AMA & Hangout with Contributors (March 2026) | Yaron Brook Show

How to have fun, anytime, anywhere.

Step one, go to chumbacacino.com.

Chumbacacino.com. Got it.

Step two, collect your welcome bonus.

Come to Papa, welcome bonus.

Step three, play hundreds of casino-style games for free.

That's a lot of games. All for free.

Step four, unleash your excitement.

Chumbacacino has been delivering thrills for over a decade,

so claim your free welcome bonus now and live the Chumbalife.

Visit chumbacacino.com.

No purchase necessary VGW group void for prohibited by law,

21 block terms and conditions apply.

Do you love romcoms? Do you wish you could talk

about Christmas movies year round?

Then we have the perfect podcast for you,

Holmarke's podcast.

Throughout the year, we cover all things romance, holiday,

and Holmarke, including recaps of every Holmarke show,

like when calls the heart and the way home.

You can also get loads of bonus content covering shows,

like Bridgerton, Sweet Magnolia's, and and just like that.

We are an all-female group of friends who are passionate

for these shows and movies and give our honest opinions

as well as gosh over what we love so much.

But that's not all. Every Monday, there are interviews

with all your favorite actors, writers, directors, and more.

Check out Holmarke's podcast on all your podcast providers

and on YouTube. That's Holmarke's podcast,

wherever you listen to podcasts.

This is the year-round rock show.

Oh right, everybody. Welcome to your own rock show

on this Saturday, March 28th.

Today's show is, uh, ask me anything show.

We've got a panel here on video that I'll be asking questions,

but the super chat is also open.

And those of you who are on YouTube can ask questions

on using the super chat.

And those of you who are not on YouTube,

come on over to YouTube where you can,

where you can participate and interact.

And those of you who still want to join the panel,

you're welcome to do so, just log in.

And I'll let you in.

All right, let us start with our panels.

Panel and the questions will start with John.

Oh, you muted, I think.

Thanks very much. And thank you for all you do.

You're the best news source on how to stay rational in the,

you know, in the, in the irrational world.

And, and when I was thinking about that,

you helped me deal with my own occasional irrational

bid for thanks much for keeping me centered today's question.

It's, it's about kind of cross-marketing the,

the public voices of, uh, of, uh,

ARI and, uh, uh, here's the, the thought, uh,

your audience and the other audience that I'm part of is Harry Vince Wangers.

Email and, uh, I remember a plug I think you gave,

about Harry's, uh, after, uh, Rande.

My question is this, uh, uh, yourself,

Don Watkins, Ty, Harry, um, he had you, you know,

different people are attracted by the, you know,

the, the, the, the talk and the personalities and such.

Is there a way that you keep in, you know,

that somebody that's new to Don Watkins becomes new to your own

brook becomes new to, uh, Harry Vince Wanger?

Sure, absolutely. So, um, uh, I think cross-marketing is good.

I mean, I try, you know, I'm trying to make money.

So I take sponsorships.

So, uh, like ARI sponsors the show,

so I, I market ARI, um, when the conference,

when the conference was on and I was going to be a speaker there,

I, I plugged Harry, Harry's been on the show.

So I plug him when he's on the show, obviously.

Um, Don was on the show a week ago.

So, uh, that's a plug for Don.

Yeah, I've plugged.

Yeah, I mean, one of the reasons I do the interviews,

it is to, to plug those people, right?

So, uh, so, uh, uh, Niko's and, uh, and, uh, uh, you know, uh,

uh, Greg, so let me area in all these guys

who are doing their own thing all over the place.

Yeah, they come on my show and hopefully that gives them great exposure.

On their shows, I, I often, um, I just, uh, shared something Peter Schwartz wrote

on Twitter.

So, yeah, I, you know, I think cross-marketing is good.

I, I go on how he's been, been showing his list once in a while and,

and, and speak, uh, during their Sunday sessions,

I've done that a couple of times.

So, yeah, absolutely.

We should all be cross-marketing each other all the time.

Uh, there's only so much, you know, you can't do it all the time.

It becomes, but, but yeah, I'm, I'm all for cross-marketing.

There's only so many of us objective is out there.

Um, we've got to get, help get the wood out.

Yeah, who, who are the next ones?

In the next ones, young and up and coming or...

Yes.

Well, it depends on the time scale.

I mean, you can see them, you know, at, at, at,

at Okan now, we've got these, uh, 20-minute sessions where a lot of our younger

intellectuals give short talks, uh, and you'll see a bunch of them there.

Um, you know, who, uh, you know, I think I featured people like Ibus and, uh, on the show,

and, uh, and, and others, you know, I'm blanking on names right now.

But, but there's a whole cadre of them. I, I, I, I do a public, uh, a, um,

current events seminar for the Institute every Wednesday, uh, where there's a whole group of them,

probably, uh, a dozen of them that we, we talk about coming events on cause on the call as well,

and Elon, and, uh, it's part of, this is part of the teaching. Uh, and, um, yeah, there's a lot of,

I think there's, uh, there's a group coming up, uh, that is, uh, that is really good.

Uh, which, which one of them becomes kind of more of a public intellectual than which ones of them

go and, and, and teach? I mean, it is, we'll, we'll see. We'll see. I mean, obviously the Institute

has been bare, and, and, and Jono, and Keith, and, you know, and, and, and, and, and on cough, of course.

So there, there's, yeah, there's a big cadre of intellectuals now, particularly as

compared to when I was young, and, and coming up through the thing, there, I mean, it was, there,

there were three of them, right? I mean, four, five, maybe, right? There was Harry Peter, Leonard,

of course, and, uh, Jon with paths and, and not much more. So, right? And today there's a lot,

and there, and a lot of people are doing stuff that is outward focused, right? It, it, it, it,

is appealing to an outward audience, which is good.

Thanks, Jon. Jennifer. I wanted to talk about the AI art a little more, because I thought

it's something else. Yep. Um, there's, when you look at art, obviously, there's the technique,

how well did they paint, whatever they painted. But then, isn't there also the psychological aspect

you as the viewer get knowing that you're interacting with another, a living, conscious human,

you know, not a mismatch that a computer does, but an actual person that has a sense of life,

and you're responding to that psychologically, sort of like, you know, you wouldn't, like,

we've talked about having a AI robot boyfriend. It wouldn't be the same, even if they're programmed

to do everything, you know, because it's not alive and conscious, you know what I mean? But what,

if, what if at the bottom of the art, there was a, there was a name of an individual and, uh,

a little bio of him, so he thought it was a person. Well, yeah, you know, that's true too. What if

you didn't know, what if you didn't know you didn't know? But what if you did know, could that

is psychologically factor response or not? I mean, I don't think it's complicated. I'm not sure

what I think about it. I mean, maybe, maybe today, but okay, let's project 50 years into the

future. And there's a lot of this art out there and you interact with AI all the time. And

I just, I just don't know, particularly given that 90% of the people, maybe 99.9% of the people

couldn't tell the difference. They'd look at a piece of art done by AI and they couldn't tell

it was AI. I mean, maybe an expert could, a real expert, but most people couldn't.

There wasn't a difference between that and like we've discussed here having like a robot spouse.

It's not, quote, real, you know, sadly, I think they're going to be people who are, I mean, all

these movies about robot boyfriends and girlfriends. I think a real, I think a lot of people are going to

be a, that's going to happen to a lot of people. I think they are because, but the reality is that

the difference is that you can look into the eyes of your real boyfriend girlfriend and it's a

real person and their thoughts and you know, they have will, you know, they're choosing and you

know them, right? But what if I could create a robot that look exactly like a human being

and act that exactly like a human being and at eyes that look exactly like a human being?

Yeah, they did a like a star trek here as the girl and they talked about these things.

Yeah, so you, you know, if they're, if they're, if they're that much like a human being,

then maybe they are human being, right? So I don't think you can do that with zeros and ones.

I think you have to, you'd have to get into biology, but can we create life? Yeah,

could we create artificial life? Whatever the hell that means? But, but so I think it gets

mokey and complicated. And, and I think, you know, people who will probably live after we're gone,

you know, it's going to be, it's going to be interesting. If one of the reasons I don't,

I hate the idea of dying is I want to see how this plays out. I'd like to see 100 years from now

what's, what's happening with robots and AI and all this stuff. I, I'm curious. And so it's,

but I think it becomes, I think it becomes complicated. I think it really, and it becomes interesting.

And people are going to have to come up with new ideas and new thoughts and about all these

things. And I psychology might have to change to some extent. And the way we relate to

to, yeah, relate to auto, relate to machines or, you know, and, and then what happens when we

become partially machines, right? So we have chips in our brains and all of that stuff.

I wish I was a, I, you know, if I was a sci-fi writer, I could, I could speculate in sci-fi,

but I'm not. I don't have that kind of imagination, but it would be kind of cool.

This is what sci-fi writer should be writing about, right?

But I have like one of those twilight zone episodes about this stuff.

Yeah, I know. But now it's not twilight zone anymore. It's getting real. So it's time to do

something real. So it's, it's, it's, it's, it's definitely, I find it fascinating. So

Okay, thank you. Yeah.

So, uh, Dunley, you're muted and video is off.

Right. I'm going to skip Dunley. Maybe I'll be back in a minute. Uh, we'll have it.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with

Chamba. Chamba at chamba casino dot com. Let's chamba. No purchase necessary. BTW group.

Boy, we're prohibited by law CC and C 21 plus sponsored by chamba casino.

Hey, I'm Josh Spiegel, host of the podcast lunatic in the newsroom. If you enjoy journalism that

drifts into mild panic, wild overthinking and a guaranteed nervous breakdown, lunatic in the

newsroom is for you. It's news like you've never heard before. The only newsroom with a panic

button. You're left. You'll cry and gasp and horror as the show spirals completely out of control.

It's not just news. It's emotionally unstable lunatic in the newsroom. Listen today.

So I have a question from, uh, Amy from Mrs. Nacer. I was telling her we got the AMA today and I

don't know that I have any questions. I feel like I know what urine has to say about everything.

Even when my answers might be a little different. No, I got a question that predictable. Huh.

Now just hours and hours and hours of listening and taking it in. But here's what Amy sent me and

this is this is typed out and it's kind of two parts here. She's been trying to, uh,

hammer home to folks. What altruism is doing to us politically and and right now Donald Trump

is not your archetypical altruist. So she, here's her question. What would be the best

designation for what Donald Trump is in regard to altruism? He's not an altruist in the general

sense of the term that we use as an objectivist. He doesn't seem to sacrifice himself, but he does

promote altruism in the sense of asking for sacrifices from others. Okay, that's the first half of

the question and and right away I thought, well, here's what your own will say. He'll say he's not

in anything. He's nothing. He's not ideological. But maybe that's too quick an answer.

Yeah, I mean, I think, I think he, I mean, we've described him as an narcissist and I think that's

right. Um, he, he is an exploiter. You could describe as an exploiter, right? He believes in

exploiting others to achieve his aims. Um, yeah, he's definitely the Attila versus the witch doctor.

