« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 906 Scott Adams: Simultaneous Sip Doesn’t Happen on its Own. Get in Here.

2020-04-11 | 🔗

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a

Content:

  • The current Democrat dilemma
  • Back to work by location or individual risk?
  • Outrage by privacy and freedom people
  • Freedom or privacy…we can’t have both anymore

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. 

The post Episode 906 Scott Adams: Simultaneous Sip Doesn’t Happen on its Own. Get in Here. appeared first on Scott Adams' Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump everybody commander. We just have to talk about. If you call me earlier this morning at around four a m I dive, You probably think this is a bonus that it is. I did not do the simultaneous up. I was just testing my my microphone situation and the test was successful, but this is the real thing. Yes, I've combined these simultaneous swaddle with a simultaneous up. This is a first,
but I don't wanna below your minds, but these two things can happen together. So, for the first time ever a world premier, the most important thing that will ever happened this year, the simultaneous swell all yeah, it's coming at you and what do you need besides a blanket wealth? it would be good if you add a couple of under glass attack. Tells recited guilty. Jogger flask vessel of every kind fill it with your favorite. Looked like coffee enjoyment now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine either the day, the thing that makes everything better including the damn pandemic scale. The simultaneous swallows up happens now go just as I suspected,
Twice as good swaddling, good sipping good, put I'm together. I think you see we're ongoing, so I feel great empathy for different groups of people during this term. Crisis, but I have a great deal of sadness and sorrow for this group. There called Democrats, you probably ere, the Democrats robbing it especially tough time because until tromp makes a decision about who had opened up the economy, they don't know what to disagree with so they're all poised to who is the president, but the longer you goes without saying which weighs gonna go. The longer. They have to go with it knowing what the reposing. So,
what are they do in the meantime, because I can't they can offer an opinion that would be the most dangerous thing engineered And your number one thing in the world is beating Donald Trump. That's all that matters and And you dont know why you're gonna do you only know that whatever happens, you have to be on the other side, but between the time it happens. You have to have an opinion because a lot of us run social media were pundits. So somebody s your opinion, they say. Should we go back to work, let's say may first, or should we stay like down for a while? What are you gonna do if you're a Democrat this week, any damage the Pandit politician and somebody says, tell us why you would do. How would you do it? They can give you an opinion, because if they do, there is probably a fifty percent chance. There's
go in the other direction if they say opened up job. I say a few more weeks, security in a closed and vice versa. And all of those Democrats don't want to take a fifty percent chance of being on on film. You know I'm video, not feeling, but on video. Saying that the president should do exactly what he ends up doing think about that one is Joe by comes out says you know. I've talked to my own experts and I think we should open up May fiftieth. Let's say Joe Biden says that in advance so that we caused by then President Trump says I talked to my task force and turns out that May 15th is a good day, so I could open up everything on May 15th. What what is Joe Biden do? He just said: that's the right decision, but they first is the date.
LA is already talked about, extending it so I'll give you a little prediction. Probably is not going to be may first everywhere, so I think you're going to see something places. Push it in a few more weeks like LA is my gas. But now the Democrats were completely silenced, except were weird questions about how this surgeon general ripper refers to his own grandparents, you get that one of the biggest criticisms of the President's corona virus task forces, like the best it's like you come up with because remember until they can commit to an opinion of their own there's, not much to criticise Can I have to say you go the other way in order to say hi. Going in the wrong way, so the best they could come up with is a they send else that the woman to to accuse the surgeon general.
