Caller Wrongly Believes Voting Doesn’t Matter


We have a voicemail number. That number is two one nine two. David P really important issue. Brought up in this voicemail about the importance
of every vote. Take a listen David, my name is Joshua phone in Chicago,
Illinois. My friend voted in 2016 for Hillary thin. Yes. And ever since then, once it was all came
back, the Trump actually won. I guess she’s on the opinion that she just
believes that votes doesn’t matter pretty much. Right. And I was just wondering if there was a way
to maybe do, or there’s something you could say to convince her otherwise. Cause me personally, I do believe that both
matter and I personally believe I’ll type of off Obama’s proof of that because it both
didn’t matter then because a lot of people said that Barack Obama was never going to
get in. Yeah. Here’s the deal. Uh, there were a lot of people who had the
same thought as a, as your friend and didn’t even vote in 2016 there are millions of people
in 2016 who said, you know, I don’t really think my vote matters even though I don’t
want Trump. I’m not going to bother and go out and vote. And if those millions of people just had gone
out and voted for Hillary Clinton, we would not have president Trump right now. We would not have the disaster that is facing
the Kurds in Northern Syria right now. We would not have one of the most radical
right judiciaries at both the Supreme court and lower court levels that we’ve had in decades
thanks to Donald Trump. So if anything, the 2016 election, it should
not dissuade people from voting. It should be confirmation that if only a few
of those people who said, I’m not going to bother to vote, which is half the country. How embarrassing is that? Half the country doesn’t vote. If even just a fraction of those people had
gone out and voted, we never would have had president Trump to begin with. So your friend is right to be frustrated,
but the conclusion to draw is not, doesn’t even make sense to vote. The conclusion to draw is if all of us who
are skeptical about our ability to make change by voting just went out and cast the damn
ballot, we would have easily defeated Donald Trump in 2016 and we could easily defeat Donald
Trump in 2020 that’s the, that’s the conclusion that we should all be coming to. No matter what state you’re in, no matter
how safe you think your congressional district is for your member of Congress, if you like
them or whatever else, go out and vote. If everybody who questioned the importance
of voting went out and voted, they wouldn’t stand a chance. We’ve got a great bonus show for you today. We will talk about Bernie’s plan to give workers
an ownership stake in big companies. We will talk about a record setting, sub two
hour marathon. Incredible, incredible, and we will talk about
what’s going on with the NBA and China and Hong Kong. A lot to discuss there. All of those stories and more on today’s bonus
show, sign [email protected] 148 new members over the weekend. Taking advantage of the big membership drive
coupon code. If you’re interested in taking advantage of
that, I’m glad to extend it to you for another day or two. Get in touch through our website contact form. Ask me for the code, I’ll send it to you and it’ll be a beautiful
thing. If we can get a maybe closer to 200 people
taking advantage of that code, I’ll talk to you in just a few moments on the bonus. Check the David Pakman [email protected]
[inaudible].

How Much is the US President Paid?


This video was made possible by Dashlane. Stay safe online for free for thirty days
at https://www.dashlane.com/hai. Alright, so here’s the question: how much
does the US President get paid? Seems easy enough, right? At first glance, you’d think this is one
of those questions where I should be able to just tell you a number and then you can
go on your merry way, exploring the rest of what YouTube has to offer: rap battles, trick
basketball shots, people falling down staircases, and even lame plane videos from that guy at
Wendover Productions. But, of course, if things were really that
simple, this video would only be 10 seconds long, which is hardly enough time for someone
to fall down a staircase, let alone to fill an entire HAI video. The truth is that the answer is… as usual…
a little bit more complicated than you might first think. Now, we’re going to get down to talking
cold hard cash soon enough, but first let’s address the elephant in the room. He’s right here, and his name is Gary. Now that we’ve addressed that, let’s answer
a looming question: why does the President even need a salary? After all, don’t they get to live for free
in a big White House with a fancy staff and a private plane and those cool M&Ms with the
presidential seal on them? Well, yes…but also, no. See it turns out that despite what most people
think, life in the White House isn’t totally free. While it is true that Presidents don’t have
to pay rent or utilities in the White House, they do have to pay for almost everything
else. One of the most significant costs is food—the
White House has its own kitchen staff, but Presidents aren’t given some sort of win-270-electoral-votes-get-one-meal-free
coupon. The cost of every meal that kitchen whips
up for the First Family gets tallied and put into an itemized bill to be paid at the end
