Speaker 1: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
Speaker 1: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 1: learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
Speaker 2: my name is Nolan.
Speaker 3: They called me Ben. We're joined as always with our
Speaker 3: super producer Alexis code named Doc Holliday Jackson. Most importantly,
Speaker 3: you are here. That makes this the stuff they don't
Speaker 3: want you to know. We are recording this on the
Speaker 3: evening of July third. As humans reckon the calendar here
Speaker 3: in the United States, there's a birthday coming up, several
Speaker 3: birthdays statistically, if you're listening to this, it might be
Speaker 3: your birthday. So happy birthday. We are going to do
Speaker 3: a thing and we like to do here in the States,
Speaker 3: which is celebrate July fourth Independence Day. A lot of
Speaker 3: other countries have their own independence days, but this would
Speaker 3: all us.
Speaker 4: Baby. I don't know if this is the case in
Speaker 4: cities other than Atlanta, but have you guys noticed that
Speaker 4: people start shooting off fireworks like days before the fourth
Speaker 4: of July. Yeah, with that, it's a little it's aggressive.
Speaker 3: It's a some cost fallacy, I would say, because you
Speaker 3: buy the fireworks and then you kind of want to
Speaker 3: test them, and then fireworks are objectively cool.
Speaker 2: And a deal you got like double the fireworks you
Speaker 2: thought you were gonna get. What are you gonna do
Speaker 2: with all the fireworks?
Speaker 4: I love that.
Speaker 3: I told you guys, I do have a shady uncle
Speaker 3: whose name is literally Uncle Sam and no one stop
Speaker 3: it true story. No one in my family knows what
Speaker 3: he actually does, and he won't tell us. But he
Speaker 3: did spend some time in China working in the fireworks industry.
Speaker 4: Hmm okay, yeah, I thought his name might be Wacky Wayne.
Speaker 4: You know those fireworks stores around there was s.
Speaker 2: Wacky crazy Steves Fireworkingum.
Speaker 3: I swear I saw many years ago one on the
Speaker 3: Gulf Coast called like forefinger Billies or something. That's because
Speaker 3: he blew off his fingers.
Speaker 4: It can happen. Those what are the black cats, the
Speaker 4: ones that are like no eighties, I think, is the
Speaker 4: ones that can actually literally explode your flesh.
Speaker 3: Well, props to you, billy, if you're still around, because
Speaker 3: he leaned into it, you know what I mean. Yeah,
Speaker 3: he made some real.
Speaker 4: Lean you'll go blind too.
Speaker 2: Over here, they've got cautionary Kyle's fireworks stands.
Speaker 3: The cautionary made that.
Speaker 2: It's just sparklers. They're really tiny, those little snakes like
Speaker 2: on the South Park A.
Speaker 3: Sparklers are like the CBD of fireworks. Let's be honest.
Speaker 3: You know, yeah, they're fun. CBD is fun, but it's
Speaker 3: not the same thing.
Speaker 4: Does does it work? Sparklers at least sparkle that's true.
Speaker 3: We're also going to learn about We're going to have
Speaker 3: an update on a trial that we've been following. We're
Speaker 3: going to have and a discussion about artificial intelligence. I
Speaker 3: think we're all excited for. We're going to learn more
Speaker 3: about mr NA because we did mention it for a
Speaker 3: reason in a previous episode. But before we do any
Speaker 3: of that, we're going to pause for a second and
Speaker 3: get to our our kind of breaking story for this evening,
Speaker 3: and we're back. We've talked about it before and as
Speaker 3: we get into this doc apologies to you. When we
Speaker 3: were talking about this.
Speaker 4: Off air, our.
Speaker 3: Log suffering that's the word, just shook her head and
Speaker 3: said I had managed to forget about this for just
Speaker 3: a couple of minutes.
Speaker 4: I believe the expression was I've managed to forget that
Speaker 4: we live in hell.
Speaker 3: Right, yeah, yeah, yeah, And this is in reference to
Speaker 3: something called the Supreme Court of the United States, long
Speaker 3: a controversial institution. In the most recent sessions of the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court, they made rulings that seem, depending on your perspective,
Speaker 3: to be either quite reasonable or quite problematic.
Speaker 4: Now, is there no middle ground?
Speaker 2: Ben Well?
Speaker 3: Now, yeah, I don't think there's anybody who goes that's fine,
Speaker 3: that's good. Yeah, amidst this is the thing. Okay, So
Speaker 3: we've talked about it to many of our friends who
Speaker 3: are not in the US. We know it sounds weird.
Speaker 3: Ostensibly a democracy the United States, the laws of the
Speaker 3: land are ultimately decided or adjudicated by nine kind of
Speaker 3: ring raiths. They are not elected officials as and the
Speaker 3: public doesn't get to vote for them. They're confirmed by Congress.
Speaker 3: They have tremendous legal power, and they are meant to
Speaker 3: be a check on the power of the other two
Speaker 3: branches of government, the executive and the legislative. It is
Speaker 3: weird that they're never up for election, kind of like
Speaker 3: the pope. They have the job for as long as
Speaker 3: they want.
Speaker 4: And I guess we're in sort of a weird situation
Speaker 4: because you know, one along sitting justice passed away, so
Speaker 4: the previous president was able to appoint way more than
Speaker 4: usually get appointed during a sitting president's term.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, and that is one of the big, big
Speaker 3: powers of the executive branch in this respect. Now, we
Speaker 3: know that talking about anything that touches on the domestic
Speaker 3: political sphere can be divisive, especially in these times. It
Speaker 3: can be a sensitive subject. However, we're going to do
Speaker 3: at the top of this Evening's Strange News is explain
Speaker 3: how this is a conspiracy, right, Please check out our
Speaker 3: earlier episodes on things like Project twenty twenty five. And
Speaker 3: please understand that we're talking about this. We are not
Speaker 3: I think it's fair to say that we are not
Speaker 3: championing some polemic agenda. We're not up for election, you
Speaker 3: know what I mean. We don't even have a webby,
Speaker 3: so we're not the folks in charge of this. But
Speaker 3: we are going to show you objectively why you should
Speaker 3: be concerned about this. If you live in the United States, absolutely,
Speaker 3: But guess what if you don't live in the United States,
Speaker 3: this stuff is going to reach out and touch you too.
Speaker 3: How would you guys? As we're getting into it. How
Speaker 3: would you guys describe your reactions to recent Supreme Court
Speaker 3: rulings like, I mean, obviously the when we'll get to
Speaker 3: in a second, but let's start with. Let's start with
Speaker 3: rolling back federal regulations or how those are decided. Not good, No,
Speaker 3: feel good about it?
Speaker 4: Not great?
Speaker 2: Is this the Chevron decision?
Speaker 3: Yes, this is the Chevron decision, the Chevron decision with
Speaker 3: scotas you could already tell by the name it is.
Speaker 3: It is about companies and what is about what a
Speaker 3: company of private entity functioning in the United States must
Speaker 3: do to remain legal, and there was What they did
Speaker 3: is back in nineteen eighty four there was a landmark
Speaker 3: decision called Chevron versus Natural Resources Defense Council, and they
Speaker 3: found against Chevron. This gave rise to what we call
Speaker 3: the Chevron doctrine. Without getting two into the weeds, you
Speaker 3: can read a great piece on this by Amy Howe
Speaker 3: the Scots Blog. What we need to know about this
Speaker 3: is the Chevron doctrine, which again has stood for decades,
Speaker 3: says that if Congress has not directly addressed a specific
Speaker 3: question at a center of a dispute, then a court
Speaker 3: has to defer to the agency in charge. So, for example,
Speaker 3: just keeping it really hypothetical here, if the FDA, the
Speaker 3: Food and Drug Administration, had an interpretation of something about
Speaker 3: food safety or you know, how much rat feces should
Speaker 3: be in raisin brand, the answer is to scoops. If
Speaker 3: you know, they have these laws right, like to what
Speaker 3: degree of what thresholds are there for contamination such that
Speaker 3: the safety of the public is not endangered under the
Speaker 3: Chevron doctrine, the courts would have to defer to the
Speaker 3: FDA's decision about this, which kind of makes sense because
Speaker 3: they're the people whose job it is to know these things.
