Quantcast

Episode 571 Scott Adams: Hacking the Algorithm and Other Stuff

Content: 

  • Joe Biden and Don Lemon both STILL spreading “FPH”
  • My “FPH” test video…YouTube algorithm quickly demonetized it 
    • Reverse engineering YouTube’s algorithm
  • Schumer and Cotton jointly working on China Fentanyl solution
  • China MIGHT be holding off on Fentanyl control as bargaining chip
    • Apple looking around for non-China solutions
  • Voting machines…who builds them for small countries?
    • Voting technology essentially controls those countries
  • Russian nuclear power plant on a ship
  • President Trump’s campaign announcement and rally in Orlando
    • MAGA or KAG…brilliant strategy
  • Prediction: In President Trump’s 4th year of his second term…

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: 

I use donations to pay for the daily conversions of the original Periscope videos into Youtube and podcast form, and to improve my production quality and search results over time. 

Episode 570 Scott Adams: YouTube Demonetization, Russia Hacking, Iran, Harvard, DNA, Deportations

Content: 

  • “Fine People” HOAX…it was a HOAX, a HOAX!!!
  • Harvard protected themselves at Kyle Kashuv’s expense
  • People who move communications from private to public venues
  • New, better photos of Iranian guys removing unexploded mine
  • Jon Stewart event…FAKE NEWS per Mitch
  • Your EGO is your biggest enemy
  • The Rock’s advise…”be your authentic self”…is really BAD advise
  • NYT says we’re escalating our cyber attacks on Russia
    • President Trump says that report is “treasonous”
  • America has abdicated leadership of energy development to China

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: 

I use donations to pay for the daily conversions of the original Periscope videos into Youtube and podcast form, and to improve my production quality and search results over time. 

Episode 569 Scott Adams: Why This Video Will Be Demonetized On YouTube

Content: 

  • The “Fine People” HOAX

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: 

I use donations to pay for the daily conversions of the original Periscope videos into Youtube and podcast form, and to improve my production quality and search results over time. 

Episode 568 Scott Adams: Amazing Erik Finman, Gaslighting, Harvard Hypocrites, Trump Heights

  • Content: 
  • Brainwashing IS real, gaslighting is NOT real
  • Guest: Erik Finman, self-made teenage Bitcoin millionaire…now age 20
    • “I was bored and wanted to launch a satellite…”
    • The future of Bitcoin, what to expect
    • Visit Erik’s website: https://coinbitsapp.com
  • Harvard and a despicable rat…screwed Kyle Kashuv in the 11th hour
    • They’ve pinned the needle on the disgusting, immorality scale
  • Israel just named a town after President Trump, “Trump Heights”
    • Is ANYONE still worried President Trump might be anti-semitic?
  • Systems versus Goals…A system for every part of your life
  • AOC and President Trump are tweeting to each other
    • What AOC is doing…is working, she’s hit the big time
    • Her persuasive powers are the real deal
  • Andrew Yang has agreed to be interviewed here…soon
    • Like President Trump and AOC…he’s fascinating

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: 

I use donations to pay for the daily conversions of the original Periscope videos into Youtube and podcast form, and to improve my production quality and search results over time. 

Episode 566 Scott Adams: Who Will Win Democrat Debates, Odds of War With Iran, Foreign Influence

Content: 

  • President Trump is schooling America on how to be smart
    • Russian citizen offers you information, what’s your objective?
  • Iran should “trust their God” and allow their people internet access
  • MAJOR healthcare news…and it wasn’t reported by ANY network
  • Mexico can’t admit the cartels control their northern border area
    • Mexico can’t do anything about the cartels
  • Comparing social media traffic across platforms…topic related censoring?
  • Democrat debates:
    • Who is capable of breaking out as a star?
    • Who will see their poll numbers drop after the debates
  • “Poortown” concept for cheap water, cheap energy, improved homes
    • New standards to improve quality of life

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: 

I use donations to pay for the daily conversions of the original Periscope videos into Youtube and podcast form, and to improve my production quality and search results over time. 

Episode 565 Scott Adams: Limpet Mines, Hatch Act, TDS Recovery

Content: 

  • Recovered liberal TDS victim, Joshua Lisec, describes his journey
  • Kellyanne Conway, Hatch Act applies or BS? NO freedom of speech?
  • Iranian tanker problems and trusting Secretary of State statements
  • Does President Trump agree? 
  • President Trump and the question of Info from a foreign source
  • Prediction: We did NOT know Russia hacked the DNC
  • Will be public info by end of President Trump’s Presidency 
  • Sarah Sanders and her replacement

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: 

I use donations to pay for the daily conversions of the original Periscope videos into Youtube and podcast form, and to improve my production quality and search results over time. 

Episode 413 Scott Adams: (Part 1) Talking to @Naval Ravikant About All the Important Stuff

Part 1 Topics: 

  • Trusting experts and science
  • Fusion power’s future
  • Crypto, here to stay?
  • Turn-around specialists for countries (like Venezuela)
  • A retirement plan for the entire U.S. legal population
  • What will the future of news look like?
  • Who currently holds the most power in the U.S.?
    • Who’s thumb is on the scale?
  • Twitter will become an unbiased protocol or…
    • …democracy won’t stand for its control and power
  • Continued in Part 2 of the broadcast

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

Find my WhenHub Interface app here.