of the month, and while the salary of the chef who makes that food is covered by the
government, not all staff costs are—for example, when the President throws a private
White House party, they have to pay not only for the food and beverages, but also for the
wait staff, servers, cleanup crew, and anything else that would be at a White House party,
like… I dunno… a piñata shaped like Congress. Plus, the President has to pay for everything
else that a normal person might need: toothpaste, shampoo—well, except for Eisenhower—those
little American flag pins, a Netflix subscription, and, of course, clothes—which can also get
quite expensive, especially for the First Lady, who is generally expected to wear different,
expensive, designer outfits to a wide array of events, because, you know, sexism. Now, for official Presidential business, the
federal government does pick up the tab, so the President isn’t stuck paying for things
like state dinners, secret service, Air Force One, and so on, which often leads to controversy
that we’re going to give a big wide berth and not address in the slightest. For anything personal, though taxpayers aren’t
expected to cover the bill, which means that when JFK wanted a midnight snack—and I don’t
mean Marilyn Monroe, I mean, like, a sandwich or something—he had to pay out of his own
pocket. Now that we’ve talked about why the President
needs money, let’s talk about the money itself. The President’s salary is set by Congress,
and Congress has voted to raise that salary six times, mostly just so that it keeps up
with inflation. One interesting little wrinkle of this power
is that under Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution, Congress cannot raise
the President’s salary for the current term, only for future terms. That is, if Congress votes to raise the President’s
salary, that raise doesn’t take effect until after the next Presidential election. This provision is presumably in place to prevent
corruption in the Oval Office, which so far has been working out great. The first ever US presidential salary went
to, of course, the first ever US president—George Washington, who was paid $25,000 a year. Now that may not seem like a lot, but when
you adjust for inflation, in 1789, when Washington took office, $25,000 was worth about $720,000
in 2019 dollars—at least, according to the CPI index, which is going to be what I use
for all of these inflation calculations because even though I know there are bunch of different
ways to calculate inflation, this is the one I like, and if you have a problem with that,
you can leave an angry comment below, because comment engagement means YouTube’s algorithm
prioritizes the video more. That’s right commenters—your anger only
makes me stronger. Anyways, the President’s salary stayed at
$25,000 until 1872, at which point, Congress raised the president’s salary to $50,000,
starting with the second term of Ulysses S. Grant—In 2019 dollars, Grant was making
about $1.1 million. That lasted until 1908, when, the salary was
upped to $75,000 starting in 1909, for the first term of William Howard Taft, giving
him the highest inflation-adjusted salary of any President—nearly $2.2 million in
2019 dollars. In 1948, we saw another raise, which took
place in the middle of Truman’s two terms. As of his second term, which started in 1949,
he made $100,000, or just under $1.1 million in 2019 dollars. In 1968, Congress doubled it, which meant
that starting in 1969, the President, now Richard M. Nixon, made $200,000, or about
$1.4 million in 2019 dollars. That salary lasted all the way through the
end of Bill Clinton’s second term in 2000, when it was doubled once more, to $400,000,
or about $600,000 in 2019 dollars. And now in 2019, it still sits at $400,000,
which in 2019 dollars would be $400,000. Now there are a few additions to that $400,000
salary—a $50,000 expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and a $19,000 entertainment
account. Plus, when the President moves in, they get
$100,000 to redecorate the White House however they’d like, but apart from that, and the
private jet, and the private helicopter, and the secret service, and the millions they’ll
make giving talks once they leave office, they don’t get anything else—being president
truly is a hard knock life. Being President, there are a lot of things
you have to remember—the nuclear codes, 10 Downing Street’s address, your tee times—so
you really don’t have time to remember things like all your passwords. Especially as president, you need to make
sure that you’re using safe, complex passwords that look like this rather than simple ones
like this. That’s why, when you become president, or
maybe even before, you should use Dashlane as your password manager as it will generate
and keep all these super-secure passwords, unique to each of your accounts, behind a
single super-super-secure password that you have to remember, and then autofill them when
you go to log in. This is sure to beef up your online security,
and then Dashlane premium also includes a bunch of other tools to keep you safe online
like a VPN, breach alerts, secure file storage, and much more. All of that is for a very low monthly price—less
than most standalone VPN’s—and can be free for 30-days if you sign up at dashlane.com/HAI. After that trial lapses, you can then use
the coupon code, “HAI,” for 10% off upgrading to premium.