Of using the wrong language when referring to his own grandparents. That was that that that was the sharpest criticism of the administration. Is that an african american surgeon General referred whose own grandparents, in the way that they lovingly refer to their own grandparents and his family, and that became a national headlights cause was all bad. So I should tell you something about the slaughter meters a very mused to watch what I call the the growing woke in this and in the red pilling of people and this whole prediction. The question that the idea that there is such a thing I believe, a little while ago say last week, people
If that you could do something with death and your algorithms and your spreadsheets, your formulas and your variables, if you did a just war, I get the alchemy would work out so that you could actually predict the future until a week ago, people thought that was actually a real thing, that there were people with spreadsheets and formulas and and math who could actually and I'm not joking. Predict the future most of the world believe that that was the world there were living in. They thought they lived in a reality where there were such wizards. A little window less room somewhere, we don't know where they are, but the wizard have done their math and their magic, and they can actually see the future now. I know nobody claims that they can see. The future perfectly am not claiming that But the whole point of the models right where you thought
us weak. Didn't you think that So if the models were more likely true that not least statistically I'll give you a list, a statistical glimpse into the future. You thought that right. What do you think this week this week this week? You probably think the models are just things that experts make up to persuade you because model they're just things that experts used to persuade you. The models are used to persuade you. What the experts believe is true in most cases actually believe is true- but then it will have a good way to explain it and to convince people to act on it, so they build the mouth, but the bottles that truth, the model just complete, BS issues, marketing and then people think that the model actually produced information when in fact the model produces. No information is simply a reflection of what
Experts are trying to persuade so watching. People like use Brit Hume, as my example But there is a euphemism, for example, is because I have a lot of respect for him, so that makes it more interesting because some very interesting if people that you or idiots we're wrong last weaken the another judge for yourself why there were less weakness that interesting you dumb people being done, is not a story. But when you see somebody as experience and smart and accomplished as Bro, who certain This is the whole field, or so you would think feel as if just watching his tweets in his reactions to the models with couches, I feel like I'm watching him getting red build in real time well he's understanding that the experts were not intending to tell the truth and other.
They were intending that the model would scary you, because that's how they could get the compliance that they they legitimately thought, so, I believe everybody involved is doing their level best to produce a good result. Nobody, nobody in the story, has bad intentions. Nobody in the story is not smart, everybody. The stories marked smart, very accomplished: professionals, Obray, human, the news business fetch you in the medical business. But watching watching people realise that the models were never intended to tell you the future. They are only intended to persuade is really a big mind, efforts, No, I mean a lot of people are waking up into a new reality which they realise that these so called experts, certainly no more than we do now saying you should ignore experts, but you can't trust them too,
give it to you straight when that doesn't work. So in a perfect world, the x, It was a here's what we know: here's what we don't know, here's why we have a strong consensus in this direction, but this is all we know don't know more than we know. Is what we know and here's our recommendation. If they did that, I think them. I think the scientists now wouldn't work wouldn't be persuasive and scare anybody, people would look at us you don't know right. You just said you just This expert you know some stuff but you're, not sure, And there's a whole bunch of stuff. You admit you don't know, so variables that are just assumptions, so I get to act on that. Am I going to act on your big bunch of gases, probably that serve instead, the report in the form of
model, and then people look at the model they say well. I wouldn't necessarily trust these scientists, their opinions that behaves the models of model I'm in now. It's now. It's just evidence. Now it's just a ejected. Now it's just the fact one of this graph and of course it's not objective. It's not a fact. It's just the experts finding, communicate that works. I asked this question just before keep on one minute before I came on aren't you see in the answers? If anybody estimate and then the question was us- does a resist this kind of American anywhere in the country three hundred and twenty seven million Americans, Is there any one of us who would fit the following description this week? Ok, does this person exam
someone who believes that the corona virus models were bogus, but they believed that the climate science models are credible. Does such a person exist? Quick now, if that sounds like an opinion, I'm not trying to make it that way and tried to make. It I'm not giving an opinion and climate science or growth a virus. I'm just saying that if you of one kind of mind choose the models, don't work. Wouldn't you apply that terrible situations, given that there are both highly complicated lots of assumptions, etc?. So I think that the the most consistent then person is believes they grow. Virus models were good or good enough, but also believes that the climate models are good or good enough directly and I'm just curious. If there are people out there,
who have split the difference in said, yeah models can be terrible and this one's bad, but this will still pretty good. Do they exist? I think of you. Fewer and fewer than. I've seen your question says is Mark Cuban on the task force. I do not know. I do not know the composition of the task forces can be really interesting. Is that the president said something like he was even sure what party they belong to He was very indicated. He was thinking by partisan terms for the committee, but I wonder if it actually ends up that way, because you know Republicans. The more likely to search out and ask other Republicans.
But it would be good if he hasn't Democrats on there. I think that would be the smart way to go. So here is my big question for the weak or maybe the month it will see if any of you have some visibility, and this really could tweeted at me afterwards and the question is this: There seem to be, in a general sense, two ways to reopening a colony. One of the ways to do it by geography and say that this is not a hot spots. Are you this? This zip code can open up, and you can imagine that it will be obvious, logical reasons why that makes sense But another way to go and, of course, by the mixture of the two, another way to go just to keep them straight in head. Is you would. Open the economy to people who were low, individual arrests, so one matter where they were.