Episode 65: Politics is an Insult Contest and Only One Player Knows the Rules

Topics:

  • Whiteboard discussion
  • Politics is an insult contest
  • Chris Rock did a version of this joke in 2008…
  • “I like people that weren’t captured, okay?”
  • Common Filter vs. Persuasion Filter
  • Flattery as a weapon
  • Prediction Meltdown
  • Bowling Contest vs. Insult Contest

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

For persuasion-related content in book form, see my bestselling book, Win Bigly.

Is the United States a Patriarchy or a Matriarchy? (Part 1)

    Today we start the Rationality Engine (invented in this blog) to see if the process can settle for us the question of whether the United States is a patriarchy or a matriarchy. 

    Here we stipulate that the country has been a patriarchy from its founding until modern times. The claim we are testing is that the country has recently transformed from a patriarchy to a matriarchy.

    Definitions:

    Patriarchy: Men have the most power in society

    Matriarchy: Women have the most power in society

    We all agree that women had a bad deal throughout history. We also agree that modern men do not experience anything similar to the types of problems women have experienced through history. It’s not a competition about history. And if it were, men would lose. Let’s agree on that.

    We also stipulate the obvious, that no two situations are alike. Your situation will not resemble the average. Nor will mine. So while anecdotes are useful for explaining ideas, they are not reasons, and they are not data. If I say the sky is blue, assume everyone understands there might be at least one cloud up there. It’s still basically blue-looking

    Explanation of Bias

    For those of you new to the Rationality Engine, phase one involves your host (me) confessing his biases so you can keep me honest. So here goes.

    1. My views on gender match those of the most well-informed feminists. I’m a strong supporter of equal treatment. Society works best that way.

    2. My career in banking ended when my boss told me the company asked her to stop promoting white men because there were already too many in upper management. (She told me this in direct language.)

    3. My career at Pacific Bell ended when my boss told me the company asked him to stop promoting white men because there were already too many in upper management. (Again, he said this in direct language.)

    Some folks are confused because in my books I confessed to being incompetent at my corporate jobs. That’s true. But I also had top performance reviews and oversized raises throughout that era because my bosses couldn’t tell the difference. To them, I was a rising star.

    4. When my corporate careers stalled, I turned to cartooning and things worked out. Folks assume I am bitter because gender discrimination ended my corporate careers. I probably would be bitter if I were not typing this next to the fireplace in my mansion. Getting rich takes the sting out of a lot of things. 

    5. I was once married, and delighted that I had the experience. My ex moved one block away (to stay near) and we are best friends. I love her more than ever. I’m healthy, single, rich and totally free to do what I want, whenever I want. My personal life is extraordinary. I mention this because there is speculation that I am a bitter Golem lashing out at a cruel world that won’t give me sex. The reality is that I live in California, and I don’t know any healthy single people here who can’t find plenty of sex. 

    You should assume I have bias on this topic, as nearly anyone would. The test of the Rationality Engine is whether your scrutiny will suppress my bias. When you see it creeping in, call me out in the comments and I will try to correct.

    Claims Phase

    In this phase I present a series of claims and present my preliminary verdict on their validity. These are claims of fact, not a final verdict. Once you see my preliminary verdicts on the claims, you can critique them in the comments and I will adjust as needed. This is a living debate that is intended to improve over time. 

    To keep things simple, I will focus on one area today: Political power

    Claim: Women have the most political power in the United States because more women than men vote.

    Preliminary Verdict: True. 

    In the 2008 presidential election, according to CNN, 70 million women voted compared to only 61 million men. That’s enough of a difference to say women could control decisions in the United States if they collectively decided to do so, according to the rules of our Constitution.

    In upcoming posts I will discuss gender differences in economics, job opportunities, family dynamics, and other power-related topics. But for today let’s focus on political power. Do you agree that women have enough of a majority to control political outcomes?

    Remember, the past doesn’t count. Everyone agrees that the past was a patriarchy. We’re focusing on today.

    Let me know what you think in the comments.

    If you think my blog is terrible, you should see my book.

    If you have been following my Trump Persuasion Series, you will recognize what I did in this tweet and why. 

What is Better Than a Republic?

    Most of you would agree that our democratic system (a republic) is flawed in many ways, and yet it is still better than all the known alternatives.

    So I thought I would come up with a better alternative.

    Keep in mind that the Constitution of the United States was written before the Internet. I doubt the founders would have created the system we have today if they had better tools. So I will try to extend their thinking to modern times, when the Internet provides us with more options.

    I think you would agree that the best political system would involve a talented and enlightened dictator that had the best interests of the people at heart. Unfortunately, that sort of dictator is rare, and succession planning is problematic. So the dictator plan has too many risks.