What people miss about the gender wage gap


When we talk about gender equality in the US there’s this one statistic you see all the time: “Women earn 79 cents for every dollar men make.” And while that statistic is factually correct, there’s a lot it doesn’t tell you. It simply compares the median wages of men and women who work full time. It doesn’t tell you how the wage gap plays out for women with different educational levels or different ages, or who work in different fields. And you need that information if you want to start closing the gap. Part of the wage gap reflects the fact that women are more concentrated in lower-paying occupations. But to fully understand the issue, you have to look within occupations too. Back in 2009, three economists set out to understand the wage gap by following a group of MBA graduates from the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. They looked at thousands of men and women who graduated between 1990 and 2006. And their data showed that men had slightly higher salaries right out of the gate. One year out of business school, women were making an average salary of $115,000 while men earned $130,000. But nine years out of business school, things looked really different. Men were earning an average salary of $400,000, while women were earning 60 percent less —$250,000 on average. The gap had widened considerably. But research suggests the gap doesn’t stay that wide — that it shrinks as women enter middle age. This chart shows how the wage gap for college graduates changes as women age. The lower the line, the bigger the wage gap between men and women. If you look at women born in 1973, you can see the wage gap growing as they go from their mid-twenties to their mid thirties. Better than previous generations but heading in the same direction. Same thing for women born in 1968. The pay difference for men and women continues to grow as they move from their mid-thirties to their mid-forties. And for women born in 1948, things started off the same. The gap widens as they get older. But then, all of a sudden, it starts shrinking. As working women approach their 50s and 60s, the difference between men’s and women’s salaries gets smaller Which makes sense if you think about what often happens during a woman’s 20s and 30s. In the Chicago MBA study, women with kids had a wage gap twice as large as women without. The truth is that women take on a disproportionate share of child-rearing tasks. A survey from Pew found that in 2-parent households, women did more than men when it came to managing kids’ schedules, taking care of them when they’re sick, and handling the majority of household chores. And that was a survey of families where both parents worked full-time. But these additional responsibilities seem to hurt some women more than others. This is a key research finding from Claudia Goldin, an economist at Harvard who is a leading researcher on the gender wage gap. She shows this by exploring how gender pay gaps vary in different fields. This is one of her charts. Each of these dots is a different higher-paying job. The lower the dot, the larger the gender pay gap. The further to the right, the more the job pays, based on the average income of men in that job. These green dots represent jobs in the tech sector. For the most part, the jobs are pretty close to the 0 line, meaning the difference in pay between men and women is fairly small. The same is true for jobs in science. The yellow dots. But look as these red dots. They represent jobs in business. And they’re mostly clustered toward the middle and the bottom of the chart, meaning they have some of the largest wage gaps. There’s a fairly simple way to explain some of these differences—some jobs require specific hours. Others are more flexible. Take your prototypical businesswoman. Maybe she’s a venture capitalist, maybe she’s an accountant. Either way, she has a standard 9-5 schedule so she can meet with other businesspeople or with clients. If she’s not available to her clients when they need her, her bosses won’t think she’s doing a good job. Compare that to a scientist who works in a lab. Most of her work is self-directed. It doesn’t’ really matter when she runs her experiments, as long as she gets them done. If she gets her work done, her bosses think she’s doing a good job. For the millions of women in with jobs that demand very specific hours, the wage gap is larger than it is for women in jobs with more flexible hours There’s one job where we can see this really clearly. In 1970s, women pharmacists earned about 66 percent of what men did. Pharmacies used to be mostly independent businesses where a single pharmacist might be responsible for keeping his shop open whenever people needed it. Today, most pharmacies are owned by large chains. They stay open longer, which means they need more pharmacists. Women pharmacists now have a lot more options and a 6am to 2pm shift is just as good as a 9 – 5 shift. Nobody gets rewarded for working exceptionally long hours. And the wage gap for pharmacists has shrunk dramatically. Today, female pharmacists make 92 percent of what their male counterparts do. Of course, we can’t all be pharmacists. There will always be jobs where it’s important to work particular hours. But there are lots of jobs where hours could potentially become more flexible than they are right now. And research tells us the more we can make that work, the more the wage gap is going to shrink.

The Trouble with the Electoral College


In a fair democracy everyone’s vote should
count equally, but the method that the United States uses to elect its president, called
the electoral college, violates this principle by making sure that some people’s votes are
more equal than others. The Electoral College is, essentially, the
538 votes that determine who wins the presidency. If these votes were split evenly across the
population every 574,000 people would be represented by one vote. But that’s not what happens because the Electoral
College doesn’t give votes to people, only states. Which has some unfair consequences. For example there are 11,500,000 people in
Ohio so, to fairly represent them, it should get 20 electoral votes. But the Electoral
college doesn’t give Ohio 20 votes, it only gets 18 — two less than it should. Where’d those other votes go? To states like
Rhode Island. Plucky Rhode Island has 1.1 million people
in it, so it should have about two votes, but instead it gets four! Those extra two votes that should be representing
