Better to do bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, hey everybody come on in here it's a fun day. You know some of your days are more fun than other days. I declare today a fun day. And if you're in here early and if you're prepared and if you can see the future, you know that the simultaneous step is almost ready to happen here. It comes get ready, oh that's good stuff, so so we have a name for our scandal. You probably, notice by now president. Trump has dubbed the latest edge to scandal of Brennan and clapper in Kobe and struck and all those folks

allegedly trying to tank his campaign with allegedly a spy and we're calling it spygate now I don't know that spygate is now. Somebody else pointed out on Twitter. The president has a great sense for simplification, so we've got this Public, that's trying to sort it all out. We can't tell our Russia scandals from our deep stays scandals. Why is it the same people and why people having meetings, and Think about lawyers, lawyers, lawyers. So the public has this big complicated ball of accusations allegations and

are all tied up, it's not even one scandal. It's like it's like this weird. You know hybrid cyborg scandal thing that were we can't follow. So what is the symbol of fire in chief new for us boom spike gate? there? It is all that complexity taken down to one word: spygate, now independent of what true and what is not true. We may never know, but the the branding of it as spy spy is actually quite effective and will make a difference it's a sort of it's sort of branding that moves the needle anyway. So, as you know, I talk about cognitive

distance. All the time and one of the things there happens when people are in cognitive dissonance is they start spouting word salad and ridiculous explanations for things don't even make sense. They don't even make sense as words you know they they have their sentences, but you look at it. You go, I can't even agree or disagree with that. That's I don't even know what's happening. It looks like just babble coming out now so that's usually your sign that you've reached that someone you're talking to is in cognitive, dissonance, Let me share with you my tweets from this morning. One of them is put is, there's, almost seven hundred retweets in about five minutes. Twenty one minutes, and I said the following, and I think this sums up everything we know about spiking, so my tweet this morning was spy gate.

I have four things to understand about spygate number one. There was no spy in the Trump campaign. Two, the spike, that did not happen was totally justified. Three. It would be bad for national security to identify the spy who doesn't exist. Number four. His name is Stephan. I don't think I'm wrong on any of those things I'll read it again things. We know about spygate most spy of the Trump campaign, the spying it did not happen, was totally justified because of Russia. Three, would be very bad for national security to identify the spy who doesn't exist and for his name is Steven now, if that's not Kog, dissonance I don't know what is I don't

you got any that wrong, except I knew people would say. No, it's not a spy. You can't say that informant is a spy that's crazy stuff. So I thought I would so that would help you understand the difference between a spy and whatever this was So so I treated also this morning, people there's a big difference between spy and the person who is contracted by an intelligence agency to secretly He'll trade. If Trade organization provide information and manipulate outcomes. Why is this so hard to understand yeah? So it's how spy it's just someone that a government Budgens agency Contractid to infiltrate

organization, secretly provide information and manipulate outcomes, but that's not a why, for God sakes. So I think we've got the other side has had to lean on. Now my other tweet that got a lot of attention got retweets. Well, as you probably saw, the writers is putting the generic tracking poll of GOP verses dams, waiting for the first time that the GOP is six on the generic ballot, meaning they do a poll of, would you vote for a generic republican or a generic Democrat. It used to be the public would say I we want the Democrat, which was bad news for the twenty eighteen mid terms. If you were a republican, but let me just reverse, according to Reuters, we'll have to see if that holds, but at the moment reversed. Try to