Yes, he's an Attila in, in, he's definitely an Attila and he's, he's not, you know, he's not

an altruist. But is he shaped by, he is an altruist in a sense that expect other people to be

altruistic, right? He expects other people to sacrifice. And is he shaped by altruism? Yes, I would

say he is a, he is one of the many options people have if they reject altruism, but don't have

an alternative and yet are shaped within a culture of altruism and have a particular psychology.

And, and so he's, he's, he's a kind of a exploitative narcissist. You know, uh, he's not a power

less than in the traditional sense, but he's definitely a, and, and you know, he, he likes having

the power. He, he enjoys power. Um, and he'd like to have more of it, but he's not, he's not kind

of a scheming, I don't view him as a scheming fascist who wants to take control of everything.

He's just pissed off that anybody has say, uh, you know, he's like the president. He should have

all the authority in the world. He's like the top gun. How, how come, how come he has to get permission

from anybody? It, it just, it kind of pisses him off. It's not like he's, uh, he's, uh, he's in,

he, he's a scheming Hitler. He's not, he's not that sophisticated. No, he's a schoolyard bully.

Yeah. See, shaped by altruism, but he's not, he's not an altruist, although he expects that

altruism from everybody else. Okay. Good. I'll do the second half of the next time we go around.

All right. Sounds good. It's a little different. Sounds good. Adam.

Yes. Recently, uh, the Wall Street Journal ran an article about, um,

Poshedayava, who was one of, um, Jeffrey Epstein's assistants.

Um, and what's the free press ran a counter article, the Wall Street Journal put for

create her as just another victim, even though she first met Jeffrey Epstein when, uh, she was 24

years old. So definitely not the teenager anymore. Um, the free press exposes a lot of material

was not in the Wall Street Journal article. And what struck me is that she graduated at the top

of her class from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, which is the graduate

school of the Soviet foreign intelligence services. That's essentially spies who will be working

under diplomatic cover, get their final education in international relations, and everything else

that they will need to know as half agents under diplomatic cover. Now,

this woman, uh, Poshedayava was not under diplomatic cover.

She got a green card as a model,

um, the same agency from which Trump got a green card for his wife as a model.

Yep.

Why there are green cards for models is beyond buying, uh,

unnecessary talent.

Well, yeah, I mean, the extraordinary talent provision was meant for engineers and scientists.

And how it got applied to models, I don't know. And I guess she was pretty enough.

Um, but the idea that the graduate of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations

would be admitted and a green card. I mean, there's a limited number of those people

who are here under diplomatic cover and diplomatic passports. But I thought that was it. And

here we have, you know, somebody who was graduating from the

top graduate school for Russian spies, and she gets a regular green card. How is that possible?

Well, she had powerful friends. I mean, obviously she, you know, Jeffrey, uh,

Jeffrey Epstein had a lot of friends in the white places. A lot of this green card stuff

is, I think, you know, a lot of it can be circumvented if you know the right people.

Uh, we have a rule of law, but, you know, a lot of times,

who you know matters in these kind of things. Um, and, and it, you know, it somewhat relates

this idea of how do we get green cards for models. Um, yeah, I mean, there are men,

you know, and they're pretty women. And, you know, powerful men will do a lot of, a lot

in order to make sure the pretty women, uh, you know, can, that they can, they can, they can

invite pretty women into their universe. And that includes rigging the, uh, the, uh, the visa

system in order to make that possible. But I think she, look, I don't know. I mean, there's,

this reason, you know, everybody says that Jeffrey Epstein, it was a Mossad agent.

Um, I think that's very unlikely. But could he have been a Russian agent? You know, could, could,

could she have been his contact to the, to the KGB? Who knows? Uh, I mean, I doubt it again,

but it's, it, it's certainly, it's certainly possible. Uh, why do you doubt it?

Because it, because it, because it worked too well. I, I, because I, I don't know that

that he's competent. Um, he's had the right educational background for being this controller.

Yeah. I mean, maybe, but it's also very obvious, right? So you'd think that if she really

was KGB and given where she came into school, everybody knows that you'd think you'd think the CA

or the FBI who was responsible would know that I, you know, I, I, I, I'm not against some conspiracy

theories. Uh, but the burden of proof is high, right? Uh, uh, usually what is it all comes

razor? The simple explanation is the right one. Uh, Jeffrey Epstein, you know, thought she was

beautiful and wanted her around and he got her a visa. And, uh, in spite of her being really,

really smart, she was a naive Russian woman who could easily be manipulated by a rich, by a

rich American sophisticated, whatever, which is what Jeffrey Epstein was. So I think that's

a more likely explanation. But if, if it turned out the Jeffrey Epstein was feeding information

to the Russians, I would not be surprised. And if it turns out that some of that information

is about Donald Trump, I certainly wouldn't be surprised given how Trump, how friendly Trump is

with, uh, with, uh, Putin. So, uh, it just, it just the burden of proof is on those who claiming

the conspiracy theory. And you need a lot to be able to prove that one. And, uh, it, you know,

not a lot, not enough lines up. The thing is people who graduate from the Moscow State Institute

of International Relations become Russian diplomats, which means, you know, the spies for their

various foreign service agencies. And someone who graduates near the top of that school, um, you know,

normally you would not expect her to pretend to be living an ordinary model's life. But maybe,

maybe she was bored with Matt. Maybe she didn't want to be a diplomat. And she wanted the,

the jet setting kind of lifestyle of a model and, and the kind of lifestyle that Jeffrey could,

uh, could offer her. And maybe she wanted to leave Russia because she hated Russia. I mean,

she was intelligent. So maybe she wanted to leave Russia. That would be an intelligent thing to do.

So I don't know what neither do you. And we can speculate all day long, but we just don't know.

You're right. It's suspicious. But that's all it is. It will, we'll leave it at that room.

And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how artificial intelligence is changing the

business world and our lives. So each week on big technology, I bring on key actors from companies

building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it. Asking where this is all going,

they come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon and plenty more. So if you want to be smart

with your wallet, your career choices, and meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties,

listen to big technology podcast or ever you get your podcasts.

All comes with it. Thanks. Um, yeah, I have a related question, but I guess that's going to wait

that. That's right there. We've got a bunch of people. Oh, thanks Adam. Okay. I'm on.

Okay. Yeah. You're on. How are you? I'm good. I'm good. So, um, I, uh, we just finished, uh,

but a month and a half show of a trip in South America. Oh, well, and by the way,

I got to Rio as part of that. And, uh, yeah, I mostly agree with you that it's a pretty,

uh, pretty city, but the buildings have looked a little ugly to me at times. Yeah.

Overall, quite nice. But my question was more, um, I had an unfortunate incident happen,

which was in Santiago in the subway where my phone got stolen. Uh, pickpocket it. And, uh,

I mean, these bastards are really good at which they would use that capabilities for a month,

something useful because they could contribute. But my question is more, um, and by no means

that my supporter of Sharia law and stuff like that, but you, you've said many times that,

you know, the, the punishments that happen in Sharia law, uh, for theft are immoral.

And I guess my question to you be what, like, and I'm not advocating, okay, the first time,

you know, you chop the hand off with a, with a meat cleaver. Uh, you know, I mean,

but why not after the third time say, okay, you know what, you're, you're, you're redeemable.

We're removing your ability to do this and maybe it's done under surgery and all that. But,

you know, why not have a little bit more strict punishments? Yeah. I mean, but the, you know,

more strict punishment could be 25 years in jail. It doesn't have to be literally chopping a hand

off, uh, because I don't think chopping a hand off will actually solve the problem because

he's got another hand, uh, you could use a gun. I mean, there are other things that a bad person

can do. What you really want to do is if somebody is a repeat offender,

is to lock him up and throw away the keys. I mean, I'm much more inclined towards that, uh,

than anything else, um, because I want him off the street because he might not be able to

pick pocket, but he might be able to do other things. So, uh, you know, that to me is,

is the solution. I, you know, I'm sympathetic to castrating, um, uh, rapists. But again,

I don't want them on the streets. They're violent criminals. They, they, they should be behind bars

and they should stay there. So I would, I would definitely have harsher penalties. I think

we're way too lacks, particularly for violent crimes. I know the property is really bad, but violent

crimes to me is even worse. And we should, we should definitely, I think we're way too lenient.

I like the idea in California they had, uh, three strikes in you out. Uh, you know, you get three

strikes in, uh, of a criminal offense and you're in jail forever. And I think that's, that's right.

Um, yeah, I think we should have much, much stricter penalties and including on property

weight violations like pick pocketing. Uh, but there's something about spilling blood. It's a good

question. Why is spilling, spilling blood, um, you know, uh, uh, uh, you know, different than

locking somebody up for a long time. Um, I think, I think that would be because it's irreverable.

So what if it was bad testimony and it came out five years later and you're like, well,

sorry, you have a hair loss. Yeah. I mean, your time in jail is reversible as well. I get that

with life, but I'm just not sure. There's something barbaric about cutting somebody's hands off,

but one has to think about whether that's, um, you know, to what extent that is, um,

that is rational or not. You know, maybe it's not. I mean, I'll be honest, I was frankly

very jealous of the Israeli guys who did the pager stuff. Yeah. And I wish that had that in my

phone. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, here's the, here's the thing about South America, though. I mean,

you're lucky. You only had one phone stolen, right? Yeah. So, uh, usually, I mean, uh,

when you, particularly, I don't know if you were in Brazil, but Brazil, if you take your phone out

and you hold it in your hand, it's, it's history. It's done. I mean, the motorcycle will come and

they'll, they'll grab it and run away. Well, we, we, we saw, we saw right in front of us,

broad daylight. Yep. I caught maybe 150 meters out of sight, but better. The young kids,

they, there was a group of women walking the other way. They just reached over and grabbed

the necklace right off her neck. Yeah. And then they run and they're little kids. No, no, no,

they didn't even bother running. Oh, wow. Okay. Okay. So we, we owe, they, they, they'll grab your wallets,

although pickpockets you would have. And then they run and their little kids and, and usually,

the, so even if they get caught, they'll go to courts and they'll release them because they're

little kids. Yeah. And, and, and, but this, you know, in, in, in Buenos Aires, which is relatively safe,

motorcycle came by a friend of mine, it just grabbed his phone while he was looking at it,

just grabbed the phone and he was gone. And, and, and we, we, we had our phones on straps,

who were very careful and all that stuff, especially after what it had happened. Yeah. I mean,

I mean, it's related and maybe it's a separate question. If you want to answer it separately,

that's fine. But I, I think this, this, this property theft of pickpockets, like to me,

it's like there's an understanding between politicians, cops and these crooks. And okay,

don't be too violent. Don't, you know, like, hurt people. Don't kill people. And we don't care,

especially if it's tourists, because we're really just redistributing wealth. And it's, to me,

it's part of the Catholic thing too, but it seems to be worse in Catholic countries, like in Europe,

I believe it's worse in places like France and, and Italy, who, although who knows, maybe it's

not anymore. Well, it used to be the gypsies. I mean, the gypsies in those countries and it's,

if you take out the gypsies, there's not much of it that's happening even in, in your,

there's just not a lot of it, other than the gypsies. Okay. But it's, yeah, I mean, there's

something to it. It's why, for example, in San Francisco, if you steal from a macy's or if you

steal from a, from a CPS, nobody cares, because you're just stealing from big rich corporations.