Ohioans go to representing Rhode Islanders instead? Why? Because, according to the rules of the electoral
college, every state, no matter how few people live there, gets three votes to start with
before the rest are distributed according to population. Because of this rule there are a lot of states
with a few people that should only have one or two votes for president but instead get
three or four. So Georgians, Virginians, Michiganders & Jerseyites
are each missing one vote, Pennsylvanians, North Carolinians, Ohioans
& Hoosiers are missing two, Floridians are missing 4, New Yorkers, 5, Texans 6, and Californians
are 10 short of what they should get. Because of this vote redistribution, the Electoral
College essentially pretends that fewer people live where they do and more people live where
they don’t. An American who lives in one of these states,
has their vote for president count for less than an American who lives in one of these
states. In some cases the Electoral College bends
the results just a little, but if you live in a particularly large or small state, it
bends them a lot. One Vermonter’s vote, according to the Electoral
College is worth three Texans’ votes. And one Wyomingite’s vote is worth four Californians’. Now, hold on there son, you might be saying
to yourself right now: you’re missing the whole point of the electoral college. It’s
to protect the small states from the big states. Give the small states more voting power and
the presidential candidates will have to pay them more attention in an election. If that’s the goal of the electoral college,
it’s failing spectacularly. Here’s a graph showing the number of visits
the presidential Candidates paid to each of the states in the last two months of the previous
election. If it looks like there are a few states missing,
you’re right. Only 18 of the 50 states received even a single visit from a candidate. And
just two of those states, Mane and New Hampshire have very small populations. The area of the country with the most small
states is conspicuously missing. The Electoral College doesn’t make candidates
care about small states. But, interestingly the biggest states, California,
Texas and New York are missing as well so what’s going on? Looking closer, just four states, Ohio, Florida,
Pennsylvania and Virginia received a majority of the candidates’ attention during the election. And if you follow the money, it’s the same
story. Why do candidates spend so much money and
time in so few states? Because the way the electoral college works forces them to do
so. The elections are winner-take-all. As long
as a candidate gets just over 50% of the popular vote in a state he wins 100% of that state’s
electoral votes. That means winning by millions of citizens’
votes is no better than winning by a single vote. So candidates are safe to ignore states where
they poll with big margins. Instead, the electoral college makes candidates
intensely interested in the needs of just a few states with close races, to the detriment
of of almost all Americans, which is why it should be abolished. But wait! You might say, won’t abolishing
the electoral college and voting directly for president cause candidates to spend all
their time in big cities? That wouldn’t fair to most Americans either. This sounds like a reasonable fear, but ignores
the mathematical reality of population distribution. There are 309 million people in the United
States, only 8 million of which live in New York, the largest city by far. That’s 2.6%
of the total population. But after New York, the size of cities drops fast. LA has 3.8 million and Chicago has 2.7 but
you can’t even make it to the tenth biggest city, San Jose before you’re under a million
people. These top ten cities added together are only
7.9% of the popular vote hardly enough to win an election. And even winning the next 90 biggest cities
in the United States all the way down to Spokane is still not yet 20% of the total population. So unless there’s a city with a few hundred
million people hiding somewhere in America that’s been left out of the census, the idea,
that a candidate can just spend their campaign Jetting between New York, LA and Chicago while
ignoring everyone else and still become president is mathematically ludicrous. Want to see the real way to unfairly win? How YOU can become President with only 22%
of the popular vote by taking advantage of the Electoral College today! Don’t believe that’s possible in a democracy?
Just watch: Here’s the action plan: win the votes of the
people who count the most and ignore the people who count the least. Start with Wyoming, the state where 0.18%
of Americans live but who get 0.56% of the electoral college votes for president. And, because it’s a winner take all system,
you don’t need all of them to vote for you, just half plus one or 0.09%. Next up is the District of Columbia where
winning 0.1% of the population also gets you an additional 0.56% of the electoral college. Then add in wins in Vermont, and North Dakota,
and Alaska. Notice how the votes your getting to win the
presidency go up much faster than the percent of the population who voted for you because
of the Electoral College’s rules. Next is South Dakota, then Delaware, Montana,
Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico,
Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon, Kentucky,
Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maryland, Missouri,
Tennessee, Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. Congratulations, by taking advantage of unfair
rules and winning states, not people, you’ve won a majority in the Electoral College even
though 78% of the population voted against you. This is not Democracy, this is indefensible. While this particular scenario is unlikely,
if you have a voting system that allows losers to win, you shouldn’t be surprised when they
do. Not once, not twice, but thrice in American
history the candidate with the most votes from the people actually lost because of the
electoral college. Three errors in 55+ elections is a failure
rate of 5%. Would anyone tolerate a sport where, by a
quirk of the rules, there was a 5% chance that the loser would win? Not likely. Given how much more important electing the
president of the United States is, that’s a rather dangerously high percentage of the
time to get it wrong. If we abolish the Electoral College and simply
let citizens vote for the president directly, all of these problems will go away and everyone’s
vote will be equal.