Did that pull out- and I said on the plus side- Democrats still have one hundred percent support from MS thirteen Anaran. Now four thousand four hundred people thought that was funny enough to retweet, but it's more than funny. Oh, it's more than funny is the answer to the question. A trump supporter. If, if President Trump is not a racist, can you read to Maine why he has much support from the KKK. And you probably didn't know how to answer that question you would be like uhm. Well, it's complicated and you know people to support people for different reasons, and why why can't the KKK have their own reasons and be wrong about it? While other people have these effort as hard

explain is it. This is one of those. It'll, be your still be your spouse kind of questions. Where where there's nothing you could do after the questions been asked. The answer is built into the question. So why did the KKK support President Trump? so here's the real reason that I tweeted this it wasn't because it was funny, although it was it was because it's the answer to the question. Let me do this for you, so you can see the entire thing normal person says you know everybody is calling President trump a racist but not really seeing it and then the Trump Haters says whole. You don't see it you don't see. It is pretty obvious, for example, explain to be to me why the KKK,

Supports President Trump go yeah, let's see what you can do with that all might drop. What do you got? when he got the KKK support? Your president explain that away. Ms thirteen supports the Democrats. There is a spy somewhere. I don't know what to do now. Alright, so that's how it works. So you're quick answer to, why do the racists support president Trump? is say reason. Ms thirteen supports Democrats. For their own reasons. Now

thirteen doesn't vote, or at least most of them don't I can't say they, although vote, but of them. Don't vote. However, it is free. It is fair to say that the that the MS thirteen would prefer Democrats in power because they might go softer on then the Republicans, so they have their own reason has nothing to do with healthcare, the Racist, they have their own reasons, and it turns out that when somebody votes for you. You did not acquire their opinions because they voted for. You doesn't work that way. Um now so anyway, Spygate is getting fun. Let me give you a little context on This thing we call Spicate now we're still in the allegation stage, which is to say there are

missions and allegations that there with this a loose federation of like minded people or possibly organized Who did not want President Trump to get elected and did not want him to stay in office if they could do anything about it? But that's the allegation. Now. We may never know the full truth of whatever is going on in the world here. But let me give you two two ways to look at that allegation one, is that these weasels in the deep state worker only for their own job. In their own well being and they colluded to do something that was very selfish for them to keep power to keep their jobs and and that's what they were doing, they were just. It was just a selfish internal coup kind of thing just for their own benefit

possible? Here's another interpretation for the same set of facts. This would be compatible with everything. I've been saying. It goes like this. The manipulators on the democratic side, primarily in the Clinton campaign, at least in twenty sixteen and before, and their best influence especially whoever came up with the idea of calling everything. Trump did dark and racist and homophobic and xenophobic and every other phobic that they had. Whoever came up with the the campaign idea of branding Trump as the monster of all monsters. They didn't just convince themselves, they convinced

after country. Half of the country was convinced that a president Trump was a uh, a risk to the survival of the species. You know it was yeah yeah, chill the I believe he has now admitted he was an advisor for the Clinton campaign, and so I think we have that. As fact down in my book win bigly, I speculated that he was based on what I thought was a fingerprint for his work, and it has now been revealed that he did consult. Although we don't know at what level not as much as prior campaigns? Apparently and what happened was you have got all these people in the government

not only are afraid of losing their jobs but they're afraid for the whole country. There were there the worried that this monster will will destroy the world And what do you do? What do you do if you're a patriot, you love your country and you see a gigantic, Jr, let's say you're in the spy business. You know you're the intelligence business. What do you do when you see a what you believe is a mortal danger to your country. Yeah, you might act. So I'm not going to defend anybody who allegedly did anything to subvert the will of the people in there

legal election for Donald Trump, but we should not think so, simply as to say either just trying to keep their jobs and keep power they might have been trying to save the country. They just were fooled by the media and by the influencers on Clinton's team. Do you think that they were doing gods work it's entirely possible and by the way, let me put odds on this. What are the chances? The half? Country was convinced of this reality. The reality that the trump would destroy the economy lose every war started, started nuclear war. The chances that half of the country was convinced. This was a true version of reality and yet all of the intelligence agencies somehow were immune. They weren't immune