Yeah. It's no big deal. In Chicago, when there were the riots, and they went on the million

mile road, you know, that, where the high-end stores are, and they broke into Louis Vuitton,

and they stole stuff. Literally, the mayor of Chicago said, well, it's just a little bit of

redistribution of wealth, so, you know, no big deal. Yeah, at least, at least they were, she was

honest about it. Yeah, there's definitely, there's definitely a sense of that, and that's why

penalties are very low, and, you know, it's, and this is why I think, I think all those penalties

need to be significantly higher for, for all crimes, including property theft. And, and I,

and I don't believe that catching these people with technology today should be that difficult,

I mean, put, put the tractors in there that they can't turn off and just grab them, I mean.

Yeah, I mean, your phones should, I assume you could track your phone.

You know what, though, they're very smart, because I tried, like, literally within a minute,

and they turned it off, trying to track it, no luck. Like, the phone was offline. So, I don't know

if they carried, like, ferritate bags or some crap like that. I don't know, you know, like, they just,

I remember once, it was a phone, or a iPad, or what it was, and like, a week late, I, I tracked it,

and it was an, and it was in Africa. Really? Yeah. And I lost it in the US, and it was in Africa

being sold for parts or something. I have no idea. Anyway, yeah. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Sorry,

you had that experience, but Santiago is a pretty beautiful place. Yeah. Yeah. Other, other than that,

it was nice, but particularly things soured it quite a bit. That is not fun. Yeah. Jacob.

Thanks for the reminder. I'm on head to Torino in three weeks. So remember to keep the phone tight.

Yes. Oh, yeah. And I actually had mine on a strap, and they unclip it in my, in my bag, and I

didn't feel a thing. That's so good in our, like, make sure it's locked with a zip tie on top of it.

Back should be fun. You should be carrying the bag in front, not in the back.

It wasn't the front. It wasn't the front. It just, that my, my hand must have slipped just enough

that they were able to get. I should have had it inside my shirt. Yeah. Like I might look like a

doofus, but who cares? Yeah. I'll be with my Italian co-workers, so maybe I'll just give them my stuff

for the night. Torino's not bad. It's okay. He's not bad. I didn't say anything in Italy.

Hey, it's Bubba Wallace from 2311 Racing. You know what? It feels like forever.

Sitting on a plane waiting for takeoff. Good thing. I've got Jamba Casino with Daily Boost and

Social Casino Games on tap. This is a kind of fun that makes time fly. Why not turbocharged

you down time? Play now at jambacasino.com. Let's jump up. Sponsored by Jamba Casino. No purchase

necessary, VGW GroupFord, where prohibited by law, 21 plus terms and conditions apply.

Every day the world gets a little weirder and a lot more awesome. Cool stuff. Daily takes a

look at everything from mining and space to the latest in the fight against cancer to how AI

is basically changing everything. It's all the cool stuff you didn't know you need it to know.

Join us for cool stuff daily as we take a quick look at science, tech, and the wait what stories

that make you sound way smarter at dinner. Subscribe to cool stuff daily now because the

future is happening fast and it's way too fun to miss. So my question was, I'm sure you saw

the stuff on X on the text window like ear to the dog of cancer. The texio that did what?

ear to his dog of cancer tumors. Cuties of your dog for cancer, yes, I saw that. Yep.

I was very excited about it, but then I started thinking what if you had a bad actor and

seemed like it was he spent about $4,000 maybe $5,000. You had a bad actor that wanted to do a

biological virus or some other virus. What would the appropriate oversight be from a government

perspective on biological agents that could be produced by the AI? You'd obviously want to

legislate it later in the past rather than just a administrative control. But where would you

where you're literally thinking on the line between oversight versus a mass

casualty event due to someone spending $10,000 to create a biological weapon?

Yeah, I mean there's a sense in which it's very hard to prevent that, but you could have

the legislation that any request for information that could lead to the creation of biological

weapon should not be supplied by an AI and should automatically trigger a disclosure to the

authorities. So you could legislate that if you want to run AI or these AI companies,

they have to abide by this. There has to be code in the AI that makes requests like this

basically legal. It would be like child porn. What about, you know, I'm sure there's stuff

that prohibits AI from distributing child porn or creating child porn or whatever.

The same thing would apply to certain biological, certain chemical compositions

and with there a quite notification for to police.

Would that be a reactive oversight where you wait for that then to happen? No, you prohibit it.

You can prohibit it. You know the risk. You know what's possible. You prohibit it.

But what if so child porn say that impacts five people? They'll try to get it as it is.

But what if you had an agent that impacted a hundred thousand people?

Would you have that analogy but similar to finance where you have people in the big banks overseeing

some of the operations? Would you have that similarly or would you wait for an event to happen?

And then see, all right, where did we fail? What new regulations or controls need to be implemented?

It's not like the people who regulate the banks prevent financial crises. They don't.

So it's not like by putting people in there, you're going to prevent this.

It wasn't a perfect analogy, but I was trying to get a point where you got it.

I think the point is you make it illegal for the AI to provide information that could be used to

build an atomic bomb, a chemical weapon or biological weapon. And you know, you make it very

clear and that it is to be notified. The authorities need to be notified if anybody asks for such

information. And that's it. And that's it. You can't supervise every query on AI. You can't

supervise everything that happens. And you know, the companies have to be, it's clear to them that

they are majorly liable for that because it's information that can only be used for violence.

And that it's up to them to figure out how to code it in a way that restricts the ability of

people to get that information.

Well, I understand that. I also struggle with what is it?

Big, big bird like BSL labs, but you have no solution for it.

I don't know. I haven't figured out one.

No, there is no solution for it, right? Mistakes can happen. People will do bad stuff.

Bad stuff happens. That's just life. I mean, if you're trying to eradicate all bad stuff from life,

it's impossible. Even under the, even under the most restrictive conditions, people will find ways to

do bad stuff. Isn't there a different standard criteria for mass casually say a nuclear reactor.

You have different safety standards. But you should be. Nuclear reactor should be.

That's turbine. I mean, nuclear reactor should be. If the nuclear reactor company, you know,

maybe you could have them as long as they can find insurance to ensure the place they can build it.

The government is not good at setting safety standards and it shouldn't.

So mass casualties, if somebody is willing to ensure, then it'll get built. If they're not willing

to ensure it won't get built. Something like that. Something simple straightforward that, you know,

and there will not be mass causality events.

The incentives are not aligned for mass causality events.

Okay. Yeah. I'll think on it more than they do. And it's not a numbers game at the end of

the day. It's a rights game. So, you know, it's certain things the government has a role in.

If there's, if there's violence, suddenly somebody building a biological weapon,

that's violence. So the government has a role in supervising that and making sure it doesn't happen.

But a chemical plant can blow up before or in India blew up and killed 40,000 people. That was a

mass causality event. But the solution to that is on more regulation. That's never happened in the

U.S. It's by the fact that India had more regulations than the U.S. does. So it's, it's,

or what happened is Shinobu. Shinobu, you had maximum regulations. The government controlled

everything. And yet it happened. And it's never happened in the U.S.

But you have that standard for, I'm not a huge economic person, but you have that standard

per second amendment of say you can't have a tank. But that's not because of mass causities.

You can't have a tank because of tank. There's only one purpose for tank. And that's offensive

violence. And you cannot have tools of violence that cannot serve you in self-defense,

or not reasonably serving in self-defense. That's the standard, yet the standard is self-defense.

It's not because of tank and new mass casualties. You can't, you know, so it's,

in, by the way, it's, it's very easy to create biological weapons. And, and, you know, you,

you can take, you know, people, people do it. It's, it's actually happened where people have

put some bacteria in salads or in salads and open bar in what do you call it buffets and stuff.

And people get sick. And these things happen because it's not that hard to do. But they happen

very, very, really because not a lot of people have an incentive to do it.

I appreciate it. Yep. Eric.

Eric, there you go. Sorry, I was just unreading myself. No problem.

I just wanted to follow up a question I asked. I didn't hear the answer in super chat, but I had seen

a guy called Tom Billew on his podcast. He's mentioned like in a couple of times.

I was wondering if you were familiar with him. I am not familiar with him.

What is he? Remind me what he is because I looked him up, but I can't remember now.

He runs a podcast called Impact Theory. I think he made a bunch of money doing some sort of

text stuff. Now he just has a podcast. He seems to be a decent thinker, but I've just seen

on a show a couple of times these reference Atlas Schrock. And I was like, I wonder if he's ever

reached out to the institute. I mean, I don't know about everybody reaches out. I haven't been,

I'm not involved in fundraising anymore, but I have not come across him.

Maybe somebody from the institute. So he's wealthy? Yeah, it seems like it. He's building his own

video game. He's always inspiring people to go out of the entrepreneurs. He's a billion dollar entrepreneur.

Right, I will let a fundraising team know about him and see if they can get into, they can contact him.

See if we can get in touch. Thanks, thanks for the lead. Yeah, absolutely guys.

Send me leads of people who are wealthy, who've mentioned Iron Man.

He's a, he's a, he'd be an interesting person to probably interview too.

If, if he's a, if he will, would, yeah, I'd have to even get an interview on a show a little bit. Yeah.

Yeah, good idea. I'll check him out. Yeah, thanks.

Thank you. All right. Thanks, Eric Ryan.

Hi, you're on. Can you hear me? Yeah, yep.

So a lot of people on the right these days are jumping on the bandwagon of blaming the Rothschildsper

a lot of stuff. And so other than the fact that they're Jewish, you know, like the Rothschilds

even have a history of being influential in controversial things or what explains

just everyone picking on them. They were, they were for a while in the, I think late, I think

early 19th century. And I'm not sure until when they were probably the richest bankers in the world.

They were incredibly successful. The other thing that they also were, which leads to the

conspiracy is they had a, they were one of the first.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah. It's even better with Chamba by my side.

Race to ChambaCasino.com. Let's Chamba. No purchase necessary. VTW Group. Boy, we're prohibited by

law. CT and C's. 21 plus sponsored by Chamba Casino. Hi, this is Alex Cantrowitz. I'm the host of

Big Technology podcast, a long time reporter and an on air contributor to CNBC. And if you're like

me, you're trying to figure out how artificial intelligence is changing the business world

and our lives. So each week on Big Technology, I bring on key actors from companies building AI

tech and outsiders trying to influence it, asking where this is all going. They come from places like

Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon and plenty more. So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your

career choices and meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology podcast

wherever you get your podcasts. I don't think the first because a lot of people they had this,

but there's certainly one of the most successful kind of international banks. So they had branches

in London and Paris and in Berlin and all over Europe way way back in the 18th century already.