Speaker 4: And we know there are problems with those agencies as
Speaker 4: well in terms of the revolving door of folks moving
Speaker 4: from the industries that are regulated by these agencies to
Speaker 4: the agencies themselves. So you know, in the best of situations,
Speaker 4: there's already conflicts of interest and this just I mean nukes,
Speaker 4: the whole any semblance of like expertise being you know,
Speaker 4: utilized by these agencies to your point bend, which is
Speaker 4: their job to do.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: A better example would probably be the EPA, the Environmental
Speaker 3: Protection Agency, had an interpretation of the Clean Air Act
Speaker 3: right regarding how emissions, fossil fuel emissions in particular, should
Speaker 3: be regulated. When you roll back stuff like the Chevron doctrine,
Speaker 3: it means that there's going to be legal chaos because
Speaker 3: we no longer have an order of operations for decision making. Now,
Speaker 3: this sounds really boring until your water turns brown, right,
Speaker 3: This sounds stupid and academic, until you realize that you
Speaker 3: can find fingers in cans of chili. Right. This opens
Speaker 3: the door to return to the days of Upton Sinclair's
Speaker 3: the jungle.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 3: It is a dangerous and it should be an a
Speaker 3: political concern. It doesn't matter who you vote for. You
Speaker 3: need stuff at a certain level of cleanliness.
Speaker 4: But it benefits the polluters. It benefits the companies who
Speaker 4: are responsible for these emissions or potentially dangerous drugs or
Speaker 4: food whatever. It just opens it up for them to
Speaker 4: f arout and find out. Kind of I'm sorry, Matt,
Speaker 4: what were you saying?
Speaker 2: It's okay. I just had to say I've read through
Speaker 2: a lot of the writing on this guys, and I'm
Speaker 2: still a bit confused, and I'm trying to put it
Speaker 2: in like more simple terms. I think you've kind of
Speaker 2: done it already, been like saying that before if there
Speaker 2: was a court case with a company versus the federal government,
Speaker 2: the law, whatever it is, if it's vaguely written, you
Speaker 2: default to whatever the federal regulating body says, like what
Speaker 2: their rules are.
Speaker 3: Basically it's kind of allowing them to make jurisprudence. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the entity that's trying to either protect the environment
Speaker 2: or the consumer or whatever it is. The federal entity
Speaker 2: that's doing some kind of regulation on corporations, on private entities,
Speaker 2: you go with whatever that regulator says. But now it's
Speaker 2: saying that's it's just every court gets to make its
Speaker 2: own decision about each one of those things.
Speaker 3: Now yeah, now it's saying Now it's saying, remember nineteen
Speaker 3: eighty four psych because Scotus is famously behind on their
Speaker 3: street slang, so they still say stuff like cawabunga and psych.
Speaker 3: They did roll. Yes, Toul, answer is your understanding is
Speaker 3: astute here. Now we are not ourselves legal experts. We
Speaker 3: are incredibly fortunate to have many, many of our fellow
Speaker 3: listeners in the crowd who are legal experts, and we
Speaker 3: would love to hear some explanations about this now. The
Speaker 3: current well, the thing is for the entirety of its history,
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court has always been fertile soil for corruption
Speaker 3: and influence. And these people do try to do the
Speaker 3: right things, and they've made they've made laws that have
Speaker 3: made the world and the United States a better place objectively,
Speaker 3: but they are continually accused of political machinations, especially because
Speaker 3: they recently ruled, and I was complaining about this and
Speaker 3: previous recording, they recently ruled that ethics, the ethical regulations
Speaker 3: of the justices themselves, should be overseen by the justices themselves. Thanks,
Speaker 3: I know, and I can't get out of elite fee
Speaker 3: at the library. This is ridiculous question.
Speaker 4: Before we maybe move on. We could probably talk about
Speaker 4: this for the whole episode. These decisions. But it's not
Speaker 4: to say that there will always be a legal kerfuffle
Speaker 4: around simple things. But does it necessarily also mean that
Speaker 4: anyone could question something or file a suit or create
Speaker 4: a legal kerfuffle and therefore throw everything into disarray, Like
Speaker 4: if there are bad actors and there are like maybe
Speaker 4: lobbyists or whomever, lawyers on the behalf of these corporations,
Speaker 4: they could challenge these laws and then it would it
Speaker 4: could potentially cause chaos or have them changed without the
Speaker 4: oversight of a supposedly benevolent regulatory body.
Speaker 3: That's yeah, no one knows that's the issue.
Speaker 4: But isn't that is that potentially on the table. I mean,
Speaker 4: that seems like a thing that could now happen.
Speaker 2: Doesn't it endanger some of these federal agencies because it
Speaker 2: may end up costing them too much money in the
Speaker 2: short too long term to fight all of the legal
Speaker 2: battles that will you know, will be presented to them.
Speaker 2: Because there there are constant legal battles. If we think
Speaker 2: about the court cases where it's oh, well, let's just
Speaker 2: use Chevron again, Chevron BP whoever gas company versus the
Speaker 2: federal government because they're trying to settle some dispute about
Speaker 2: regulations that are being imposed on them by the federal government.
Speaker 2: Right yeah, So then those you know, the organization like
Speaker 2: the EPA or whatever it is, has to go to
Speaker 2: court and eat all those.
Speaker 3: Costs right every time, by thousand cuts. That's the legal
Speaker 3: strategy of a lot of these powerful entities. And the
Speaker 3: it was, like I was saying on Twitter earlier, I
Speaker 3: feel like every law student should get a full refund
Speaker 3: on their tuition because the stuff they were taught may
Speaker 3: not apply right at this point.
Speaker 4: But isn't also Project twenty twenty five kind of all
Speaker 4: about eroding these agencies and give them. This further contributes
Speaker 4: to the overall, like big picture erosion of the powers
Speaker 4: of these agencies. And to Matt's point, potentially you know,
Speaker 4: eating them out of house at home, the point where
Speaker 4: they can't even afford you exist anymore.
Speaker 3: Let me put it this way, in the most simple terms,
Speaker 3: the most simple a political terms. Corruption is a team sport, right.
Speaker 3: They don't get a lot of successful lone wolves, or
Speaker 3: if you do, they don't last for as long as
Speaker 3: they could. And this brings us to the big fish,
Speaker 3: the big issue that people have, and if you are American,
Speaker 3: you should have an issue with this too. Recently, in
Speaker 3: a just a few days ago, in a mic drop moment,
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court finally issued their opinion on a case
Speaker 3: called Trump versus the United States. That's right, folks, the
Speaker 3: name of the case is officially a former president versus
Speaker 3: the country that he served as commander in chief of
Speaker 3: for a while. And what they found in this decision,
Speaker 3: which was divided clearly along ideological lines of the court,
Speaker 3: what they found was that in their opinion, any US president,
Speaker 3: just like any Russian president, will have broad immunity from
Speaker 3: criminal prosecution, a license to commit crimes, so long as
Speaker 3: they have they put it use the official powers of
Speaker 3: their office to do so. So the Overton window has shifted.
Speaker 3: Now the question is not was insert here a crime?
Speaker 3: The question is was it official? You know what I mean?
Speaker 4: Doesn't this mean that Nixon was not a crook?
Speaker 3: It says Watergate, you know, would have been totally chill.