It would only matter if they individually had a risk of dying if they call it so that we can include people recover people? Are young people, don't have no complications of other health problems? That sort of thing and the question I asked if you had to have a plan and the say was biased and one of those directions cause is probably going to be a combination right. My guess is they'll be something about geography, but also be something about individuals. Rights could be a little But if you had to emphasise one over the other, which one would get you the greatest statistical effectiveness were also opening the academy. No look at your college, her for a moment because, yes, so everybody uses. Do both. That's not the comment, I'm looking for. Because I know it will be a combination of both I'm asking about wait, stop saying both please,
We all know is both some about a both, but. Is it primarily a gag was like people are just gonna say both in the comments, because nobody wants to make a decision here today. So there's somebody income saying I favour individual, but is that? same as saying it will be the most effective year. You might have a personal preference because it gets you back to work faster, but to find effective outside effective would be the best balance of economic recovery with low death rate. But you would have to make that decision yourself. So I'm not to give you a standard for that. Just what's your sense of it. It is because the the thing that has me stymied is a usually risks, or at least
a little bit, obviously from thirty thousand feet, usually even look at two choices in Norwich ones, the risky one, but in this case I actually dont have a guess. If so he says they the questions to ask again. If we reopen the economy, would it be smarter to focus on geographies? They don't have a problem or would it be smarter, focus on individuals. No matter where you are You're, a low risk individual go back to work now events, then it will be a combination of both, but you could have an emphasis on one year could be firstly, about geography with a little bit of individual stuff, or vice versa. Somebody says regional is most effective. Why. If it's been studied that I think I would accept that
sir, but just stating that one would be more effective than the other without reason is not convincing. Me. Because I'm trying to try to give them my head. I think you do the same thing right now, which is you're literally criminal little picture in your mind, of like zip code, You're saying you PETE coming in and out, which is a course. We are ruining the integrity of the zip code that had no problems until people started coming in now. So if they go back to work, don't they just get the same infection rates eventually as New York and everybody else retiring? So actually I'm sorry to former and opinions vary preliminary, and it goes like this. If you but by geography, but you don't limit travel. You are guaranteed to bring the virus in into a situation.
In which nobody's and lock them, so they risk of spread is basically guaranteed. And if you ve also the limited the high risk individuals, if ever make any made any difference about any else you should expect that you would reach something like sixty percent infection eventually, because that's what it takes to get to her to be really, I guess so. So that's what love but compare that the model where still have mass infections, because you're sending the people were safe back to work, except the mass infections would be almost entirely on people who have a very low key.
The dying from it. So if you send the people or individually most likely to survive, they can get you close to heard infection or herd immunity which, by the way, is now even questioned, we're not even sure we have heard any other day but operating another assumptions, so I'm going to say that your best play would be to send as many young people out to get infected as you possibly could and then try to get them to hurt immunity with the fewest number of deaths. As you possibly could that's my current opinion, because if you just to avoid zip code, there's too much leakage from other places and then they have exactly the set up their causes, ITALY, which is you not doing any social distancing at least not the aggressive think. So
thus my preliminary opinion, but I would like to your experts cause, I don't feel like I could settle, and that is as strong somebody says: geography with strict borders. I thought about that. Expensive depends how you define strict. You would, of course, have to let supplies and goods server or girls, mostly cross border. You could probably limit services if he had to it would be really inconvenient, but people can get their service within the boundaries of they had to that might just make some adjustments. Yeah, here is one of the big question marks in my mind. I I of course have a special place in my heart, for the restaurant business are used.