And certainly in the 19th century, they were incredibly successful. They were known. So for example,

I can't remember the exact thing about this, the exact context, but there was a war between

France and England. I think June and probably Annick was and they learned of the British victory

before anybody else, right? Because they have agents in all these places. So they could get a message

to their London office, the bits of one. So they traded on that information before anybody else

traded on that information and made a lot of money. And the conspiracies back then were

that the Rothschilds were instigators of war. So they're the ones who encouraged war,

they wanted war because they could profit off of it. They found ways to arbitrage it by

installing different places. And often they had offices in both the both sides of the war.

They had offices banks in both sides of those. So so they were incredibly influential. They

were definitely influential politically. I'd say in Great Britain, probably in the 19th century.

I don't know how influential they ever got in Germany or if they if they were, but they were

big time in Germany. And in the rest of Europe, I think they're originally from Germany.

There's a bunch of books about them. I mean, it's a big family. Now they've had lots of kids,

so the fortunes being dispersed through the generations, right? I don't think they're having

influence at all today. They're relatively small. They're much smaller. You don't hear much

about the Rothschilds in terms of banks. They have they still have a bank in England, I think,

maybe an investment bank. I'm sure they still as a family. They still certain members of the family

still their own assets. But again, it's dispersed. A lot of great great great great great great great

grandchildren. So there's not constitution of power like they used to be. Look, they funded

the Rothschilds funded a lot of the early settlement in Israel. So when their first Jews went to

Israel, the Rothschilds would send them money to support them building, you know, drying the swamps

and building settlements. And so early 19th century, they were very involved.

They had a big presence in Paris. That's right, the big in Paris. I think post-World War II,

they kind of they seem to have lost a lot of their influence and kind of faded away. I think

because of the dispersion of power, dispersion of wealth. But there was a time where they were the

biggest bank and most powerful bank in the world, possibly so lean Europe. But acting like

nefariously or doing anything like that, that's just like made up. Yeah, I mean, other than making

money, that's the most the furious thing they did, right? And that's ultimately what people

hate is bankers who make money. Bankers are always at the end of a conspiracy theory because

what they do is so mysterious, they make money off of money, right? Even Aristotle didn't understand

how you do that and thought it was deceptive in some way. So the very fact that they make money

and sometimes make money off of what some people consider inside information. But just being

fast, being first to something, is considered nefarious. But no, there's no evidence to suggest

that they've done anything, you know, anything particularly bad or it's like, what's the other,

there's another good, the, the pendant books, built them. Yeah, something like that. They have a

meeting every year and all the leaders in the world get there and that they're running the world

and whatever. They're also a banking family that goes way back to central Europe in the 18th century.

It always, it's always bankers, right? It's always bankers. Yeah. But no, nothing special about

the watch out particularly today. I mean, it's an old conspiracy theory that is, I mean, they're the

last of the names. I mean, here's the thing about them. It's a name people know.

Yeah, it's like, they're like the new state and it's responsible for all evil. Yeah, yeah, because

the Jews, because they're Jews and it's like, George Soros, everybody hates George Soros, he's

the conspiracy right, everything. Now, he does a lot of bad stuff, but it's not a conspiracy.

It doesn't have an open. We all know exactly what he does. He's blatant about it. Yeah,

but he doesn't Jewish and that gives them a lot of fuel. Yeah.

JP Sears, he's a redhead comedian guy. He just did a video recently, like comparing

Zionism to Judaism. He was sticking up for Judaism, but then saying, oh, that's different from

Zionism. And then he had this whole conspiracy thing where he was playing in the Rothschilds.

Yeah, he's an anti-Simon, who's trying to hide behind anti-Sionism because

Zionism and Judaism are different. You can be a Jew and you can be anti and anti-Sionist. You

can be both, but you know, most people who are anti-Sionist are anti-Semitic because they're,

it's just a wait for them to disguise their anti-Semitism.

Yeah. All right. Thanks. All right. Let's take some super chats over here and then we'll go

back to our panel. I hope I think so. The $50 appreciate it. He says, a part, a part of me thinks

Tucker Carlson can't disnicate us or clowns. Nothing to worry about. But people said the same about

Goobles in 1920s. It is remarkable that percentage of the population that cannot use logic when

analyzing politics. Yeah. I mean, again, I refer you to Iman's missing link. There were a lot of

people who just can't think and they're second-handed and they go with the flow and they go with what's

popular and what's entertaining and what's amusing and what's emotionally appealing at any given

point of time. And I think Candace and Nick Pointis and Tucker all appeal to that. They have

massive audiences. I don't think they should be just brushed off as crazy because they have large

audiences. If that's small audiences, yeah, I mean, they're insignificant. Nobody's. But they

have large audiences and which means there are a lot of people listening to them at the very

least for entertainment value. But if you view them as entertainment even, you're still getting

corrupted by the stuff they're saying. There's no way to be a regular listener to these and not

be polluted by the stuff they're advocating for. Otherwise, why would you be a regular listener?

So I think you have to take them seriously and you have to be aware and you have to recognize that

most people, most of the time, are not rational. It's just the reality of the world in which we live.

And again, Iman's missing link, I think, captures that really, really, really well.

All right, thanks, Hoppa. Liam, how long could a Christian nationalistic dictatorship even

sustain itself a decade at most? What comes after individualism and capitalism? I mean,

I wish, but who knows? I don't know how long a Christian nationalistic dictatorship can sustain

itself. It depends on a lot of different things. It depends on what is going on in the rest of the

world. It depends on where the Americans were, and how quickly they were, and in the name of what

do they rebel? It depends on how many thinking people are out there. So I don't know. If a Christian

nationalist comes to power and the American people are willing to give them power and they become

dictators, then it might last for a long time. I mean, who would have thought the Iranian regime

would last as long as it has, and even under the kind of pressure it's under today still continues

to last. So don't underestimate the ability of a territorians to ruin people's lives and

but sustain power, particularly if it's centered around an ideology, an ideology that got to

elect it, ideology that got them chosen, let's say, by the masses. Well, is that ideology defeated?

And by the time that ideology is defeated, have they entrenched themselves in such a way that it's

almost impossible to get them out. So it wouldn't be so blasé about, oh, it's just going to be a decade.

Hello, it is Ryan, and we could all use an extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we? Just to make up

for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes, counting your steps, you know, all the mundane

stuff. That is why I'm such a big fan of Chamba Casino. Chamba Casino has all your favorite social

casino style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere with daily bonuses. So sign up now

at chamba casino.com. That's chamba casino.com. Every day the world gets a little weirder and a lot

more awesome. Cool stuff. Daily takes a look at everything from mining in space to the latest

in the fight against cancer to how AI is basically changing everything. It's all the cool stuff you

didn't know you needed to know. Join us for cool stuff daily as we take a quick look at science,

tech, and the wait what stories that make you sound way smarter at dinner. Subscribe to cool stuff

daily now because the future is happening fast and it's way too fun to miss.

Mark does a lot of right wing influence talk of demons, etc. Come from this Christian idea that

the West has become disenchanted. Allah wa Durejo's book Living in Wanda and that spiritualism needs to

be reintroduced. Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of people are influenced by Juan Deja, who, you know,

today lives in Budapest, Hungary and this idea of spiritualism. I think a lot of them are influenced

by kind of Catholic Catholic mythology about the devil and the devil's army and the devil's

influence in our lives and the devil's influencing in the world. This has always been part of Catholic

theology, maybe Protestant, I don't know, but certainly Catholic. I think Dura got so upset with

the Catholics over the child abuse that he became an orthodox Christian so he adopted kind of

Eastern orthodoxy as his religion. It's the same thing, very, very, very mystical. Catholicism and

orthodoxy embraced from zealotostrinism, something like that. I don't know if you're not

sure I'm pronouncing it right. The ancient Persian religion, this idea of a constant

battle between good and evil, a constant battle between a good God and a devil and they embrace

that and these demons represent the devil's, you know, just like they believe that they are

angels and they really do believe they're angels. They believe they are demons. Demons just

are angels sent by Satan. Now, how this fits in with the idea that God is all knowing, you know,

omniscient omnipotence, all loving, all of this, I don't know, but then I'm not a Christian,

so I couldn't tell you. But yes, I think it is basically this idea that we have to reintroduce

spiritualism and for them, spiritualism means the existence. I mean, I don't know if you saw

JD Vance. I saw this clip from JD Vance where he says he's really interested in UFOs and now he's

vice-president, so he's going to get the bottom of the UFOs. But he doesn't believe it's

extraterrestrial. He doesn't believe it's, you know, being some other planet. He literally says

this with a complete straight face. He says he believes it's demons. And then the interviewer

kind of pushes on him a little bit and he says, look, I believe that spiritual entities out there

and that they function in the world and they're good spiritual entities and they're bad spiritual

entities. I mean, demons and we are part of this struggle in the world between good and evil,

between angels and demons. But literally JD Vance, a vice-president of the United States of America,

said that he thinks UFOs are not extraterrestrial, they're demons. And he's going to get the bottom

of it. He's going to go to area 51. He is going to figure this out because he has now the security

clearance to figure it out. And would I be surprised if tomorrow he said the demons attacked me,

so I couldn't go to area 51. You know, I got sick because I couldn't, so I couldn't go. I mean,

these people are nuts. But it is. It's this whole revivalist. I mean, I take back my positive

statement about Protestantism. No, I mean, they're just as bad, right? You know those ones who speak in

tongues and all that stuff. So they're just as mystically, mysticism just is crazy. It's crazy

stuff. These people are nuts. Thank you, Mark. Steven, can you comment on the idea that it is

impossible to travel at the speed of light? No. I have no comment. I have no idea. It's way

above my pay grade. And I don't do physics. I don't know physics. I don't understand physics.

I tried. I don't get it. That's okay. You know, I have whatever IQ I have I have. And I think

the understanding of relatively theory and quantum mechanics requires something that I do not have.

And that's fine. I have no problem with that. I never have. I walked out of my undergraduate

physics class and I said to myself, I have no idea what they're talking about. I can probably pass

an exam because I can do the math. I'll pass the exam. And I don't know quantum mechanics and

relatively theory. And I'm quite happy in life knowing that I don't know. If somebody knows

the stuff great, but I have no idea if you can travel the speed of light or not and why? And I don't

care. It would take an infinite amount of energy for anything with mass to start going to speed of light.

So that's the problem. Yeah. That's what is it? Ecosm. She's great. Yeah. That I get. But I don't

know if that equation is right. I don't know. You know, Einstein's genius and I believe him.

I have no reason to doubt it's right. But I don't know it's right. I don't have the understanding

of physics that would say, I know it's right. I mean, it would be a shame if we can't travel

faster than the speed of light because then we can't go and see the many stars and planets

that are out there in a universe. So because, you know, unless there's some way

to traverse space that does not require speed. But again, all of this is beyond my

pay grade. So I'm not a, that's the sense in which I'm not a science fiction writer. So I don't

have to worry about it. And I'm not a physicist. But I have no reason to doubt Einstein, who says

you cannot travel faster than the speed of light. But I also don't know that that is the truth.

