Sam:
[0:00]
| Hello?
|
Ivan:
[0:01]
| Hello?
|
Sam:
[0:02]
| Okay, let's get the screaming going. Here we go.
|
Ivan:
[0:08]
| Screaming? Screaming.
|
Sam:
[0:10]
| Yes, exactly. There's much screaming. Okay, let's make... Okay. Boom. Okay. One more boom. There we go. Okay, this is likely to be long. Shall we jump right in?
|
Ivan:
[0:28]
| Mm-hmm.
|
Sam:
[0:28]
| Okay here it goes oops of course i messed that up here.
|
Ivan:
[0:36]
| Great way to start oops.
|
Sam:
[0:39]
| Oops, Welcome to Curmudgeon's Corner for Saturday, January 4th, 2025. I'm Sam Entry, Yvonne Boas here, and this is our first show of a new year, which means this is our predictions review show. So we will be going through the predictions that we made for 2024 at the end of 2023 and see how we did. If you listened last week, you know, we just made predictions for 2025 and a year from now, we'll review those. But now it's time to review the 2024 ones. Now, I will give a heads up.
|
Ivan:
[1:42]
| Can I just say something? I have like no fucking desire to relive 2024. for this is if anybody can see me on the live stream i probably seem the most disheveled anybody has ever seen me on the live stream nice i'm.
|
Sam:
[2:05]
| Always disheveled so.
|
Ivan:
[2:06]
| Yeah that's you know that's normal but i you know my hair i didn't even like care it's standing all straight up like i just landed like i just got electrocuted yes um he does look like one of those.
|
Sam:
[2:25]
| Little cartoons with the hair like sticking up yep yep.
|
Ivan:
[2:27]
| Yeah i'm unshaved i don't give a shit, well that's i i have not worked since the 19th of december nice i don't know how the hell i'm gonna get back to work next week i have to be honest i.
|
Sam:
[2:45]
| I i have i i because i took so much Yeah.
|
Ivan:
[3:01]
| I have been sleeping until 11.
|
Sam:
[3:04]
| Yes.
|
Ivan:
[3:05]
| Well, part of the problem is that I had been having trouble sleeping the previous few weeks. In part, there was stress associated with it, but also the medications I had been taking interrupted sleep. So I got to the holidays where I had this ridiculous sleep deficit. And I have been sleeping a lot.
|
Sam:
[3:37]
| Nice. Well, I was about to say, you know, I've done a preliminary count of the number of predictions we made last year.
|
Ivan:
[3:47]
| Oh, and by the way, my main point was 2024 could go suck it. And my expectations right now are that 2025 will be no better.
|
Sam:
[4:01]
| Right. Or perhaps worse.
|
Ivan:
[4:03]
| Worse.
|
Sam:
[4:04]
| Yes. So first of all, let me say the prediction show last year that we are going to be sort of operating off of and looking at things was two hours, 51 minutes and 43 seconds long. Okay. That's what the 2024 prediction show was. Well, usually we've gone faster. And what I've did over the last couple of days was listen carefully to that entire show, write down every prediction we made and then where possible, I went and fact check to find the answer and all of that. So just so all of you know, like that takes about three times as long as the show itself. So like for every 15 minutes of audio in that show, it took me about 45 minutes to do the writing down the predictions and the fact checking and blah, blah, blah. So yes, that means it took me about nine hours to do that. So everybody should appreciate that.
|
Sam:
[5:06]
| Now within that, I'm about to give you the numbers that I actually came up with answers to. And then above that, there are a couple dozen that like I noted that we have to discuss. So of ones that I gave true or false answers to already, I had made 121 predictions and Yvonne had made 113. Okay. Plus the ones that we have to adjudicate during the show. And so that averages about a prediction every 44 seconds. So just saying we need to hurry up and get into this because we have to beat that to be less than, okay.
|
Ivan:
[5:44]
| Let's just fucking go. Let's go.
|
Sam:
[5:47]
| As usual, this is divided into sections. We've got a politics section, which is by far, by far the longest. In last week's show, it was an hour and nine minutes just of politics before we got to anything else. Then international, economy slash business, technology, and hodgepodge. Those are our sections. And at the end of each section, we'll review our success rates for the section. And at the end of the whole show, we'll review our overall success rate and compare the previous years. That's the plan. Okay, politics. And I'm going to go in the order of the show. So the first thing that we talked about was whether or not any primary or caucus would be won on the Republican side by anybody other than Trump. I said no, you said yes. Okay. Do you remember the correct answer here?
|
Ivan:
[6:42]
| I'm probably wrong.
|
Sam:
[6:44]
| No. Yeah. Haley won DC in Vermont.
|
Ivan:
[6:47]
| Oh, shit. Damn it. I got something right. Son of a bitch.
|
Sam:
[6:53]
| So, yes, you start out strong with the first question right, and I start out badly with the first question wrong. Okay, next was the question of what month DeSantis will drop out in. I said March. You said January. The right answer?
|
Ivan:
[7:14]
| January?
|
Sam:
[7:15]
| January 21st.
|
Ivan:
[7:17]
| Yes!
|
Sam:
[7:19]
| So you were right twice in a row to start out with. And I was wrong twice in a row. Okay. Next up was what percentage Haley will get in the South Carolina primary. I said between 20 and 30%. You said between 15 and 25%. The actual Haley result in South Carolina was 39.52%.
|
Ivan:
[7:41]
| So we were both wrong.
|
Sam:
[7:42]
| We were both wrong. We both underestimated Haley in South Carolina.
|
Ivan:
[7:47]
| Unreal.
|
Sam:
[7:50]
| I also said, and you made no prediction on this one, but I said South Carolina will be Haley's best state. No.
|
Ivan:
[7:59]
| No, it wasn't. Yeah.
|
Sam:
[8:01]
| Vermont, DC and Vermont were both better. You could argue that DC wasn't a state, but Vermont got better anyway. Vermont was better anyway. So I'm wrong regardless.
|
Ivan:
[8:10]
| Yeah.
|
Sam:
[8:11]
| Okay. The next thing was how, what percentage of the RNC delegates would not be for Trump? And we specified by the way, not the actual vote at the convention, because almost always that gets like, you know, everybody goes for the winner. They do something by acclimation. They do various nonsense, but rather what the totals would be on the election graphs count, which I basically base mine on green papers of very slight differences. So I said between 10 and 30% would be not for Trump. Yvonne, you actually said more than 50% of the delegates would be for somebody other than Trump.
|
Ivan:
[8:51]
| Jesus Christ.
|
Sam:
[8:53]
| You thought there'd be all kinds of chaos at the convention.
|
Ivan:
[8:56]
| I don't know what the hell drugs I was taking. I was playing both sides.
|
Sam:
[9:01]
| Well, specifically on here, what your prediction was that Trump would not have a majority of the delegates, but it would be a contested convention and they would make a deal during the course of the convention. So it wouldn't actually go to more than one ballot. But anyway, that clearly did not happen.
|
Ivan:
[9:20]
| That clearly did not happen.
|
Sam:
[9:22]
| And the actual percentage was 4.24%.
|
Ivan:
[9:27]
| I'm so off by a little bit. It's just off by a little bit. It's fine.
|
Sam:
[9:32]
| Yeah. So we were, we both way, way, way overestimated the number of delegates that would be to somebody else. Okay. Then we did the same thing. And this is what I have noted as discussed. It was what percentage of the DNC delegates would not be for Biden. Okay. Now.
|
Ivan:
[9:55]
| Well, fuck. Well, we're fucked.
|
Sam:
[9:58]
| Well, see, here's the thing, because we had once again specified at the end of the primary process. So the fact that 100% of the delegates went to Harris in the end doesn't necessarily mean we were wrong.
|
Ivan:
[10:09]
| Yeah, because we were at the, okay, okay, all right, okay.
|
Sam:
[10:12]
| You know, now it could, like, that's why I have to discuss. I said less than 5% will not be for Biden. You said less than 10%. the actual number at the end of the primary process was 0.16%. Okay. Or, or 4.74, if you included uncommitted delegates, either way, if we were right, we were right, unless you say, no, they were a hundred percent for Harris. But I think we were specific. It was that end of the primary process. So right.
|
Ivan:
[10:45]
| Not, not the, right.
|
Sam:
[10:46]
| Not the convention. So I'm going to count us both as right. Okay. Next prediction. Would both Trump and Biden live through the year? I said yes, you said no.
|
Ivan:
[10:59]
| Oh, fuck. Well, I'm right.
|
Sam:
[11:01]
| Okay. We both agreed that Biden would be president at the end of the year.
|
Ivan:
[11:06]
| Oh, that was right.
|
Sam:
[11:08]
| We were right. We both agreed that Biden would be the Democratic nominee. Okay.
|
Ivan:
[11:14]
| Well, I could say we're wrong.
|
Sam:
[11:16]
| We were, we were clearly wrong on that. We both agreed that Trump would be the Republican nominee. We were right on that.
|
Ivan:
[11:25]
| We were right on that one.
|
Sam:
[11:28]
| Um, we both. So you made a prediction that there would be no presidential debates between the two candidates.
|
Ivan:
[11:37]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[11:38]
| And I said, if Trump was the nominee.
|
Ivan:
[11:41]
| If I was right, you know, maybe if I was fucking right, we wouldn't be in the fucking mess if we're in the first place. That's my first fucking opinion. Fucking morons.
|
Sam:
[11:53]
| Well, you know, I honestly don't know.
|
Ivan:
[11:57]
| I don't know either.
|
Sam:
[11:59]
| Like Biden was not doing well at that point in the polls anyway. You know, he was doing much worse than Harris ended up doing. Now, he could have turned that around in other ways. Who knows? But it was not looking good as of that time of the first time.
|
Ivan:
[12:18]
| All right.
|
Sam:
[12:18]
| Okay. Anyway, we were both wrong. We had a counterfactual if Trump wasn't the nominee, how many debates there'd be, but it doesn't matter. Now, another one to discuss. We said- Disgust?
|
Ivan:
[12:32]
| Disgust?
|
Sam:
[12:32]
| Well, that too.
|
Ivan:
[12:34]
| Well, that too. Okay.
|
Sam:
[12:35]
| The question was, will there be additional Trump indictments in 2024? And we specified including superseding indictments. Now, here's the deal. There was a superseding indictment in August 2024. However, it did not add any charges. It actually removed charges. Does it count?
|
Ivan:
[12:59]
| No, no, no.
|
Sam:
[13:02]
| Okay. Then I said there would not be additional indictments. You said there would be. So I was right. You are wrong. Given that we do not count the, the superseding indictment. Yeah.
|
Ivan:
[13:13]
| Yeah. That's no, that's not. Yeah.
