 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. All right everybody, welcome to Iran Brookshow on this Monday. And we're back. We're back talking about doing our news roundup. So we'll be back. I should put on the video. There I am. Thanks everybody for joining me. These are daily shows that I do while I'm in town. We'll do one every day this week. And we'll go from there. We'll see what happens when I'm on the road. But so for this week and then Monday and Tuesday next week, we'll have these news roundups. As you know, we count on Super Chat partially to fund this show. And the goal for the Super Chats for the news roundup is $250. Get some questions ready. Or get support ready. And you can use the Super Chat to support the show. All right. Let's jump right in. I thought I'd start quickly before we get to the topic I listed with a story out of Russia. I want to give you just a quick sense of the kind of regime that people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Taka Cawson and many, many, many people on the right. And many as well within the, I guess, the libertarian movement are supporting. Who are these people that so many people in the U.S. seem to be, seem to be in support? Well, Vladimir Moza, who has been a journalist but is an opposition activist in Russia, was just sentenced to 25 years in jail in a strict regime correctional colony. Sounds like Siberia to me. 25 years. What is the sin of Vladimir? The sin is that he criticized the war in Ukraine. He supposedly was spreading false information about the Russian army and was affiliated with quote, undesirable organizations. And this is for this. A former journalist and politician and an opponent of Putin, a critic of Putin for many, many years. He got sent to 25 years and what looks like hard labor because he criticized because he is a dissenter because he criticized the Kremlin. This, again, is the regime being that much of the right is now actively, actively supporting. This is the statement that Vladimir Moza put out last week, knowing he was going to be sentenced. He quote every word that I've said, not only do I not repent any of this, I am proud of it. Pretty powerful stuff, pretty powerful stuff. He says, I know that the day will come when the darkness engulfed my country will clear our society will open its eyes and shutter when it realizes what crimes are committed in its name. The sentence, the court lasted just a few minutes. It took the judge just a few minutes, just like in the old Soviet show trials. A little bit of evidence that the state makes its claim and the judge rules and convicts and sentences all went very efficient and sent out. So pretty, pretty horrible, but they have it. This is what he's done to political opponents of Vladimir Putin. All right, let's jump in, talk about JK Wallens. So as you as you probably know, JK Wallens attempt to be made over the last few years to cancel JK Wallens because of things she said about transgender. You know, there are places in our culture, there are places in Hollywood, there are places among, among I'd say the cultural elites where JK Wallens name is unmentionable. He, she whose name should not be mentioned. If you remember that's how that was Voldemort, he who's who should not be mentioned Voldemort or she was treated. She got the Voldemort treatment and any affiliation with her was dramatically criticized. So it came as a little bit of a surprise when the new, I guess times one streaming service called Max, which includes HBO and a bunch of other stuff announced. I guess over the weekend or late last week that they had just signed a deal to bring Harry Potter to the network and to do a decades long deal where I guess every season will be a book. So they will they will do a long form treatment of Harry Potter, not just not just, you know, the movie treatment but actually do a TV series. A lot of money is going to be put into this. It's a lot of talent is going to be poured into this. This is Max, which is the new name of the streaming service, which includes I said, as I said HBO, this is going to be their flagship. And this is going to be a big deal. Now I for one, as a fan of Harry Potter's original books, I'm looking forward to this. This will be fun. It'll be a fun series. It'll be a fun show. I'm sure it will be well done. HBO, as we know, has a record of producing really amazing TV shows. And with today's special effects and everything else, this will be a lot of fun. This will be this will be great visually. And the story, of course, is is fun. It's really good. But what was surprising to people is not that they are doing this was surprising to people that J.K. Rowland was actually listed as an executive producer on the show. And many people out there in the Internet is going nuts around this. Many people out there are shocked, dismayed, upset. How could this woman be allowed to be an executive director? She is banned. She is she is canceled. And and there's a lot of a lot of stuff, you know, on Twitter, on social media in in kind of among