Speaker 4: This is wrong.
Speaker 2: It's it's so weird, it's it's it is weird to
Speaker 2: me because it does seem to draw a sharp line
Speaker 2: between those things that are done as a private action versus,
Speaker 2: as you said, an official action, right, Right, So it
Speaker 2: doesn't necessarily mean on the surface that the president has
Speaker 2: complete immunity, but it does mean if the president does
Speaker 2: something that is, let's say illegal, it could be argued
Speaker 2: by that president and everybody around that president that whatever
Speaker 2: the action was was taken as an official due right.
Speaker 4: What's the criteria for that though? Is it laid out
Speaker 4: or is it pretty vague?
Speaker 3: No? No, it's pretty vague. Yeah, because if you're if
Speaker 3: you're trying to pull a grift you know, the thing
Speaker 3: about lying to a large group of people is you
Speaker 3: got to swing big. You know, you want to minimize specifics,
Speaker 3: you want to access emotion. Right, So a divided, tribalized
Speaker 3: or dare I even say near balkanized public like the
Speaker 3: United States, then they're going to be strongly pushed toward
Speaker 3: voting like the way you would root for a football team, right,
Speaker 3: instead of looking objectively at the day here And make
Speaker 3: no mistake, we talked about this in Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 3: It's too much power. It's Unamerican, and it's very difficult
Speaker 3: to imagine any president that would not in practice take
Speaker 3: advantage of this. I want to go to the specific
Speaker 3: descent here from I was going to say, yeah, Justice
Speaker 3: Kintaji Brown Jackson wrote a quote that really stood out,
Speaker 3: I think to a lot of us and said, quote,
Speaker 3: from this day forward, presidents of tomorrow will be free
Speaker 3: to exercise the commander in chief powers, the foreign affairs powers,
Speaker 3: and all the vast law enforcement powers. And Trine did
Speaker 3: Article two, however, they please including new ways that Congress
Speaker 3: has deemed criminal and that have potentially grave consequences for
Speaker 3: the rights and liberties of Americans. The Justice here is
Speaker 3: not being hyperbolic. It is crazy that our Project twenty
Speaker 3: twenty five episode came out and then this followed almost
Speaker 3: directly on the heels of it. I'm not saying they
Speaker 3: listen to our show, you know, if you if you
Speaker 3: guys do listen, though, you know, buy us off. We're corrupted.
Speaker 3: We want to be on the team.
Speaker 4: Give us a webbie, maybe just chill. And then another
Speaker 4: descending opinion from Sonya Soda Mayor said an excerpt, Today's
Speaker 4: decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution
Speaker 4: of the presidency, which is kind of inarguably.
Speaker 3: And also with fear of debiocracy, with fearful doing. I dissent.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is my opinion, guys. It has nothing to
Speaker 2: do with potentially next former president Donald Trump or Joe
Speaker 2: Biden or anyone in the next what twelve years. It's
Speaker 2: coming down the road. I can we quickly read just
Speaker 2: a couple of quotes, because this is absolutely it's scary
Speaker 2: when you see it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and there's a big point I want to end with.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just some of the majority opinion written by Justice Roberts.
Speaker 3: Here, right, that's Chief Justice John Roberts.
Speaker 2: Something about courts may not inquire into the president's motives. Like,
Speaker 2: that's scary to me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, quote in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may
Speaker 3: not inquire into the president's motives, which is insane.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but it is up to the lower courts to
Speaker 4: decide what constitutes a presidential act. So isn't that sort
Speaker 4: of like a I don't know, that seems like what's
Speaker 4: the word? I'm looking for a contradiction of terms where
Speaker 4: it's up to them to decide what is a presidential act.
Speaker 4: But they also can't take into account whether it was
Speaker 4: self serving and not in the service of the office,
Speaker 4: or of the people or of the country.
Speaker 3: And here's the issue. Also, it goes further to say,
Speaker 3: people who do not support this idea of a president
Speaker 3: above the law, they would naturally wonder, well, surely it'll,
Speaker 3: like you're saying, go to the lower courts. Surely prosecution
Speaker 3: and appeals can wend their way through the glacial legal system.
Speaker 4: Doubtful.
Speaker 3: Well, they cut it off at the pass. You could
Speaker 3: say that they already hamstrung possible prosecution. Roberts continues in
Speaker 3: his statement, and he says a prosecutor cannot quote admit
Speaker 3: testimony or private records of the president or his advisors
Speaker 3: in quote in figuring out if there is an official act,
Speaker 3: there is a crime. That means the president can be
Speaker 3: whomever they may be, can be prosecuted for a unofficial act,
Speaker 3: but the prosecutors cannot prove whether this president committed a
Speaker 3: crime using evidence from the president's official actions. It is
Speaker 3: so there's an amami to it. I can't help but
Speaker 3: admire the cognitive parkour.
Speaker 4: Pretty sure I've seen this meme already, but if not,
Speaker 4: it belongs in this format. Joe Biden has the chance
Speaker 4: to do that most hilarious thing ever with this new power,
Speaker 4: because it essentially means you could have a political rival
Speaker 4: assassinated if you see or or judge that it is
Speaker 4: a threat to democracy.
Speaker 2: But you would never have to say that's exactly right, criminal,
Speaker 2: or could just do it proven to any of the motivations.
Speaker 2: You can't provide testimony that would call into question in
Speaker 2: the motivations of any sitting president or their advisors.
Speaker 3: Exactly this could be. This does eclude, this does encompass
Speaker 3: things up to an including murder or for some of us,
Speaker 3: even worse, treason, right and this leads us to here
Speaker 3: is why I posit this isn't a political concern. This
Speaker 3: isn't everyone is in this together concern. It does not
Speaker 3: matter who you vote for, It does not matter your
Speaker 3: political ideology is your own. Your spiritual idea algy, it's
Speaker 3: your own. The beautiful thing about this country is you
Speaker 3: don't get murdered for disagreeing with people. So far, this
Speaker 3: is create This is a direct contradiction of one of
Speaker 3: the big things the imperfect founding fathers were all about.
Speaker 3: You know, we know what they loved. They loved silly
Speaker 3: wigs and stockings. They were problematically into enslaving people. And
Speaker 3: they also hated monarchies. That's like one of the main
Speaker 3: reasons they started this whole weird experiment. No kings, right.
Speaker 4: This feels weirdly monarchical things.
Speaker 3: It's like somebody saying, hey, as the new managers of
Speaker 3: the fire department, we looked into, you know, our bylaws,
Speaker 3: and we really should be setting more houses on fire.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you know, those same guys also thought we
Speaker 2: shouldn't let the peons really decide who the next president's
Speaker 2: going to be. We should come up with some form
Speaker 2: of institution a college of sorts that would actually make
Speaker 2: the informed decision, while you know, the peons get to
Speaker 2: vote in their silly little election, and.
Speaker 3: A couple of those, a couple of those slick bastards,
Speaker 3: tried to get George Washington to be a king, which
Speaker 3: is dumb. Not everybody agreed dad crazy ideas. Ben Franklin
Speaker 3: looked at the alphabet and said, I've got a better take.
Speaker 3: Thomas Jefferson looked at the Bible and said, I have
Speaker 3: some notes, you know what I mean. These These were
Speaker 3: real hold my beer guys. Plus they were often drunk,
Speaker 3: if we're being honest.
Speaker 2: But they had a cool idea, including no more kings.
Speaker 3: Including no more kings. And thank you for bringing us
Speaker 3: back to that, because that's the point we need to
Speaker 3: stay on. This is literal stuff. They don't want you
Speaker 3: to know, not necessarily what's happening now, that's all in
Speaker 3: the public sphere, but the consequences, right, the long term plan,
Speaker 3: not next year, but the next five years, the next ten,
Speaker 3: the next twelve. And we want you hear your thoughts,
Speaker 3: whether or not you are a legal scholar, what do
Speaker 3: you foresee as the possible fallout of treasons? Supreme Court conspiracy.
