most likely possibility. I can't say for sure about that or anything else but I treat it like it's not real. And my experiences just don't, they just don't seem like they could possibly be coincidental. It just doesn't seem like it. I don't know what to think of that. But those people who have said to me, this is just anecdotal of course, that as soon as they feel they're in the simulation and they start using things like affirmations to author the simulation they report that they get good results. But of course that's anecdotal.

So Elon Musk weighed in on this thread. So somebody named Michael Kersey tweeted this. This is just the second part of his tweet. He said pharmacological dark matter. And he's talking about a phenomenon among important people. So he's just giving it a name: pharmacological dark matter. So basically the stuff we don't know is invisible. Heavy amphetamine and other drug use among people playing significant roles in our society.

Now you've heard me say that, right? The people who are doing the most moving and shaping of civilization mostly on drugs. It wouldn't happen otherwise. And I don't take drugs like, and I mean it, don't take drugs. I mean the only time you should is if you're under a doctor's care and even that is probably too much. So I'm not encouraging it. I'm just saying it's a fact. And ignoring it feels stupid. It just feels stupid to ignore it. The fact is there's some people, and here's the dangerous part, everybody responds to chemistry differently. So there might be a drug that simply makes one person rich because it just makes them perform better and they never have a side effect or one they care about. And then another person it just kills them. It just freaking kills them or makes them crazy or ruins their life one way or the other.

So don't take drugs because you don't know which one you are. You don't know if you're the one the drug is going to kill or the drug is going to help you. We're just not that smart because we're all different. So anyway, so Michael Kersey weighs in on this about the significant role. And then Mark Andreessen, one of the most important voices in the tech world, tweeted this. He said, "Everyone thinks our present society was caused by social media. I'm wondering whether Adderall plus ubiquitous Google searches have bigger effects."

Now I don't know about the Google search part but here's one of the most connected people in Silicon Valley and then the tech world who would personally know the most important people in society. So you know this is somebody who's been in the room and has the phone number to text pretty much anybody famous I think at this point. And he's telling you that he thinks Adderall may be shaping civilization or things like it. I'm not saying Adderall specifically but you should take that as things like it. You know, amphetamines.

And then Alex Cohen tweeted this. He said prescribed psychedelics will replace amphetamines and SSRIs over the next decade although I hope it's sooner than that he said. And then Musk gets into this tweet and he tweets, "I've talked to many people who were helped by psychedelics and ketamine. More people were helped by psychedelics and ketamine than SSRIs and amphetamines." And then he added related to this, and this is not me talking so I'm just reporting what he said, all right, so these are not my words. He said, "Adderall is an anger amplifier. Avoid at all costs."

Now here's the interesting thing. As Jeff Pilkington pointed out in some tweets, everybody's different. That's what I said earlier, right? I'm pretty sure that Adderall has saved lives but I'm pretty sure it's caused some problems. I think both of those can be true. So it's a little bit, let's say it's a really good example of free speech both its negatives and its positives. You don't want to be getting medical advice from Elon Musk. That might be his weakest category. I mean he is insanely smart on a whole variety of things that allow him to do what he does but I think the medical part might be the part where you go, "Yeah, you get a second opinion there." Yeah. Usually when Musk says something I'm usually done. It's like, "Okay, I agree with that. There's nothing else to say." But I think in the medical domain let's be glad that there is free speech because he can say this. If you looked at the comments there would be a whole bunch of people pushing back and I say okay that's a really good example of free speech working.

Somebody's asking if I'm on Adderall. I'm not. So I've never been on any kind of long-term stimulant except coffee or sativa I guess. But I will, I've said this before, but in college I had a few experiences with stimulants and I wrote my entire senior thesis in like I think it was like mostly over a weekend and then I was done with the semester and it was actually easy and I enjoyed it. Think about that. I did a semester of work in four days, got a reasonably good grade on it I think a B-plus or something. And I did it in four days and I liked it. It was completely pleasant. It was a horrible job like just the most boring. It was like in economics. So it was a senior thesis in economics. You know how boring that was? And I enjoyed the whole thing.

Now how many unicorn companies have been created by people who had a little stimulant going on? How many? Probably a lot, right? Probably a lot. And it is one of the great untold stories anyway.

Michael Shellenberger who is running for governor as an independent in California, I understand there was some issue in terms of the paperwork. I got to look into that a little bit. But how would you like to be running for governor and part of your accomplishments just happened, which is Shellenberger was I think the loudest most effective voice for trying to save the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California. And the reasoning was it's already there. It's cost effective and we don't have any green way to replace it and we'll just run out of energy if we don't keep it open. A pretty straightforward argument.

And apparently the great weight of public opinion moved Shellenberger's way. Is that a coincidence or did he cause it? Because remember he was testifying to Congress. He was writing books and articles on it. He was the most famous voice on this topic. I think he caused it. I think he caused it. So he's running for governor while the current governor is saying that he's going to look to get some money from the federal funds that was allocated by Biden. And I'll give Biden credit for this for keeping nuclear power plants open longer than they would have been. So the governor is looking at implementing the plan that the governor didn't want to do but Shellenberger convinced the entire country that they need to do it. And now he kind of has to do it.

I would hate to be running against Shellenberger in this situation honestly. I know I've never seen a more capable politician in terms of competence about the actual topics that matter to the state. It's sort of breathtaking because we've never seen it before. I'm pretty sure we've never seen this before. We've had some presidents who were a little wonky you know like Jimmy Carter and stuff but not like this. Like Carter didn't have this kind of mastery over the exact topic that the state cared about. And several of them from homelessness to drug addiction to he's talked about forest management. Basically everything we care about he has the better solution for.

All right. Here's the most provocative thing that I've read lately. We all assume at this point that Russia will have its way with Ukraine. In the comments where are you feeling as of today? Like what do you feel today? Is Russia going to have its way? All right. So I'm seeing mostly yeses. Some people saying they'll just take the east of Ukraine.

All right. Now I will remind you that in war nothing is predictable. So among the unpredictable things that could happen I tweeted this and I feel terrible because I want to mention the author and the publication because I liked it so much but I can't find it in my own tweets for some reason. Maybe I imagined I tweeted it. Yeah maybe I imagined it. But if somebody sees it maybe you can tell me in the comments if I did tweet it and you see it.

It was an article by somebody who definitely looked like they knew what they're doing. There's somebody who had predicted in writing and could show the receipts that the Moskva, that ship, would be sunk by the Ukrainian anti-ship missiles. So that's a pretty good prediction. Somebody had that specific prediction that happened. And then when I read the article seemed to know quite a bit about the whole situation. So I don't know how to judge military experts because we've seen so many of them being so wrong about so many things. But I'll give you his argument and I'd love to see how wrong it is.

It goes like this. We're all focusing on the fact that the fighting is in Donbas and the other name starts with L that I can't remember. And we're taking for granted that Russia already owns Crimea because they got annexed in 2014 something like that. So yeah, so Luhansk is the other region. So we're ignoring Crimea right because that's a done deal. Russia already owns it.

Here's the part I didn't know about. They barely own it. They do own it. Their military is there. It's theirs. But apparently if you're looking at it from a military perspective their connection to Crimea is one bridge