the cultural elites in terms of how dare how dare she she make this she make this statement. So it's good to see J.K. Rowland's being uncanceled. But I thought I take the opportunity of this to actually go back and look at what did J.K. Rowland actually say? How did she upset people so much? What did she actually say to get herself canceled in the first place? So I found an article called a complete breakdown of J.K. Rowland's transgender comments controversy in Glamour magazine, which is very much very much a, you know, anti J.K. Rowland's and very much seem to support her cancellation. So I figured they would bring out the worst stuff, the worst stuff that J.K. Rowland's has written. Unfortunately, they're not really presenting this in a format once and let me just switch formats because the format is not doesn't make it easy for me. So I thought I'd read you some of the tweets that got J.K. Rowland's into deep water and canceled and being called a a transphobe and anti trans and everything else. And so let's see if we can find this stuff. God, why is it making it so difficult? It wasn't difficult a minute ago. All right, we'll get there. All right, we'll get there as this page loads very, very slowly. It's like it's really it's like it's like it's as if this website does not want me, does not want me to actually have access to this to this story. Okay, so let's let's give it a let's give it a little bit. Anyway, yeah, I mean, time one is standing by J.K. Rowland's they they they are not withdrawing they've been challenged they've said oh no no we've had a productive amazing relationship with J.K. Rowland's for for a very long time we have no intention of moving away from this relationship and we expect to continue to work with J.K. Rowland's and she's definitely part of this program. All right, so what did she say this is a tweet from June 6 2020 part of and she's commenting on an article that basically says Look, well, I mean, an article that refers to non trans women, regular women, women as people who menstruate. So J.K. Rowland's wrote in quotes people who menstruate. I'm sure they used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Woman woman woman that got in deep trouble. It's like women menstruate people who menstruate are women. And but you can't do that because women include now the concept of women supposedly has to include trans women and trans women don't menstruate so you can have a concept. So what is she standing up for? She's standing up for a traditional a traditional a science based traditional definition of women and rejecting the idea that we need some extra concept like to define original women as she got cancer because of this stuff. There's another one. This is J.K. Rowland's and look, J.K. Rowland's just to be clear, J.K. Rowland's a leftist. She's certainly left of center on economic issues. She's she's left to send on pretty almost all social issues. She's considered a radical feminist. She is, you know, on almost every cultural issue, she's on the left. But she's a darling of the conservatives over trans stuff. This is what you wrote. If sex isn't real, there's no same sex attraction. If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn't hate to speak the truth. That's pretty good. You have to admit that's pretty good. She's she she she, you know, is is claiming that sex is real that that is truth. And she's doing it from the perspective also of a lesbian, somebody who has same sex attraction. Well, what does same sex attraction mean if there's no such thing as sex? I mean, there is a big conflict between, you know, generally homosexuality, homosexuals and the trans movement over what does it mean to be a lesbian? She continued that tweet by saying the idea that women like me, who've been emphatic to trans people for decades and sorry, emphatic. God, I can't read sometimes. The idea that women like me, who've been emphatic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they're vulnerable in the same way as women, i.e. to male violence, quote, hate trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences is nonsense. Again, absolutely true. Just true. She's just saying there's such a thing as sex. A trans woman is not a woman. She can be a trans woman she wants. Don't have a problem with that. But she's not a woman. Different experience, different biology, different reality. And she continues. I respect every trans person's right to live any way they feel authentic and comfortable to them. I'd march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life is being shaped by being female. I do not believe it's hateful to say so. This is stuff that gets you, I mean, these crazy trans activists, this is stuff that gets you canceled. This is just what I'm saying. My super chat just crashed on me trying to get it back rolling. Let's see if it'll work. Yeah, I think that works. She continues. Well, no, she continues the different tweet this one. But again, from 2020, I've never felt a shouted down, ignored and targeted as a lesbian within our supposed