Nobody is immune from persuasion. Sometimes people say well. If you learn about persuasion Then you're, you know once you know how it works, then your your immune from right, it doesn't affect you, nope, doesn't way. You know all the weirdness in the world doesn't protect you from good persuasion. These were very smart, qualified people who know what persuasion is. They know how to do it. They know what what they say. They know it when it's happening and they are still not immune, not even a But if you so, if you lived your life over on the echo chamber of the left for the last several years, You would not even know that there was a reasonable argument on the pro trump side. You would not even be aware that there was anybody like me saying

I know you're reading this wrong. This is just a style. You have good things are going to happen. That story didn't even exist on the left. So here's an interesting question, suppose some day the people who have been alleged to be in on this spike anything if it turned out to be true And I'm not completing it is by the way. So where I'm at? Is that the Russian in the Russia Collusion story and the spike new story, are very similar, meaning that they seem very convincing to the people who were inclined to believe it. Now I am inclined to believe it. Meeting that even though I don't join a team per se, I am so associated with the pro trump side of things. The I would not be able to tell

an illusion from reality. If, if favored the opinion, I already held all right. So you have to know this about yourself I'm saying it about myself right now. You should learn to say this about yourself. It's helpful, I would not know if Russia Gay it was real or false, and I would not know if spygate was real or false. It doesn't matter how much information, I guess, which is the freaky park I am I am. I am so prior to believe my side- that I would not be able to recognize information. Disproved. And somebody says, and yet Scott will continue with the spiky thing. Yes, I'm kidding continuing with it with that frame, which is that, whether it's true or not, you can't tell

but it is in the news- and that makes it legitimate to talk about so don't don't get caught with your pants down. If it turns out that this whole spygate thing is nothing, don't don't act like you, never heard that possibility likewise for the people who were probably not watching this people on the left, if it turns out that there's no such thing as Russia Collusion, which looks like the way it's going, don't be surprised, because this is the things that look like they're. True, just often or not all right, so keep an open mind about all this stuff. That said, if we imagine that spike, it was real and let's say people, people got brought up on charges some day. Would it be a legitimate? Does?

since to say that you had been brainwashed by top cognitive scientists who now had a brain, in my very limited understanding of the law and legal history. I don't know the two. Only been ever been a successful defense. There says I was brainwashed. The What happened with Patty Hearst, I can't remember if she got convicted or did anybody I get off on a brain, washing charge. I don't know, that's ever happened right, but today we have even Patty Hearst went to jail, so the problem is that you probably can't use that defense, because everybody would use it.

You know it once it worked, you would just say: well I'm going to use that one, I'm going to say I was brainwashed by my cozen. You know my. There are brain washed Maine, the gang brain wash me. I didn't mean to kill that person. I was just brain washed, so you can't really use that. But what's interesting is this case. You have any professional cognitive people who know how to brain wash it's their science, it's their specialty and you can see but they are the experts in brain washing. You can see the result of the work. You can see the actual brain washing. You know advertised the the way the campaign was campaign was organized in terms of their message, etc. And then you can see the result. You can see that the people were in fact brainwashed.

It probably will never be a legal defense, because you can't allow that 'cause. Then everybody would say it, but it's probably true might be true. Alright, let's talk about IRAN quickly. So I saw little article that IRAN is considering and. Internal law that would prevent them from funding terrorism. Meeting. It's not that simple. It's it would prevent them from doing things that would result in terrorism getting money. I guess They don't want to do that because some of the groups that they support, that they don't call terrorists, might be pulled into that definition. But the fact that they're, even considering that is interesting, because that's what the president

cause them to do. Member, I told you it gives a better explanation of the presidents negotiating style. He goes into a situation where there's North Korea or the Middle East- and the first thing he does is he shakes the box and then the thing, Landon new places and that's either good for him or he shakes the box again. And then he looks where everything lands he looks at again and if that's not good for him, he shakes the box again Once the box lands with everything, that's good for him, then he stopped shaking the box and there's nobody else, who's a box shaker. Is the only box shaker in the argument, he can shake the box. Other people can't quite do it the same way. So he has this superpower simply shaking the box and moving the variables around until they favor him kind of works. Every time you just have to shake until you get the right, you get the right outcome