|
Sam:
[13:16]
| Okay. Now the next question was, will there be additional Trump world indictments? So other people, you know, in the surrounding Donald Trump.
|
Ivan:
[13:28]
| We're there.
|
Sam:
[13:29]
| The Arizona election interference case was indicted in April. It included a bunch of Trump associates in it, including Giuliani, Meadows, others. So we were both right about that.
|
Ivan:
[13:41]
| Okay. Okay.
|
Sam:
[13:42]
| Okay. Then the question was, how many of Trump's criminal trials would start by election day? I said exactly two. You said at least two. The answer was only one dip. One. We were both wrong.
|
Ivan:
[13:58]
| Yeah. We were both wrong.
|
Sam:
[13:59]
| Okay. So the next question was about how many trials would finish. And we specified by election day, not by the end of the year. But here's the important question. It would have been the same election day or end of the year. Do we count the New York trial as finished because sentencing has not happened yet?
|
Ivan:
[14:19]
| Yes.
|
Sam:
[14:19]
| So we count the trial as- Yeah.
|
Ivan:
[14:21]
| The trial ended. Yeah.
|
Sam:
[14:23]
| Yeah. Okay. I said that one trial would finish. You said two would. So I was right. You were wrong.
|
Ivan:
[14:29]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[14:30]
| I specifically further specified that DC and Georgia would both have started. That was wrong.
|
Ivan:
[14:37]
| That's wrong.
|
Sam:
[14:38]
| I also specified that DC would finish. That was wrong.
|
Ivan:
[14:42]
| That was wrong.
|
Sam:
[14:46]
| Next up. I said there will not be a Trump trial in progress during primary voting. You said there would be.
|
Ivan:
[14:56]
| That was right.
|
Sam:
[14:57]
| You were correct because the last primary was in June and the New York case was in May or something.
|
Ivan:
[15:04]
| Yeah, yeah, yeah.
|
Sam:
[15:05]
| Okay, so I was wrong. You were right. Then... Yeah. So the next question was, will there be a Trump trial in progress during the RNC? We both said there would be, but based on our previous decision that the trial counted as ending in May, no, there was not.
|
Ivan:
[15:26]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[15:26]
| So we were both wrong. And same thing, we said there'd be a trial in progress during general election voting, given that we're counting it as done in May, no. If we were counting the end as sentencing, those would have all been yes.
|
Ivan:
[15:39]
| No, no, no.
|
Sam:
[15:41]
| Okay, D.C. trial during the convention, I said, and that was wrong. Georgia trial during the general election, I said that and I was wrong. You made no predictions on those two. Now, the next one is another one for us to discuss. Oh, I need to, there we go. Okay. Next one for us to discuss was about what SCOTUS would decide on presidential immunity. So we both said that SCOTUS would not say that Trump was completely immune during his presidency. now they did not say he was completely immune during his presidency but they did give a huge expansion to the understanding of how immune he was do we say that we are right because it wasn't complete yes yes okay okay they did massively expand immunity they made.
|
Ivan:
[16:45]
| They did expand it but they did say that he was completely immune no.
|
Sam:
[16:48]
| They they they outlined.
|
Ivan:
[16:50]
| How he wouldn't be and And so.
|
Sam:
[16:52]
| They just made it incredibly narrow.
|
Ivan:
[16:55]
| They made it narrower, but they didn't eliminate it.
|
Sam:
[16:58]
| Okay. Now... Hmm. Okay. I mistyped that. I remember what I said. Okay. The next was on how many additional plea deals there would be in the Georgia case in 2024. I said at least eight. You said at least four. There were none.
|
Ivan:
[17:21]
| That's right.
|
Sam:
[17:21]
| There were none. So we were both wrong. There had been four plea deals in 2023, but there were no additional ones in 2024. Okay. The next question was about accounts, about how many counts Trump would be acquitted by during 2024. Question, does dismissal count or only actual acquittals?
|
Ivan:
[17:48]
| Not acquittals.
|
Sam:
[17:49]
| Acquittals.
|
Ivan:
[17:49]
| Not a dismissal, no.
|
Sam:
[17:50]
| Okay, so we both said he would not be acquitted by any count, so we were both right. There were numerous accounts dismissed, or accounts.
|
Ivan:
[18:00]
| Yeah, but many of them were dismissed and they were being chipped. No, no. Acquittal is acquittal, not a dismissal. And some of them were the prosecution initiated to dismissal because, you know, things that happened.
|
Sam:
[18:13]
| Because of SCOTUS.
|
Ivan:
[18:14]
| Right.
|
Sam:
[18:15]
| Okay. Okay, next, we both agreed that at least one charge would be hung. That was not true because nothing...
|
Ivan:
[18:24]
| No, nothing went, yeah.
|
Sam:
[18:25]
| Well, the New York went to the end, but nothing was hung.
|
Ivan:
[18:29]
| Right, nothing was hung, so now we were wrong.
|
Sam:
[18:31]
| Okay, now again, the next one is an interpretation. In New York, convictions do not count as final until sentencing. But we each predicted there would be at least one conviction by the end of the year. Does New York count? Like he is not officially a convicted felon in New York until the sentence is given. But he was clearly convicted by the jury.
|
Ivan:
[19:01]
| I'm going to say he was found guilty. So that to me counts.
|
Sam:
[19:05]
| Okay. We'll count us both as right then. we both agreed that there would be no trump jail time in 2024 we were right we're right unfortunately okay the next one i have as a discuss because i tried to look this up and i could not find a definitive answer i think the answer is no but like unless we well basically Trump will have to pay something, on his monetary cases in 2024. He had to put up that bond.
|
Ivan:
[19:41]
| Yep.
|
Sam:
[19:42]
| In, in the, but that, that was actually. Yeah. Like what, what.
|
Ivan:
[19:48]
| He had to put up the Eugene Carroll bond and the other bond.
|
Sam:
[19:51]
| But like, does it count as him having paid yet? Cause no money's actually.
|
Ivan:
[19:54]
| No, no, no, no. It doesn't count as being paid, putting up the bond.
|
Sam:
[19:58]
| And we specified by the way, like that we were talking about sort of the big monetary cases. I think we actually said civil cases. And the one with the Trump org is actually a criminal case, right? It's just against the org, not the people.
|
Ivan:
[20:12]
| Correct, yes.
|
Sam:
[20:13]
| But like we specifically specified, like this guy has like dozens of small civil lawsuits going all the time for like not paying his contractors and stuff. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And we weren't talking about those. We were talking about the big cases. No, no. But no, he did not have to pay out anything on his big cases in 2024. I did say that some of the monetary cases will still be under appeal. That was correct. We both agreed that Biden would stay in the race through November.
|
Ivan:
[20:42]
| Well, we were both wrong.
|
Sam:
[20:43]
| We were both wrong. We also had the counterfactual that Biden's VP would be Harris. That didn't matter.
|
Ivan:
[20:52]
| Oh, that was wrong.
|
Sam:
[20:53]
| Well, it was, we count, like this was, we count these as counterfactuals that like, like they're, they're conditional ones. So they don't care at all.
|
Ivan:
[21:03]
| Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Right, right.
|
Sam:
[21:05]
| Biden was not the nominee. So he did not even have a VP nominee. okay we both agreed that trump's vp nominee would be mike flynn we were wrong we did yes, he wasn't even in contention right so even close not even close, then you said trump would be removed from the primary ballot in at least one state over the 14th amendment in its direction of.
|
Ivan:
[21:35]
| Course i was right yes yes absolutely correct.
|
Sam:
[21:38]
| As usual you were right no oh damn um now i made a i talked more detailed about this i said scotus will not make a determination on if trump supported an insurrection i was right i said scotus will say there's some process wise reason the 14th amendment can't apply here i was right i said trump will be on the primary ballot in all states i was right uh there was a counter There was a counterfactual where we talked about whether or not Biden would be released, would be removed from ballots in retaliation if Trump was, but that counterfactual didn't happen. I also said Trump will be on the general ballot in all states. You never made a prediction about the general election. You kept saying this will all be settled before the primaries, but you never actually made a specific thing on the general. So I didn't break down. And I also said SCOTUS will not rule that Trump is ineligible. I was correct on that. Oh, oh, sorry. There was another counterfactual earlier that said that I said, if Trump was removed from the primary ballots, RNC would just not use the primary results at the convention.
|
Ivan:
[22:51]
| No, yeah. Well, yeah, that didn't. Yeah.
|
Sam:
[22:54]
| And, um, and you, you had a counterfactual as well. I I'm not counting the, you, you also said that the Republicans would not successfully retaliate by removing Biden. And I'm just not going to count that because it was a retaliation and they didn't, whatever. You said no second ballot at either convention. You were correct. You did, however, say the RNC would be contested just that some deal would be made before the first ballot. So like similar to what just happened in the speaker race where like the initial votes didn't have a winner.
|
Ivan:
[23:36]
| But they made a deal. That was kind of like what I expected.
|
Sam:
[23:40]
| Right. And that did not happen. No. Uh, you also predicted nothing interesting will happen on the democratic side. Biden and Harris will be the nominees with no drama.
|
Ivan:
[23:54]
| Well, let's just say I was just a tad inaccurate.
|
Sam:
[23:59]
| So you were wrong.
|
Ivan:
[24:01]
| Significantly.
|
Sam:
[24:02]
| We both agreed that no labels would run a candidate. They did not. So we were, oh no, wait, no. I said they would not. I said they would. You said they would not. So you were right.
|
Ivan:
[24:12]
| Yeah. Yeah, I was like, wait, I never said they would. I'm like, what are you talking about?
|
Sam:
[24:15]
| Yeah, I was like.
|
Ivan:
[24:16]
| Bullshit.
|
Sam:
[24:16]
| You were right, I was wrong. I had the counterfactual. I predicted it would be Manchin. Then we made a prediction on who would come in third in the presidential election. I said it would be RFK Jr. No, I was wrong.
|
Ivan:
[24:31]
| I don't know, actually. It's a good question.
|
Sam:
[24:34]
| You said it would be the Green Party candidate.
|
Ivan:
[24:37]
| Okay, and?
|
Sam:
[24:39]
| Actual results. Trump, 49.74%. Harris, 48.27%. Stein, 0.55%. You were right. Followed by Kennedy at 0.49. Oliver from the Libertarians at 0.42. And 0.54 random other candidates. Wow. So this is actually interesting that the Libertarians are usually third. The Libertarians were fifth this time.
|
Ivan:
[25:07]
| Well, the libertarians have basically been a complete disaster for the last, you know, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, they, they've been a complete disorganized mess.
|
Sam:
[25:16]
| So, and Kennedy came in fourth despite dropping out.
|
Ivan:
[25:20]
| I mean, Kennedy dropping out still beat the libertarians.