The cobbler restaurants didn't work out for me as a Europe which has no surprise. By the way, I like to hasten to tell people that when I opened my restaurants, I did it when I was rich enough that it didn't matter to me financially if they manage or not now they didn't make. But it was like. I was surprised rating, however, was immensely rich experience, which I would probably do again. If I had the choice and I learned it just a ton. It was bo good for the town and I heard the other. I employed a lot of people during that time. So I'm glad I did But so I have a little bit of insight into their business that you wouldn't necessarily have if you'd only been a customer Non Oda and here's. What I think might happen because this current of our situation, it
the next year I don't see how restaurants could be profitable and most of them would go out of business. The independence, especially and the reason is that most independent restaurants have to operate pretty close to one hundred percent capacity to even have a chance of profits server. If you take your average, the neighbourhood independently on restaurant, and you take ten percent of the profits away there, there already negative. That's probably all needs to take arrows five percent restaurants and a negative territory, because it's not a big margin business. So my guess is that the next year. There isn't really any reasonable way that the smaller restaurants could possibly stay in business for their long, we're doing doing things They ve always done it, which is trying to pack left the room and it may not even be legal. So here's what I'm thinking
imagining the ways the restaurants could quickly. Re figure reconfigure to become a different kind of business without spending a lot of money, something I would immediately boost their income and maybe give them a chance, and just there's some brainstorming ideas, what I idea is to rent tables in the restaurant. For work at home people who just wanna go someplace, that's not their own house! Now, you work at home every day you, But you know what I'm gonna do this right you work at home, kids there and you get You got a spouse, their grandparents. He had done those run around you get people deliver and stuff. Hard together, they work done in your own house. Sometimes a lot of people would be willing to rent a table in a restaurant was
during the afternoon hours, the say two p m to five p m. Let's say the morning from seven, a m to eleven am, and you can just rent a table no, you just stay there and get some food to go, worry your lunch. They are also rickety your lunch and then just stay in rent the table for a few hours. He just bring your laptop ages. Do you work, but you don't make any phone calls So that's one model is basically combines, was Starbucks already does successfully, which is essentially their rent, you tables, but they dont directly charge it They they sort of embarrass you to buying Starbucks products and if you buy their products, well the new sort of have indirectly rented a table league in Sudan. She leaped up the president's already talking about baking meal meals, tax deductible for businesses. I think that be a big change
here is another change since broadening lot of us, are getting hurt and take out and delivery, but the problem was taken on. Delivery is the same analogous to the problem of on line school. I complain about online education because all they do is take a camera and pointed at somebody who knows how to teach and that's not even ass to where I learned education could be. If you have the right to family, you right likewise with restaurants. What restaurants did for take out, especially during the crisis, is it the items that are under menu at the prices, Listen on the menu added top of that the delivery fee which, as usual in the fees that you'd the delivery company does
and then basically they just took the same business models and well how about, if we bring into your house now, that's ok, here. It means alone leads needs and if you have a high income, it's is a good alternative, but if restaurants we're trying to succeed, like in this new environment. One way they might go is to become a meal replacement business. Maybe in addition to thine and stuff, but you could. Maybe them changing doing their business, into almost exclusively meal replacement business, in which They may be are not doing the high stakes but every day they have three or four choices than a family of four would want to eat and and then they price it so that it doesn't, he owes its not outrageous so alive. As do the pricing, so I think they could make a meal replacement model which they do
I have now right now it's a restaurant model that they delivered your house, which is not the best of both worlds, that there could be redesigned. I also imagine that you could turn regular restaurants into Dr Throughs or drive ups or like the old days, were you into a diner in your car and these server rolled up on rollers gates to the door of your car. So I there's a business in my town. The cells, ice cream the dairy and has been there forever as an institution in my town and it's a driver so based you you get in line in your car and they usually teenagers about. They ask you what you want you in line, by the time you get up to the front line, there almost ready and they just handed to easy pay so very efficient. But here's was interesting
The business was not really designed as a drive thru business. I think it just sort of evolved that way, cuz and and then they started changing the street. So there was so much business for this one ice cream place that the town started, putting cones out on sand making it easier for long line to four, and so I can easily imagine that some restaurants would transform their parking lot into the restaurant. So you could drive up new car order from your car. Maybe there's a movie or something playing in the parking lot and get people and rollers gates or not bring your food up, but there there try to keep it that's right or maybe they don't have embraced the food up? Maybe they just leave on the table, with a number of you go and get yourself whatever is the least contact.
I also think that maybe movies will just go any business, because a measure that going to the movies even makes sense anymore. In my opinion, going to the movies was sort of the default plan. If you didn't have anything fun to do, they mean in the old days going to the movies was actually an event that you like doing, but today, with our attention span being so small and movies being so bad and the alternatives on our phone from what do you do being so good that actually going to a movie sitting earns abominable conditions which is not as good, and I feel like that, endemic. My urges end movies as a business and move it to your house and your phone I am fascinated by the fact that this Russia.