Why fascism is so tempting — and how your data could power it | Yuval Noah Harari


Hello, everyone. It’s a bit funny, because I did write
that humans will become digital, but I didn’t think it will happen so fast and that it will happen to me. But here I am, as a digital avatar, and here you are, so let’s start. And let’s start with a question. How many fascists are there
in the audience today? (Laughter) Well, it’s a bit difficult to say, because we’ve forgotten what fascism is. People now use the term “fascist” as a kind of general-purpose abuse. Or they confuse fascism with nationalism. So let’s take a few minutes
to clarify what fascism actually is, and how it is different from nationalism. The milder forms of nationalism
have been among the most benevolent of human creations. Nations are communities
of millions of strangers who don’t really know each other. For example, I don’t know
the eight million people who share my Israeli citizenship. But thanks to nationalism, we can all care about one another
and cooperate effectively. This is very good. Some people, like John Lennon,
imagine that without nationalism, the world will be a peaceful paradise. But far more likely, without nationalism,
we would have been living in tribal chaos. If you look today at the most prosperous
and peaceful countries in the world, countries like Sweden
and Switzerland and Japan, you will see that they have
a very strong sense of nationalism. In contrast, countries that lack
a strong sense of nationalism, like Congo and Somalia and Afghanistan, tend to be violent and poor. So what is fascism, and how
is it different from nationalism? Well, nationalism tells me
that my nation is unique, and that I have special obligations
towards my nation. Fascism, in contrast, tells me
that my nation is supreme, and that I have exclusive
obligations towards it. I don’t need to care about anybody
or anything other than my nation. Usually, of course,
people have many identities and loyalties to different groups. For example, I can be a good patriot,
loyal to my country, and at the same time,
be loyal to my family, my neighborhood, my profession, humankind as a whole, truth and beauty. Of course, when I have different
identities and loyalties, it sometimes creates conflicts
and complications. But, well, who ever told you
that life was easy? Life is complicated. Deal with it. Fascism is what happens when people try
to ignore the complications and to make life too easy for themselves. Fascism denies all identities
except the national identity and insists that I have obligations
only towards my nation. If my nation demands
that I sacrifice my family, then I will sacrifice my family. If the nation demands
that I kill millions of people, then I will kill millions of people. And if my nation demands
that I betray truth and beauty, then I should betray truth and beauty. For example, how does
a fascist evaluate art? How does a fascist decide whether a movie
is a good movie or a bad movie? Well, it’s very, very, very simple. There is really just one yardstick: if the movie serves
the interests of the nation, it’s a good movie; if the movie doesn’t serve
the interests of the nation, it’s a bad movie. That’s it. Similarly, how does a fascist decide
what to teach kids in school? Again, it’s very simple. There is just one yardstick: you teach the kids whatever serves
the interests of the nation. The truth doesn’t matter at all. Now, the horrors of the Second World War
and of the Holocaust remind us of the terrible consequences
of this way of thinking. But usually, when we talk
about the ills of fascism, we do so in an ineffective way, because we tend to depict fascism
as a hideous monster, without really explaining
what was so seductive about it. It’s a bit like these Hollywood movies
that depict the bad guys — Voldemort or Sauron
or Darth Vader — as ugly and mean and cruel. They’re cruel even
to their own supporters. When I see these movies,
I never understand — why would anybody be tempted to follow
a disgusting creep like Voldemort? The problem with evil
is that in real life, evil doesn’t necessarily look ugly. It can look very beautiful. This is something that
Christianity knew very well, which is why in Christian art,
as [opposed to] Hollywood, Satan is usually depicted
as a gorgeous hunk. This is why it’s so difficult
to resist the temptations of Satan, and why it is also difficult
to resist the temptations of fascism. Fascism makes people see themselves as belonging to the most beautiful
and most important thing in the world — the nation. And then people think, “Well, they taught us
that fascism is ugly. But when I look in the mirror,
I see something very beautiful, so I can’t be a fascist, right?” Wrong. That’s the problem with fascism. When you look in the fascist mirror, you see yourself as far more beautiful
than you really are. In the 1930s, when Germans
looked in the fascist mirror, they saw Germany as the most
beautiful thing in the world. If today, Russians look
in the fascist mirror, they will see Russia as the most
beautiful thing in the world. And if Israelis look
in the fascist mirror, they will see Israel as the most
beautiful thing in the world. This does not mean that we are now
facing a rerun of the 1930s. Fascism and dictatorships might come back, but they will come back in a new form, a form which is much more relevant to the new technological realities
of the 21st century. In ancient times, land was the most important
asset in the world. Politics, therefore,
was the struggle to control land. And dictatorship meant that all the land
was owned by a single ruler or by a small oligarch. And in the modern age,
machines became more important than land. Politics became the struggle
to control the machines. And dictatorship meant that too many of the machines
became concentrated in the hands of the government