|
Sam:
[25:24]
| Yes.
|
Ivan:
[25:24]
| That's sad.
|
Sam:
[25:25]
| Yeah. Exactly. So anyway, I was wrong. You were right. Next was on, like, I predicted that the total of third parties would be more than the margin between Republicans and Democrats. You predicted it would not be. the actual total of all third parties was 2%. It was actually like 2.995 or something, but rounded it's 2.00%. The margin between the candidates was 1.47%. So the third party total was indeed more than the Republican minus Democrat margin.
|
Ivan:
[26:04]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[26:06]
| Which is, yeah, which is another way of saying Trump was under 50%, like the winner was under 50%. So I was right. You were wrong. But it once again means if you stupid Stein people and some of the others, you could have flipped it. Now, the Stein people are not enough. The Stein people are not enough, you know, by themselves. Wait, wait. I make sure I do that, Beth.
|
Ivan:
[26:35]
| What do you mean? 1.1.
|
Sam:
[26:38]
| They would have reduced the margin by 1.1%. The losing margin was 1.1%.
|
Ivan:
[26:43]
| Well, like that, as usual, it would have really depended where the hell they were, too.
|
Sam:
[26:45]
| Well, yes, yes. Very true. It would depend where they are. But for a popular vote. Okay. We predicted how many states would flip compared to 2020. I predicted five. You predicted two. The actual number was six.
|
Ivan:
[27:03]
| Seven, six.
|
Sam:
[27:04]
| Six.
|
Ivan:
[27:04]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[27:04]
| Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada all flipped from Democrat to Republican. The seventh swing state was North Carolina. It stayed Republican both times. But all six of those flipped, so we were both wrong. We both underestimated the number of states that would flip. We both agreed that Biden would win the popular vote.
|
Ivan:
[27:27]
| I take it we were wrong on that one.
|
Sam:
[27:29]
| We were wrong. And even if you asked, would the Democrat win the popular vote?
|
Ivan:
[27:35]
| Yeah, we were wrong either.
|
Sam:
[27:37]
| We both agreed that someone would win the electoral college and it wouldn't go to a contingent election in the House. We were right.
|
Ivan:
[27:45]
| Yeah.
|
Sam:
[27:46]
| At least based on the actual results so far, if something crazy happens Monday, that could still, you know, but nothing crazy is going to happen Monday.
|
Ivan:
[27:58]
| I don't expect it no.
|
Sam:
[27:59]
| But you know if it did i you still have like i still see on tiktok all the time these like blue election deniers that are claiming something crazy is going to happen monday and they're going to disqualify donald trump yeah yeah yeah whatever yeah they're they're delusional go.
|
Ivan:
[28:16]
| Go fuck yourselves.
|
Sam:
[28:17]
| Okay so we were both right on someone winning then it was who will actually win the election. You said Biden.
|
Ivan:
[28:25]
| Okay, well, I was wrong. You said Trump.
|
Sam:
[28:28]
| I said Trump. I was right. I mean, fundamentally, the numbers were never, ever, ever good for Biden. And for Harris, they were bad most of the time. There were a few weeks in September where it looked like she had the upper hand, but that was it. The rest of the time, it was looking like Trump consistently in my numbers so and they were at the end of the year last year which is why i said trump i so i was right and it had been consistent for all of 2023 it had been consistent trump's ahead trump's ahead trump's ahead trump's ahead by a lot yeah you know not by a lot but no by a lot was ahead he he was ahead by more than he had been in either of the two previous elections so anyway um we've.
|
Ivan:
[29:18]
| Not a lot.
|
Sam:
[29:20]
| What is a lot? Well, that's true.
|
Ivan:
[29:23]
| You know, compared to what? Like Reagan won by a lot. Okay? That's a lot.
|
Sam:
[29:28]
| And by the way, Reagan was not ahead in the polls like two months before that election.
|
Ivan:
[29:33]
| Right.
|
Sam:
[29:33]
| And he's still on a landslide.
|
Ivan:
[29:34]
| Yeah. You know, we- If I remember right.
|
Sam:
[29:38]
| I could be wrong.
|
Ivan:
[29:39]
| No, but the Mondale year, I'm thinking more, not the Carter year. But, you know, H.W. Bush beat the caucus by a lot. Okay? you know clinton beat what was his name perot god dole yes dole dole dole dole by a lot right and per yeah no no but yeah i know no that first election was a little bit tighter okay you know because he had perot thing he had bush no.
|
Sam:
[30:07]
| But perot was crushed in both.
|
Ivan:
[30:08]
| Yeah yeah no no i i get that but but it's but if you look at how many pop listen he got more popular he got more more votes Yes.
|
Sam:
[30:16]
| Yes, yes. Closer by a lot is relative now because we haven't had one of those. The whole American electorate has been relatively close and split pretty evenly for a couple decades.
|
Ivan:
[30:33]
| I'm looking at, listen, you talk about a lot. Clinton versus Dole. I'm looking up how much. 1996 presidential election. Okay. Let's see the margin. Look. Look. Bill Clinton, 49.2. I want you to guess how much Dole got.
|
Sam:
[30:51]
| Oh, because Perot was in this one.
|
Ivan:
[30:53]
| He was still in it. Yeah. Yeah. But, but, but, but okay. But we're, since we're talking about a lot.
|
Sam:
[30:59]
| No, I know.
|
Ivan:
[31:00]
| 49.2 for Bill. How much popular vote did Bob Dole get?
|
Sam:
[31:03]
| 39.
|
Ivan:
[31:04]
| Close. 40.7. That's a lot.
|
Sam:
[31:08]
| Yes.
|
Ivan:
[31:09]
| Almost 10 points. We forget that we used to have this kind of fucking elections.
|
Sam:
[31:14]
| Now, to be fair, the two Perot elections, the, the, the amount pulled by Perot.
|
Ivan:
[31:19]
| You know, No, I mean, it really doesn't matter. I mean, even Clinton versus H.W. Bush. Clinton got 43%. H.W. Bush got 37. Okay, that's still six points. Still pretty significant. Go back to Dukakis. This one, a thumping. 53.4, 45.7. That's a lot.
|
Sam:
[31:40]
| How about the two Obama races?
|
Ivan:
[31:43]
| Okay, the two Obama races. Let's get to that. Okay, hold on. I'll get to that one. Those were pretty close compared. 50.7. Wait, hold on. No, no. 52.9 to 45.7. That was a lot. That was an eight point. Okay. And, and then Obama Romney was closer 51.1 to 47. That was still four points.
|
Sam:
[32:08]
| Right.
|
Ivan:
[32:09]
| Now I would say that's a lot because compared to the other ones, there are talking about eight point races.
|
Sam:
[32:14]
| And remember, despite the talk right after Election Day where people were talking about and Republicans are still talking about this as if it was a Trump landslide. This was like the closest popular vote election for except the ones where the loser didn't win in like decades and decades and decades.
|
Ivan:
[32:33]
| Yeah. I mean, you know, even like Trump, Hillary, Hillary was ahead. The popular vote margin for Hillary was two point one percent. Jesus Christ. It was that much. hell i mean 2020 which we talk about supposedly being that close 50 popular boat final total 51.3 46.8 i mean that was pretty significant no no i mean you know and then yeah yeah the other 49.7 48.3 i mean jesus christ.
|
Sam:
[33:00]
| The the other measure i haven't calculated this time around and haven't heard because i think it's bigger than the last couple years is how many votes would have actually had to flip in the swing states to change the outcome. I think it's a few hundred thousand this time, whereas in a couple of the other elections, it was in the tens of thousands. So, but anyway, let's, we've talked too long about this one. The next, yes, I was right. You were wrong. I picked Trump. Yay. Go me. I was prescient because of the polls. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and, Next up, Republicans will not try to kill the ACA in 2024. I believe we are both correct. There was no significant attempt to do that. We both agreed that there would be a government shutdown in 2024. There was not. The last one is like 2019 or something like that. I looked it up. There was, of course, a government shutdown drama. There is like every six months.
|
Ivan:
[33:55]
| Yeah, but no shutdown.
|
Sam:
[33:56]
| No actual shutdown. Yeah. We both agreed that Johnson would not remain speaker.
|
Ivan:
[34:03]
| Fuck, we were wrong. This guy, I have to give credit to Johnson. I mean, he looked a couple of times like he was dead.
|
Sam:
[34:13]
| Yep.
|
Ivan:
[34:14]
| And he's managed to, he's managed to hang on.
|
Sam:
[34:18]
| Yes, he had.
|
Ivan:
[34:20]
| And I will say this, look, even though I know I disagree with Johnson and a whole bunch of stuff, he hasn't been.
|
Sam:
[34:29]
| He's done the things that needed to be done yeah.
|
Ivan:
[34:31]
| He's done the.
|
Sam:
[34:32]
| Things that needed to be done he even passed.
|
Ivan:
[34:34]
| Hate to Ukraine.
|
Sam:
[34:35]
| Whereas if you had like a liberty caucus speaker or whatever, freedom caucus sorry not liberty caucus if you had a freedom caucus speaker then maybe none of these things would happen at all we would have shut down the government and stayed shut down for a year you know Yeah.
|
Ivan:
[34:53]
| Yeah. So, so no, so I, I'm, you know, yeah.
|
Sam:
[34:57]
| Okay. We had a counterfactual where we both predicted what month would be Johnson's last month. I said, February, you said March, but obviously that's irrelevant because it didn't happen. We both predicted there would be two speakers in 2024. We were both wrong. It was Johnson all year long. We both predicted that there would be an impeachment vote on the floor of the house. There was not. they had a vote to open an investigation. They had an investigation. Nothing ever came to the floor of the house for a vote. We had a couple of conditionals on that. We said the vote would fail. We said the charge would be Hunter related. None of that actually matters.
|
Ivan:
[35:37]
| Yeah.
|
Sam:
[35:38]
| Okay. We both agreed that Sinema would be on the ballot in Arizona. She was not. She dropped out you know when it became clear she wasn't winning she dropped out so we were both wrong we had a prediction on a minute there.
|
Ivan:
[35:52]
| I thought we did a movie prediction i'm like really sit with cinema i'm like.
|
Sam:
[35:56]
| The cinema was on the yeah yeah the senator in arizona well.
|
Ivan:
[35:59]
| I forgot she already existed already i don't know i i really wanted to forget forget her like for a long time so.
|
Sam:
[36:06]
| We we also made predictions on what percentage of the vote she'd get irrelevant since she wasn't on the ballot. Then we both agreed that the Democrats would take back the House. They did not.
|
Ivan:
[36:21]
| They did not.
|
Sam:
[36:22]
| They did gain seats.