All right. Back to our panel. You guys got all gobbled up. Okay. We'll go, we'll go with the

order I have now on my screen. So we'll start with you, Jacob. I'm actually at the gym again,

this month. Can I email you a question for an Amish? The show that you're having coming up?

Yeah, you won't be able to be there live. No, I won't. Okay. I'm at the gym right now, so I don't

want to bother other people with my questions. Okay. So send it. I'll have Amish answered.

Ryan. Okay. So I'm going to sort of here. Yeah. So when the war and Iran started,

I'm a big fan of Roger Waters music and Pink Floyd. But I despise his politics. And so when

the Iran war started, I knew he'd have some things to say that were just ridiculous, of course.

So one of the things he did was blame the protests on Percy's tech kind of said, oh, because

the economy's doing bad, but then of course he blamed America for causing their economy to be

bad and saying things and honestly. And then related to that, like a comment from Norman Pinkelstein

recently, he was criticizing BB and then called him a psychopath. And then he said,

but he's just represents the people of their nation of psychopaths.

And then I just want to mention two other people, Jeffrey Sachs and Mir Shimer commented on

these people a lot. What do you think? I mean, they don't come out as like, I'm for Iran. I want

them to kill people and win, but they get away with almost causing that sort of drive with their

commentary, like, and they couch it as like, oh, the United States can't win or we're losing

and we're to blame all that kind of stuff. What do you think motivates these types of people there?

I mean, I think I can think of really the motivates them is hatred of the West. It's hatred of

civilization. It's hatred of the good for being the good, right? So it really is hatred of America.

It's the same thing the motivates Dave Smith, like the libertarians, the kind of anarchists,

Rothbard who used to toast every time a pilot was shot down over Vietnam, a US pilot.

You know, these people hate, hate America. Hate what America stands for for all kinds of reasons.

They all have their different reasons why they hate America, but they do. And everything else

is irrationalization. So they love Russia. Russia is often the antithesis of America, right? Because

Russia's mystical and Russia's authoritarian and Russia's got a history that is long out. We don't

and Russia's not the West. It doesn't have any of the kind of trappings of the West. Of course,

they would all be probably in the gulags if they were in Russia. But they all love Russia.

Rothbard said there's no real difference between President of the United States and Stalin.

So you saw that during the Iraq war, that was probably the first time you really saw it where they

were clearly rooting for Russia. Iraq doesn't have a chance. You claim it doesn't have a chance.

They will be over in a week or three weeks or a month or a year. They kept changing it.

But basically, the Russians are good guys. They're just trying to protect themselves and eat all

the bad guys. West and Europe are the bad guys. Again, that's all this hatred of the West.

West and Europe, the United States still represent the West. And Israel represents the West.

And they just, they hate it. I think with Mushaim and Saksis,

there's just an element of anti-Semitism in the background. The hate is real,

kind of, with a passion that you don't see without an element of anti-Semitism.

And then everything else, their whole life is a rationalization. Their whole theory of politics,

as a rationalization is trying to explain why the bad guys are the good guys and the good guys

are the bad guys. And they spend their whole life just doing that.

Yeah. And I can't think of an explanation other than

it's not that they're advocating for something else, right? They're not communists.

I mean, they lived this in some vague sense, most of them, other than the older battuines,

or right wing nuts. They're statists in one form or another. But they're not, like Mushaim and

Saks are not communists. They're not right wing religious fanatics. They don't have a positive

agenda. They don't stand for anything. I mean, Saks is probably traumatized by the fact

they completely screwed up Musha, right? The guys responsible for screwing up Musha. Like,

the Russia we have today is to some extent the creation of Jeffrey Saks, right? He's the one

who went there and advised Yeltsin on how to privatize the economy and the way he did it,

basically created the oligarch system and created the concentration of power and created the

kind of Russia we have today. So maybe he feels guilty for that. But you know, I don't know.

But then what's Mushaim is excused and what's the excuse of all these others? There's no,

there's nothing there there. It's not even pragmatism. It's just it's driven by

it was maybe initially pragmatism and then it's hate. And the need to constantly come up with

excuses and why their predictions are failed. Yeah, Yelai ran. It's different with Iran versus

Hamas and Gaza because like with Gaza, you can point to the altruism that they hold,

which is they stand up for the little guy. But I don't view Iran as I don't view Iran as like

the little guy. They're quite not powerful compared to the United States, but they're pretty

powerful in the sense that they control their people and their wealthy. So it's not like they're

these poor people in caves. Absolutely. Absolutely. And they're religious fanatics and you think

people on the left would view religious fanatics as bad guys. But no, because they bought into this

whole post-colonial stuff about it's all America's fault. They go back to 1950s where the United

States was involved in the coup that got rid of the leftist prime minister and Iran that led to

the Shah taking on more power. But it's all rationalizations at the end of the day to try to justify

the fact that they hate the West. Thanks. Yeah, thanks. Thanks for my hand. All right, I'm done.

Yeah, hey, Iran, did you see this recent essay by Jonah Goldberg about the partisan fog of a

Trump led war? What's it called the partisan fog of a Trump led war? No, I didn't see that one by

him. I bet some other one. Okay. All right, well, I guess then my question doesn't

I wanted to get your view on it. I mean, a lot of times I like what Jonah writes.

You know, he's obviously got that religious thing, but he doesn't really bring that into account here

and maybe maybe next time if you have a chance, I can ask you about it next time. Yeah, I mean,

I like a lot of his writings as well, but I also hate a lot of his writings. It varies.

He's sometimes really good and sometimes really bad. I just was looking at article of his

God, it was about, oh, it's about Paul Ulrich. Paul Ulrich. And it was so bad.

It was just so bad. Really? Yeah, it was critical of Ulrich, but for all the, just so

yeah, so evil ultimately in its intent, it was okay. I didn't see that one, right?

But he's a good writer and he's a clever one. Yeah, yeah, he's really good writer, very entertaining.

Okay, well, I guess I'll skip my question then this time unless you let me ask another one, but

you can ask another one. You didn't ask one now. Okay, all right. Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

Victory Lane? Yeah, it's even better with Chumba by my side. Race to ChumbaCasino.com. Let's Chumba.

No purchase necessary. VTW Group. Boy, we're prohibited by law. CTNCs. 21 plus. Sponsored by Chumba

Casino. Hi, this is Alex Cantrowitz. I'm the host of Big Technology podcast. A long time reporter

and an on air contributor to CNBC. And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how artificial

intelligence is changing the business world and our lives. So each week on Big Technology,

I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it.

Asking where this is all going. They come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon and plenty more.

So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices,

and meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology podcast

or ever you get your podcasts. So one of the things when we had all that ice stuff happening

in Minneapolis, when you were analyzing the videos and kind of you were using them as

let's say evidence towards the malfeasance, how does that kind of jive with what Leonard has written

around the picture is not an argument piece of things? Hi, all right. So you wish I hadn't asked.

No, it's a good question, but I don't think it's completely relevant. The question is,

why is a picture not an argument? Is the picture an argument about what's in the picture?

Is what's in the picture in the picture? If I'm trying to say, is there a mountain here?

And I get a picture of a mountain, then yeah, there's a mountain there. So the picture is

evidence about the reality that's being photographed. It's not an argument in the sense that

if you take an abstract idea that it is the defining, concluding,

or you have to do is show you a picture that disgusts you and therefore, well, obviously,

I show you a picture of in Leonard's case, it was abortion, but I show you a picture of

children dead in Gaza and I say, see Israel's being immoral. But I've taken it to a level of abstraction

that is pretty stunning, right? There's a whole context. But the picture of the children dead

in Gaza is an argument for children dead in Gaza. If the picture hasn't been doctored,

if it hasn't been assuming the picture is true, then the picture says children have died in Gaza.

And that's okay. Now what do I do with that? So the videos, all they gave you, and particularly

given that there were multiple angles and it wasn't just one video, is they gave you,

okay, this appears to be what happened. And then you can then make a judgment about,

you know, is it immoral? Is it immoral? Is it good? Is it bad? What else do I know about what happened?

What do I know about ice? And you can bring all that. But the only way we can know what actually

happened is the video, even the people who were there only got one angle, you know, in an

instance. So the video is evidence towards what happened and then the judgment, that's the

argument that landed is saying you can't make. You can't make the judgment based on a picture.

The picture is just giving you information. So just a moral judgment. What you're saying is that,

okay, here's, here's what happened in this specific case. You can't just on the basis of that,

say that, okay, what ice is doing in totality is immoral. You have to, you have to make a broader

argument. You can't even say that what the cop did by shooting, let's say the woman was immoral,

unless you know, okay, what are the procedures that cops are supposed to engage in when standing

in front of a vehicle? And in what context was she then? And what, I mean, maybe she's a

murderer fleeing the scene and heading to Mexico, right? Let's say this is on the border with

a Paso and she could, she could make it across the border. Maybe then it's justified to shoot.

All you can say is, all I said was from the video, it does not appear she was really threatening

his life and he shot her three times in what appeared to me as a good tour of this matter.

Yeah. Then what that means and that, you have to bring other information in order to judge it.

Okay. Okay. No, that's, that's, that's great. Good explanation. Thank you.

Thanks so much. Jennifer. Do you think part of the reason these crazy type JD

advanced people, like they believe in these, all these conspiracies, you know, like chem trails or

they think the water vapors, some kind of chemicals or some crazy stuff?

Is it part of that from religion because they think, they just think humans are bad in general,

you know, because they teach them, they've fallen and all that. So they're paranoid and

I mean, it's crazy. They're afraid of everything. Is that part of it, do you think?

I definitely think that's part of it. I don't think they think they expect the worst.

But it's also the fact that they embrace mysticism and therefore they embrace mystical

explanations. So, you know, science to them is on the same level as demons as mystical stuff,

right? It's the same stuff. Yeah, I know we're worried about evidence.

Yeah. So, science presents this evidence, but yeah, well, that's what those people say,

the authorities and they leverage off of the fact that we all don't trust the authorities now

because of 9-11 and COVID and financial crisis and all this stuff. So we don't trust the authorities

and say, but it could be chemicals. I don't know. I'm just asking questions, right? And,

and, and you know, but do we really want to trust the scientists? I mean, they told us masks.

We're good, right? So, what do they know? Scientists don't know anything. So, they, they, they,

they're, they're, they're, they're, you know, it's the mysticism, the, the, the fall of,

the kind of the man has fallen combination of all that, which is what makes it these things

even possible for them. Pretty sad. Yeah, I can't, I literally cannot put myself in a position where

I can understand somebody who is, um, who is, uh, who thinks their demons in the world. I just can't

comprehend that consciousness. That consciousness is beyond my, so it's beyond understanding. To

me, that is, like, go back to 1220, right? You don't belong, you don't belong in the 21st century.

You just don't belong. Yeah, I was thinking like the sale and witch trials and stuff and it's

really scary that that happened and there's still crazy people like that. Yep.

Yeah, I mean, all right, Robert, part two of the question. Yeah, part two, we, we established

that Donald Trump doesn't really fit in ideology. He's definitely in a till a narcissist.