now what he did was cancelled. The IRAN deal. I shook the box and now everybody, thinking in a little more expensive way. The variables in play. Then he increased it to. Let's talk about a treaty, not just a deal and then let's talk about the whole area? Let's talk about the people you're funding. Let's make, let's add lots of variables in this thing- shaped box again right now, only shakes the box there's all kinds of stuff in there? They are if one of those shakes giving him a good situation, a good. If you shake long enough, you know Not going to get it on the first shake of the second shake, but if you keep shaking things are going to line up your way now uh in my prior periscope, I took you down the reasoning trail. They said when you ask yourself: what's the problem in the Middle EAST like what's the problem, you get all kinds of different

It's like well. This group was humiliated these people thing God, given land, there's a fairness, question there's a poverty question, there's no, maybe too many emails are a cultural problem and I've taught you, then, when you have that many different explanations for a thing, none of them are true, it's more like, the others cognitive dissonance and that everybody is inventing their own explanation for it. Everybody's confused about something. And they're building a movie to try to explain it and that's why you get all these different movies 'cause everybody is trying to solve for the same confusion and here's the confusion and by the way, this is not how

who started in the Middle EAST, so there may have been legitimate, not may have been. There were legitimate complaints as some point, for example, if you got kicked off of your land when Israel was formed. Well, that's a pretty legitimate complaint, but talking mostly about second generation people who have had to build their own movie about what the problem is because they were born not in Israel, they've heard things they're trying to explain the world and here's here's. What I think is the trigger- and this is all preliminary subject to better thinking in the future. It seems to me that the trigger for cognitive dissidence over there is that people believe that their God will do the right thing, help them win, help them prevail, and yet for seventy years since the founding of Israel, there, God

has apparently let them down hard. So how do you explain your primary belief of the world? Is that you've got the right God gods on your side? If you pray and things you get a good result and then for seven two years in a row? Just the Jews are getting a good result, and you know

Do you they have the wrong God? How do you explain that? Well, that's cognitive dissonance and that that causes all these different movies to appear now, if everybody has a different idea of what the problem is, some people are saying. I q, I don't think that's a problem, but you know there are lots of variables going on there. You need a solution, the salsa for the cognitive dissonance. You don't need a solution, the souls each of these individual movies, because that would be impossible right. It is just too big a task. Everybody has a different movie in your head, but if you can solve the unlimited dissonance in theory, everybody's movie would disappear. How do you do that? I've suggested, and this is more food for thought. I don't know that this is a good

you are a bad idea, I'm going to put it out as an example of this way of thinking. Right, so don't take this too seriously. This is all pretty limitary thinking. My suggestion is that we redefine the battlefield um. It does appear that the physical war for Israel doesn't seem like you could win that it doesn't seem that there's you know in twenty eighteen in a non, It doesn't seem like there's a way that you could you could defeat Israel without without your own people being destroyed uh, so instead he changed the battlefield to the to the realm of ideas, and I think we could invite all,

the people in the Middle EAST to join the internet, to enjoying the war of ideas and get off the get off of the physical play, because they're the complaint tends to be in sort of this, this God religious level, and let's take that to wear those things should be fought, which is the internet. So I think we should the server just as a mental experiment. Let's, let's say the say there was a Middle EAST peace plan and look like this. We're gonna give everybody in the Middle EAST, the internet we'll make sure everybody has access to the internet and we want to take the war to the war of ideas yeah. If, if your idea of God is a good one,

let's give you all the tools that you need to spread. Your idea of your God will be doing the same. Everybody has their own ideas of how things should be and just fight it out on the internet and and solve the little minor border skirmishes. You know what, let's not fight it only in the battle field of people and bodies, and you know, and money and roads and water, let's just all that stuff and take the take the battle of the level taking up to where it belongs. Take it up to you to where God would prefer it? If you were God, would you want the people to kill each other in your name? Would you want them to talk about it in your name, which would you prefer, So here would be here's how you reframe these things, I'm not saying that anything like this will ever happen