GLBT community as I have over the past couple of years. That is her comments on trans, what has really made her feel shouted down canceled. This is what Andrew James Carter wrote, I guess he's a trans activist. Since J.K. Rollins has blocked any reply to this litany of half truths and transphobic dog whistles, I thought I'd catalogued them properly here and then he goes on with all this but transphobic dog whistles, transphobic, what was transphobic about what she wrote. There's just, Paris Lee says, there's just no evidence that me being me is causing problems for any other woman. If there are any problems and you know, just, there's no point. I wanted to, I wanted to read you the stuff from J.K. Rollins, not so much from all of these. And of course, I don't know if you know, but Radcliffe and Emma Thompson, Watson, and a bunch of people affiliated with, with, you know, with a bunch of people affiliated with the heavy pot of, the heavy pot of stuff. I've ranted against J.K. Rollins, J.K. Rollins. In July 5th, 2020, J.K. Rollins again on Twitter, I've ignored fake tweets attributing to me. Oh God, what is going on? I've ignored fake tweets attributing to me. And R. Ted Widely, I've ignored porn, tweeted to children on a tweet about their art. I've ignored death and rape threats. I'm not going to ignore this. And she goes, when you lie about what I believe about mental health medication and when you misrepresent the views of a trans woman for whom I feel nothing but admiration and solidarity, you cross the line. She's defending here a friend of hers who's trans. Many health professionals are concerned about young people struggling with their mental health are being shunted towards hormones and surgery, when this may not be in their best interest. Many, myself included, believe we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people who are being set on a lifelong path of medication that may result in the loss of their fertility and or for sexual function. As I've said many times, transition may be the answer for some. For others, it won't witness the accounts of detransitioners. The system sees surgery as the easy fix to girls who do not conform. And, you know, she goes on, I actually found there's an essay. I think I did a show about this a while back. There's an essay that J.K. Rollins wrote about the whole trans phenomena, the whole trans issue. I thought the essay was quite good. I encourage you to look it up. I encourage you to look at her tweets. I think she's actually one of the more thoughtful people writing about the trans issue out there. And again, all of that thoughtful writing has managed to get her cancelled, but it's good to see her being uncanceled and back. And I look forward to watching Harry Potter on Max when it comes out, probably in a year or two. That'll be a lot of fun. All right, some quick news items and then we'll call it a day. Remind people that you can't ask me questions and that we do have a fundraising kind of a support goal of $250. Others were way behind on that. So please consider using the chat. We've only got 52 watching live. Not sure what's happened. Maybe people have gotten out of the habit of the Iran book show during the news roundups on a regular basis. But even at 50, you know, four bucks a person or 10, you know, anywhere between four bucks a person to 10 bucks a person gets us there pretty quickly, gets us to go pretty quickly. And you can do that by giving stickers, which do not involve asking a question. All right, I've talked about the Fox domain lawsuit a number of times. It's a lawsuit I was looking forward to. I think a lot of interesting stuff is going to come out of it. It has significant implications to what is considered defamation and what is considered speech and the world of the media. And to what extent can the media lie and get away with it? And to what extent is clamping down on the media violation of their First Amendment rights? So it's an interesting topic. It's an interesting issue. And I think there's going to be a lot of discussion around it for years to come, depending on how it all pans out. But if, and this is the big if, it ever goes to court, because today's court proceedings, which was supposed to start this morning, were delayed. And there are significant rumors flying that Fox is talking to Dominion about settling the case. I think Fox has a huge incentive to settle this. A lot of stuff is going to come out revealing the lies and the misrepresentation that Fox engaged with during the post-election 2020 and early 2021. I think that is going to make Fox look even worse than they already look. And that Fox has every incentive to settle this. Dominion, it's a $1.6 billion lawsuit, but that's kind of a joke number. Dominion is a tiny little company. If Dominion can collect a few hundred millions off of this, they will be super happy. And they will all become gazillionaires as a consequence of this. The owners of Dominion will do very, very, very well for themselves with a hundreds of millions of dollar legal