But what would you say, I gotta read this here from her note, what would you say to

objectivists who think he is an egoist, maybe not rational, but that he promotes his own self

interest and that that might be a good thing in terms of objectivists who, who support him and

does this further the cause of egoism? Did you see, did you see this quote from him yesterday?

I have to find this. This is in the context of furthering the cause of, I have to read this

here. He said this in his talk that he gave yesterday. Let me see if I can find it.

I mean, God helped them. That's all I really have to say to those objectivists. God help all of us

if that is the view, because if this is the view of egoist, then I don't want to be an egoist.

And if this is what egoism means, nobody should want to be an egoist. And he does is much more

harm than good. Yeah, I don't know if I'll be able to find it. I said it. Hey, this is from yesterday.

I miss the days when we had presidents who would say terrible things and they had staying

power because they could go without saying anything else. No, he said lots of amazing things

yesterday, right? There was a speech. He said that the conference of Saudi Arabia was looking

his ass. I mean, he literally said this, right? Kissing his ass, not like kissing his ass, right?

I mean, this is the president of the United States. The president of the United States said that the

MBS, the conference of Saudi Arabia was kissing Donald Trump's ass. This is an ally in the

current war. All right, this is what he said. I hang out with losers because it makes me feel

better. I hate guys that are very, very successful. And you have to listen to their success stories.

I like people that like to listen to my successes.

I mean, has they ever been a child? Has they ever been a greater Iron Man villain than this guy?

You know, in the deepest kind of sense of, it's, no, I don't think children are like that.

That's an insult to children. Children are innocent too. He just says it on a brashly.

I like to hang out with losers because they like to, I want them to listen to my success stories

because I want to feel better than them. And when I sit with like, I don't know Jeff Bezos,

he's worse than me. I don't like that. He's more successful. He didn't say this. This is my

example, but that's the implication, right? He's more successful than me. I, you know, I don't

like that. I don't like people being more successful than him. So look, he is the opposite of an

egoist. He is a, he's a self-destructive, crazy man who has no mind. You know, I did a show on

the selfishness without a self. Donald Trump is the epitome of a selfishness without a self.

So you want to be an egoist without an ego? Then yeah, okay, says an egoist without an ego.

That's not an egoist. Not the way we should understand egoism. And all that can do is do us massive

amounts of harm to be associated with that. To be associated with an egoist without an egoist,

selfishness, selfish, selfish without a self. Our whole point is to have a self. And you can

be selfish without a self. So again, selfishness without a self is a contradiction in terms of

which he uses it. He is exactly that. He is incapable of rational thought, which is the basis of

egoism and the basis of selfishness. And he is, he's got a, he's got the mentality and the emotional

life of a five-year-old. In that sense, he's a child. But, but an envious child. So one of those

nasty children who likes to knock down buildings on, knock down the things not building. He's just,

he's just a really, really bad human being. And any association with him only diminishes you.

That that quote should be all that a supposed objectiveist needs to hear. Yeah. If anybody thinks

that Trump is an egoist, just to do that is splash this all over the place, because you know,

it should be the most embarrassing thing you could possibly say. Yeah. And he said what's the

smile he thought he was funny. He thought he was clever. You know, how cool is he that he likes to

hang out with loses? Yeah. Because because of course, we're all like that, right? Yeah. Well,

thank you. I think that's the answer. Like I said before, past presidents would say something

horrible, you know, every year or two. Yeah. Think about Obama. He had a phone in a pen or,

or you didn't build that. Yeah, but that you see, but you can't pick with Trump. He says something

horrible every day. But you didn't build that was deep, right? So this is the difference. You

didn't build that was a representation of a philosophical point of view that we think is evil,

but it's a serious view. It's the egalitarian view. It's John Rawls. It's a philosopher.

And he's presenting a serious view and he's he's doing it in a pretty articulate way in a very,

you know, in a way that I think the common man can understand. He's taking John Rawls and simplifying

it. I mean, it's quite smart. Like it's it's one of the most evil species a president has ever

given, but that's because it's it's philosophical. This president has no, you know, can I conceive

a philosophical philosophy? Excellent. Thank you. Adam.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane. Yeah, it's even better with Chumba by my side.

Race to ChumbaCasino.com. Let's Chumba. No purchase necessary. VTW Group,

voidware prohibited by law, CT and C's, 21 plus sponsored by Chumba Casino.

This is Mike Bolo of Lexicon Valley. And I'm Bob Garfield. Are you one of those people who

sometimes uses words? Do you communicate or acquire information with, you know, language?

Hey, us too. So join us on Lexicon Valley to true over the history culture and many mysteries of

English, plus some likes corrects. Find us on one of those apps where people listen to podcasts.

The feeling that I had from speaking with well informed Iranians and Israelis at least those who

might know personally was that before Trump started the Iran war, they were like within

a few weeks of being organized enough that if the Mullah regime were decapitated,

they would be organized enough to take over Iran and essentially do away with the Mullah regime.

And instead of waiting until everything was organized and prepared, somehow Trump

went into this war several weeks before things were ready.

Do you have a comment? Yeah, I mean, I'm skeptical about that. I mean, they were complaining,

a lot of people were complaining that they didn't go in and January when the demonstrators on

the street any promise to come and save them. I think that there are real problems on the ground

in Iran with the opposition. There's no organized opposition. There is, there's the son of the

Shah, but he's in the US. He's not in Iran. It's not clear how much of a base of support he has in

Iran. And it's not clear who in Iran would represent him, who are the people that have any kind of

any kind of leadership skill there. And you know, they've had four weeks now of the war, they could

organize during the war. There's no reason they can't organize during the war. It's been more than

decapitation. Israel has taken out hundreds of besiege, if not thousands of besiege fighters. And

you know, what do you call it? IRGC. And if there really is an opposition ready to take over

and willing to take over, I think they will. And maybe they'll wait until the fighting stops to do

it. But I think they will. And I'm hopeful that once the fighting stops, they will. They,

you know, they're not going to go on in the streets when the bombs are falling.

You know, the most sad believes that there will be, there is even will be overthrown, but it'll be

in the weeks after the war, not during the war. And I think that probably makes sense. And it's

hard to tell whether, you know, one clearly, look, Trump went to this war without a, without

certain strategic plans, right? Didn't have a plan for the homo straits. And he didn't have a plan

for regime change. He could have put all this capital behind, behind the Shah's son.

I think that would have sped things up. I think without the US support, the Shah's son is going

to have a real problem in, you know, leading a revolution in Iran. I think he needs American support,

which he doesn't have. So that would have been having a plan. Would have been good. But again,

Trump is irrational. He's not a, he's, so he's not a planner. But I don't think he was imminent.

I don't think the regime was going to fall, even if they, even if they're, and it's not clear they

could have decapitated quite as effectively. I mean, I think one of the reasons they went to war,

when they went to war was, they had clear intelligence that everybody was going to be in the same

place at the same time on that Saturday morning. And they took advantage of that fact, to a large

extent, the timing of the war was dictated by when they could decapitate, completely decapitate

the regime. They killed a lot of people that one day. I mean, a lot of the senior leadership has

gone. That's why I think, Iran is much weaker than people think it is. And why I think that

ultimately there is a more fall.

Will there be a third turn, because I do have something completely different?

Yes, I think there will be a third turn. Good. All right, Eric.

Hey, Iran. Hey, I was going to ask about the, about ICE. I know you just talked about

like, I don't know if you specifically said abolishing ICE is a good thing or not. But I felt like

they do have some functions that are legitimate, like people that would enter our country legally

and actually pose a threat. Would they not, would that agency not be like necessary for

getting those people out of the country that it poses a threat to the country?

Well, I mean, if the threat is an objective threat, then that's what you have police for,

and FBI for you. I don't think you need an agency that specializes in. If we had a decent

immigration policy, the number of people who came into the country so-called illegally would be

minimal. And it would be relatively easy to deal with them. That's what the police are for.

I don't see why you need a special agency unless it's to round up millions or hundreds of

thousands of people and send them out. So, I guess I'll give you my thought process.

So when I look at it, I think of Milton Friedman. You can either have, I don't know,

any exact words, but this essentially was, you need to have close borders in a welfare state

or you can have a free economy and open borders, but you can't have both.

I think Milton Friedman is full of it. I think he's wrong. But you don't think that

ICE would need to have a capacity before you get the point where you end the welfare state?

No, because illegal immigrants don't represent a threat to anybody. What are they doing this

threatening? And if there are people who are threat, I don't know, terrorists coming in,

that's what the FBI is for and that's what the police is for. And if they're criminals,

that's what the police is for. The police should round up the criminals and put them in jail.

The reality is that right now the border is closed and no illegal immigrants are coming in.

And for that all you need is the border police. You don't need ICE. So you can close the border.

I'm open to that argument, but you don't need an additional police force inside the country

to round people up because they're not a threat. And the ones who are threat should go to jail.

And if you aren't human is wrong because you can have, I mean, it depends what you mean by

open borders, but I proposed an immigration system where you'll lie anybody in, anybody in who

who has a job, right? They have an offer later for an employer, you in. Well, then none of them

are in office. So why do we care if there's a welfare state? So you know, there are lots of

solutions. And none of them are quite ICE, even today with, I don't know, 20 million illegal

immigrants in the United States. I don't want ICE because 20 million illegal immigrants are not

doing me any harm. I got you. So you're looking at it from the perspective of it's not that they are

completely illegitimate in some of the stuff that they do, but it's just the FBI could handle it or

some other branch that already exists. You don't need an additional. Yeah. And there's very little

to do because there's nothing, there's nothing unique about illegal immigrants. There are low breaking,

there are people who break the law, they need to be dealt with to have police for that. And the

reality is that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than Americans. So it's not

like they increase the amount of crime significantly. Maybe you have to hire a little bit more police,

but not significantly. And you know, it's just illegal immigrants are not violating rights.

And if they do violate rights, then put them in jail, but that's what police are for. I don't see

why you need a special, special branch of a police in order to deal with them quite immigrants.

Like I said, yeah, I was just thinking through the problem because I was looking at it from the

perspective, oh, there are some things they do with legitimate. And but you're right. Yeah,

that could be handled by FBI and other agencies. Yeah, the only thing that they can do is catch

criminals and catch criminals. We have other agencies to do that. We don't need them.

Gotcha. Thank you. Sure. All right, let's go to the super chat. Quickly, Michael,

what is the issue with the Frankfurt Airport? What is the best airport you've been to Singapore?

Oh, I don't know. I hate the Frankfurt Airport because it's big. It's inefficient.

The security people, security or jerks. I missed flights there. I've run, had to run to flights

and it's long, long corridors without moving walkways. You have to. Anyway, it's, I just found it

super inconvenient and and horrible and I don't like the security people because as you shift

between terminals, you have to go through security and it's just, it's a nightmare. What are the best

airports? I don't know. Singapore is beautiful. It's a gorgeous airport, but I've only been to

Singapore once. Hong Kong has a really nice airport, China, all the airports in China that I've

been to, well, not all of them, the big ones, are beautiful and amazing, amazing inputs.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing, another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with

Chamba. Jump in at chambacasino.com. Let's Chamba. No purchase necessary, BTW Group,

Voidware Prohibited by Ma, CCNC, 21 Plus, sponsored by Chamba Casino.