or of a small elite. Now data is replacing
both land and machines as the most important asset. Politics becomes the struggle
to control the flows of data. And dictatorship now means that too much data is being concentrated
in the hands of the government or of a small elite. The greatest danger
that now faces liberal democracy is that the revolution
in information technology will make dictatorships
more efficient than democracies. In the 20th century, democracy and capitalism
defeated fascism and communism because democracy was better
at processing data and making decisions. Given 20th-century technology, it was simply inefficient to try
and concentrate too much data and too much power in one place. But it is not a law of nature that centralized data processing
is always less efficient than distributed data processing. With the rise of artificial intelligence
and machine learning, it might become feasible to process
enormous amounts of information very efficiently in one place, to take all the decisions in one place, and then centralized data processing
will be more efficient than distributed data processing. And then the main handicap
of authoritarian regimes in the 20th century — their attempt to concentrate
all the information in one place — it will become their greatest advantage. Another technological danger
that threatens the future of democracy is the merger of information technology
with biotechnology, which might result
in the creation of algorithms that know me better than I know myself. And once you have such algorithms, an external system, like the government, cannot just predict my decisions, it can also manipulate
my feelings, my emotions. A dictator may not be able
to provide me with good health care, but he will be able to make me love him and to make me hate the opposition. Democracy will find it difficult
to survive such a development because, in the end, democracy is not based
on human rationality; it’s based on human feelings. During elections and referendums, you’re not being asked,
“What do you think?” You’re actually being asked,
“How do you feel?” And if somebody can manipulate
your emotions effectively, democracy will become
an emotional puppet show. So what can we do to prevent
the return of fascism and the rise of new dictatorships? The number one question that we face
is: Who controls the data? If you are an engineer, then find ways to prevent too much data from being concentrated in too few hands. And find ways to make sure the distributed data processing
is at least as efficient as centralized data processing. This will be the best
safeguard for democracy. As for the rest of us
who are not engineers, the number one question facing us is how not to allow
ourselves to be manipulated by those who control the data. The enemies of liberal democracy,
they have a method. They hack our feelings. Not our emails, not our bank accounts — they hack our feelings of fear
and hate and vanity, and then use these feelings to polarize and destroy
democracy from within. This is actually a method that Silicon Valley pioneered
in order to sell us products. But now, the enemies of democracy
are using this very method to sell us fear and hate and vanity. They cannot create
these feelings out of nothing. So they get to know our own
preexisting weaknesses. And then use them against us. And it is therefore
the responsibility of all of us to get to know our weaknesses and make sure that they
do not become a weapon in the hands of the enemies of democracy. Getting to know our own weaknesses will also help us to avoid the trap
of the fascist mirror. As we explained earlier,
fascism exploits our vanity. It makes us see ourselves
as far more beautiful than we really are. This is the seduction. But if you really know yourself, you will not fall
for this kind of flattery. If somebody puts a mirror
in front of your eyes that hides all your ugly bits
and makes you see yourself as far more beautiful
and far more important than you really are, just break that mirror. Thank you. (Applause) Chris Anderson: Yuval, thank you. Goodness me. It’s so nice to see you again. So, if I understand you right, you’re alerting us
to two big dangers here. One is the possible resurgence
of a seductive form of fascism, but close to that, dictatorships
that may not exactly be fascistic, but control all the data. I wonder if there’s a third concern that some people here
have already expressed, which is where, not governments,
but big corporations control all our data. What do you call that, and how worried should we be about that? Yuval Noah Harari: Well, in the end,
there isn’t such a big difference between the corporations
and the governments, because, as I said, the questions is:
Who controls the data? This is the real government. If you call it a corporation
or a government — if it’s a corporation
and it really controls the data, this is our real government. So the difference
is more apparent than real. CA: But somehow,
at least with corporations, you can imagine market mechanisms
where they can be taken down. I mean, if consumers just decide that the company is no longer
operating in their interest, it does open the door to another market. It seems easier to imagine that than, say, citizens rising up
and taking down a government that is in control of everything. YNH: Well, we are not there yet, but again, if a corporation really
knows you better than you know yourself — at least that it can manipulate
your own deepest emotions and desires, and you won’t even realize — you will think this is
your authentic self. So in theory, yes, in theory,
you can rise against a corporation, just as, in theory, you can rise
against a dictatorship. But in practice,
it is extremely difficult. CA: So in “Homo Deus,” you argue