settlement. And I can't believe there will be less than a few hundred millions of dollars. So don't be surprised if tomorrow either the lawsuit is canceled or it's delayed again as these negotiations continue. But the reality is that it's very likely that Fox and Dominion will actually settle. And we will never actually get to hear some of these Fox people understand trying to justify and explain all their lies and all their misrepresentations. Too bad. I was looking forward to. All right, I wanted to give you a quick update on Iran, not a positive update at all. So Iran, the Iranian regime has announced that it will start prosecuting women who remove their head scoffs. They will start imposing fines and they're going to use, instead of using kind of the morality police to do this, the morality police who killed the woman who started all the protests and everything, they're actually going to use the surveillance state to do this. They're going to use the installed cameras in public spaces, the cameras on highways to catch violators of their dress code and to find them and in some cases to arrest them. Police have sent thousands of messages to businesses and car owners, warning them to comply. Women have to be covered up even when they're in a car. So this is why car owners is important. Iran's police chief announced last week that cameras would be installed. More cameras are going to be installed in order to facilitate all this. I wonder if women can go with their hair uncovered and their face is covered. Maybe that's a way to get around this. The country's deputy attorney general warned on Saturday the prosecutors would charge those urge women to take off the veil as well. So all the activists, the pro women activists are going to be published as well. They also said the punishment for the crime of promoting and encouraging others to remove the hijab is much heavier than the crime of removing the hijab itself. So this is targeted of course at the leaders and at the women and men who are urging a change to Iranian society. All of these offenses will be dealt in criminal court whose decisions are final. There's generally a crackdown being imposed on women who floated the law and we will see how the Iranians rally around this. We'll see what the response is going to be. It's truly sad to see that change didn't happen. But as I told you at the time, it's very, very difficult without having some inside a force, some element inside the regime who supports the protesters to actually see regime change. You have to have the military or the police force or somebody with weapons in support of this to be able to actually get it done. So we will see, we will see. Earlier this month, I don't know if you saw this video, but there was a video out of a man dumping yogurt on the head of a mother and daughter who didn't have, who weren't covering the hair, didn't have a veil. So he dumped a bunch of yogurt on them. In the footage, you see the shop owner and another man chasing this guy outside, so going out and defending the women, right? Now, such actions could be perceived as promoting, eliminating a job and those men who chased out the ones who committed the violent act of pouring yogurt on them, now those men could be charged under the new law. So, not a good situation, not a good situation at all for women in Iran, not a good situation at all for liberty and freedom in Iran. You know, to some extent, I guess I'm not surprised, to a large extent, this is a consequence of the fact that they got very little support from the West. They got very little moral support, they got very little political support. The Biden administration is actively negotiating another nuclear deal behind everybody's back. The Saudis are now all chummy with the Iranians, the Chinese have entered into this. So basically Iran and Iran is much closer to Russia now than it ever has been. Iran feels protected, it feels that, you know, why appease these protesters? Nobody around the world seems to care and we're writing high, relatively speaking, everybody's coming to our doorstep. So this is the consequence of geopolitics in addition to everything else. All right. Oh, finally, yes, I wanted to talk about artificial intelligence. Just a few quick stories about artificial intelligence. As I said, this is going to be a regular feature in the Iran book show just because there's so much to talk about in this. Let's start with the fact that it's just a little bit of history for those of you who don't know. I think I talked about this when I talked about chip wars, but in 1957, a long time ago, Silicon Valley basically got started when eight scientists who were part of Shockley Semiconductor left to form Fairchild Semiconductor, eight scientists. Soon after those scientists landed up leaving Fairchild and from those scientists we got Intel, advanced AMD, Kleiner-Pokens, Sequoia and many, many, many, many other companies. Basically, those eight scientists you could easily say founded Silicon Valley, both some of the major corporations that landed