Speaker 3: iHeartRadio dot Com. We'll be back after a word from
Speaker 3: our sponsors.
Speaker 2: And we've returned. We're going to stay in court for
Speaker 2: a moment. Not the Supreme one, the crimson King perhaps, No,
Speaker 2: the Court of Massachusetts.
Speaker 3: Yes, technically the sexiest court.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, I tell you what. Actually the specific
Speaker 2: court here is the Norfolk Superior Court in Denham, Massachusetts.
Speaker 3: And bothered. Wow those smoke shows.
Speaker 2: Yes, we're jumping back to the Karen Reid murder trial
Speaker 2: that we've been following since it was brought to our
Speaker 2: attention almost exactly one year ago.
Speaker 3: Guy, I retract my sex jokes. This is a murder trial.
Speaker 2: This is a murder Yeah, very true.
Speaker 3: I've un button my shirt back up. Sorry, no word
Speaker 3: to take it too far.
Speaker 2: But maxtout brought it to our attention almost exactly a
Speaker 2: year ago, in July twenty twenty three, and we're gonna
Speaker 2: give you yet another refresher as this is another update
Speaker 2: from that trial. Karen Reid is a person, a woman
Speaker 2: who was accused of killing her boyfriend, a Boston police
Speaker 2: officer named John O'Keefe. It is alleged by the people
Speaker 2: bringing those charges against her that she hit him with
Speaker 2: her car in Canton. Is in Canton, Massachusetts, on January
Speaker 2: twenty ninth, twenty twenty two. She has ever since charges
Speaker 2: have been brought to her ever since the incident, denied
Speaker 2: any involvement and claims that her boyfriend was in fact
Speaker 2: killed at a house party where his body was found
Speaker 2: right outside of it. The house party that had lots
Speaker 2: and lots of police and other law enforcement officers on hand.
Speaker 2: I guess they were also attending that party. There's also
Speaker 2: an alleged dog attack. All kinds of stuff, very very complicated.
Speaker 2: So Karen Reid was charged with second degree murder and
Speaker 2: manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene
Speaker 2: of personal injury and death. If she would have been
Speaker 2: convicted of these charges, she would have spent the rest
Speaker 2: of her life in jail. And I should be noted
Speaker 2: the defense the attorneys that were working for Karen Reid
Speaker 2: attempted to paint a picture of an elaborate conspiracy by
Speaker 2: the law enforcement officers who were there at that party,
Speaker 2: as well as others that were working in official capacities
Speaker 2: and other people who were witnesses for the court in
Speaker 2: this case. Well, after all the evidence was laid out.
Speaker 2: After all the testimony, after all the closing arguments were completed,
Speaker 2: Karen Reid's fate was in the hands of the jury,
Speaker 2: and after twenty seven hours of deliberation, they failed to
Speaker 2: reach a verdict. You guys, oh under yes, the trial's over,
Speaker 2: and Judge Beverly Cononi t how you say your name?
Speaker 2: C A N N one. She declared it a mistrial
Speaker 2: and set July twenty second as the next day for
Speaker 2: the court to get back in session to decide what's
Speaker 2: going to happen next. It's a pretty big deal. There's
Speaker 2: a lot of writing happening right now about it and
Speaker 2: what's going on, and also what's specifically going on with
Speaker 2: this guy, Michael Proctor, who was the lead investigator. Lots
Speaker 2: of weird stuff in there. If anyone was following the case,
Speaker 2: this is the guy who was, you know, leading the
Speaker 2: investigation and then also texting with personal friends and colleagues
Speaker 2: about Karen Reid and saying some pretty messed up things
Speaker 2: and very strange, very very strange trial. But I guess
Speaker 2: that's the update. If anyone has any specific things they
Speaker 2: want to talk about, I guess just send your thoughts
Speaker 2: our way. You can email us or we'll tell you
Speaker 2: how to call us at the end here. But yeah,
Speaker 2: mistrial guys, it's weird how that can work, where basically
Speaker 2: defense attorneys all they have to do is create enough
Speaker 2: doubt about the official charges right and the investigation to
Speaker 2: make some jurors, even just a few, maybe just one,
Speaker 2: even say no, I absolutely will not come to unanimous
Speaker 2: decision with you about guilt or not guilt.
Speaker 3: Here, we've all seen twelve angry men, which is just
Speaker 3: a master work, and.
Speaker 4: I've actually not seen it. And I mean to you
Speaker 4: very much.
Speaker 3: I sometimes look around our cohort and wonder who I
Speaker 3: would cast as like members of a jury and what
Speaker 3: kind of conversations we would have, because over the years
Speaker 3: we've had some really intense and strange conversations. But to
Speaker 3: that point, however, about a case being tainted, it's something
Speaker 3: that prosecutors take very seriously because in this judicial system,
Speaker 3: something that goes wrong or something that is an unethical
Speaker 3: actor outside of procedure for the quote unquote good guys,
Speaker 3: then that can ruin the case, regardless of if the
Speaker 3: criminal action is pretty certain.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, you've heard that before, And that's a huge
Speaker 2: trope in American media, shoddy police work right ruin. Yeah.
Speaker 2: But in the hey, in this case, right after the
Speaker 2: mistrial was declared, we're talking hours. This trooper Michael Proctor,
Speaker 2: he's he's a Massachusetts State Police officer. He was relieved
Speaker 2: of duty and reassigned from his role as an investigator
Speaker 2: with a Norfolk District Attorney's office. They were like, you
Speaker 2: did so bad in this whole thing. You're gone.
Speaker 3: And doesn't he have an ia investigation?
Speaker 2: Internal? Yeah, internal affairs investigation going on with that guy
Speaker 2: right now?
Speaker 3: Good?
Speaker 2: Not great, not great, but it makes you wonder about
Speaker 2: you know, what don't we know and what won't we
Speaker 2: ever know because of you know what they find in
Speaker 2: that internal investigations case.
Speaker 4: Well, and the hung jury is the ultimate tool of
Speaker 4: like things like jury tampering as well, Like that's what
Speaker 4: you hope for, is you know, some plant that's like
Speaker 4: the loan holdout that keeps a unanimous decision from being rendered.
Speaker 2: But in this case, it doesn't mean this is a trial, right, No.
Speaker 4: No, no, of course it does, but it's like a
Speaker 4: ultimate kind of hang up and it seeds doubt as well.
Speaker 3: You know, the American jury duty so bad?
Speaker 4: Have you guys both done it.
Speaker 3: I never get cast. No, I'm sorry, I shouldn't describe
Speaker 3: it as an audition, but it does feel like an audition.
Speaker 3: They can tell I'm too on board with civic duty.
Speaker 4: I think I've mentioned I was cast once, and I
Speaker 4: do feel like I swayed some of the jurors in
Speaker 4: what I would argue it's a positive direction. It was
Speaker 4: a civil case and it was about awarding somebody some damages.
Speaker 4: But then the second time I did the audition, I
Speaker 4: was not cast, and it was because the you know,
Speaker 4: they basically present to you the basics of what the
Speaker 4: case is, to the point where you kind of get
Speaker 4: the gist of what's going on, how the injured party
Speaker 4: was injured, and it involved a kidnapping type situation and
Speaker 4: a hold up. And I had experienced a situation where
Speaker 4: a neighbor of mine was home invaded and shot and
Speaker 4: the neighbor, a friend of mine, came to my house
Speaker 4: bloodied and tied up, and I expressed this story, and
Speaker 4: I think they counted me out because they thought I
Speaker 4: would be maybe two triggered by my experience.