Collusion coup situation has gigantic breaking news right in the middle of a crisis, and nobody cares I guess I'm gonna talk about it and even I can find a way to care about it, even as important as it is because of the alternatives and so I guess John Solemn confirmed on, should entities radio that there are multiple grand jury subpoenas going out on behalf of authority, John Durham and were also learning that the FBI a new, the F B, I knew that defies applications were both Yosemite. The investigation was bogus and they did it So there are, a lot of stuff is unread acted. Learning more recent. We saw unproductive thing with George Papadopoulos in which the whoever was the intelligence operative was trying to get him to admit some kind of crime, and he was do whatever the
so the vendor rigour cried, he said now. I know you do that. That's illegal stuff, they sound like you meant it because he didn't know they use being. He didn't know that you're talking to an operative and he was talking it looked like you just talking Frankly, it is pretty clear. You didn't know about anything that was out of ordinary. You don't know. Anything is very clear when you see the conversation and now we know that, and now we can now we can. To go back backer rewrite our own personal histories of whatever we thought about this situation before I started out sceptical I Sergio skeptical with there were some kind of organised curtains. I'm still, those you're were organised means, as in If they had a leader Oh you don't know if meetings They were all aware of the other people in the plot
a saying that that's demonstrated but is pretty clear that a lot of people at the same somewhat spontaneous notion that if they could degrade the president in any way, it would be good for their team. So my guess is There was a little bit colluding, certainly those individuals talking to each other about what they could do. Would you, but I don't know how organized it was. And he was it organise down to the point of trying to put their own person in charge, or was it somewhat autonomy? people just knew they didn't like the president. They didn't care, maybe they don't care. Who reply there was also a democrat- gives us a different coup, you're one Who says, I'm gonna get rid of the person whose air, but I'm gonna, put in a specific person whose my person that's The other one is the sort of people. The elder own personal trawler you just
in. I can do this and I feel bad about the president. So I'll do this one thing I can do- and I hope other people are doing things at all. I see the new. Just doing their thing and embarrassing. Other Democrats are doing their thing all looks like we're all, the signal, I feel like might have been more like that, but we'll find out hears this others, the bigger debate I'm seeing is about the police state nor the things were doing for the krona virus is pushing us too far too. One nineteen, eighty four and big brother and dictatorship and police state These are all things do not joke about and they're all serious.
But some of the examples are churches are being forced to novel services together license plates for being recorded of anybody. You does so they can be followed up with later one town the sidewalks have been designated. For which direction, so you can get in trouble if you're on the wrong side, walkin runway, you can get in trouble if your surfing by yourself. Sitting on a beach all by yourself, so there. These things that are being dragged off a bus, for an hour ago, Maskew, depending on your city,. And then there's the talk of some kind of identification documents, if you can prove you have antibodies now, of course, a lot of the freedom freedom, people, which is most people, but a allow, the conservatism, saying or saying yo damn it. It's gone too far were given up our freedom, our freedoms. For this and its now,
Fourth, it I have no respect for any of those opinions. None no respect led to all the people who say you can't be closing the churches and telling us word is served from the beach and giving his ideas, and all that I have no respect for the people whose opinion is. We can't do that because it's bad for unless they believe all those things and they can put a number on it If you can put a number of those actually opinion, otherwise is just vision. If you can say me, look, I think that the state should not put all these restrictions on us, I think we should be allowed to live our lives. The people who were more days. Are they know they are they? Can I the rest of us? What are we? can you tell me that's a good opinion
Oh, you can put a number of deaths on it. They are willing to accept for your preferred plan without that, without that you just bitching, nobody should even list. It was whatsoever. So if all you're complaining about is somebody was allowed to go to church was allowed to serve whatever. I have no respect for your opinion, then, unless you can tell me how many people you willing to kill to reserve that right and then I might agree with you or I might disagree, but I would fully respect and opinion that had a number on it. Here's the worst thought You gonna have other things bad, but you might take that way. I think, in order to get past the growth of our situation, we're going to have to make one of the hardest choices, a free country ever married- and it goes like this- we can have privacy
or we can have freedom, but we care how both anymore and here's a specific example. Freedom would be the freedom to you. Gotta work go where you wanna go to the beach gonna change, so that's the freedom and talk about Freedom of where you go and what you do. In order to have that in the age of the virus. You could almost have to give up your privacy because don't see any way we could ever get there. Unless I'm some people are willing to have contact tracing less. They have their phones monitored where they are. So you know who touches. Who gets in contact with somebody else. Maybe something like the idea: carves could be digital, it doesn't have to be a physical document or a corridor avenue wallet, but I
probably the very minimum, we're going to need to do, is to give up our privacy about who has been tested, what the result is and where they ve been in terms of content the other people short of doing those things. I honestly don't see any way past it laid out because even if he had testing You still sordid needs those tested and who isn't right? Do you feel like you? You have to have you have to have some records of who got tested written so there's your privacy, their people will know if you didn't get tested, probably the author even collecting that information, but I think we can get to the other side without giving up freedom. Now. Here's the Good NEWS is something IRC Wednesday was saying talking about going to Mars wanted.