up being Silicon Valley and really two of the most important venture capital firms in the history of Silicon Valley, Sequoia and Kleiner-Pokens. Recently, and I don't know if this parallel holds or not, but I thought it was cute. Recently, seven of the eight scientists who wrote a key paper about large language, what's the M stand for? Something, right? I had this. It slipped my mind. Anyway, the AI basically. Key paper have left Google. They've raised now, these scientists have raised over $1.7 billion for five different startups. Models, thank you Miroslav. So large language models, which is basically the chat GPT kind of stuff. So this was a paper they wrote a few years ago that really was a key paper describing these large language models and was a big move forward in the field. Again, these scientists who've left Google have now started five different startups, $1.7 billion raised. This gives you a little bit of indication of kind of how AI, we're just seeing like the tip of a giant iceberg. Maybe the coolest tip, maybe the tip that is going to get the most press, but AI is getting massive amounts of funding. I think some of the smartest people in the world are going into AI. There are dozens of new companies being founded to apply to create new models of AI and to apply it to every area in life. And indeed Sundar Pichai, who is the Google CEO, Alphabet Google CEO, was interviewed in 60 minutes this last weekend on Sunday. And what he says is interesting and fascinating and absolutely true and we'll be talking about here in the show. He basically says this is going to impact every product across every company. He gives this example, an example I've given as well. For example, you could be a radiologist. If you think about five to ten years from now, you're going to have an AI collaborator with you. You come in the morning, let's say you have a hundred things to go through. It may say, the AI may say to you, these are the most serious cases you need to look at first. And it might, and this is me adding, and it might give you some indications on what that is going to be, what you're looking for in each one of those so that you have the final word, but it has done most of the work overnight. This is maybe one of the most transformative technologies ever, and I really think that. And I think we are living through it and it's going to be really, it's the fun of living through a period like this, the fun of being part of something historic and something meaningful like this, and being able to experience the change that's going to happen. Maybe try to figure out how to profit from that change. Maybe try to figure out what that change means to our lives and what it means to society at large. And this is why I'm going to devote a regular feature to this. I mean, this is going to be something we keep talking about. You know, it's going to be very fast and it's going to be very dramatic. And I think people are afraid, they're not completely rational to be afraid because the world is going to change and people who fear change, people who don't know how to adjust to change, people who are worried about their jobs or people who are worried about how this all evolves, you know, should feel, should feel, should worry, should worry. And people are going to have to think clearly there are going to have to be some ethical standards being applied to this and it's going to be interesting to see how those come about. It will be interesting also to see whether these technologies are thought of by fear, by fear that is promoted within our culture. Okay, final point on AI, which I find interesting, just a few years ago, just a few months ago, there was panic throughout, there was panic among lots of people that I know, but primarily people on the right, people on the left, but generally panic among people within technology, but a lot of people who do politics, that Google had a monopoly of a search and Google was a monopoly company and Google needed to be broken up and Google needed to be regulated and Google needed to be controlled and Google was politically biased and Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, but Google was a problem. I remember a fence house where he showed me a documentary that placed Google as this evil corporation destroying the fabric of our society and that we needed to use antitrust to try to reign Google in. Well, Google is panicking right now because the reality is that Microsoft Bing has integrated chat GPT into its search function and is really, for the first time in a long time, threatening Google's dominance of search. Google search business is under threat and this is just Bing. We don't know what some of these startups are creating. We don't know what some of these new, call them smart apps that are going to use AI to do specific searches for you as an individual. We don't know where those apps, where that technology, where those new companies are going to lead us, but we do know that right now Microsoft is a real threat to Google. Google indeed is racing right