Speaker 3: On my end, I think it's just that it's the
Speaker 3: same thing that happens when I'm in an exit row
Speaker 3: at a plane and I have to give the verbal yes.
Speaker 3: I'm just like a little too on board. I got
Speaker 3: some nansome eyes and I'm like, yeah, let's go to court.
Speaker 2: I don't know about jur number seven.
Speaker 3: There's something in the eyes. But this also, you know,
Speaker 3: I appreciate the point you're making about how this can
Speaker 3: be kind of a black box right in terms of
Speaker 3: what options will be pursued, how things will shake out.
Speaker 3: But one thing I love about this is the it
Speaker 3: returns us to the point we'll always make, which is,
Speaker 3: just because something has left the big headlines doesn't mean
Speaker 3: the story is concluded, kind of like vaccines.
Speaker 2: A think you ben do. For the second part of
Speaker 2: this segment, we are talking bird flu boys H five
Speaker 2: and one av and flu. We've talked about it on
Speaker 2: the show before, talked about how it's getting in the cows.
Speaker 2: It's transferred to the cows. Bird to cow not good.
Speaker 2: Now we're watching humanity, that is, whether or not it's
Speaker 2: going to go from cow to human because mammal to
Speaker 2: mammal is a little easier than avian to mammal, and
Speaker 2: it already did that zooanautic.
Speaker 4: Is that right?
Speaker 3: It jumps in right, yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But it's in the cattle, it's in some of
Speaker 2: the milk. According to the people who watch the milk.
Speaker 3: I thought you were going to say, according to people
Speaker 3: who drink milk, as though there's some weird edgy demographic.
Speaker 4: Is the ones that like the raw stuff. They're the
Speaker 4: edgy milk drinkers you will call her.
Speaker 3: They're just out there. The mcpoils are out there, just
Speaker 3: raw dog get milk.
Speaker 2: Yeah, always, but but no nothing, no, no aspersions cast
Speaker 2: on the milks as you will. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Besides,
Speaker 2: you know some of the barbaric ways they get the
Speaker 2: milk out of the cows, you know, and they have
Speaker 2: to make them have babies and then take the babies
Speaker 2: away from them so they can make it.
Speaker 3: Oh God, have you guys ever milked a cow?
Speaker 4: No, I really squeeze those nips. I've seen video off.
Speaker 3: It put me off milk for a while. Jeez. I
Speaker 3: try not to think about it. But yeah, do you guys?
Speaker 2: I just watched an old Tom Green video where he yes,
Speaker 2: he does, and I think he might have been the
Speaker 2: first one to do it in that capacity on camera.
Speaker 4: Respects my bum is on the step. He was immortalized
Speaker 4: in an Eminem song. It occurred to me the other
Speaker 4: day a lot of people forgot Tom Green except in
Speaker 4: that Eminem thing where history would be talking. What is
Speaker 4: he talking about?
Speaker 3: What is talking about? In this line? It was show
Speaker 3: was not to know what a woman's glitter is? Intercourse
Speaker 3: is yeah, yeah, yeah, wow, Wow?
Speaker 2: What are we talking about? Guys?
Speaker 3: Ye, vaccine scenes. We're we're delivering on our earlier tease
Speaker 3: about m R in A conversations.
Speaker 2: I think, oh, okay, we're gonna get to you. We're
Speaker 2: gonna get to m R in A vaccines. Okay. So
Speaker 2: the reason we're talking about this avian flu is because
Speaker 2: we've been chatting about it for a while. Scientists have
Speaker 2: been warning, raising little signs everywhere across the world, saying, guys,
Speaker 2: this is this is kind of weird. This is not good.
Speaker 2: And now, at least according to a Reuter's article that
Speaker 2: I read this week, I think we all read perhaps
Speaker 2: titled scientists wary of bird flu pandemic quote unfolding in
Speaker 2: slow motion. Now, could that be scare tactics, Yes, it
Speaker 2: could be. Could it be scientists actually saying, Hey, the
Speaker 2: public and you know, journalists, a lot of us don't
Speaker 2: really notice pandemics until they're really on that upward swing,
Speaker 2: you know. And what these scientists are trying to say is,
Speaker 2: we're noticing that we might be on that low, low
Speaker 2: bell curve right at the beginning. It feels like that
Speaker 2: to us. We want to raise a bigger flag now.
Speaker 2: And since that is occurring, as you were saying, Ben,
Speaker 2: that mRNA vaccine that we all know, because that's a new,
Speaker 2: brand new technology for vaccines that was introduced during the
Speaker 2: COVID nineteen pandemic that we all went through, where Moderna
Speaker 2: and Fi's in a couple a bunch of other companies
Speaker 2: attempted to use this new technology as a way to
Speaker 2: fight viruses via vaccine.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: The mRNA thing, well, the real kicker here is that
Speaker 2: Maderna is being given or granted, let's say, is that
Speaker 2: how you would say it. They've been given a grant
Speaker 2: by the government, or at least they've been tapped by
Speaker 2: the government to develop an mRNA vaccine for the next
Speaker 2: flu pandemic, the next outbreak. In this case, it would
Speaker 2: be avian.
Speaker 3: Flu, which has always I think for many years now,
Speaker 3: avian flu has been a I don't want to call
Speaker 3: it a backburner concern, but it's been a consistent part
Speaker 3: of what scientists are warning us about, Like as you
Speaker 3: mentioned NOL, the zoonotic aspect of an avian flu.
Speaker 4: That could I mean.
Speaker 3: They already have. We already have instances of this. A
Speaker 3: lot of scientists will tell you it's it's similar to
Speaker 3: the idea of the Yellowstone eruption, right, it is geologically certain,
Speaker 3: we're not exactly sure when So when scientists are talking
Speaker 3: about a possible bird flu pandemic, there they have been,
Speaker 3: at least we know over the past few decades, increasingly
Speaker 3: talking not in terms of if, but in terms of win.
Speaker 4: Haven't we had minor bird flu pandemics. Yes, we're quite.
Speaker 2: Deadly, well were pandemics whatever outbreaks.
Speaker 4: But they were quite quite deadly. Couldn't you argue more
Speaker 4: deadly even than COVID because people were killed not necessarily
Speaker 4: because of byproducts of the condition, but because of the
Speaker 4: condition itself. I guys, it's been a minute. I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: I'm just reaching back into the memory banks. But for
Speaker 4: some reason, it occurs to me that when we had
Speaker 4: instances of bird flu, it was real bad.
Speaker 2: I would say when these types of zoonotic diseases jumped
Speaker 2: in humans and with their zoonotic behavior, they are more
Speaker 2: dangerous than stuff that humans have encountered before because we
Speaker 2: have no immunity. There's no herd immunity. That's why the
Speaker 2: vaccines were so important during the COVID nineteen pandemic. Right
Speaker 2: when a bunch of people really quickly get sick with
Speaker 2: the same thing and nobody has immunity, you can get
Speaker 2: everybody sick, and then it's just becomes what is you know,
Speaker 2: what's the what is the mortality rate of this thing?
Speaker 4: Right? It's fifty percent is what I'm reading online right.
Speaker 2: Now, perhaps of this new one, no, this past in
Speaker 2: the past.
Speaker 3: Okay, so that that would be like maybe the H
Speaker 3: seven and nine in China. Yeah, and what we're talking
Speaker 3: about actually is the new one.
Speaker 4: That's right, but sorry, the mortality rate of the bird flu,
Speaker 4: according to the Yale medicine that we've experienced thus far,
Speaker 4: was fifty percent. Nine hundred people around the world that got.