Boys? I hope I am. I hope I am presenting accurately there's always a risk on that, but one of his voice was there as humans become more God like in our powers. In other words, one person will have the power to build a nuclear weapon and destroy. The country so as individuals get more and more powerful, which has just given right, will have our drones and our weapons of mass destruction and you'll be all the buyer corona virus. The dark net, so people will get more and more dangerous and the only way to protect against that wine was saying well, some of us are just gonna- have to leave the planet go to Mars. What are our vessels? It goes. How do you get? Only good people on Mars mean eventually some terrorists are going up on Mars do so, so I don't think you can escape it.
I believe that the only way we will be able to live together as each of us individually gain godlike powers is to give up to give up privacy. In other words, this system is going to need to identify people who were developing a player, so they can stop him before they do. Otherwise we just want build, live on the same planet, though you know, if there's only half of one percent of us who are crazy and willing to kill the rest of us, that's the end of the planet because they have percent will have the complete capability to ruin. The rest of the planet will have the motivation, the ability to do it and nothing can stop him except a complete loss of privacy so that you can see of developing.
So this is the toughest thing we all arrive to do, since maybe the american revolution. We will actually have to explicitly decide to give up one of our most cherished rights privacy. But here the Good NEWS? I think we can figure out how to do it without the big downside risk. Now, of course, as soon as you give our privacy- and I don't know- somebody said this in the convention- but I would expect at the moment you give our privacy smarter, Who will say well, let's just a bit of the end, because once you get about privacy, the government was too much about you and then tyranny can happen and dictatorships because they have too much control over you, because I know too much about you. I have empathy for their position, but I think we can cleverly get pass that with this insight.
As long as the government also doesn't have privacy you'll be fine Our situation is if the government will say that people run in the government, they have all of their privacy and they can operate behind closed doors, and you don't know what's happening. But you ve lost all of yours. That's the worst possible situation possess pretty much begging for a dictator that boy right, but Those are our transparency of a government is complete whatever. That means I'm talking conceptually now. So, if the government has a meeting you find out what they talked about, if somebody decides to fight your name in a government database, maybe that this system is designed to get a message and says the governor. Just looked at your name on this list and then you can say: hey tweeted,
This was the governor. Looking at my name on the list was: what's that got to do with anything now, I'm strata make up examples of their bad ones, but the point is: if, the public could see everything that our leaders were doing, which we can now so require much more attractive, Then we would not be in so much risk that they will used our lack of privacy. Now. I think also you could gain the system to protect privacy They were getting so some of the benefits, for example, Google others have this announcement weather you can make it possible for you to have an app. There were track, who came in contact with whom, because your bluetooth would be on your bluetooth would recognise each other when he came close. So if you get the virus and you get tested- and you have, it
The sum up an algorithm can find the people you were with and send them a message and say you be careful whatever. Whatever the vices. There will be easy to write this system so that no human being was ever directly alerted to who was involved. Now is the programmers could create the system, and just let it run. And nobody would actually see who is getting the tax so yeah some anonymity built into the into the process, but, as all of you will quickly now That doesn't really protect you cuz. The programmers can find out who you are they right? They wrote the software they can find out, who you are and the government can tell the programmers to find out who you are.