    I have suggested in the past that a good system would involve a dictator wearing a bomb vest that could be detonated at any time by a majority vote of the public. That would keep the dictator working on behalf of the majority, but you can see lots of problems with that system as well. Hackers would blow up the president in about ten minutes. I wouldn’t let that politician kiss my baby.

    Our current system – a republic – is obviously broken because the majority is not getting its way for issues that are good for all. For example, a strong majority of voters in California wants to legalize doctor-assisted dying, but the state politicians have tabled it. As a result of our republic not serving the best interests of the people, old folks are suffering by the thousands, maybe millions.

    And weed is still a federal crime here. The majority of citizens would legalize weed, and that would be disproportionately good for minority groups that tend to be over-jailed for marijuana possession. That’s an example of the majority protecting a minority, even if it is only out of self-interest. (That’s how it generally works. Educated people understand that oppressing minorities is a bad strategy for everyone in the long run.)

    Gay marriage would have happened sooner with a pure democracy. And here again the prime beneficiaries of a pure democracy would be a minority group. That is the opposite of what you expect with “mob rule.” And we can see that when the majority votes in its own enlightened best interests, it usually bodes well for the non-majority as well. I think you would have to go back in history to pre-Internet days to find an example of the majority abusing the minority. You see that behavior most where the Internet coverage is the least.

    My hypothesis is that a pure democracy coupled with the Internet would create an almost “super morality” situation in which we would find our best selves. In other words, I believe a real democracy, supported by modern communication tools, would drive the risk of “mob rule” to zero. 

    Let me give you some bad analogies to make my point.

    Consider firing squads used for executions. By tradition, one of the guns is loaded with blanks, so shooters can never know who did the killing. When your actions are DIRECTLY linked to an outcome, as opposed to being diluted by probability, you feel and perhaps act differently. Likewise, if I vote for a politician, and the politician does something bad, I don’t take it as a personal failing. I think the politician failed in that situation, not me. 

    But if I get to vote on every issue, I feel a personal responsibility to the people affected. There is a big difference between watching your elected representatives abuse a minority group and doing it yourself. I can tolerate other people being evil – because I can’t fix the entire world – but I’m not okay with being evil myself. 

    The big problem with a pure democracy is that voters are – and here I must generalize – under-informed idiots. So one would expect their decisions about complex foreign affairs, or the economy, to be sub-optimal. Our current system tries to fix that problem by making our politicians the experts on behalf of the public. There are two problems with that:

    1. Politicians don’t understand the issues either.

    2. Special interests can influence politicians.

    So here is how I would build a system to solve every problem I have mentioned.

    Imagine a system that involves direct citizen voting on every issue. But in addition to voting yes or no on a ballot question you can also assign your vote FOR A PARTICULAR TOPIC to any other voter who is open to that assignment.

    For example, I might cast my own direct vote on simple topics, such as gay marriage, weed, and doctor-assisted dying. I feel I know enough about those issues to be useful.

    But if the proposed law is about economic policy, I might want to delegate my vote to Paul Krugman, or whoever I thought had the best thinking on that topic.

    You could also delegate your vote to your better-informed spouse, a friend, or anyone you would trust making decisions for you. But I would make it illegal to delegate a vote to anyone representing an organization. And I would make it illegal to delegate more than one voter topic to another person. That keeps individuals from becoming too powerful outside their field of expertise.

    The beauty of my system is that you never have to wait for elections to improve things. The minute that you hear an expert saying something brilliant on a particular topic, you call up your voting app and assign rights to that expert for all of your votes in the category. If you hear a smarter expert tomorrow, you reassign your vote to that person.

    I see no practical way to evolve from our current system to what might be called an Assigned Voter system. So it would have to be tested on a new country. Perhaps it will first be tried on a city built on an ocean platform. 

    Do you think it would be an improvement over the current system? I am having a hard time finding a flaw in this idea. I know you will do better.

    Scott

    In Top Tech Blog:

    I predict that healthcare costs will drop by 90% over the next 20 years. I think IBM’s Watson will take a big bite out of it. So will the flood of inexpensive medical testing devices coming this way. So will nano-robots in your blood. So will our better understanding of diet. And when you can 3D-print your own meds and medical devices, things get interesting. And obviously doctor-assisted dying laws would make a difference because the last year of life is the expensive one.

    If you don’t need a doctor or a nurse to do a diagnosis, and you can print your own medicines and medical equipment at home, healthcare costs will plummet. In my own experience, when my healthcare provider, Kaiser, started allowing patients to email their doctors directly, my number of doctor visits for the small stuff dropped by 75%.

    When I had my exotic voice problems that rendered me speechless for over three years, I ran up a lot of expenses going from doctor to doctor trying to figure out what was going on. I believe Watson (and big data in general) could take a voice recording of someone with spasmodic dysphonia (my problem) and identify the condition in less than a second. At nearly zero cost.

    One would still need to pay for surgery in that case, but Watson could have saved me years of pain.

    If you think healthcare costs will slowly rise forever, you are probably 100% wrong. And I also think the norm for the future is to only have healthcare plans for the big issues such as surgery and emergency room visits.