 Good night mate. Cody here. I was just thinking it can be a live streamer commenting on the news and the type of help would be a sort of guru. I have a tiny audience and you're a tiny guru. It's like when Charles Buckley, the NBA player, said I don't want to be a role model, I'm not a role model. Both styles shouldn't be role models. Well, I guess we'll have a lot of role models this summer. And if you're a live streamer, and if you have three people watching live, you're a role model, but I like to head to summer in some area of the life. I think all of us are role models this summer and all live streamers and bloggers, we can't help but be role models. But when you're commenting on the news, and you're the guru live streamer, it's really easy just looking at conspiracy theories because you have to give the audience something that they can't get elsewhere. So how do you give the audience something that they can't get elsewhere? You, oh, this is nice. I wonder if we can keep reception down here. You can't just give them what's in the New York Times, the Washington Post or the Sydney Morning Herald. You have to give them something that they can't get on the ABC News. The easy way to do that is to read meaning into all sorts of events where meaning is not there. So that's conspiracy theories where you're reading meaning into events where meaning is not there. You're being romantic, you're reading more into an event that's like a rigid Spencer. It's consistently reading more into an event that is really there. And that's the overwhelming temptation if you're going to be a live streamer commenting on the news is to read meaning into events where meaning is not really there. Now, the alternative if you're commenting on the news, not to slip into conspiracy theories, but to understand how the news works and what its weaknesses are. So news is a business designed to attract eyeballs to then sell products to people. So the news people who make news generally don't want to get sued. So they have a strong preference for bureaucratic arrived at decisions. So legal decision, the police department says the health commissioner says so news tends to be very strong unofficial sources. And so sometimes the official sources are accurate, but often unofficial sources are far more accurate. So if you can get good unofficial sources about what's going on, then you can consistently produce insights into what around you without falling for bogus conspiracy theories. And you can give something that's worthy and valid. So often that people's subjective experience is more powerful and more important than say bureaucratically arrived at pronouncements. So bureaucratically arrived at pronouncements, sometimes they're accurate, not just a lot, but they're inaccurate. And when you recognize that bureaucracies and experts have biases and incentives to react in one way or another, then I think as a commentator you can do some insights without falling into conspiracy theories. So recognizing that the news media is a business that's trying to sell eyeballs, trying to sell ads, therefore has an incentive to hype the news that makes us dramatic. So the incentive that the people bring you the news is not the same as your incentives. The incentive that people bring you the news is to hold your attention. What's the easiest way to hold your attention is to try and make something as dramatic as possible. As important as possible. To, in all likelihood, read far more into events than we really did. To try to see nationwide meaning in the Akman-Abrie trial. So recognizing that bureaucracies are fallible, that they often respond to incentives. Recognizing those incentives enables you to kind of decode the news. I'm a big fan of the New York Times. We're trying to pose our journal on Santa's Times. But I recognize that these are bureaucracies that they very much want to respect their fears. They operate under incentives that are not the same as you and me. And therefore we can decode the news. Recognizing, for example, that different people have different gifts. So if there's a teacher's test in New York City where different groups have different results, that doesn't mean that the test is racially biased. It may mean that different groups have different commitments and abilities and disciplines with regard to learning. So that's an obvious area where the news media generally fears to tread. So Steve Saylor, I think, is someone who consistently provides useful insight for valuable, often critically important insights into the news. Just by recognizing statistical patterns and recognizing that not all groups have identical gifts. And recognizing that bureaucratically arrived at decisions are not necessarily more accurate than unofficial experiences and realizations and insights. They don't have to be conspiracy theorists to be a live streamer, though it helps. Alright guys, don't be racist.