now, investing heavily in trying to build a completely new search engine, redoing Google search to integrate with its own AI module called BARD, which is supposedly as good as chat GPT, maybe even better. So there was a real effort now at Google to try to realizing that search is never going to be the same. Search in five years is going to be very different than search is today. And iPhone think that's super exciting and looking forward to the changes and looking forward to what we get. But there are a lot of people out there who worry about this, who are scared by this, and that includes Google. And I wonder what this says about all those, what do you call it, scare mongers, politicians, activists who wanted to break up Google and claim that capitalism always creates monopolies. Always creates monopolies, we're told. Here's another example. Google suppose he was a monopoly, no more, no more. All right, let's see. Finally, just a quick note in terms of the throttling of the technology, just a story about European Union lawmakers want to give regulators new powers to govern the development of technologies like those behind chat GPT. That's what we need. We need governments involved. The new act that they want to pass say that they're committed to adding provisions to the bill aimed at steering the development of very powerful and official intelligence in a direction that's human centric, safe and trustworthy. Now, I do think there will have to be legislation around AI. There's going to open up all kinds of legal cans of worms, if you will. But do I trust any politician of life today to do a good job at passing that kind of laws? Unfortunately, no. So it's going to be very, this is the thing, it's going to be a very difficult period the next decade because we've got this revolutionary technology, true revolutionary technology that is going to change the world. Politicians who don't have the intelligence to understand it, don't have the intelligence to know the implications of it. We have politicians who are tribal, not interested in truth, not interested in science, not interested in reality, and they're going to have to deal with this. Anatomy is a scary part of AI. AI doesn't scare me. It's our political establishment's response to it that really, really, really scares me. Okay, those are the stories that I have. Let's take a look, let's take a look quickly. We're about $100 short of our goal. So we've got 60 people watching, so a couple of bucks from everybody as a sticker would get us where we need to be. Wes says, while irrational cancellation is real, J.K. Rollins continued success. She showed people that outrage and social media does not necessarily translate to the real world. I think that's right, and I think the fact that she's getting this big contract and she's going to be involved in it shows that there's a limit to how much companies are willing to actually go along this canceling politically correct path, particularly when big bucks are involved. You know, the way to deal with cancellation is to stand up to it. The way to deal with cancellation is not new laws, not new bans, not getting the government involved. The way to do it is for those of us who don't believe in this political correct nonsense, this woke stuff, is to just stand up and say, we're not going to succumb to it. We're going to keep dealing with J.K. Rollins. We're going to keep dealing with whoever is being canceled tomorrow. That's the best only legitimate way really at the end of the day to deal with the canceling. Everybody has a right to cancel you. You have a right to be canceled. You have a right to cancel other people, and you have a right to defend yourself. So stand up, grow a backbone. J.K. Rollins has a backbone. Now she also has billions in the bank. It's easier to have a backbone when you have billions in the bank. But we've all got to develop backbones and stand up for what is right and defend the truth and refuse to cave to barbarians on the left and barbarians on the right, to barbarians broadly speaking, to people who don't want to hear or want to silence our speech. Thank you, Wes. Really appreciate the $50. Got us a lot closer to our goal. We're now under $100 to go. So yes, $2 from everybody right now would get us there. Thank you, Stephen. Thank you, Linda. Stephen, five. Linda, two. That's how we chip away at this. Remo, first-time super chatter. So thank you, Remo. Really appreciate it. This is in euros. Let's see. Carl Icahn is one of my heroes in finance. But most of his takeovers in the 80s did not succeed. But he still made a lot of money due to green mailing. What is the economic benefit of failed takeovers due to green mailing? God, this is like a question from my past. I'm going to have to resurrect my knowledge of it. So in a sense, the green mailing is a way in which, so green mailing is, let's say your Carl Icahn, you take a large position in a company. Now, according to U.S. regulation, you notice that green mailing would not be possible in lezovic capitalism. There is no green