This is Mike Voilo of Lexicon Valley. And I'm Bob Garfield. Are you one of those people who sometimes

uses words? Do you communicate or acquire information with, you know, language? Hey, us too.

So join us on Lexicon Valley to true over the history, culture, and many mysteries of English.

Plus some ice cracks. Find us on one of those apps where people listen to podcasts.

I don't know. Madrid is pretty good.

But I would at least terminal 4 is when she got out of terminal 4. I don't know. I'm usually just

in terminal 4. Yeah, I mean, I don't know. It's not like, it's not like they're good airports,

like airports is something you have to tolerate. Yeah, I mean, Atlanta is okay. I mean, it's busy,

which is so it's harassing Miami's okay. I mean, the most okay. Frankfurt just stands out as

being really, really bad. But there's nothing like the Asian airports. The new, the new,

what do you call it? LaGuardia is going to be amazing. Yeah, Stockholm is good. Stockholm's nice,

condensed. It's pretty tight and it's easy to get around. I think if I remember right Copenhagen's

pretty good. Yeah, I mean, Scandinavian airports are good. James, thoughts on attending these

no Kings protests. I really want to protest Trump. But I hate associating with leftist widows. Yeah,

me too. I don't like associating with leftist widows. So I don't go to I don't go to protests.

I don't like protest period. But certainly ones where half the people away in cafes,

if there's a cafe in the audience, I'm out of there. And you know they're going to be

confused. You know, there's going to be some idiot, you know, flying a Palestinian or Hamas flag.

You can't watch with somebody like that. I wouldn't anyone.

James, congratulations reaching 41,000 subscribers. Yes, I made it to 41,000.

Thank you, James. Made it last night, I think. Not you have to go with them. I disagree that the

choice to live is premarrow. If you're healthy, you can achieve values in your life. You should

rationally choose life. Yeah, but that you're you're you're distorting the meaning of morality.

Morality is is a is is is the tool to teach you how to live. But the underlying fundamental

assumption is that you've chosen to live. Morality only applies once you choose to live.

If you haven't chosen to live, there's no there's no morality there. Morality is not a

field of human cognition that applies to the choices before you choose life.

Because morality, what morality is about is how to live and the assumption that you want to.

Not you have to go with them. It is bizarre that legalized the system suicide in Switzerland stipulates

will only perform the you know, euthanasia. If you're doing this for unselfish reasons,

what does that even mean? Yeah, I mean, that's ridiculous. I mean, what it means is you're a burden

to your family. You're a burden to the taxpayer because they're paying a lot of money to keep

you alive. You're you're burdened to somebody and and and that's why it's unselfish. That's really

bad. I left a look for a different country to do my euthanasia in. Clarke, are you speaking with

destiny this week about the war? Not that I know of no. Clarke, are you interviewing Jason Ryan's

the following Monday? No, I'm there's no show the following Monday. I am traveling. He's one of

ARI's best unknown thinkers. He is he is really good. I like like Jason. I like interviewing him.

Candidami, thanks for answering my question you are on my pleasure. Gail, how does a creature like

Donald J. Trump get created in the first place? It's a scary. He's president. I think a lot of people

like Trump did the difference is they don't get this powerful. How does he get created? I you know,

makes really, really bad choices. It's whole life from when he's a very little kid. Bad choices

that probably get reinforced by the culture in which he grows up by by his father, by his

his mom and stuff like that. So it probably is there's a reinforcing mechanism. But yeah, I mean

people are self-creating. So Donald Trump created himself to a large extent.

And partially it's our culture. I mean in a healthy culture, you wouldn't know existed.

There'd be a Donald Trump, but he wouldn't know it existed.

Steven, would you visit a Trump resort? There's a nice one in Paris Verdes where I went today.

I probably not. I have options. There are lots of nice resorts. Why go to something where you're

gonna have Trump's name all over the place everywhere. It just would spoil the fun. It would make

it very difficult for me to enjoy myself. So right in Paris Verdes, there are lots of beautiful

resorts. Why would I go that one? I wouldn't. So I mean, I wouldn't avoid it if somebody invited me

to have lunch with them there. I'd go, but I wouldn't seek out a vacation at a Trump resort.

All right, let's go back to our panel last round. We'll start with Jennifer.

I'm done for today. Thank you. Thanks, Jennifer. Eric.

I'm good. Thanks, you're all. Okay. I'm glad. Oh, okay. I wasn't ready.

You want me to come back? Yeah, if you don't mind. Okay, that's right. We'll have it.

Yeah, all I got is looking forward to New Orleans. If anybody hasn't signed up for Ocon yet,

you know, we've had some really great ones lately, but I think this is going to be the best in a

long time. New Orleans is an amazing place. And the idea of getting a bunch of objectivists

in New Orleans, in all places, it's going to be awesome. So looking forward to that thing.

The objective is going to go listen to jazz. What are the objectives going to do in New Orleans?

Oh, hell yeah. Yeah, we'll be out at night having a good time and we will be doing things that

look irrational, but aren't we'll be hardy and drinking and karaoke and all the things that you can

do in the evening. And unlike, for example, here in Motown and Detroit, where we would go to a

bar and listen to rock music, we'll be listening to a much better caliber of music. That's true.

While being loud and obnoxious. And there are secret places in New Orleans. Amy knows a bunch of

them folks should reach out to us. If you're going to get to New Orleans, especially if you're

coming early, we're going to get there about five days before Ocon starts and, uh, yeah, reach out

to us on the socials. It's going to be good. All right. So if you want to behave irrationally,

but not really, um, just appear to behave irrationally, then New Orleans is the place for you to go.

It's a, it's a fun place. If you want, um, if you want culture, um, other than the great jazz

and the great blues that New Orleans has, the, uh, the, um, the antique stores in New Orleans,

at least used to be. I haven't been to New Orleans in 20 years. But when I last time I was there,

the antique stores were amazing. They would have this amazing 19th century art in them, um, paintings

and sculptures and really, really cool stuff. So, uh, uh, antique store crawls are definitely

worth doing in New Orleans. Um, I could do without the smell of alcohol in the streets.

That I have to say is the one thing I do not like about New Orleans is everywhere you go,

yeah, it reeks of beer, a rotten beer, right, uh, uh, from, uh, in the street. At least,

again, 20 plus years ago last time was there. So maybe that's a change.

And, and Noma is, uh, Norelline's Museum of Art is amazing. It's, it's besides all of the

partying and festivities. It's, it's an amazing town. Oh, and the food is amazing, by the way.

Amazing, amazing food. And if you can, uh, if you have the money in the time, try to get to

Emreel's, it's considered one of the top restaurants in the country, uh, but there's a bunch of

restaurants that are just, and this is Emreel. Some of you might be familiar with this,

Emreel Lagrange or whatever his name is, but this is his son now runs the restaurant and it's,

much more modern and, uh, supposed to be spectacular. So I'm trying to introduce some of the

nice restaurants. If you're very casual like me, so you're not necessarily going to the highest

end restaurants, but you can go to Commander's Palace, have an amazing meal and yet, you know,

there are people going around the tables playing jazz music and trios and Commander's Palace is

your normal white tablecloth, nice cuckloy. It's a, it's a formal place, but yeah, I guess they,

they, they'll usually go to lunch. Okay. Lunch, lunchtime, the prices are better. Yeah, that's true.

And the, and the atmosphere is very casual. It's, it's a very good time.

Tons and tons of good food and you only, it's, there's no, that's the one, one of the,

one of the great things about New Orleans. Yeah. This is, this is going to be a great

good, good. All right. I'm Lennon.

Tick and the newsroom is for you. It's news like you've never heard before. The only newsroom

with a panic button, you'll laugh, you'll cry and gasp and horror as the show spirals completely

out of control. It's not just news. It's emotionally unstable. Lunatic in the newsroom. Listen

today. Yeah. So, one of the things that's been happening for the past few years, a couple of

years, maybe three now. Basically, I think, since the Ukraine war started, is that GPS

bullfiend has gone up a lot. And GPS what? Very likely. It's the Russians of probably others too,

but it's happened a lot in like the Baltic states, Eastern, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia,

things like that. GPS what? I missed it. GPS bullfiend. So basically, yeah. So it's extremely

dangerous, particularly for aircraft and marine vehicles, as they can be driven off course.

They can end up hostile territory, crash even if that's what the pilots are relying on.

So my question is, what to do in this case? Now, obviously, there's a longer term thing is why

we should be army in Ukraine and all that kind of stuff. But in general, when you have states

doing this kind of BS and states that have nuclear weapons, so it's not easy to just go

to war with them and blast them out of the sky. What can we do?

You know, I don't know. I mean, my guess is that we are developing technologies that will

replace GPS ultimately. I know they're already doing that with certain drones and stuff like that.

I think if there is an accident that happens because of this, I think it should be like a

declaration of war. I think if we can identify who did it exactly, it should be perceived as a

declaration of war. It was funny because when I was in Israel, the time before last, I think,

the Israelis were doing it because they wanted to fool themselves coming in. So I would look

at my phone and it would tell me I was in Beirut or in a man Jordan. And indeed, I have this

app on my phone that keeps tracks of all the places. I go in the world because for the IOS,

you know, to say I'm really am 183 days in Puerto Rico. And the app has me in a man Jordan

for three days and in Beirut for five days because of the GPS proofing these Israelis were doing

as an act of self-defense. But yeah, if it's done in a way that is that hurts people,

then they have to be consequences and the only consequences between countries are either kind

of sanctions or so, you know, you would have to act against them. No question. So what do you do

with a country like Russia? I mean, with a country like Russia, it's very difficult. This is why

it's so crucial to support Ukraine and let them humiliate the Russians because that's

you know, a way to make them poorer and make them make them less aggressive. You can't go to war

with them because they have nukes. But you can sanction them. You can isolate them. You know,

you can stop them from selling oil. You can you can you can hurt them. I mean, all these

sanctions really did hurt Russia. It just hasn't stopped them from going to war, but it really has

hurt them and you need to do things like that. But could you could you do things like, okay, fine,

we're going to do the same and crash a couple of your airplanes. I mean, you could. I think that

would be legitimate. Yeah. You'd have to call it. You'd have to actually say that's what you're

doing, which nobody will do today. But yeah. Yeah. I mean, I don't expect anybody to actually do

any thing. I mean, if they won't change their ways without that, then sure. Absolutely. Yeah.

I mean, personally, I would say that, you know, okay, you got Russian airplanes flying. I mean,

you know, countries that are still accepting Russian travelers like Thailand and stuff. I mean,

shoot down one of their planes on the way. Sure. Okay. Well, you know, what do you want to do? Go

to war. Yeah. That would take courage. Yeah. We don't have any more. Yeah. And it would better

to shoot down Putin's plane when he was flying somewhere. Oh, yeah. Of course. But yeah. Yeah.

Okay. All right. Thanks, I'm on Adam.