|
Ivan:
[36:23]
| They have come about as ridiculously close as you could come without actually going over. It's like this is like the fucking price is right, for God's sakes.
|
Sam:
[36:35]
| Exactly. I'm sure they did that on purpose.
|
Ivan:
[36:39]
| Yeah. Jesus Christ.
|
Sam:
[36:41]
| The actual count starting this Congress was 219 Republicans, 215 Republicans. No, 219 Republicans, 215 Democrats.
|
Ivan:
[36:50]
| Yeah. That's ridiculous.
|
Sam:
[36:53]
| Now we both guessed how many seats the Democrats would have to spare. Irrelevant because they weren't in the lead. Okay. Now we both said that Representative Boebert would not be back in the house. She switched districts and one in the new district. So she is back. We were both wrong.
|
Ivan:
[37:12]
| Yeah.
|
Sam:
[37:14]
| We both specifically also recommended, recommended. predicted that she would lose in the primary in her new district. She got 43.7% of the vote in her primary. Her closest opponent had 14.2%. So she did not lose in the primary. We both agreed that Marjorie Taylor Greene would be reelected. She was.
|
Ivan:
[37:39]
| Yep.
|
Sam:
[37:40]
| On the Senate, you said that Democrats would keep the Senate. I said Republicans will take the Senate. I was right. You were wrong. I said that the Republican margin would be one or two seats max, depending how you count, whether it's the difference between the number of Republicans and the number of Democrats or whether it's how many votes they have to spare. It's either three or six, but either way, it's not one through two. The theoretical count was 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats. But piece of trivia here, one of the senators was not sworn in this week. And so the actual count is 52 Republicans, 45 Democrats right now.
|
Ivan:
[38:24]
| Who didn't get sworn in?
|
Sam:
[38:26]
| Jim Justice from West Virginia did not get sworn in because he is finishing out his term of governor of West Virginia, which does not end for another week and a half. And then he will be sworn into the Senate.
|
Ivan:
[38:42]
| Interesting. No.
|
Sam:
[38:43]
| He could have resigned from the governorship and been sworn in right away, but he made the determination he was going to finish his term, I think it's like the 13th or something, I don't know, later in January sometime. So his term goes later in January, and then once he's no longer governor, he'll be sworn in at 7. So, okay. You made a very specific prediction. Not only would the Democrats keep the Senate, but you said it would be a 50-50 tie with Vice President Harris breaking that tie. You were wrong.
|
Ivan:
[39:16]
| Gee, you think?
|
Sam:
[39:19]
| I said it would not be 50-50, so I was right about that.
|
Ivan:
[39:23]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[39:24]
| Next up was Ukraine aid. I said that Congress would not approve Ukraine aid. You said it would. They did. So you were right. I was wrong. I had a conditional about Biden finding another way to get Russian funds from Russia. That doesn't matter. That doesn't matter. Okay. You said, and I want to discuss this, you said Ukraine would be some part of a deal thing. And I, listening to it, I sort of thought you meant a budget deal kind of thing. It doesn't, it appears this got done separate from the budget deal, but it was part of an aid deal along with aid to three or four other countries. Do I count this?
|
Ivan:
[40:06]
| No, but it wasn't the budget. I mean, I'm thinking it was part of a budget deal, like to keep the government open or something, whatever, and that was not.
|
Sam:
[40:15]
| That's how I interpreted it, too. But listening to you carefully, you never said budget deal. You just said part of a deal.
|
Ivan:
[40:20]
| Yeah, but I'm sure I was thinking budget deal.
|
Sam:
[40:24]
| Okay, so you were wrong.
|
Ivan:
[40:26]
| Yeah, yeah.
|
Sam:
[40:27]
| Okay. We both agreed there would be more aid to Israel. We were right.
|
Ivan:
[40:32]
| Yeah.
|
Sam:
[40:34]
| We both agreed that Senator Brown would hold on and win in Ohio. We were wrong.
|
Ivan:
[40:39]
| We were wrong.
|
Sam:
[40:40]
| We were both wrong. We both agreed that Senator Tester would lose in Montana. We were both right.
|
Ivan:
[40:46]
| Yeah.
|
Sam:
[40:48]
| We both agreed that the pro-abortion side would win everywhere it was on the ballot for referendums and such. The actual record was seven wins, three defeats. So we were wrong because we predicted a clean sweep. And that was specifically on initiatives to add a right to abortion into the state constitution. There were a couple other abortion related things that were harder to interpret, but like of the ones that were specifically that kind of constitutional amendment, it was seven to three. Okay, then we both agreed that at some point in the year, Biden's 538 net approval average would rise above negative 7%, which was the best he ever got in 2023.
|
Ivan:
[41:36]
| Did it?
|
Sam:
[41:38]
| The best he ever got was negative 10.1%. So no, it did not. So we were both wrong. Next up, we both agreed that Rudy Giuliani would have to pay at least something on his civil cases this year.
|
Ivan:
[41:53]
| Well, he's been having to pay.
|
Sam:
[41:55]
| Yes, he's still fighting. There's still disputes going on.
|
Ivan:
[41:59]
| They've been taking his shit.
|
Sam:
[42:00]
| But they have been taking stuff. So we were both right. Next up, same question for Alex Jones. I know the onion thing is in dispute, but he's had to pay something already, right?
|
Ivan:
[42:12]
| Yes, he has forfeited assets and things already, yes.
|
Sam:
[42:15]
| We both agreed that he would, so we were both right. Okay, next, my wife's re-election. We both agreed my wife would win re-election. She got 93.59% of the vote, so she did win re-election.
|
Ivan:
[42:33]
| Yes.
|
Sam:
[42:34]
| Now, that's a landslide.
|
Ivan:
[42:36]
| Now that's a landslide.
|
Sam:
[42:38]
| Of course, she had no opponent.
|
Ivan:
[42:40]
| Hey, you scared them, you know, scared them out of the water.
|
Sam:
[42:47]
| So now I did, however, predict that she would have a Republican opponent. Now, this is a discuss because she had no Republican opponent on the ballot. But in the primary, yeah, that was only in the primary. There was a certified write-in in the primary who got 50-something votes, by the way. Like, yeah. So go him, I guess. But he was not in the general election, and he was never on the ballot. So I'm saying I was wrong. There was no Republican.
|
Ivan:
[43:21]
| Yeah, there was no Republican. Yeah, there was.
|
Sam:
[43:23]
| Yeah. Okay. That brings us to the end of the politics section. Okay. Okay, so here come our totals. Now, just comparison, in 2023, I got 75% of the politics questions right, and you got 72.6% right in 2023 for the 2023 predictions. Do I write that? For 2024, how do you think we did? We've just gone through the whole list.
|
Ivan:
[43:57]
| I think we did worse.
|
Sam:
[43:58]
| Okay, I made 67 politics predictions of which I got 29 correct. That's 43.3%. Ouch. You made 59 politics predictions of which you got 23%. That's 39% right. ouch oh boy collectively we made 126 politics predictions of which we got 52 that's 41.3 ouch.
|
Ivan:
[44:30]
| We did really bad.
|
Sam:
[44:32]
| We did really really badly.
|
Ivan:
[44:35]
| I think this has to be the worst what the worst we've ever done.
|
Sam:
[44:39]
| Oh god and for politics yeah okay here we go like i've got i've got the numbers going back to 2015. There were a few years before 2015, where I did these calculations on paper instead of a spreadsheet. And I, I do not have those pieces of paper handy, but let's see our collective amount in 2015 was 66.7%.
|
Ivan:
[45:01]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[45:02]
| In 2016, 61.5%. percent. 2017, 61.7 percent. 2018, 69.0 percent. 2019, 57.5 percent. 2020, 55.0 percent. 2021, 2021, 59.4%. 2022, 68.1%. 2023, 72.6%.
|
Ivan:
[45:36]
| Dude, this is the worst we have done by...
|
Sam:
[45:40]
| Since 2015. I cannot guarantee we did not want to do worse.
|
Ivan:
[45:44]
| Since the ones that we have the data for by a lot.
|
Sam:
[45:47]
| By a lot, yes.
|
Ivan:
[45:49]
| And I do think...
|
Sam:
[45:51]
| I mean, the Biden dropping out thing made a difference, but there was a lot of other stuff.
|
Ivan:
[45:57]
| No, but there was a lot of other stuff. And I think, look, it goes back to why a lot of the models that, forget about the polling models. I'm talking about the models that looked at the... fundamentals.
|
Sam:
[46:16]
| You're talking like the keys and all that kind of stuff.
|
Ivan:
[46:19]
| Exactly. That looked at what would happen based on the information.
|
Sam:
[46:25]
| Based on things like incumbency advantage, how the economy is doing.
|
Ivan:
[46:31]
| Blah, blah, blah. All those models, basically, everybody just went against that. It's like, it didn't matter. And it goes to the whole theme about facts don't matter. We looked at the facts. We looked at them how people have interpreted before. We said, hey, I was thinking, hey, look, I understand where the hell the polls are, but look, I'm looking at what's happened before and I'm looking at the facts and usually the voters will take this set of facts and vote this way. And one of the things you brought.
|
Sam:
[47:03]
| Up over and over and over again was usually the incumbent in these middle elections like has is in a really bad spot like a year out.
|
Ivan:
[47:12]
| But it makes.
|
Sam:
[47:13]
| Up that ground.
|
Ivan:
[47:14]
| And that's been historically the case w w you know w bush did it obama did so i mean you know reagan by the way you know also you know especially when they had a good economy it wasn't like carter had a bad economy or hw bush or that which had a terrible economy or trump that that would basically had a pandemic and an economy to take you know all that didn't matter right so well.
|
Sam:
[47:42]
| And and one of the things that has increased is the gap between perception of the economy and the actual economic numbers has increased.
|
Ivan:
[47:50]
| Oh or the the gap between you know facts and although that that flipped right after the election.
|
Sam:
[48:00]
| Suddenly the economy was much better for Republicans, like the day after the election.
|
Ivan:
[48:05]
| No way, Sam. For real?
|
Sam:
[48:07]
| I don't know how that...
|
Ivan:
[48:08]
| Get out of here. Nah. No, that didn't happen.
|
Sam:
[48:13]
| And worse for Democrats, by the way, too.
|
Ivan:
[48:16]
| No, it was. Not in the same percentage, but yes.
|
Sam:
[48:20]
| Okay.
|
Ivan:
[48:20]
| Yeah.
|
Sam:
[48:21]
| So that is it for politics. Be grateful. We have taken less time discussing the results of politics than we took to actually make the predictions a year ago. So we're making ground. We're going through them faster. Next up is international. We will come back after that. Since last week, I went through our breaks in order from oldest to newest. This time, I will do our breaks from newest to oldest, with the last two being the dynamic ones that I pick. I choose the category, but then pick, which means our first break is an Abel Dream. This is Abel Dream 23, and it's actually a pretty short Abel Dream. So we'll be right back with International. Here it goes.
