverables that have been uh arranged in advance and u maybe it's already happening. I don't know. But I think you're going to see this non-stop um this non-stop flow of good news heading to the United States. Now at the same time apparently uh there was a uh a Pakistani man who uh who is a British citizen who's in the government who is uh suggesting that Trump should be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for quickly de-escalating the Pakistan-Indian conflict. To which I say, huh, maybe yes. Because we don't know exactly what Trump did, but I'm guessing what he did was he put pressure on both sides, as in you better cut this out or we'll, I don't know, cut trade with you or put some kind of pressure on you or sanction you or something. And both sides would like to be able to just trade with the United States and have a good relationship with the United States. But they also needed what I called the fake because. The fake because is a reason to do the thing that they wanted to do anyway. And what they wanted to do anyway is not have a fight and not go to World War II. They definitely did not want a nuclear confrontation. So when Trump comes in, he can just give them some ambiguous threats and both sides will say, "Oh, well, now that I have the ambiguous threat, I guess that's a good enough reason not to have World War II. Phew, I was so willing to go to nuclear war, but now that Trump has talked to us." So I think that's something that Trump would know that neither of them wanted it. They just needed some external reason to make it look like a good idea to stop stop being belligerent. So maybe maybe Trump does deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for what he did. We'll we'll find out more about what he actually did because I don't know, but maybe.
All right, that's all I've got for now. I'm going to uh say some words privately to the people on Locals, my subscribers, and the rest of you. Thanks for joining. I'll see you again tomorrow. Same time, same place. There'll be all kinds of good news by tomorrow. All right. If you're on YouTube or Rumble or X, you'll be gone in 30 seconds.