Really. The government has full access to find the girl anything they want about you, but they already have that the government can already find out anything there. One about you, you only think it's so my point is: if we can build some tools that you would think would give up. Some of your privacy as long as the government was also more transparent and is now we can make it work and we could you're anonymity, except for maybe the programmers. But then, if you have enough visibility, they even they can't. They can't do anything bad with across everybody's watching. So that's the basic idea. That's where we're going utopian thinking Is it I would say utopian? Thinking would be if you believe the people would act upon their good nature and good impulses. So I was thinking impractical.
Utopian opinion would be. Our people will share. People will not be selfish once people have all they did, they won't steal viable. If any that, so so, my what I just described, I think, is the opposite of utopian, because it makes the worst assumptions about human nature. You should build this if your system is gonna survive, it needs to make the worst assumptions about people and still work given. Let me give you two examples: Denmark, democracy works and Democratic republic? They were even though all the individuals voting or fucking I'm sorry, even, though, all the individuals voting are mostly areas and still it works so you can make the worst assumption about the citizens, but you can still see that a
system well designed cancels out the idiots something that all the areas they well looks good. I I voted. I feel good about this, even though my persons and when likewise with capitalism, capitalism, makes the worst assumptions about human. Things that were selfish and there will do anything to screw somebody else as long as we can get away with it, and then they built a system called capitalism. We all act, selfishly an excess wretch. That's it that's a good system so, likewise with his privacy question you and have whatever you did. You'd have to design it. So the worst impulses of human beings is built into the system and So whoever said I'm thinking like a utopian, you would be right if I had ever been any assumption about people doing the right thing, but I always aggressive
make the opposite assumption that we're all evil and selfish less somebody's watching. So that's why I add the transparency, because the government would be evil and selfish. If you were watching saying things could be more efficient, is utopian tracked, correct here, we're constitutional Republic, with democratic principles are giving that Scottish famous, who is already a non private person, with nothing to lose well. First of all, I respect their comments because it echoes and things I've said before, that I've effectively lived in your future, which is that I have lived in the world for decades in which I don't have privacy the way other people do, meaning that I assume the hackers are trying harder to get my stuff. I assume the people in the Gulf
and people and social media have snoop them my messages, and I just assume I d: do you assume that? Would you assume that big social media network, has looked at your actual messages. Your private messages. Would you ever assume that, probably not right, because they wouldn't care So you have the privacy of nobody caring, but I do assume that everybody is a famous person, probably has had there's their private messages looked over by programmers and developers. That and other people like that, so I've always assumed that I don't have privacy the way other people do just because there's more interest in violating it and, of course, it's possible to program the systems have every ability to look at all the information, of course, but
This is a type of privacy I was talking about. Even I still have, which is the privacy of of movement without being tracked, so the specific privacy I was talking about is losing losing my privacy of who I talk to and where I was. And I'm saying that I would give that up to cuz at the moment I have the same privacy. You didn't know, but you know nobody knows where I drove my car yesterday only I know, but I would give that up if it meant it's the only way to go back to work Are you saying the nanny state is inevitable, with advanced technology? I would call I wouldn't. I don't wanna use your term because there's something different about what I think, what I think, is that the system little work is not the nanny state where the government, a sort of the nanny- and you like that
open, but rather something more like a stand off. No mutually assured destruction is what I call so instead of saying it's a nanny state, I would say what I favour is mutually assured. Destruction, which is politician, you haven't you other physical ability to violate my privacy. But if you do, you will lose your job. Because I'm gonna know about it. We have we have so much transparency, I'm gonna know about it. So if you violate my privacy for no good reason, you lost your job so system that I think would work, would be mutually assured. Destruction now, nothing's, perfect, so could you design a system in which there no way anybody could violate your privacy without getting caught know, probably not
but I'll buy you most of it that you can do a real job. Nothing is perfect and if you can't design them, then I'd probably vote with you that you don't want to give up your privacy. I wouldn't give our privacy unless we had that extra transparency again, the death rate for healthy people is much closer to fly like. Why would they lose freedoms? I feel, like you, haven't Bennet paying attention. Can somebody in the comments answer this question before I have two? Why would why would the people who are not at risk. Any more than regular, flew the people were healthy and young. Let's say female: why should they be prevented from going out when their risk is no greater than it is for other stuff