mailing in lezovic capitalism. It's insignificant. Because one of the problems with hostile takeovers in the United States in the 1980s is you took a position, let's say 10, 15% of a company, and then you have to make an announcement. After 10%, you have to make an announcement. This is my intent, and you have to make an actual offer to buy the rest of the shares of the company. In a true lezovic capitalist economy, you would just continue buying the shares until you owned 51% of the company. You'd walk into the CEO's office and fire them. That's how it used to be before security regulations that was passed in 1968. But in order to protect managers who did not want to be fired by people like Carl Icahn, this process of having to bid for the shares and making it public and giving everybody a chance to participate was initiated. So what happened with some of Carl Icahn's bids is he let the world know that he had bought a company, let's say, was selling at $10. He bought 15% of the $10. And then the company would turn around and say, we'll buy those shares from you for 15 or 20 or whatever. Just go away. Don't take us over. And I would say that it's not the ideal outcome. The ideal outcome from a market perspective is for Carl Icahn to take the company over, break it up, make it more efficient, reallocate the capital, and so on. But this is not an awful outcome. Because what are these companies that Carl Icahn did it to? These are companies that were inefficient, unproductive, where capital was being wasted and where managers were not doing the right thing by shareholders. It was often bloated conglomerates. The green mailing actually provided Carl Icahn with more capital. And by doing so, it allowed him then to continue pursuing bad companies and reforming them and making them better. It also let the market know that these companies were problematic companies. That there was real opportunity here for restructuring. And there was real opportunity here to go in and change these companies and improve these companies and raise their stock value. And often companies that Carl Icahn failed to purchase, other people purchased later on. Or these companies restructured themselves, realized that Icahn had done something real, that it was true that they were problematic, and they basically restructured themselves. Icahn made money, the company got restructured, managers I get kept their job, but at a more intense rate because now they were running, they had to prove that the company was efficient and productive. So green mailings served a productive function. By getting capital away from people who were wasting it. And by signaling to other investors that this company could do better. That there were people out there who knew that you could buy this company who was trading a 10 for 15 and still make money on it. So its real potential was maybe 20. So we more hopefully that answers your question. I could do a whole series of talks on hostile takeovers. The 80s were an amazing time. And the hostile takeovers are an amazing pro-capitalist, pro-freedom, pro-economic efficiency and economic progress thing. I agree with you with regard to Carl Icahn. He is one of my heroes as well in finance. And I admire Carl Icahn particularly right now because I learned that he shorted a GameStop at its peak and still held the short until recently. So Carl Icahn kind of made money as the meme stock phenomena imploded. And I can't think of anybody more deserving than Carl Icahn to make money off of that. I wish I had made Mr. Money off of that. But good for him. By having the knowledge and the guts and the know-how to go into that market, short that stock and make a fortune as the stock went down closer to what it's actually worth. Thank you, Remo. And I always love answering questions about areas like that in finance, which I really like. Catherine says, hey, Iranimos, let's get this thing rolling. That was earlier on. We're $83 short. So two bucks again from everybody who hasn't given any would get us to where we need to be pretty quickly. Five bucks would require only two thirds of you to participate and we would get there pretty quickly. So please consider supporting this show and getting us to our goal so we can continue doing these news roundups. I mean, at the end of the day, if there's not a lot of support for news roundups, we won't do them. We'll do something else. Combine AI with genetic developments like mRNA and possibilities for humans can be remarkable. Absolutely. And it's not just mRNA. I think the big development on the biofront is gene splicing. It's CRISPR. And if you combine AI with CRISPR and you combine AI, applying AI to CRISPR and to gene editing and to mRNA and to drug delivery and drug discovery. So biotech as a whole and AI used to make biotech more efficient and more productive and more possible. Wow. I mean, it is truly amazing and has, I really do think that over the next 20 years, we have the potential for a massive technological revolution that's going to benefit and extend human life and