Speaker 2: In fact, well, all the more reason to get Maderna,
Speaker 2: this huge corporation that's already had a home run with
Speaker 2: her COVID nineteen vaccines. To create a new one. Right,
Speaker 2: they're being paid one hundred and seventy six million dollars
Speaker 2: to quote accelerate development of a pandemic influenza vaccine that
Speaker 2: could be used to treat bird flu in people. That
Speaker 2: is from ap News, posted on July second, twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: Why is this a weird thing, Well, that's because there
Speaker 2: is still so much skepticism and fear about this specific
Speaker 2: vaccine technology out there. If you go on TikTok, Instagram,
Speaker 2: any of these places, you will see countless humans saying
Speaker 2: this very thing out loud, how dangerous this vaccine technology is,
Speaker 2: how it is doing various things, and how you know,
Speaker 2: rumors of various world leaders and billionaires who are attempting
Speaker 2: to get stuff into all of us through these vaccines.
Speaker 2: Much of this, if not most of it, is just hearsay, rumors,
Speaker 2: conspiracy theories that are unfounded. The one thing that is
Speaker 2: founded is that this is a relatively new form of technology,
Speaker 2: a new way to treat you know, diseases via vaccine,
Speaker 2: which you know, all of us were kind of the
Speaker 2: test subjects in the first round from twenty nineteen onwards.
Speaker 2: So it is a bit weird that we're going this
Speaker 2: way again. I don't know. I just want to put
Speaker 2: that out there that it gives me pause thinking about it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because again it's the and we're not necessarily co
Speaker 3: signing some of the more out there conspiracies, not at all.
Speaker 4: We yeah, but we.
Speaker 3: Are arguing its matter of longitudinal data, right, what happens
Speaker 3: over time, And the problem is when stuff comes out
Speaker 3: without the public being prepped for it, without scooting that
Speaker 3: perspective and over to window toward normalization, then it sounds
Speaker 3: like a new crazy thing, which kind of the science
Speaker 3: is amazing. It is sort of a new crazy thing,
Speaker 3: if we're being honest. But because of that, and because
Speaker 3: of all the other stuff people have heard associated with
Speaker 3: these scientific concepts like DNA and RNA. For most people,
Speaker 3: when you hear mRNA, then you're immediately thinking of what
Speaker 3: like ancestry, dot com, copaganda, cold cases, true crime podcast,
Speaker 3: you know what I mean. It's got it's a weird
Speaker 3: millage of things, right, all all soaked up in there.
Speaker 3: So maybe I don't know. It's always right to ask questions,
Speaker 3: but it is also true that with any new technology
Speaker 3: there is potential for unforeseen consequences. I'm trying to be
Speaker 3: very careful about saying that we just we haven't spoken
Speaker 3: to no one has come back from the future in
Speaker 3: linear time and told us, you know, I'm from one
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty years after you, guys, and mRNA has
Speaker 3: wrecked the planet or it.
Speaker 2: Was the best man. It really fixed everything.
Speaker 3: Guys. The future is so hi, do you have any spirit?
Speaker 2: MODERNA is the new president this year. It's intense.
Speaker 3: The presidents are all now companies.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, but that's gonna happen no
Speaker 2: matter what. The outcome of this.
Speaker 3: Citizens was Oh my god, America Premium.
Speaker 2: Yes, if you're interested in this stuff, look up Biomedical
Speaker 2: Advanced Research and Development Authority or BARTA. That's the program
Speaker 2: that awarded Moderna this one hundred and seventy six million
Speaker 2: dollars to accelerate the development of a pandemic influence of vaccine.
Speaker 2: All right, tell us what you know about this stuff,
Speaker 2: what your thoughts are, and we will be right back
Speaker 2: with more strange news.
Speaker 4: And we've returned with one more piece of strange news. Ben.
Speaker 4: It was an oddly prescientth that you mentioned. With new
Speaker 4: technology often comes unforeseen consequences. We've talked a lot about
Speaker 4: the use of AI, of generative AI, of machine learning,
Speaker 4: whatever your you know, expression d jour is to describe
Speaker 4: this new technology that is advancing rapidly. The funny thing
Speaker 4: is a lot of what we're seeing is a little clownish.
Speaker 4: We're seeing it used for stuff like making cute anime
Speaker 4: portraits of ourselves or generating goofy songs or whatever. And
Speaker 4: we you know, we certainly have seen interesting, you know,
Speaker 4: kind of effective, positive uses of it, but a lot
Speaker 4: of it has been stuff that gives us pause in
Speaker 4: terms of like trying to automate people's jobs into oblivion,
Speaker 4: you know, using AI things like chat GPT, which is still,
Speaker 4: while impressive, not great. I've been watching YouTube videos over
Speaker 4: the last few days with a buddy of mine who
Speaker 4: pointed out that the AI generated subtitles on YouTube, while
Speaker 4: often okay when you watch like old Moni Python episodes,
Speaker 4: leave a lot to be desired. They get real jammed
Speaker 4: up on British slang and you know, certain colloquialisms and things.
Speaker 4: So it's actually kind of almost an extra layer of
Speaker 4: comedy to watch the ridiculous things that the AI subtitles say.
Speaker 3: Anything with an accent also a lot of spoken word
Speaker 3: or hip hop. It's kind of you know what, it reminds
Speaker 3: me of no is. It reminds me of being in
Speaker 3: a different country and finding or watching a foreign film
Speaker 3: that has like the English subtitles and the pro move.
Speaker 4: If you want to get real weird.
Speaker 3: With it, find a very popular foreign film like Kung
Speaker 3: Fu Hustle, get the DVD that already has some subtitles,
Speaker 3: and then watch it with another set of subtitles on
Speaker 3: top of it, and then you'll see how tricky it
Speaker 3: is for humans to translate things.
Speaker 4: Those kind of colloquial sort of expressions that are very
Speaker 4: dependent on meter and rhythm of speech and cadence and
Speaker 4: all of that stuff. But what we're really talking about today,
Speaker 4: the unintended consequence is that I was hinting at, is
Speaker 4: power consumption. You know, despite a lot of the things
Speaker 4: that we're seeing AI being used for seeming somewhat frivolous,
Speaker 4: we know beneath that it's being developed relentlessly by a
Speaker 4: lot of giant companies to use for god knows what.
Speaker 4: That's the part that we don't fully understand yet. And
Speaker 4: with that comes these kind of I guess they're chips
Speaker 4: called AI accelerators, and also just the processing power that
Speaker 4: it takes to run all of the computations, you know,
Speaker 4: to generate these goofy videos or you know whatever anime portraits.
Speaker 4: And it is kind of insane the increase in power
Speaker 4: demand to the grid that we're seeing with these these
Speaker 4: next generation chips, with these AI accelerators, and with the
Speaker 4: increased demand on just AI in general. A conversation we
Speaker 4: were having a handful of years ago around this was
Speaker 4: people who were using graphics cards and processors GPUs to
Speaker 4: run crypto mining operations and how much power was being
Speaker 4: sucked from the grid to do these crypto mining situations,
Speaker 4: and how people would just stack these you know, almost
Speaker 4: like private server rooms full of these graphics cards and
Speaker 4: just constantly be running them and it was generating insane
Speaker 4: amounts of demand on the grid. Well think about that,
Speaker 4: and you know, multiply it by an order of magnitude higher.