but imagine if we just said look, we need some big, comprehensive solution for all this Middle EAST stuff. Let's stop doing the Tuesday, things fight a war here, fight a war. There threaten this person, let's see if we can get a comprehensive agreement and let's agree to take the battle from the field, up to the battle of ideas to be more in keeping with God's preference. Because there's no one who believes the God wants bodies to be destroyed, you know, if God, if God created our bodies, he probably doesn't want some of those bodies to destroy the other. If you don't need to you know, there may be reasons that you need to, but why would God want that. I have somebody says that guess I'll. Let does want that. I don't believe so and I believe I believe that there is. There is released.

Number of Muslims and idea that they want to spread their beliefs to as many places as possible, the internet is how you do that the battlefield is no longer in a way that it works, because it's too easy it's too easy to arm rebels or it's too easy to arm the resistance. So you can't really conquer places physically anymore. The way you used to be able to all right, don't they have the internet yeah, of course, but probably not as extensively as they could have so making sure that everybody has. The internet has more to do with how you frame the problem than it does to get more people on the internet.

You need an islamic scholar on your periscope. No, so here let me tell you something that will make everybody angry it's it's generally consider. A fact that the more you know about these situations, the more likely you'll have something smart to say about how to fix it. When you say that that's a a general true that the the more you know about the Middle EAST, the more you know about Islam, the more you know about Israel,

the more you know the better off you're going to be coming up with something smart, not true. It's not true. Unless the problem is knowledge, knowledge is not the problem here. The problem is, there's a whole bunch of people who have a different opinion of the problem, and when that happens, you don't need to know the details of what their individual opinions are, because the real problem is cognitive. Distance and, if that's the real problem, then you look next for the trigger and the trigger is obvious. Seventy years of the God that you know is powerful and on your side, has been you for seventy years? How can this possibly be right? So you have to invent a reason you, the the these are bad. The Americans are bad, whatever their reason is and then you've got to fight against it 'cause. You can't change your mind so

if you could read remove the cause of cognitive dissonance. Way to do? That is to say, look It is telling you, as clearly as possible, to move the battlefield. God has proven to you that the battlefield of physical bodies standing on sand shooting at each other, doesn't win and God does not have any prohibition against you. Improving your tools, The way that you get to your godly end state, he doesn't care which tool use whether it's a sword, a gun over the internet If you believe in god- and you believe, God wants you to spread his word, you should believe he wants you to do it in the best way that the best way it's possible and that's the internet. We know that violence at this point has a limited use and it's certainly not going to get rid of.

So that's what I would do. I would redefine the problem as a problem of religion. Take it up to a higher level, try to address people's physical needs in more of a generous way and just except that the but the battle is infinite, but we'll take it up to the internet, where the war of ideas belongs. No college. Isn't the problem said person without knowledge. Well, keep in mind for those of you who believe that superior knowledge will get. You will get you to a solution. If that were true, are there not plenty of people with superior knowledge and have they gotten us to anything that looks like even

close to a solution. So if you believe this superior knowledge can get you to a solution on the Middle EAST, you have to ask yourself why it hasn't worked yet If superior knowledge could tell you who is likely to be the president of the United States, can you explain why I was right and all the people with superior knowledge were If superior knowledge tells you what's happening with N Korea and what to do about it, Why was I the only one who is describing a year ago, exactly white, where we would be right now? Is it because of my vast experience with North Korea? Now? Is it because of my vast experience in political matters? Now when I became a famous cartoonist as a because I had great knowledge of how to become a cartoonist? No, I didn't even know how cartoons maker