I wanted to tell you that in season two of Dr. Romantic, there is a whole sub stream in the

plot that's based on Peter Keating and Peter Keating's mother. There is a mother who raises her two

children, her son and her daughter, to be Peter Keating's. And the son follows the second

tender path. And there is a dramatic scene where the daughter rejects being a second tender

in a face-to-face confrontation with her mother. And I think even if it weren't for anything

else that's good about that show, that particular sub-theme is really excellently done.

Good. I'm going to have to check out Mr. Romantic. Sounds good. This is in season two.

Okay. But season one you said is also good, right?

Uh, season one is good. There is a character, uh, who approaches surgery the way Howard

Drogh approaches architecture. Cool. And so this makes it a very interesting show.

Oh, good. I'll check it out. Thank you. Thanks, Adam. Ryan, you get the last word from the panel.

Um, so related to what Robert was saying earlier about Trump. Uh, I remember I think when he was

first running for office, he said, um, he was asked the question, like, who is someone you look up to,

like a philosophical or historical figure, like, who's your hero? And he couldn't think of anybody.

And then he kind of said, well, I do my business and I, and then I said, I don't know, and then he's,

I think he mentioned his, his dad as someone who looked up to me. Yeah. Yeah. So what do you,

I had a lot of thoughts of you, like, when I heard the question, I obviously, I thought about

people I look up to, like, Iron Rand, sounding fathers, a lot of people in history. And then, of course,

uh, what do you, but what would you say about someone who can't admit to having some of that they,

someone that they look up to? I mean, I, I, I think a, you know, he's, he's an officer. He's,

he's, he's self, what do they call self-centered? Not, you know, he's, all he can think about is him

is himself in a kind of a sick, perverted way, not in a self-interested rational way, but in a sick

kind of perverted way. Looking up to somebody means that there's somebody who in some respect is

better than you. And that's inconceivable to him, right? That, that, that, that it's not that he

doesn't think that there are people better than him. He knows that, but he won't, he, he can't,

he can't admire them for that. He was instant for it, right? Because, because it's all about him.

It really is. And it's all about how the world sees him. So he would never admit to the rest of the

world that the people better than him. But it's, yeah, but it's also, he's not, he's not thoughtful.

He's not, not introspective. He doesn't think about what has inspired me, what has driven me,

who are the good guys out there in the world, who are the bad guys out the world. Those are the kind

of thoughts that an introspective, thoughtful person engages in. And, and that's not him. You know,

he's just not that kind of a human being. He, he, he's emotional and he's inside his own head.

It's his whims and his wishes, which is, which are his command. That's it.

I asked one more quick thing. Sure. The super chat earlier about, so the choice to live

being the precondition for, like, good and evil. I'm totally on board with that and I

understand it. But how does that relate to somebody who, let's say, chooses not to live, but they want

to spend a decent amount of their life to do, except that they will choose to actually live. But

they don't want to live, but they want to live long enough to harm other people. And like,

they want to murder, they want to, you know, just cause chaos and destruction. So that would obviously

be, you would want to consider that evil. So, but if they, they're like, well, I did, I choose not

to live. So I don't care what happens to me, but I just want to harm harm other people. How would

you go about categorizing that as evil? Well, because then you're choosing to harm other people.

You're actually making a choice in the context of living to hurt other people and then that's evil.

But more importantly, but how is it evil? Because it's, but let's say, let's say you've got

somebody who is born with some kind of, you know, brain disease that causes him to, to

want to hurt other people. I don't know if that's possible. But let's, let's, you know, let's just,

I don't know, they talk about psychopaths or whatever. They, you know, they want to, then you say,

okay, maybe it's not evil in a sense that he didn't choose it. I still want to kill him. Right?

I'm still going to send him to jail for the rest of his life. I still hang him. Right? So he's

still a threat to my life. So it's evil for me in the sense that it's a threat to me. And therefore,

I will penalize him. So maybe he doesn't have any control of what he's doing.

Looking for excitement, Jamba Casino is here. Play anytime, play anywhere. Play on the train,

play at the store, play at home, play when you're bored. Play today for your chance to win and get

daily bonuses when you log in. So what are you waiting for? Don't delay. Jamba Casino is free to play.

Experience social gameplay like never before. Go to Jamba Casino right now to play hundreds of games,

including online slots, bingo, slingo, and more. Live the Jamba Life at JambaCasino.com.

Hi, this is Alex Cantrowitz. I'm the host of Big Technology podcast, a longtime reporter and an

on-air contributor to CNBC. And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how artificial

intelligence is changing the business world and our lives. So each week on Big Technology,

I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it,

asking where this is all going. They come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon, and plenty more.

So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices, and meetings with your

colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology podcast wherever you get your podcasts.

Maybe imagine if somebody is given a drug that makes them completely susceptible to some master

criminal, and that master criminal says, go kill and they're not in control. They're really not in

control. The drug is overtaken, they might. That's a matter. You still defend yourself. You still

kill them, and you still evaluate their actions as you believe, even if they as an individual was

not evil because they weren't in control. Okay, thanks. We got a few sorts of chats. Let's do these,

and then we'll call it a day. Lois says, what do you think is behind Tiger Woods extracurricular

activity? I mean, I think it's a basic lack of self-esteem, which is pretty amazing from somebody

who's been so successful in obviously golf, but appeared so successful in life. He obviously

has some real psychological demons, and they have undermined his own ability to be happy,

undermined his own ability to do satisfied with his life, undermined his ability to be rational.

This is not his first DUI. He's drunk before and driven. He cheated on his wife. He had a

fares. He's not lived a good life other than his phenomenal golf, and of course, it's affected his

golf. The consequence of that is he hasn't lived up to the promise. He was going to win more

majors than anybody in history. He was going to be by far the greatest golfer in all of history,

and he never lived up to that because of this whatever irrational way of life that he has embraced,

and I think he's suffering for it. I think he knows he didn't live up to his potential,

which makes it worse. So now he probably draws his solo in alcohol because of that.

Ultimately, it boils down to some basic lack of self-esteem somewhere deep down inside of him,

which is that because he was a incredibly talented, incredibly talented person who worked really,

really, really hard and could have gone down in history. It will still go down in history as one

of the great golfers, but not as the greatest, necessarily. Raphael, how are you on? I think there

isn't much written about art from an objective perspective beyond romantic manifesto. Any book

suggestions for a comprehensive view of art history, styles, and evaluations. Oh, wow.

I don't really have one. I mean, there is the Aucklanders done on art. It's more on plays and

poetry and things like that, but it's still definitely worth consuming all of that. There

is Marianne Sirres work on art, particularly metaphysics in marble, and maybe there's some other

stuff by Marianne Sirres. But in terms of comprehensive art history, I mean, there are a lot of them

out there. I'm watching a bunch of documentaries right now in art history. I don't agree with

everything the guy is saying, but it's super interesting. I forget the guy's name. He's got a long

kind of Polish sounding name. I can send you a link. But I think there's tons of

content out there. Just look at anything that's a survey of art before the 20th century,

and I think most of the stuff you'll find is good. It won't be great, because for example,

most art historians are pretty dismissive of kind of the academic tradition in the

19th century, academic art in the 19th century. So, you know, you have to accept the fact, but

you can find books specifically on those topics. I have a huge library here of art books

about art and about particular painters, particularly sculptors, and about the history of art,

but I don't have any one that I would recommend as the definitive source for this.

Thanks, Rafael. Daniel, if you know it, can you give the five-minute version of what led

to the Shah's reign in Iran? Well, I mean, the five-minute is that they were the,

they were the, what do you call them, monarchs in Iran going back to the 19th century. There was

nothing. This particular show was a young man in the 1950s who, I mean, there was some attempt to

shift some of the power to a parliament in kind of a democratic process that didn't go well,

and that ultimately he objected to, and he rebelled against it and was aided in that by the CIA

and the, primarily by the British, partially because the government was nationalizing the

British oil and, and, and allying itself with the Soviet Union. So, it was viewed as a cold

war issue. And, but the Shah was, the Shah was going to be in power. That is, he was,

comes on a long line of Shah's that have ruled Iran. I don't know for how long, but for a long time.

But, yeah, so that's the best I can do right now. I would have to do more research to get back to you

on that. Kiki says, can we use an A-bomb on Iran mountain facilities? Yeah, absolutely. That is the

way to, that would do the job. That would destroy the tunnel systems. That would do,

that's a good use of a tactical nuke, would be nuke the, nuke their mountain facilities.

And any bunker, the, the bunker, bunker busting bomb can't reach. Use a nuke on it.

Particularly if it's an isolated area and, and there's no risk of radio, you know,

radioactivity spreading to populated areas. And a lot of these bunkers and, and mountain

things are in remote areas. So, yeah, I think it's definitely something you should be considered.

But I never mentioned it because it won't be considered. Nobody will consider it.

All right, last question from Michael. Do all the top objectives have parents in the medical field?

Your father was a doctor, Leon. Peacups with father was a doctor, Iron Man's father was a pharmacist.

Is there something about thinking methods of a doctor that translate well into interacting with

objectives philosophy? No, I don't think that's the case. And I wouldn't put myself

together with Iron Man and Leonard. I don't think that goes together.

No, I, I don't know is, is, is, have you been swine's father doctor? Is, on Cagatez,

is Greg Selomiois? Is, no, I don't, I don't think there's anything. I don't think there's any

relationship there. I mean, other than, you know, we come from educated parents who emphasize

education and coverage thinking or maybe independent thinking, maybe, maybe that's it.

I don't think it's a medical field necessarily. It's just a, a stand-in for education.

All right, thank you guys. Thank you to our panel. We really appreciate the support

and you being here and asking questions. Thank you to all of you. I will, I think we're going to

have a show tomorrow. I might take the day off, but we'll probably do a show tomorrow. I will let

you know tomorrow. Definitely be back on Monday with two shows. We've got Amy Shadalja,

Monday night at 7 p.m. Eastern time, talking about all things health care. And then we'll do a new

show earlier in the day. And then there'll be a show, there'll be shows all next week. So we

get to, we get to that when we, we will have significant fewer shows because I'm traveling.

All right. Have a great weekend, everybody. Bye. Bye.

Hello, it is Ryan. And I was on a flight the other day playing one of my favorite social spin

slot games on chumbacacino.com. I looked over the person sitting next to me.

I know what they were doing. They were also playing chumbacacino. Everybody's loving having fun

with it. Chumbacacino's home to hundreds of casino style games that you can play for free anytime,

anywhere. So sign up now at chumbacacino.com to claim your free welcome bonus.

That's chumbacacino.com and live the chumbac.

Sponsored by chumbacacino, no purchase necessary VGW group void for prohibited by law,

21 plus terms and conditions apply. This is Mike Voilo of Lexicon Valley. And I'm Bob Garfield.

Are you one of those people who sometimes uses words? Do you communicate or acquire information

with, you know, language? Hey us too. So join us on Lexicon Valley to true over the history,

culture and many mysteries of English plus some life cracks. Find us on one of those apps

where people listen to podcasts.