Speaker 4: There is a great article on Forbes AI power consumption
Speaker 4: rapidly becoming mission critical and just just to quote the
Speaker 4: first paragraph here from Beth Kindig, big tech is spending
Speaker 4: tens of billions quarterly on AI accelerators, which has led
Speaker 4: to an exponential increase in power consumption. Over the past
Speaker 4: few months. Multiple forecasts and data points reveal soaring data
Speaker 4: center electricity demand and surging power consumption. The rise of
Speaker 4: generative AI and the surging GPU shipments is causing data
Speaker 4: centers scale from tens of thousands to one hundred thousand
Speaker 4: plus accelerators, shifting the emphasis to power as a mission
Speaker 4: critical problem to solve.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it makes sense. I mean, it's I love that
Speaker 3: you're mentioning the crypto the cryptocarbon consequence. I want to
Speaker 3: be alliterative to my understanding here. One of the issues
Speaker 3: is that the public overall still doesn't have a full
Speaker 3: grasp on like we know some stats for Google, right
Speaker 3: or alphabet, I should say, but we don't know the
Speaker 3: full global consequences of this power demand in terms like
Speaker 3: we I don't know. I think it'd be smart to
Speaker 3: have AGI immediately figure out improvements in solar technology. That's
Speaker 3: probably the easiest way around it.
Speaker 4: That's interesting that you used to say that, Ben. Another
Speaker 4: article that I wanted to bring up is by Chuck DeVore,
Speaker 4: who who I believe is with the Texas Public Policy Foundation,
Speaker 4: and he wrote an op ed for The Federalist the
Speaker 4: title being AIS insatiable appetite for energy can't be satisfied
Speaker 4: by renewables.
Speaker 3: So oh boy, well, it's also I'll say it, it's
Speaker 3: also the federalist.
Speaker 2: Yeah, fair enough.
Speaker 4: But the pull quote here is AI is bringing an
Speaker 4: unprecedented surge and energy consumption, whether policymakers understand the energy
Speaker 4: implications or not. And he says, in the realm of
Speaker 4: artificial intelligence, where data crunching and machine learning algorithms reigned supreme,
Speaker 4: the demand for energy has emerged as a critical concern.
Speaker 3: Mark P.
Speaker 4: Mills, the executive director of the National Center for Energy
Speaker 4: Analytics at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which this gentleman
Speaker 4: Chuck Devoor overseas, argues that the energy requirements for the
Speaker 4: AI systems are far more substantial than most of us. No,
Speaker 4: his insights paying a sobering picture of the energy landscape
Speaker 4: that awaits us. AI continues its relentless advance into every
Speaker 4: facet of modern life, he says, the global or actually,
Speaker 4: according to the International Energy Agency, the global electricity consumption
Speaker 4: by AI alone could reach one thousand tarawatt hours annually
Speaker 4: by twenty twenty six, slightly more than the total electricity
Speaker 4: consumption of Japan.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 2: Uh, I was just looking at that Forbes article, Noel,
Speaker 2: just it's laying out all of the wattage used per
Speaker 2: they call them accelerators the GPUs basically that are being
Speaker 2: put out by all these companies and talking about how
Speaker 2: it's a some of them have a fifty percent, seventy
Speaker 2: five percent, three hundred percent increase in power of usage
Speaker 2: over each generation, and just trying to track that and
Speaker 2: figure out like where what is that thing called guys?
Speaker 2: Where you hit the you hit the peak. So there's
Speaker 2: two things in my mind that are going here. How
Speaker 2: technology tends to have that acceleration that is exponentially, but
Speaker 2: but we we keep hitting these like blocks to where
Speaker 2: current technology only will allow us to get to certain
Speaker 2: speed or size or whatever like Moore's law. That's it,
Speaker 2: that's its Yeah, like we're we're hitting both of those.
Speaker 2: But as we get into this like some of the
Speaker 2: quantum stuff and all of that, like I don't.
Speaker 4: Know, there's no longer those built in kind of caps, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but who knows how far off that actually is,
Speaker 2: but it is coming.
Speaker 3: You're absolutely right, and these are just proven, proven trends
Speaker 3: of human made technology that we're all we're all aware of, right,
Speaker 3: they have been proven at this point so far, and
Speaker 3: it's going to take a real groundbreaking shift to change
Speaker 3: some of those realities. Quantum uh sorry, quantum technology, I
Speaker 3: should say, maybe one of those game changers. One thing
Speaker 3: for sure, however, the big thing that is going to
Speaker 3: sty me progress in this situation is the secrecy, because
Speaker 3: until we can understand, if you don't know the depth
Speaker 3: and breadth and specifics of a problem, you have vastly
Speaker 3: reduced your ability to solve for that problem.
Speaker 4: And I feel like that's part of why the stuff
Speaker 4: that the public is seeing that's being trotted out feels
Speaker 4: kind of frivolous, because it's sort of like a fun
Speaker 4: new shiny toy that gives us agency to play around
Speaker 4: with this new tech in a way that's like entertaining.
Speaker 4: You know, Oh, it's no big deal. Look, it's just
Speaker 4: like a weird new Instagram filter TikTok or whatever. But
Speaker 4: actually there's much more going on beneath the surface, and
Speaker 4: much more energy being expended that we don't have a
Speaker 4: view into in terms of like the transparency of how
Speaker 4: much is this actually affecting our resources?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's a good point because we also
Speaker 3: we also have to realize that this is emergent technology,
Speaker 3: which means that any numbers people do pull are going
Speaker 3: to be pretty perishable and perhaps less relevant within the
Speaker 3: span of just a month, which is nuts to think about.
Speaker 3: It's bonkers, but it is true. And also, you know,
Speaker 3: Pandora's jar has unscrewed. You can't put AI back into
Speaker 3: the box. This is not done where they have the
Speaker 3: Butleryan jihad against thinking machines. They're on the way. This
Speaker 3: is overall a good thing if we can figure it out.
Speaker 3: But my my uninformed hope I'm trying to be optimistic nowadays,
Speaker 3: is that you know, we've seen we've seen machine learning
Speaker 3: models make tremendous improvements in engineering, right, both in the
Speaker 3: space of weapons but also in the space of civilian
Speaker 3: tech and really arcane problems that may maybe a couple
Speaker 3: thousand people in the world would even understand. Right, And
Speaker 3: this stuff, these spells, that's what I mean. Programming is
Speaker 3: basically casting a spell.
Speaker 4: Well, we thought, yeah, it's like incantation, and the best
Speaker 4: people that understand the language can do the best version
Speaker 4: of the spell.
Speaker 3: So these algorithms, these things, these creatures conjured through these
Speaker 3: spells seem to have a clear advantage on improving concepts
Speaker 3: of engineering. They're better at that than they are having
Speaker 3: a human like conversation. So maybe this is my hope.
Speaker 3: Maybe we can while we're still heading toward that inflection
Speaker 3: point like you were talking about, Matt, Maybe there's time
Speaker 3: enough before the car hits the tree or goes over
Speaker 3: the cliff elm and Lewis style. Maybe there is enough
Speaker 3: time to get some of these machine learning projects on
Speaker 3: to renewable energy and maybe hopefully disprove the statements of
Speaker 3: Chuck Devar, who's also you know, a politician.
Speaker 4: Fair enough, I would ask you, when have we ever
Speaker 4: done that? And it does feel to me a lot
Speaker 4: like the folks that are wielding the stuff you know,
Speaker 4: at the highest levels are big time putting the cart
Speaker 4: before the ecological horse.
Speaker 2: Yeah, guys, I think there's time for all of us
Speaker 2: to decide social media is no longer worth it, and
Speaker 2: we can just rise above and we will no longer
Speaker 2: need memes and AI generated cartoons, and there's a world
Speaker 2: where we go outside and we take tree limbs and
Speaker 2: we play with them like swords. Again, touch grass.
Speaker 4: You should run for office Matt, that's very stirring the
Speaker 4: stump speech there, but only at night.
Speaker 3: Yes, this is why you see the problem with coalition
Speaker 3: parts in politics, right, Matt pitched the idea. One of
Speaker 3: us is on board, right, the other one was was
Speaker 3: I agree, asterisk, and we're only doing that at night, right.
Speaker 2: Now, that's fine dusk stick swordsmanship. That's what we'll call it.