because when I started being the cartoonist, when President Trump wanted to be a reality, tv star with no experience did it matter that he did not know as much as reality tv stars know when President Trump became president did it matter that he didn't know as much about the economy as economists, no Academy is doing great when he started fighting ISIS. Did it matter that he did not know as much as the experts on Isas no didn't matter at all? Well, when we started dealing with It is a matter that President Trump was an expert on all things: North Korea, no didn't matter at all, so check your assumptions. It is true that you know you. You have to have some mental in the nimble this. It is true that you have to know

something, but if you believe that the higher you go in the knowledge rankings more likely. You'll come up with a solution. You don't really understand anything about how the world is really wired right. The person who comes up with a solution, is probably going to be the one who just moves the right variable, whether it was intentional or not. Remember. I explained President Trump's method of shaking the box until one of those shakes gives you something that lines up favorably. How much expertise do you need to shake a box right? The methods that President Trump uses don't

choir, deep understanding of a topic. I know you hate that, because you've got all your entire life. You've been taught that the more you know the better you better off you're going to be, and in general, that's true in general, the more you know the better off you are: that's certainly

in general- but I just gave you a six or so easy examples of really big important topics where the person who solves them doesn't have much knowledge. When Steve Jobs decided to build a computer. What did he know about building computers, nothing when Steve Jobs said hey, you know, I think, maybe it will move into smartphones or whatever they call them before they were invented. Do you think it was because Steve Jobs knew all about telecommunications, nope nope? He knew about persuasion so,

Steve Wozniak yeah. He knew about chips, but he didn't know about marketing. You didn't know about a lot of things, I'm yeah. What do the line must know about rockets? Well least at least he'll have musk is an engineer. So in that specific case you know he you launched. Lawn musk's superior knowledge probably does help him, but it's not enough um. You know his his understanding of persuasion and how the world works is far more important than his engineering knowledge. In my opinion, way more experts get results. So there's somebody still resisting my idea that in some cases have to have the superior knowledge to have the better solution- and I will agree with you that there are many cases in the small world where, if you

a legal problem, it's better to listen to the lawyer. There are cases where, if you have, a medical problem has probably better to listen to the the doctors. I can tell you in my case that, if I'd listen to the doctors, I would not have recovered my ability to speak, because the doctor said it was curable- but I thought it probably Wasn'T- who knew more about this problem, you know some of you know I had a I couldn't speak. I had a voice problem for about three and a half years.

And it was considered incurable and when I would talk to doctor after doctor who had heard of it after finding people actually heard it, they said, there's nothing you can do about it. This is just how it's going to be, but I, knowing far less than the doctors decided, I didn't want that answer, and so I went and got cured. There are probably fifty thousand people in this country who have that same problem and they don't get it cured Why they believe the expert there's some expert that told them there's nothing they can do, because even now, people don't necessarily know there's an operation that can fix it. It's not well publicized.

So there are many many situations in which the people who know the most are not the most useful for solving it. I think the Middle EAST would be the classic example of that. In fact, I would not expect the person who knew the most to be the best choice for fixing it might be. You know I'm not going to say the expertise is bad, but it tends to take you down a fact based trail, whereas the solution in the Middle EAST is not going to be a fact based solution. If there's a solution in the Middle EAST, it will be a psychology solution,

the recognizes what is the cause of the the cognitive dissonance and addresses the cost and that person will need to know she ate from a from a seventy. It just will make African better difference in theory. In theory, I'm not saying it will be sold. I'm not I'm not saying that expertise is bad. I'm just saying it tends to not solve a lot of problems because of expertise could solve the Middle EAST there's plenty of it around. We wouldn't solve that pretty well by now. I think the experts end up getting two factor focused when the problem is not fax. How about these latest oppressors? Some of the.