no one. Actually this greater, but you could argue what's in that range. Zamboni won't give the answer, because I am frustrated that is not obvious, so might take walkers Isn t like lemme, give the answer. The answer is that all you, people who do not have- dying, not much risk the young people, the ideas that you go out and get infected and take her home and kill grandma, It really is about you, so if you're the only person existed, and all your personal risk mattered yeah go back to work. The only thing that matters was you: what What are we doing any of the answer you diner pretty darn allow the entire purpose to protect people. You don't even know whose names
never know. Now, if you say I don't want to do that, the cost benefit does work that well. You can make that amendment, but don't make the argument that individuals can just manage their individual risk. We don't live in that world. Your risk could kill me. You have a pretty long history of saying that you can have your freedom. Unless it kills me yeah, you can smoke your cigarettes unless around me. You can drive, you can drive without a licence, since on the road that I'm on public grown, so You will all of our rights? balanced against other people's costs and benefits as well and now, can you changed? I mean that's, not the wages, so anybody, the things that this situation will be the one situation in the world in which all
your individual risk will matter that you need to wake up, you don't live in their world, you don't live in a world where only your individual risk will be the determinant of what the policies it's always about. What you do and how it affects other people. They couldn't be the other way. There would be no point in having a government there's no point having a government if everybody can just do was in their personal best interest, the sole point: This conference, as I'm stuck on this, if we do this for hundred to two thousand lives? Why not for eighty thousand or fifty thousand good question here Why is almost everybody whose thinking wrong about this makes? The same mistake wishes to compare, mitigated low low number with IE
the unmitigated number of regular flew. So the mitigated, number of regular flew could get up to fifty thousand Athos right and why we as a society of decided here, if that's, that Many people you lose fifty days thousand near. We think we should leave the economy open for that. So the questioner ass well, it's only fifty two thousand there. We keep it open for the regular flu like it, might only be sixty thousand for this one. Why wouldn't we keep it open for this, because, not the same one. That is the full navigation. One is with no mitigation. You can, during a rock to a giraffe. If your help, if you're stuck you haven't been paying attention to anything the most
The important thing you have to understand is: if we did not mitigate the corona virus, That would be a hundred thousand deaths. Gonna, be a million gonna, be a million ask yourself. How how powerful is another shelter and place the social isolation? How much does it work well, according to the models, the difference between what we're doing to mitigate, and that is the difference between a million people dying in something So your hundred thousand maybe leave be lower. So it's about a ten to one or twenty one death rate between mitigating and that mitigating that no clear what is the flu is added to under thousand. If the regular flu was a two hundred thousand, then we will certainly ever.
Station, about closing the aim that phrase having conversation we would be debating whether we should do something about it, but you are also still missing the point: if the Red The had the risk of killing a million, we were treated just like us one, so maybe I can summarizes for every risk there a risk of killing a million people. We always treat their rest the same way as very serious and if a risk, my killed, fifty thousand it has been our way to let it go. Fifty thousand people died in cars or or less. Do you think it lots of things in which some fifty thousand people die? But you can't think too many things that kill a million people smoking. Actually smokers gave a special case. Is his grandfather, din and were then people are literally hotel?
Somebody says I will never trust the rulers. Well, that's a good somebody says exasperated Scott is mostly well, could I be more and more exasperated then intelligent people comparing a fully mitigated flow with one. That's not. I see that comparison. One more time I think my head is, could explode because that's really less the most basic thing you have to understand. If you don't understand that we can only have the sixty thousand around without this with aggressive mitigation, if you don't understand that and that the real number two comparative flu is a million and I think, that's low. By the way
some smart people are starting to say we don't really have a plan that doesn't kill. Two percent of our population this point six was a herd. Was they heard, immunity happens round points, seven. Seventy percent of the public has a? U can get hurt immunity current doktor US sixty five to seventy percent, since they suddenly so If we, even if we slowly go back and manage our risks, were probably gonna get to sixty percent of three hundred and twenty seven million times too for some people are gonna die. They just won't die all in three months, so we might be. The spread out the hospital impact which would be important in which would be a thing. But when you talk about going back to work, unless you ve got the testing in place or dna testing to therapeutic serve
is there something unless you have those things your candidate about killing a million people just spreading it out so we'll see what happens area this I got for today. Well, know I'm bored today tonight more tonight, so he says what about Sentinel sentinels, not legal as a recreational drugs. So that's already legal and I'll talk to you tonight. You know when
Transcript generated on 2020-04-16.