|
Break:
[49:07]
| Here's an exciting one. people at work were making lists of things they had to do, and one person at work let's call him josh and was making his list a lot more detailed than the other people and that was it bye.
|
Sam:
[49:29]
| Yeah that was the whole thing.
|
Ivan:
[49:31]
| That's very exciting.
|
Sam:
[49:36]
| Okay now i.
|
Ivan:
[49:37]
| Will say that during my vacation i mentioned that i was sleeping a lot i i apparently i don't know if you are not okay i don't know if you're not recording dreams that involve sex.
|
Sam:
[49:49]
| I generally like let's say no okay.
|
Ivan:
[49:54]
| So you're not doing that so.
|
Sam:
[49:55]
| It's not well not happening to be honest i haven't recorded dreams at all in a long long time except for one or two exceptions but like because i'm so far like i am more than a year and a half behind in like posting these apple dreams so like okay i just but but no like they're i will admit to, censoring the sex censoring the sex censoring dreams that like get a go into that direction also there's some dreams that if they are sort of disturbing enough in other ways i will sometimes And censor those.
|
Ivan:
[50:30]
| Okay. I will admit that, obviously, if I had, like, I don't, I'm not going to, you know, publicly, like, discuss sex dreams and identify people, okay? Obviously, because I don't want to, like, you know.
|
Sam:
[50:42]
| Yes. Okay.
|
Ivan:
[50:44]
| But I will say that, you know, I'm going to say that the preponderance of the dreams that I remember, I mean, like, 75%, 80%. involved me having sex in some sort of form and it's not bad stuff i think you've mentioned that before yes it is like ridiculously high percentage i'm just like what the hell man i mean it's like well i mean i'm not gonna complain i'm bad i do have nightmares it's not not occurring sometimes i have dreams about work i actually for some damn reason i guess because getting that back to work like next week damn it this last night i do remember my dream i was dreaming about what the hell i had to do at work and i'm like well fuck what the hell am i but come on shit i'll.
|
Sam:
[51:28]
| Tell you my first of all my my sex dream ratio is much much lower than that.
|
Ivan:
[51:33]
| They're like they're actually a.
|
Sam:
[51:35]
| Rarity not like a common thing.
|
Ivan:
[51:37]
| Um but.
|
Sam:
[51:38]
| But i will tell you the common theme that i have identified after doing these apple dreams almost all of them are anxiety dreams.
|
Ivan:
[51:46]
| They are they are One way.
|
Sam:
[51:50]
| This last one wasn't, this last one was whatever.
|
Ivan:
[51:52]
| Well, like this, yeah, like this would, like, right. This is what I mentioned. Yeah. I mean, well, I mentioned like with work, it's a little bit of anxiety.
|
Sam:
[51:58]
| Yeah. But almost every one of these Apple dreams is in some way, shape or form.
|
Ivan:
[52:03]
| Some anxiety.
|
Sam:
[52:04]
| Me getting into some sort of worrying situation. You know, something dangerous is happening. Something bad is happening to somebody. Usually there's a comedic element to it as well. But like there's almost always this underlying current of anxiety. And so I'm like, hmm, maybe that should tell me something, you know, but oh well.
|
Ivan:
[52:31]
| Yeah. I'm not going to take anything from like the fact that I have like a wild variety of sex, like during my dreams, other than the fact that I guess I, that's where my mind goes regularly. So.
|
Sam:
[52:42]
| Okay.
|
Ivan:
[52:44]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[52:45]
| Shall we, shall we get going on the international section?
|
Ivan:
[52:48]
| Yes.
|
Sam:
[52:49]
| We both agreed that Ukraine would essentially be a stalemate all year long.
|
Ivan:
[52:56]
| Bing, bing, bing.
|
Sam:
[52:57]
| We were both right. I said there will be trivial amounts of land going back and forth each month.
|
Ivan:
[53:04]
| Bing, bing, bing.
|
Sam:
[53:06]
| I looked it up. The source I usually use, War Mapper, has been inconsistent this year. They didn't post for many, many months, and then they posted a whole bunch, and then they disappeared again. So their latest numbers were September. But I think the number is something like, on net, Russia has gained ground in the last year, but it's something on the order of half a percent for the entire year.
|
Ivan:
[53:29]
| Exactly. It's like stupid.
|
Sam:
[53:31]
| Of Ukraine's total landmass. And of course, Ukraine had that incursion into Russia, but that was also a tiny amount. Certainly compared to all of Russia's land area. It's tiny because Russia's huge. So yes, I was right. We both agreed no direct NATO involvement in fighting. So not just supplies and stuff, but there wouldn't be like NATO people actually fighting. We were both correct. At least as far as we know publicly, maybe there's like some secret stuff going on, but like we always have the condition on these that has to be public knowledge. Okay. We, so we were both right on that. Zelensky still president. Yes. We were both right on that. Sweden admitted to NATO. Yes. We were both right on that.
|
Ivan:
[54:19]
| Yep.
|
Sam:
[54:20]
| We both agreed that the EU would not admit Ukraine. We were both right on that.
|
Ivan:
[54:25]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[54:26]
| So on all the Ukraine stuff, we had like a perfect record. Believe me.
|
Ivan:
[54:30]
| Something we know shit about.
|
Sam:
[54:31]
| I guess. I'll just savor that for the moment before we move on to other things. But yes, we were 100% right on Ukraine predictions. Okay, next up. We both agreed there would be no UK election in 2024. Okay. there was uh there was yeah we were both wrong basically legally the uk election could have been as late as like right now january 2025 which is.
|
Ivan:
[54:57]
| What i thought that they would do.
|
Sam:
[54:58]
| Because we're gonna.
|
Ivan:
[54:58]
| Get killed i i that was like well.
|
Sam:
[55:01]
| I mean clear they.
|
Ivan:
[55:03]
| They they got hammered for doing so and not waiting.
|
Sam:
[55:09]
| Yeah our prediction was both that they would wait as long as legally possible it's reason why they weren't in great shape to happen but no sunet called the election and yes they got crushed uh so we were both wrong related we also predicted we both agreed there would be no new uk prime minister in 2024 we were both wrong there was starmer there was started on july 5th, then i further predicted there would be no new conservative leader in the uk Okay. There was, as you would expect after that loss. I was actually interested. It turned out, even though the election was on July 5th, and obviously Sunak was no longer prime minister, he didn't get replaced as conservative leader until November 2nd.
|
Ivan:
[55:56]
| I think they couldn't figure out who the hell.
|
Sam:
[55:59]
| But the new person, do you even know who this is? I didn't know.
|
Ivan:
[56:02]
| I don't know.
|
Sam:
[56:04]
| Batty Notch. B-A-D-E-N-O-T-C-H.
|
Ivan:
[56:07]
| No clue.
|
Sam:
[56:08]
| It's it's it's yeah anyway it's, anyway so i was wrong about no conservative leader we both agreed that putin would still be in charge in russia is he right we both agreed that netanyahu would be out by the end of the year okay.
|
Ivan:
[56:28]
| We're wrong on that one.
|
Sam:
[56:30]
| Again now the next prediction was whether or not gaza would be back to pre-October 7th levels of violence based on the number of people dying? Now, this alone, this question alone took me about a half hour of research to get good answers, to get numbers. I guessed right away what the answer was, but I wanted to verify it numerically with real numbers. So here is, first of all, was finding out the pre-October 7th levels. Now, what I was able to find there was sort of total Israeli and Palestinian across Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. Pre-October 7th, we were running about one person a day dying, including all of that. West Bank, Gaza, Israel. Dying from this conflict, obviously. People are dying of other reasons.
|
Sam:
[57:31]
| Just looking at December and just looking at Palestinians and just looking at Gaza, there were about 1100 in December. So the one a day is about 30 total across all of those groups and all of those locations, 1100, just Palestinians, just Gaza. So no, it is not better than pre-October 7th levels. It is, to be fair, fair. It's down considerably from what it was in the weeks immediately after October 7th, weeks and months. But it sort of peaked about a month after October 7th and has been going down ever since within a month. I shouldn't say that. I didn't look at precisely where the peak was, but it was very fast at first and then it's been slowing down. Let's put it that way. So you had predicted it would not be back to pre-October 7th levels. You were right. I had predicted very optimistically that it would be back to pre-October 7th levels. I was wrong. It is still lots of people dying every month.
|
Sam:
[58:40]
| Okay. We both said that the Israel-Hamas war would not expand to an all-out war with actual other countries. The only debate here is there were something with Lebanon and.
|
Ivan:
[59:04]
| Libya into Libya. I like this.
|
Sam:
[59:07]
| No, I was— Liberia? No, I was merging Lebanon and Syria.
|
Ivan:
[59:11]
| Oh, okay.
|
Sam:
[59:12]
| That's what I was actually doing.
|
Ivan:
[59:13]
| Okay, Lebanon and Syria. Okay, well, you know.
|
Sam:
[59:15]
| So anyway, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran did have something happen with Israel. Do any of them count? I feel like we did not expand to a full all-out war with other countries. We had...
|
Ivan:
[59:28]
| No, there wasn't an all-out war. There were like, you know, like volleys and attacks, but it's not an all-out war. It's not like Ukraine-Russia war. No.
|
Sam:
[59:37]
| I'd say the closest was Lebanon, where for a few weeks, Israel was like...
|
Ivan:
[59:41]
| But it still didn't... No, it didn't. It all fizzled out things.
|
Sam:
[59:46]
| So I will say we were both right on that one. we also both agreed there would be no significant influx of palestinian refugees from for two other countries and our reasoning was basically they're not letting them out i think we were right there have been some there have been some folks who have gotten out but not in significant numbers no no no okay uh we both predicted that saudi arabia would not recognize israel we were right, We both predicted no progress towards a new Iran deal. We were right. I said there would be a peace deal in Yemen. You said there would not be. You were right. I was wrong. I said at the time I was being super optimistic. Because right before we recorded that a year ago, there'd been some moves in that direction, but they all fizzled off. Okay. Okay, now we both agreed there would be no significant developments in the conflict between North and South Korea. discuss. I think that is correct. Yeah, that's correct. We had all this drama with the South Korean president in the last few weeks, but that's not what we were talking about.
|
Ivan:
[1:00:58]
| Yeah, yeah, yeah.