Well, that sounds like a slightly loaded question. If you could ask that question in a different way, I might be able to answer it uh. My voice problem was solved by the best voice expert. It was, let me tell you how the best voice expert developed the surgery for solving my problem. 'cause, I got to talk to him about it. When I could talk- and I said how did you know that you could fix a brain problem, which is what people thought everybody has and that's still. The theory is that my inability to talk was a misfire in my brain. He solved Maine by rewiring some some nerve

in my neck that we're not the problem, how did this expert? No, they could solve a brain problem and all the everybody agrees. It's a great problem. Everybody who studies us. How did he know he could fix that by working on something completely unrelated? I asked him. What is the logic connection between those two things. Do you know what the answer was doesn't know doesn't he he actually described it as inspired gas. None of those are my words, but it was basically you know. He said you know it's just the

Some of everything I knew, and it was just sort of an intuition- they get off her friends and but he got there not because the fax he didn't get to the answer biological path so nobody's dot com, all right, uhm. I believe I had one other topic I was going to talk about. I think I covered a mall uh. That's how I write code. Somebody says you write code by instinct. I guess you're saying intuition. Starbucks yeah: let's talk about Starbucks, so big story where Starbucks in trouble for one Starbucks store as some african american folks who are not

purchasing anything I don't know, there's something about them using the bathroom or something and so Starbucks being an progressive condom company they huddled and they decided that they would allow anybody to use their bathrooms, whether they were customers or not. Now it's a really interesting play from the perspective of Starbucks. Here's. What I would expect to happen. Would expect that in terms of reputation and brand, that's pretty good your this very much on brand, the other, the not be nice to everybody kind of brand, and I and I think that it may be a really smart corporate move. Is it it? It really puts some in a different class from everybody else who just talks about most of the world, whereas there actually taken a big hit to be nice to the world

so on a branding level, I would say a plus. So what what the corporate executives did yet and remember I'm the guy who makes fun of corporate decisions like I literally do that for a living I make fun of dumb corporate decisions. This one looks very smart now what we imagine will happen. What I imagine will happen is that in some number of Starbucks those those stores will become unusable because the word will get around and the homeless and the mostly the almost will just camp out and use the bathrooms as much as they want in the old filter.

Vantage of that their kindness. So what we should see is that the Starbucks that are in those areas that might attract people who are homeless they should probably be close to worth less in a in a short amount of time. In other words, the the customers who are most likely to have the money and want to buy a Starbucks of the people, who least want to be hanging out with the homeless, is probably not a lot a whole lot of cross over there. So I respect Store by the Starbucks will lose yeah, often a building at least- and perhaps you know, three percent other stores, maybe less, but the the benefits to their brand is breeze. Schedule now where that might lead. Let me just give you some speculation. There might be some store, Asians, where they know there are a lot of homeless people

In the long run, they may build the store. So it's got an internal, I'm just speculating here. Imagine in the long run, this Starbucks builds a store in a place where they know homeless can get to it and they say. Ok, we know this place will be filled with homeless unless right next to Starbucks, we build a public bathroom problem solved right. You don't have to come in to Starbucks to use the bathroom, it's actually it's the second or Starbucks is here and then they just put another door right next to it public bathroom and they you know, just use our corporate resources to keep it clean them whatever they need to do so. You have a bathroom in the store for customers. Yet you have a bathroom Starbucks builds now, if you, if you already like Starbucks, how much more would you like them for building a separate bathroom for the homeless that wasn't there before

I mean you would go from like appreciating Starbucks, maybe as a corporate level, maybe further further profitability. Oh, there are lots of reasons to admire Starbucks. Very successful company made a lot of good decisions over the years, but if they go from, we will even risk losing a store in a bad area to look if we can build a new store and just put a public bathroom right next to it it's expensive, but we could do it. Then I don't know if that will happen,

there's a direction ago, so I'd expect some Starbucks to be impacted and the man almost immortal away in some Starbucks will be fine, because there weren't many homeless people around there. Anyway, all right the summer saying they'll build stores without bathrooms. Maybe, but I don't see him going that way. I see more bathrooms, not fewer all right. That's enough! For today I'm gonna go back and do some work popular