benefit human life dramatically. And this is all happening at the same time as this disastrous philosophical and political collapse that is happening all around us. And yeah, I mean, it's just bewildering to me this disconnect between the state of technology and the state of, I don't know, philosophy, the state of thinking, the state of ideas in the culture. It's sad. I did read a story this morning about a drug combined with mRNA technology. mRNA, in a sense, is used to deliver this drug, having amazing success at this combination at reducing mortality and repeats of a deadly skin cancer. So this is, I think it was a 44% increase in the efficiency of using the drug without the mRNA. mRNA is a life changing technology and all these idiots, sorry, all these people out there who are, you know, who are obsessed with, oh my God, mRNA is dangerous, are going to be missing out on one of the innovations that is going to be responsive from increasing, for benefiting humanity, maybe more than any other, in terms of new drugs, drug delivery, drug efficiency and delivery of drugs, you know, to where they're most needed and, you know, in real cures for certain types of cancer and new ways in which to change our biology in ways that allow us to live longer, super, super excited for the next 20, 30 years in biotech and in AI. Jimbo is going to buy a biotech ETF. Yeah, I mean, absolutely, absolutely. Catherine says, oh, come on, folks, ante up. Thank you, Catherine. Yeah, we're going to be, it looks like we're going to be short because I only have two questions left and we're $83 short. All right. Oops, I didn't mean to do that. Frank asks, did you ever see this Sweden S tank, strange design? I don't think I have. I'll look it up. I don't think I've seen the Sweden. Okay, last question. So if anybody wants to ask a question, how's the time to jump in? If anybody wants to support the show, now's the time to jump in. Why does pessimism sell so well? It seems, it seems, God, it seems so many readily buy into crisis, climate, population, etc., propaganda. Is it because religion, especially the religious, the original sin aspect is still so influential? I think a lot of it is original sin. I think a lot of it is this idea that things cannot be good when we don't deserve goodness. We don't deserve a good life. I think broadly it's a lack of a positive philosophy, a lack of a positive philosophy for life. Wes, thank you. Wes just pushed us over a goal. So really, really appreciate that. It's a lack of a positive view of the world, a positive view of life. And you know, these people are always, always thinking about what's the next disaster? What's the next bad thing to happen? Well, they're easily, I think a lot of them are easily caught up in kind of millennial cultish type stuff where, yeah, the next disaster at the end of humanity. You know, if you don't have, if you don't have positive goals, if you don't have positive, if you don't have positive philosophy by which to live, it's very easy to get caught up in how evil and bad things. And a lot of that comes from altruism, and specifically, I think, Stephen, you're right, from this original sin perspective. Evolutionary biologists claim that it has evolutionary origins, of course, that it's, you know, fight or flight that were programmed to be afraid because that helps us survive. We're programmed to be afraid, but we have reason to evaluate the risks and to evaluate what we should be afraid on what or not, and to be able to calibrate the risks appropriately and to calibrate the dangers appropriately and not, you know, fly into flight or flight mode immediately. This is the role of reason. This is the role of reason. So, yes, emotions are there in a sense programmed to help us deal with threats, but much more importantly is our capacity to think it through and to figure it out and to estimate and to evaluate the threats and to decide whether they're real or not and how disastrous they are and to calibrate our fear accordingly. So thank you, Stephen, really good question and good issue to think about. Thanks everybody who did this in under an hour, which is my goal. Thank you Wes again and to all the Super Chat, particularly Wes for getting us over the hump. Remo, thank you for your first time Super Chat. Thank you everybody. Probably no show tonight, but definitely a show tomorrow morning and so two shows tomorrow. I'll take tonight off and then we'll see the rest of the week. If I change my mind about tonight, you'll obviously find out. Thanks everybody and see you all tomorrow morning. I didn't shout out the sticker gang. You mean I did Stephen and Linda. I did Sean, Zach. So thank you to all the Ryan, Stephen, Jonathan, Fendt Hopper, Gale, Ryan, all the people who gave stickers. Thank you all. Really, really appreciate it and to all the Super Chat is appreciated. And if you want to come a month in support of The Iran Book Show, show value for value. You can do so on youranbookshow.com slash support. Patreon, which is a crowd favorite and a subscribe star.