|
Sam:
[1:01:00]
| Okay, so we were both right. We both agreed that North Korea will not actually fire a live missile at any country in 2024. We were right. There were more tests. It's like they're testing all the time now, but there were no live missiles. We specifically made that point. It's like, Are they going to try to hit Seattle with a missile or Tokyo or something like that? No. No, they did not. And we were both right. I predicted Japan would not be engaged in active comment. Active combat anywhere. Japan is engaged in active comment. They comment on all sorts of things. But combat, no. Yeah. Then we both agreed that China would not invade Taiwan. So we were right on that. We both agreed that despite a bunch of stuff that was going on in November, December last year, that Venezuela would not actually invade Guyana. They did not. I tried to check. There were more sort of developments in that conflict, but no actual invasion.
|
Ivan:
[1:02:11]
| No.
|
Sam:
[1:02:12]
| Okay. We had a conditional where we both agreed if they did, well, we didn't agree. I said, if they did, the US and UK, et cetera, would respond with an angrily worded letter. You predicted that if they did, there would actually be a military involvement, but it didn't matter. It didn't happen. Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:02:31]
| Wait a second. Am I missing one? Where did I? Hold on. Okay. Anyway, I am missing one for my spreadsheet, which I will add in manually momentarily. But the next one that is here is that no major U.S. direct involvement militarily anywhere, just the usual sort of stuff like every year and you and you specified more that it was like no full-scale comment there'd be various comment again there'd be no full-scale combat just the usual sort of occasional raids everywhere i counted us both as right okay okay the one that i remember spending time figuring out last night, but it's not written down here, um, was whether or not we would have, whether or not any other country that was not just mentioned would, would be talked about, like would have a big enough news event that we talked about it for an entire segment on the show.
|
Sam:
[1:03:46]
| And so here's the answer. I went through all of our shows for looking at the descriptions for the year. We had brief moments where we talked about Mexico, France, and I think one other, but they weren't full segments. But we did devote an entire segment to the pager bombs in Lebanon. So I think that counts.
|
Ivan:
[1:04:15]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:04:16]
| So I'm going to say yes. I think we both, darn it. I counted this up and I deleted our row on this. Let me do something dangerous here for a second.
|
Ivan:
[1:04:31]
| Dangerous. Danger. Danger.
|
Sam:
[1:04:35]
| Danger. Danger, danger. I'm going to save copy. and then i'm going to try apple zing a bunch and see if i can revert this spreadsheet to where i accidentally deleted it this is a lot of undos makes me really nervous but i saved a copy just in case i just saved a copy.
|
Ivan:
[1:04:56]
| So okay all right.
|
Sam:
[1:04:57]
| Yeah nope undo history does not go back that far Okay.
|
Ivan:
[1:05:01]
| Oh, wow.
|
Sam:
[1:05:02]
| I believe that we both agreed that we would talk about some other country.
|
Ivan:
[1:05:11]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:05:12]
| When I put this show together, I will confirm that. And if I was wrong, I will change everything. Okay. And put in notes that I got it wrong and give it revised numbers. But I'm going to say we both got that right. So that's the end of the international section.
|
Ivan:
[1:05:33]
| Okay. And how do we do, Sam?
|
Sam:
[1:05:36]
| So... I made 24 international predictions of which I got 18 correct. That's 75%, right?
|
Ivan:
[1:05:49]
| Wow.
|
Sam:
[1:05:50]
| You made 21 international predictions of which you got 18, right? That's 85.7%.
|
Ivan:
[1:05:57]
| Wow.
|
Sam:
[1:05:58]
| So you beat me on this one. I was slightly better on politics, by the way, even though we were both pitiful, but you beat me on international. and together we made 45 predictions of which 36 were correct so that's 80 percent collectively there you go and comparing our international numbers just from last year last year our collective number was 93.3 percent so down from last year but still 80 is not bad okay, okay and so that's it for international i'm really just i don't know how i ended up deleting that one line i accidentally deleted i know i had that line about the other country i'm glad i remembered it but i hope i remembered it right that we both uh said we would talk about some other country but anyway uh okay that upsets me anyway we're gonna take another break this time will be a wiki of the day. And normally when I insert wiki of the day, I pick random between popular feature, popular random and featured. And then I do the current one, the one that is today's popular wiki of the day at the time we were recording it. I did not do that this time. I picked one that I thought was relevant and timely from the last week. So here we go. Here's popular wiki of the day for um for jimmy carter here we go.
|
Break:
[1:07:27]
| Do do do hello this is neural amy i'm here to let you know about sound the curmudgeon's other podcasts the wiki of the day podcasts wiki of the day comes in three varieties popular random and featured each highlights a new wikipedia article each day they just pick the articles differently this week on popular wiki of the day you would have heard this summary for Jimmy Carter. James Earl Carter Jr., October 1, 1924, December 29, 2024, was an American politician and humanitarian who served as the 39th President of the United States from 1977 to 1981.
|
Break:
[1:08:10]
| A member of the Democratic Party, he served from 1963 to 1967 in the Georgia State Senate and from 1971 to 1975 as the 76th Governor of Georgia. Carter was the longest-lived president in U.S. history and the first to live to 100 years of age. Born and raised in Plains, Georgia, Carter graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1946 and joined the U.S. Navy's submarine service. He returned home after his military service and revived his family's peanut-growing business. Opposing racial segregation, Carter supported the growing civil rights movement, and became an activist within the Democratic Party. He served in the Georgia State Senate from 1963 to 1967 and then as governor of Georgia from 1971 to 1975.
|
Break:
[1:09:03]
| As a dark horse candidate not well known outside Georgia, Carter won the Democratic nomination and narrowly defeated the incumbent president, Gerald Ford of the Republican Party, in the 1976 presidential election. Carter pardoned all Vietnam War draft evaders on his second day in office. He created a national energy policy that included conservation, price control, and new technology. Carter successfully pursued the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties, and the second round of strategic arms limitation talks. He also confronted stagflation.
|
Break:
[1:09:40]
| His administration established the U.S. Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He was the only president to serve a full term without appointing a justice to the Supreme Court.
|
Break:
[1:09:51]
| The end of his presidency was marked by the Iran hostage crisis, an energy crisis, the Three Mile Island accident, the Nicaraguan Revolution, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In response to the invasion, Carter escalated the Cold War by ending detente, imposing a grain embargo against the Soviets, enunciating the Carter Doctrine, and leading the multinational boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow. Carter defeated challenger Ted Kennedy in the 1980 Democratic Party presidential primaries, but lost the general election in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, the Republican nominee. After leaving the presidency, Carter established the Carter Center to promote and expand human rights. In 2002, he received a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in relation to it. He traveled extensively to conduct peace negotiations, monitor elections, and further the eradication of infectious diseases. Carter was a key figure in the non-profit housing organization Habitat for Humanity. He has also written numerous books, ranging from political memoirs to poetry, while continuing to comment on global affairs, including two books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Polls of historians and political scientists generally rank Carter as a below-average president. Scholars and the public more favorably view his post-presidency, which was the longest in U.S. history.
|
Break:
[1:11:19]
| That's all there is to it. See? Fun, entertaining, educational. And short. Okay, now look for and subscribe to the Wiki of the Day family of podcasts on your podcast playing software of choice, or just go to wikioftheday.com to check out our archives. Now back to Germudgeon's Corner. Do do do.
|
Sam:
[1:11:41]
| Okay, we are back. And as you'll notice, you know, that was a lot shorter than the politics one. All of the rest are a lot shorter than the politics one. You know, and yeah. So, and we're still, we're running like half an hour ahead of the original show last week at the moment. So, yay!
|
Ivan:
[1:12:03]
| Woo! Well, usually, I mean, my experience has been that this, the, the, the, the long one is the prediction. Yes, the long one is the prediction. The review is a lot shorter.
|
Sam:
[1:12:13]
| Well, it's a little shorter, usually. We end up talking about a lot of them when like, yeah, so it's not like short.
|
Ivan:
[1:12:20]
| I don't think that we're very, like I said before, we're not very excited about this fucking 2024. Let's be clear about this. Our accuracy rate was the worst ever in politics. I mean, you know, at least we've kept track of.
|
Sam:
[1:12:35]
| The shortest review we've ever done, though, was the one where we reviewed the 2020 results because we didn't do a full show on it because january 6 got in the way we canceled the review show oh that's right and there were still like all kinds of things going on for the next couple weeks so like two or three weeks later i forget exactly how we did one segment where we rushed through it you know but we didn't do a full review show right right but that was like because crazy stuff was happening.
|
Ivan:
[1:13:05]
| Right.
|
Sam:
[1:13:06]
| Okay. So now is the economy. We both agreed no U.S. recession. We were both right. Correct?
|
Ivan:
[1:13:14]
| Yep.
|
Sam:
[1:13:14]
| Yes. We both agreed no recession in any G- No, no, no. Sorry, we did not agree. I said no recession in any G7 country. You said there would be a recession in at least one G7 country. I spent time looking this up. We came close. Germany had two quarters of GDP declines, but they were not consecutive, so it doesn't count as a recession. Yeah, okay, that doesn't count as a recession.
|
Ivan:
[1:13:41]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:13:41]
| And Japan had Japan and UK both had one quarter of declines, but not two. And that that's looking at the last four completed. So Q3 of 2023 and the first three quarters.
|
Ivan:
[1:13:54]
| Yeah, they were slow, but everybody kind of like muddled through and like, yeah, didn't even though they had quarters of, of the client in growth, they, they, they didn't have two consecutive quarters. So yeah.
|
Sam:
[1:14:07]
| Right. Which means I was right. And you were wrong. Cause you said there'd be at least one. Yeah. Uh, next, I, I think I know the answer to this, but I couldn't find a really solid source. So I will defer to you. Um, we both agreed there'd be no worldwide recession. So two GDP quarters of negative worldwide.
|
Ivan:
[1:14:27]
| No, no, no, no.
|
Sam:
[1:14:29]
| I'll say, I'll say no. What, what I found when I'm looking for this was I couldn't find quarterly global numbers for recent quarters anywhere. Like I, I was finding like year long numbers with a year delay, but like, it was really find hard to find global quarterly.
|
Ivan:
[1:14:49]
| See if I got.
|
Sam:
[1:14:50]
| Uh, we don't have to spend a lot of time on this.
|
Ivan:
[1:14:52]
| Cause I, I'm looking at this pretty quick because I don't one place that usually have this. i found lots of the data i've got is from the world bank which is usually they they do that tracking with the year-end projection they had growth growth was projected to hold steady at 2.6.
|
Sam:
[1:15:12]
| Percent at the end of 2024 for the year right right that's right but yeah yeah but not quarterly well yeah i found lots of places with annual numbers including 2024 projections but i i didn't find any reliable like quarter by quarter numbers for you know the last see global growth.
|
Ivan:
[1:15:31]
| Is stabilizing for the first time in three years i think it's there.