that this would be the century when humans kind of became gods, either through development
of artificial intelligence or through genetic engineering. Has this prospect of political
system shift, collapse impacted your view on that possibility? YNH: Well, I think it makes it
even more likely, and more likely
that it will happen faster, because in times of crisis,
people are willing to take risks that they wouldn’t otherwise take. And people are willing to try all kinds of high-risk,
high-gain technologies. So these kinds of crises
might serve the same function as the two world wars in the 20th century. The two world wars greatly accelerated the development of new
and dangerous technologies. And the same thing might happen
in the 21st century. I mean, you need to be
a little crazy to run too fast, let’s say, with genetic engineering. But now you have more
and more crazy people in charge of different
countries in the world, so the chances are getting
higher, not lower. CA: So, putting it all together, Yuval,
you’ve got this unique vision. Roll the clock forward 30 years. What’s your guess —
does humanity just somehow scrape through, look back and say, “Wow,
that was a close thing. We did it!” Or not? YNH: So far, we’ve managed
to overcome all the previous crises. And especially if you look
at liberal democracy and you think things are bad now, just remember how much worse
things looked in 1938 or in 1968. So this is really nothing,
this is just a small crisis. But you can never know, because, as a historian, I know that you should never
underestimate human stupidity. (Laughter) (Applause) It is one of the most powerful forces
that shape history. CA: Yuval, it’s been an absolute delight
to have you with us. Thank you for making the virtual trip. Have a great evening there in Tel Aviv. Yuval Harari! YNH: Thank you very much. (Applause)

CWUTV News | Organise to Win Political Conference


We’re here today in London, a CWU political event. We’re talking about the general election. We’ve had a number of speakers, Douglas Alexander
who’s chair of the Labour Party campaign, Byron Taylor, representing TULO,
the Trade Union Labour Organisation, and we’ve had Katy Clark, chair of the CWU in parliament. It was wonderful to be with such a warm audience and to have such an interesting discussion about
where we are politically in the UK at the moment. It’s in the interests of CWU members
and trade unionists to vote Labour. If you look at Labour’s policies, it’s clear the working people are
better off with a Labour government. But trade unionists in particular have been at
the brunt of attacks from the Tory coalition. We need a Labour government to stop those attacks. Billy Hayes, the General Secretary of CWU
is a friend and a comrade. I’ve long admired his work leading this union. I’ve enjoyed his counsel and advice over the years. So when Billy got in touch asking me to speak
at this Organise to Win conference, I cleared my diary and made sure I was here. We’ve got a recovery that may be
reaching the city of London but it’s not reaching the kitchen tables
of people across the country. Working people are £1600 a year worse off
at the end of this parliament than at the beginning of this parliament. Working families can’t afford another five years
of this Conservative government. That’s why we have a better plan in the Labour Party. We want to increase the minimum wage. We want to make sure we ban
exploitative zero hours contracts. We want a different kind of economy and at the same time we’re going to invest extra money employing new nurses and doctors in the NHS so that there’s time to care. The choice at this election is clear. It’s going to come down to whether
Ed Milliband is Prime Minister, or David Cameron is Prime Minister. There’s no soft options. The election is between those two big political parties and we know Labour has a manifesto for working people. The Tories will restrict trade union rights further. They will shrink the welfare state. Their commitment on spending is to have less money
to spend on public services going back to the 1930s. So it’s important that our people vote Labour because that’s the only serious alternative
to this coalition government. I’ve seen the damage the Tory led government
has done to working people in this country. Not just over the last five years,
but in previous years as well. We need to restore some fairness and justice to society, so I think it’s vital that we have the return
of a Labour government on May 7 this year, to bring back that fairness and give hope to people who at the moment have lost faith in politicians. People are suffering under the austerity measures
of the coalition Tory government. We’ve spoken to so many people
who are on zero hours contracts. It’s so unfair. How can you pay your rent? How do you know whether you can
pay the gas and electricity bill? And if your face doesn’t fit, you’re out the door. That’s why I’m campaigning for Labour, because I want to campaign for
secure, decent jobs for everyone. If you look at the commitment the Labour Party
has made about banning zero hours contracts, about introducing a living wage, about repealing the privatisation of the NHS, all of this is good for working people. It’s been an excellent event, as usual. CWU always stage good events and get top quality speakers and it helps people get organised in
thinking about the task that lies ahead. I’m sure CWU will rally around and support Labour
throughout the election campaign. This is a high stakes election. We have to accept the NHS as we know it won’t exist
in five years if David Cameron is re-elected. Working families can’t afford another five years
of David Cameron and George Osbourne. So talk to your friends and family. We’re going to win this election doorstep by doorstep,
street by street, community by community, and CWU members have a big role to play.