Speaker 4: That's our whole platform.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 4: Uh, this is something probably to look at in a
Speaker 4: bigger agreed dive. So I'm gonna keep this one short.
Speaker 4: That's it, basically, that's the gist is that. And I
Speaker 4: don't know that it's necessarily that surprising to anybody, but
Speaker 4: here it is from some you know, folks that more
Speaker 4: or less know what they're talking about.
Speaker 3: And we have to wonder too, what our timeline looks
Speaker 3: like for that, you know, for that possible inflection point.
Speaker 3: You brought a statistic that I really want to underline
Speaker 3: all which is the idea that these machine learning models
Speaker 3: and these infrastructures could become countries of their own in
Speaker 3: terms of power consumption. And the question then is, you know,
Speaker 3: we're not the experts. Obviously, we don't pretend to be
Speaker 3: so but we would love to know what you think
Speaker 3: that timeline might be. Is it going to be an
Speaker 3: hour lifetime? You know, are we going to run into
Speaker 3: it at that point or I don't know. It feels
Speaker 3: like things are accelerating. There's a snowball.
Speaker 2: Okay. So the guys, these GPUs, they give off a
Speaker 2: tremendous amount of heat. That's one of the big problems,
Speaker 2: right right. Do you think there's a way we can
Speaker 2: design a system that captures the heat from the GPUs
Speaker 2: to then turn that into power for the GPUs.
Speaker 4: It's interesting that there are certain home appliances or like
Speaker 4: you know, on the you know, like heaters and things
Speaker 4: that actually harness heat from.
Speaker 3: The ground and energy.
Speaker 4: That's exactly right. So I mean it's certainly possible. And I,
Speaker 4: for example, have a do humidifier that runs down in
Speaker 4: my studio all the time and it pulls moisture out
Speaker 4: of the air. Like you just got to wonder if
Speaker 4: this is a thing that should be being discussed, like
Speaker 4: how do we take a byproduct and turn it into
Speaker 4: a net gain in that blastic human Yeah.
Speaker 2: It would be like a hybrid engine the way they
Speaker 2: use the wheel movement to then recharge the battery. You
Speaker 2: would use the heat from the GPUs as it's generated
Speaker 2: to recharge the power system that's supplying the GPUs. Guys,
Speaker 2: we can do this basically.
Speaker 3: You just need to figure out how to take something
Speaker 3: we already have and use that to spend something to
Speaker 3: create more power. So we could also link it to
Speaker 3: tidal power. Oh, I'm quite bullish on because because it's free, right.
Speaker 2: Right, What if we had hundreds of thousands of people
Speaker 2: locked in rooms with an electric bike of some sort
Speaker 2: where they would pedal on the bike.
Speaker 4: And also, like what you're talking about too, would only
Speaker 4: work in the largest over the arrays in one location, right,
Speaker 4: and that would also require harge scale buy in from
Speaker 4: these giant corporations. And unless they were absolutely you know,
Speaker 4: forced to do this or it was some sort of
Speaker 4: marketing move because things had already gotten so bad they
Speaker 4: needed a win in terms of like public opinion, only
Speaker 4: then would they do it. They're not going to just
Speaker 4: do it on their own. I'm not going to benevolently
Speaker 4: say here, take our AI GPU heat and like do something.
Speaker 4: You know, let's let's figure out how to funnel it.
Speaker 4: It's the same reason that we can't desalinate the ocean
Speaker 4: or like it's way too expensive and requires a lot
Speaker 4: of entergale.
Speaker 3: Right, and there's a lot of Yeah, there's a lot
Speaker 3: of really fascinating technology that's going on here. And folks,
Speaker 3: we want to tell you. If you are a physicist
Speaker 3: and you clearly know why, like you clearly know why
Speaker 3: these projects that we're spitballing haven't been done yet, write
Speaker 3: in and let us know from you.
Speaker 2: Oh god no.
Speaker 3: Also wait, wait, wait, this is this is a double
Speaker 3: edged sword. Here, give us the facts and then give
Speaker 3: us the crazy part. We want to hear you pitch
Speaker 3: a weird idea and we want to hear you know
Speaker 3: what I mean. Like it's a big thing for us.
Speaker 3: We don't like to show up just with problems. We
Speaker 3: like to bring solutions.
Speaker 4: And I'm not suggesting anyone wants to desalinate the ocean.
Speaker 4: I'm just talking about another source of.
Speaker 2: Salinate.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look at the way the human civilization is. They've
Speaker 3: been on that the ocean thing for a while.
Speaker 4: Now we're going to keep going.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry cursied so much, but folks, we hope you
Speaker 3: enjoyed this evening strange news. Uh, we are going to
Speaker 3: return with even more explorations. Uh, we want to hear
Speaker 3: from you legal experts, non legal experts, people who are
Speaker 3: worried about things in general. Let us know. Also, well
Speaker 3: a million other things. We'll catch up next time. Would
Speaker 3: try to be easy to find online.
Speaker 4: Find us online at the handle Conspiracy Stuff, where we
Speaker 4: exist on Facebook with our Facebook group Here's where it
Speaker 4: gets crazy. On x FKA, Twitter and on YouTube with
Speaker 4: video content coming at you on the regular. On Instagram
Speaker 4: and TikTok, you can find us at the handle conspiracy stuff.
Speaker 2: Show the heat syncs on the GPU rather than just
Speaker 2: taking that heat away and accepting it excites. Yes, they
Speaker 2: accept it and they transfer that heat. I can see it, you, guys,
Speaker 2: I can see it. If you want to call us,
Speaker 2: call one eight three three STDWYTK that's our voicemail system.
Speaker 2: When you call in, you've got three minutes. Say whatever
Speaker 2: you'd like do. Give yourself a cool nickname. We don't
Speaker 2: care what it is, and we're excited to hear what
Speaker 2: you choose. Let us know if we can use that
Speaker 2: name and your voice on one of our listener mail episodes.
Speaker 2: And if you've got more to say, then can fit
Speaker 2: in one of those tiny, little three minute maximum voicemails.
Speaker 2: Why not instead send us a good old fashion email.
Speaker 3: We are the entities that read every every single email
Speaker 3: we get. We also received just now an interesting piece
Speaker 3: of correspondence from chat GPT. Heychat GPT. We asked, how
Speaker 3: do you think we can fix the problem of AI
Speaker 3: creating excess carbon emissions? Chat GPT said, it's a multifaceted approach,
Speaker 3: integrating technological operational policy measures, improve energy efficiency, AI models,
Speaker 3: green data centers, sustainable practices distributed an edge computing awareness
Speaker 3: and collaboration. Got a little ted talkie at the end.
Speaker 4: I'm wondering if green data centers are a thing we
Speaker 4: should look at in the future too. Does that involve
Speaker 4: some kind of harnessing of thereby proc I wonder if
Speaker 4: what you're describing that is a thing you know it's
Speaker 4: too good to know.
Speaker 3: So green data centers, this is exactly what I was
Speaker 3: talking about, powered by renewable energy sources such as solar. Sorry,
Speaker 3: Chuck Devor, I respectfully disagree, And we'll also ask some
Speaker 3: questions about your campaign funding.
Speaker 4: So anyway, I don't know about this guy. You seem
Speaker 4: to know a bit more about this guy than I.
Speaker 4: Do so. I tried to at least have two perspectives,
Speaker 4: but yeah, Ed.
Speaker 3: Ed, They're right. Obviously, this is a conversation we're going
Speaker 3: to pick up again because we're all heated up about it.
Speaker 3: I've even turned my screen read I think, look, he.
Speaker 4: Heated you're really hot out of the collar, bet walk with.
Speaker 3: Us into the dark conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2: Stuff they Don't Want you to Know is a production
Speaker 2: of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.