|
Sam:
[1:15:37]
| I think it's fairly hold on hold on growth data.
|
Ivan:
[1:15:40]
| Growth data i found the data here hold on uh it's an excel spreadsheet.
|
Sam:
[1:15:47]
| And i can find lots of country by country data but it's not letting me download it yeah yeah yeah so okay all right i think we did not have.
|
Ivan:
[1:15:58]
| A clue yeah i think it's safe to say yeah.
|
Sam:
[1:15:59]
| Okay next is a discuss because again i i had a hard time like easily determining like this was the question is on how many fortune 500 bankruptcies that would be and i found lots of lists of bankruptcies but like they i i didn't have a good cross-reference to which companies were actually Fortune 500 or not. So I had a, there are lists of big bankruptcies like, so Yvonne, this one's up to you. How many Fortune 500 bankruptcies were there in 2024?
|
Ivan:
[1:16:31]
| Buh, buh, buh, buh, buh. Lucky. Steers. Okay, I'll say hello. Mm-hmm. Okay, one, two. Okay, there were two.
|
Sam:
[1:16:54]
| There were two?
|
Ivan:
[1:16:56]
| Yes. Let me double check that the other company is a Fortune 500. I know one for sure. Let me double check the other company. No, there was one. There was just one. the company in the fortune 500 that did file for yeah because spirit airlines is would be ranked number 615 so it is not the one that is that was ranked in the number 485 was big lots big lots okay yes so you.
|
Sam:
[1:17:27]
| Predicted there would be between five and ten so you were.
|
Ivan:
[1:17:30]
| I was wrong yeah i.
|
Sam:
[1:17:32]
| I predicted there'd be between one and five. So I was right.
|
Ivan:
[1:17:35]
| So you got it right. Yep.
|
Sam:
[1:17:36]
| Okay. Next up, you predicted a Time Warner Discovery Paramount merger.
|
Ivan:
[1:17:44]
| Damn it. I predicted the right merger? Wrong companies!
|
Sam:
[1:17:50]
| Well, didn't they have a lot of discussions of that, but it didn't fell through?
|
Ivan:
[1:17:55]
| Yeah. Yeah. And the merger that wound up happening is that Paramount got bought by my boss's company. That's the one. Yeah. Well, not my boss's company. No, but my, I mean, you know, so David Ellison is Skydance. They agreed to merge with Paramount.
|
Sam:
[1:18:14]
| Okay.
|
Ivan:
[1:18:15]
| And so, you know, and Larry put up most of the money. yeah gotcha no i got it was the i was i was i was very close on what the hell it was but damn it not the exact combo merger i i so i i got two i got two this is the one thing when i get too precise i knew one of those gonna happen but i picked the wrong combination right.
|
Sam:
[1:18:43]
| Um okay next up and and by the way i'm still obsessing over that one question so i'm getting prepared to during the next break actually check it so during the next break i will check it and i will correct in real time rather than when i edit later okay.
|
Ivan:
[1:19:01]
| Um next.
|
Sam:
[1:19:04]
| Up another one for you to check fortune 500 mergers how many.
|
Ivan:
[1:19:08]
| Just many were oh, marriage was announced in 2024 2025 here we go okay, come on come on there is a list hold on i'll.
|
Sam:
[1:19:41]
| Make it easier on you You made no prediction on this. I just said there'd be at least one. So you don't actually have to get a number. Just are there any?
|
Ivan:
[1:19:50]
| Yeah. So that's why I'm pulling it up.
|
Sam:
[1:19:54]
| I'm saying you don't actually have to count as long as there's at least one. If not fail to complete.
|
Ivan:
[1:19:58]
| Yeah. So. Here we go. Yes. I mean, he's a big one. Capital One Fight merged with Discover. This hero, which I forgot about.
|
Sam:
[1:20:08]
| Okay.
|
Ivan:
[1:20:09]
| That's up 2024. Yeah. That's a big one.
|
Sam:
[1:20:11]
| So I was right. There was at least one merger.
|
Ivan:
[1:20:14]
| Yeah, there was one. Yeah, that was the one big merger that closed in 2024.
|
Sam:
[1:20:20]
| Okay, next up. And you put this in the economy section this last year. So there may be an interpretation question, as in, do you interpret this generally across everything or only specifically to economy? Your prediction was there will be pain.
|
Ivan:
[1:20:39]
| I think the answer was, well, if you ask the voters, the answer was yes.
|
Sam:
[1:20:46]
| Okay. So are we yes for this?
|
Ivan:
[1:20:48]
| Yes. The answer is yes. If you ask the voters, the answer is yes.
|
Sam:
[1:20:53]
| Okay. Next up, you made a prediction on this. I did not. When we did the show, Arnaud was Forbes' world-richest person, and you predicted he would still be so at the end of the year.
|
Ivan:
[1:21:10]
| I think I'm wrong.
|
Sam:
[1:21:11]
| It's Elon Musk now.
|
Ivan:
[1:21:12]
| It's Elon Musk. Yeah.
|
Sam:
[1:21:14]
| We actually had some discussion here where I talked about this but didn't actually make a prediction. I think I meant to, but I didn't, where it looked like Arnaud was holding fairly steady and Musk was going down in his net worth. It appears, looking at the last year, our nose has actually gone down and Musk has gone up. So you were wrong.
|
Ivan:
[1:21:35]
| Yeah.
|
Sam:
[1:21:35]
| Okay, next, we had a bunch of numeric ones. But last year, we made the shift where the numeric ones were all just up or down. We weren't actually taking numbers.
|
Ivan:
[1:21:44]
| Okay, thank God.
|
Sam:
[1:21:46]
| So we both agreed interest rates, the Fed interest rate would go down. We were right. Dropped from 5.5 to 4.5%. We predicted which quarter the interest rate lowering would begin. I said Q2, you said Q3. The actual first drop was in September. So you were correct, Yvonne.
|
Ivan:
[1:22:09]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:22:10]
| September is in Q3. We split on Bitcoin. I said it would go up. You said it would go down.
|
Ivan:
[1:22:18]
| No, I was wrong.
|
Sam:
[1:22:18]
| It has gone up. The year over year was $42,265 to $93,429.
|
Ivan:
[1:22:26]
| Yep.
|
Sam:
[1:22:27]
| Bitcoin had a pretty good year. We both agreed the Dow would go up. So on Bitcoin, I was right. You were wrong. So we were both right on the Dow. Year over year was $37,715 to $42,573. I said Brent Crude would go up. You said it would go down. Year over year was 7704 to 7464. So it actually went down slightly. So you were right. I was wrong.
|
Ivan:
[1:22:59]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:23:00]
| Okay. Next up was the unemployment rate. We both said it would go up and we're talking US here. It went from 3.7 to 4.2 November to November, which was what we agreed that we would look at. And so we were both right.
|
Ivan:
[1:23:13]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:23:14]
| And then next up... The GDP growth, comparing 2024 GDP growth in Q3 to 2023 Q3 GDP growth. I said it would be higher in 2024. You said it would be lower. In actuality, it went from 4.9% in 2023 to 2.8% in 2024. So you were right and I was wrong.
|
Ivan:
[1:23:43]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:23:44]
| And that is already the end of the economy section. wow.
|
Ivan:
[1:23:48]
| So how do we do sam.
|
Sam:
[1:23:50]
| So i made 12 predictions of which i got eight correct that's 66.7 percent okay okay you made 14 predictions of which you got eight correct that's 57.1 so.
|
Ivan:
[1:24:04]
| Once again sam beats me again.
|
Sam:
[1:24:05]
| So i beat you again yes you did beat me on uh international okay.
|
Ivan:
[1:24:12]
| There you go.
|
Sam:
[1:24:13]
| You know, so collectively that means 26 predictions, 16, right. So 61.5% comparing to last year, last year, we were 68.8%. So we are down a little bit from last year.
|
Ivan:
[1:24:28]
| Okay. No, no, well.
|
Sam:
[1:24:32]
| That that's where we go. So I, um, so I'm going to, it's time for our next break before technology. As I said, during this break, I'm going to play back the relevant part of last week's show. You guys will not hear that. I will listen to it myself. And when we come back, I will tell you what was up with that one question confirming whether I remembered it right, blah, blah, blah. Here we go. Wait, that's the wrong break. I'm, I'm supposed to be going in order and I don't know why that one that was at the end. Oh, I do know why that was then. Yeah. Oh, and that, which means I messed up. Okay. You know, that means I messed up that one last week. I should have played that one last. So I'm going to play it after all. Here you go.
|
Ivan:
[1:25:20]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:25:21]
| We'll, we'll restart it here. Here you go. You can hear this, too, so I might as well.
|
Ivan:
[1:26:03]
| Yes, yes.
|
Past Sam:
[1:26:08]
| Okay, next up. Will there be any major news events in countries that we have not mentioned so far that will be high profile enough in the United States that we devote an entire segment to them here on the podcast?
|
Past Ivan:
[1:26:24]
| Wait.
|
Past Sam:
[1:26:26]
| So there are important things happening all over the world every day that we just ignore.
|
Past Ivan:
[1:26:31]
| Yeah, I'm trying to think.
|
Past Sam:
[1:26:33]
| So the question is, is it big enough that you and I end up spending an entire segment on the podcast anytime during 2024 talking about some other country that we haven't mentioned?
|
Past Ivan:
[1:26:45]
| They talked about the volcano.
|
Past Sam:
[1:26:48]
| That is true.
|
Past Ivan:
[1:26:50]
| There's a couple of things I talked about.
|
Past Sam:
[1:26:52]
| Well, but this is prediction for 2024.
|
Past Ivan:
[1:26:56]
| Like, I'm sure there's something. Yeah. Say yes. They talked about a couple of different things in different places.
|
Past Sam:
[1:27:03]
| Yet you've talked about New Zealand.
|
Past Ivan:
[1:27:05]
| It talked about New Zealand. I think I spoke about a little bit about the stuff in Guatemala. When I went there, the election, EU observers and stuff.
|
Past Sam:
[1:27:13]
| So your prediction is at least once during the year, there will be something that happens somewhere else in some country we have not explicitly mentioned. It could be, we haven't mentioned France yet. Well, I guess now we have. But it could be anywhere. South Africa, it could be Australia, it could be...
|
Past Ivan:
[1:27:33]
| We haven't talked about the power outages in South Africa.
|
Past Sam:
[1:27:37]
| Of course, I'm mentioning a whole bunch of countries so that, am I taking them off the list by mentioning them now? I don't think so.
|
Past Ivan:
[1:27:45]
| No, no, no.
|
Past Sam:
[1:27:46]
| Countries we haven't made predictions. Okay. And that is it.