How an Australian Prime Minister Disappeared Without a Trace


This video was made possible by Skillshare. Learn for free for two months by being one
of the first 500 to sign up at skl.sh/hai22. Australia has something of a reputation for
electing interesting Prime Ministers, both in the, “toast on the highway,” and the,
“burning building,” sense of the word. On the toast side, the current Prime Minister,
Scott Morrison, was once a child actor who appeared in TV commercials. In addition, Bob Hawke, who served as Australia’s
Prime Minister from 1983-1991, once held the Guinness world record for beer chugging, guzzling
down 2.5 pints of ale in 11 seconds, but perhaps no Prime Minister is more interesting than
Harold Holt—a member of the Labor Party who served as Prime Minister from January
of 1966 until December of 1967. Unlike most Prime Ministers, though, he didn’t
stop serving because he lost an election or resigned. He stopped serving because he just got lost…
and nobody ever found him. So what happened to Harold Holt? Well, nobody really knows—like I said, no
one ever found him—but we do know what happened before he disappeared. On December 17, 1967, the day of his disappearance,
Harold Holt was vacationing near Portsea, Victoria. Around 11:15 am, he and four of his friends
drove to Point Nepean, and then on the way back, Holt said they should stop and swim
at Cheviot Beach. Holt and another member of the group started
swimming around 12:15 pm. According to his friends, Holt was seen going
out into deeper and deeper water, and then, all of a sudden, just like that 2.5 pints
of ale Bob Hawke drank, Holt was gone. So you might be thinking, “well he didn’t
disappear, he drowned,” and while most people do agree that’s the most likely explanation,
it’s impossible to say for sure because his body was never found. And it’s not like nobody looked. They hadn’t lost some chapstick—they lost
the Prime Minister, so after Holt disappeared, the government put together an enormous search
party, which is a lot less fun than it sounds. At one point, there were 50 divers simultaneously
searching for Holt, and the total search party included 340 people, but despite five days
of looking, nobody managed to find Holt’s body. Plus, and not to get all conspiracy theory
on you, but it seems a bit odd that Holt would just randomly drown, because he was an unusually
proficient swimmer. He probably used Skillshare—sorry, I’m
sorry. Holt used to spend hours spearfishing and
snorkeling year round, and would even amuse himself during long parliamentary debates
by seeing how long he could hold his breath which really says something about parliament—that
suffocating yourself is more fun than listening to debate. The most likely explanation seems to be that
Holt did drown because he got caught in a rip current—a strong, fast, narrow current
of water going away from the shore. But, of course, not everybody is convinced
by the easy explanation, and so, for years, Harold Holt’s disappearance has been the
subject of conspiracy theories. One theory claims that Harold Holt was actually
a lifelong spy for the Chinese government, and that on that fateful day he was picked
up by a Chinese submarine to live out the rest of his days in Beijing. In fact, former Reuter’s journalist Anthony
Grey actually wrote a book titled The Prime Minister was a Spy where he argued just that,
based on interviews he claimed to have had with “several different Chinese government
officials.” But the book was largely laughed off when
it came out, and has been shown to contain a ton of errors. In response to the book, Holt’s widow was
quoted as saying, “he didn’t even like Chinese food,” which frankly makes me more suspicious
that something fishy was going on because, like….who doesn’t love some Kung Pao chicken? Traitors, probably. One other theory claims that the CIA assassinated
Holt because the US thought that he would pull Australia out of the Vietnam war and
another claims that Holt faked his own death so he could move to Switzerland with his lover
which on the one hand, is interesting, but on the other hand, seems like a lot more work
than just like… divorce, because also, if you get divorced, you can keep being Prime
Minister. But hey, maybe he just really didn’t want
to deal with the paperwork. Another reason the conspiracy theories seem
implausible is that Harold Holt’s drowning was kind of a long time coming. He had actually come close to drowning only
seven months earlier, during a swim at Cheviot Beach, and had been warned for years that
his swimming habits might be dangerous, but Holt never seemed worried. One time his press secretary, Tony Eggleton,
presumed father of egg boy, expressed concern about Holt’s long swims, and the Prime Minister
responded, “look Tony, what are the odds of a prime minister being drowned?” Turns out… pretty high. One of the headlines in The Australian the
morning before Holt’s death actually read, “PM Advised to Swim Less.” So yeah…I’m not saying he had it coming,
I’m just saying…it’s not exactly a shock. You also might be wondering, “what happens
when the prime minister disappears? How do they decide when someone else becomes
prime minister? What if it turns out he was just taking a
really long bathroom break, and then he comes back out and somebody took his job?” The answer is a legal process called “death
in absentia,” where, despite direct proof of death, someone is declared legally dead
if they go missing for an extended period of time, or when there is reason to believe
that they are dead—like if someone is in a plane crash, or, yes, if someone is seen
disappearing into the ocean. After five days of searching, Holt was declared
dead in absentia, a memorial was held, and, after some infighting, Education Minister
John Gorton succeeded Holt as Prime Minister. The disappearance of Harold Holt was, of course,
a tragedy. Memorials were placed at the beach, the US
named a warship after him, and Australia even decided to name a very special building in
honor of their likely-drowned prime minister—The Harold Holt Swim Center. Alright, so you all know what’s coming. If you become Australian prime minister, you
clearly need to learn how to effectively swiii… lead a group—yeah, like, a big group. Part of that involves communicating your ideas
effectively—a fantastically important skill that can truly make or break a political career. This, though, is just one of tens of thousands
of skills that Skillshare teaches. Their, “Storytelling for Leaders,” course
is taught by Keith Yamashita, a leadership constant who has helped hone the skills of
top brass at Apple, GE, Nike, IBM, and more. If you want to learn this skill, or really
almost any, Skillshare is the place for you and, best of all, you can learn for free for
two whole months by being one of the first 500 to sign up at skl.sh/hai22.