|
Sam:
[1:27:55]
| It looks like I didn't make that prediction. You did, but I didn't.
|
Ivan:
[1:28:01]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:28:01]
| Like I never actually, like, I asked you your opinion, but I never, I never said it myself.
|
Ivan:
[1:28:08]
| Okay. Well, that's fine.
|
Sam:
[1:28:09]
| Let's. So the question is.
|
Ivan:
[1:28:12]
| Yeah. Yeah. I agree with you.
|
Sam:
[1:28:14]
| Okay. You didn't hear me make a prediction, did you?
|
Ivan:
[1:28:17]
| No, I did not.
|
Sam:
[1:28:18]
| Ah, man. That takes one off my, my get it right ones. How did I ask you for a prediction on that and not make one myself? You know, several times.
|
Ivan:
[1:28:27]
| I don't know. It happens sometimes.
|
Sam:
[1:28:29]
| It happens a lot. Like there are a bunch of these where I ask questions and like I mean for us both to make predictions and one or the other of us does. And we discuss it, but the other one doesn't actually make a prediction. So, okay, that modifies the stats for international to I made 23 predictions and got 17 right. That's 73.9%. and you made 21 predictions and got 18 right that's 85.7 so overall it lowers our overall to 44 predictions 35 right that's 79.5 so dropped 0.5 percent due to that and i dropped a little bit more okay and anyway and technology we went over blah blah blah okay and yeah i know i said i'd do that during the break but you could all hear it was exciting wasn't it you know exiting i know you that flashback was exciting to everybody you know we're all tingling you know the one thing i won't suggest however is that next year we just live listen to the previous show and react to it pausing to look things up after every question okay.
|
Ivan:
[1:29:39]
| That would take like two days.
|
Sam:
[1:29:40]
| Yes Cause like I said, it took me nine hours to go through that damn show. So, okay. Anyway, correction has now been in place. Not when I edit it later, I've done it right now. Okay. Next up was technology. Okay. So we talked first question was about fusion power and, and the question was about whether there'd be new big breakthroughs. And I said there would not be any big enough that we would be talking about it and it hits mainstream news. And I think that's correct. There were no big fusion breakthroughs that hit mainstream news. You worded it a little bit differently saying there were no major steps forward for fusion power. I did find, you know, a Wikipedia page that has like, you know, milestones in the development of a fusion power. And there was one.
|
Sam:
[1:30:43]
| In 2024. So I will read it to you and you will tell me whether you think it's major enough that you said there would be no major steps forward. Here it is. In 2024, the Korea Superconducting Takamak Advanced Research, KSTAR, achieved the new record of 102-second-long operation, integrated RMP control for H mode with a notable advancement on the favorable control the error field tungsten diverter with the achieved duration of 48 seconds at the high temperature of about 100 million degrees celsius in february 2024 after the last record of 45 second long operation ELM less fire mode carbon-based diverter 2022 we definitely this was definitely not big enough that like major mainstream news, us talking about it on the show, would you consider it a major step forward?
|
Ivan:
[1:31:43]
| I think that just sounds like a baby step. It doesn't sound like a major step.
|
Sam:
[1:31:47]
| Okay. So you were right. No major. Okay. Excellent. You said global CO2 emissions would not go down in 2024. I said they would. I was optimistic they, in fact, went up and it's once again a new all-time high. Even last week on the prediction show, we predicted that would still happen again this year, that while the rate of growth is somewhat slowing.
|
Ivan:
[1:32:16]
| The rate of growth is slowing, but it hasn't started to come down.
|
Sam:
[1:32:20]
| You know, actually, I looked at charts for this last year, and they don't have 2024, well, they don't have final 2024 numbers.
|
Ivan:
[1:32:28]
| They don't have final 2024.
|
Sam:
[1:32:29]
| But the last two years looks like it's accelerating again. You know, after the pandemic, the pandemic was actually down. Then it looked like the growth rate was depressed over what it had been pre-pandemic.
|
Ivan:
[1:32:42]
| Well, the problem is.
|
Sam:
[1:32:43]
| Well, yeah. But it looks like we're now going, rate of growth is now increasing again.
|
Ivan:
[1:32:48]
| Yeah, well, I think the pandemic obviously skews that arc in terms of like what the...
|
Sam:
[1:32:53]
| We're now increasing faster than we were before the pandemic.
|
Ivan:
[1:32:56]
| But again, it's just that the pandemic with a lot of statistics like messed up what the heck were running averages in terms of like certain rates of certain things. Because there has been certain rebounds and certain things that all of a sudden you get... You've gotten these like spiky numbers in the trends. So that's...
|
Sam:
[1:33:15]
| So anyway... Oh, and I was wrong. I said we would not go down. So we were both correct. We were both correct on that one. And yeah, it's going the wrong way and it's not actually getting much better. Okay. Next up, the question that was asked of us was the percentage of new U.S. car sales that would be hybrid, full electric, other alternative fuels like hydrogen, et cetera. new car sales in the U.S., Now, I predicted 5% to 10%. You predicted 10% to 15%. If I remember correctly.
|
Ivan:
[1:33:56]
| I looked up the figure the other day, and it was somewhere in the mid-12s.
|
Sam:
[1:34:01]
| No. Well, you look up your source. No, no, including hybrids. Yes, including hybrids. No, I found eia.gov. I'll send you the URL right now. I actually had the number over 20%, including all of those. including okay because i the numbers both both of us were predicting that here i'll send you the link like i said uh here's the link well.
|
Ivan:
[1:34:31]
| One thing that happened this year and i.
|
Sam:
[1:34:33]
| I will say that spike.
|
Ivan:
[1:34:35]
| The numbers okay.
|
Sam:
[1:34:36]
| Well not is that yes is.
|
Ivan:
[1:34:39]
| That is that.
|
Sam:
[1:34:40]
| The So Toyota.
|
Ivan:
[1:34:43]
| No, no, no. What happened is that both Toyota and Honda specifically this year changed a whole bunch of their cars where they made them that the base models, oh, you can't get anything that except if it's a hybrid. Fuck you. You're not, you're not, you don't even, we're not even giving you the option because they were trying to increase their, their cafe averages. And so they had actually developed some new models that are quite good at it. And they were like, okay, this is, there is no point in selling the other model. And so they basically made it that you can't, they're Toyota, well, Toyota basically made it that you cannot buy a car that is not a hybrid in many instances, period.
|
Sam:
[1:35:27]
| So here's, here's the thing though. Like we had very much specified it was all these things together, but in listening to our conversation, the numbers you are giving anyway, like at least looking at this U.S. Energy Information Administration chart here, the numbers that we were basing like where we were in 2023 were more like the pure electric only.
|
Ivan:
[1:35:54]
| It was pure electric and PHEV, if I remember correctly. Yeah. I was like looking at only that. Yeah.
|
Sam:
[1:36:01]
| Yeah. Whereas you were looking, yes, you were not counting hybrid, hybrid, hybrid, but the way we, but the question we very clearly specified hybrid or electric or whatever. So like your estimates and mine, because they were both based on you saying the current number was around nine to 10%, which was about half of what it really was a little bit less than half. Like, yeah, so.
|
Ivan:
[1:36:27]
| You Look at the data and I found the USEIA article. You look at the spike in hybrid in 2024, where it went from like 6% to 12%, I mean, to 12%. It was a huge spike in hybrid only. And it really is because, yeah, I mean, there are several manufacturers out there, but most notably, Toyota and Honda, that basically across a huge swath of models, you said, listen, you're not getting anything that is not a fucking hybrid. You know, you're not going to fucking notice the difference. Right. And except that your fuel economy is going to double.
|
Sam:
[1:37:02]
| No, agreed. But I think our fundamental problem was even though we verbally said hybrid on the show, we didn't actually include hybrid in our estimates.
|
Ivan:
[1:37:13]
| In our estimate. But yeah. Yeah. Well, so actually, by the way, there is, well, there is over here in this one that I'm looking at, there is a breakdown of the three.
|
Sam:
[1:37:24]
| Are you looking at the one I sent you a link of?
|
Ivan:
[1:37:26]
| Well, I don't know, but there is one that is EIA.gov, U.S. Energy Information Administration.
|
Sam:
[1:37:31]
| Yeah, the article from December 4th.
|
Ivan:
[1:37:33]
| Yeah. Well, if you look at the chart on the right.
|
Sam:
[1:37:36]
| Yeah, I know.
|
Ivan:
[1:37:36]
| There is a breakdown between PHEV, electric, and hybrid, so you could subtract it out.
|
Sam:
[1:37:42]
| But the thing is, is that fair? And it's because I know that's what we were thinking.
|
Ivan:
[1:37:46]
| No, no, no, no, no, no. That's what we were thinking, but that's not the answer. But however, even if that's what we were thinking, the reality is, even though I'm saying I'm wrong because it was 20%, the number did get over 10% by the end of the year.
|
Sam:
[1:38:00]
| Well, if you did look at only electric and plug-in hybrid, you're a little bit over 10%.
|
Ivan:
[1:38:07]
| Yes, just a little bit over 10%.
|
Sam:
[1:38:09]
| So if you counted that, you would have been right and I would have been wrong.
|
Ivan:
[1:38:14]
| No, no, no.
|
Sam:
[1:38:15]
| We didn't say plug in hybrid.
|
Ivan:
[1:38:17]
| I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying... That's just if, you know, I'm just pointing out the data point, but I am saying I'm wrong. Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:38:25]
| Okay. Yeah. But yeah. And this is one of those things where we need to be careful. Like we said hybrid, but we did the numbers as if we said plug-in hybrid.
|
Ivan:
[1:38:35]
| No, no, no. Yeah.
|
Sam:
[1:38:36]
| Okay. So we were both wrong.
|
Ivan:
[1:38:37]
| Yeah.
|
Sam:
[1:38:39]
| Okay. We both agreed that Tesla would not pull full self-driving functionality. We'd been asked that because it has problems. We were both right. They would not. we both agreed that artemis 2 would not be launched in 2024.
|
Ivan:
[1:38:54]
| Well we were right on that we.
|
Sam:
[1:38:55]
| Were right on that i went further and said it would be delayed till 2025 it is now scheduled for.
|
Ivan:
[1:39:03]
| 2026 so you're so.
|
Sam:
[1:39:05]
| I'm i'm gonna say wrong on that we had a conditional that if it was launched this year it would be successful that's.
|
Ivan:
[1:39:11]
| Okay by the way speaking of launches last night we were driving back from our line oh you.
|
Sam:
[1:39:16]
| Saw a good launch.
|
Ivan:
[1:39:16]
| Yes well well manu noticed it all of a sudden i'm driving and he says daddy look rocket and i looked on our left and i'm like holy shit wait a minute that is a rocket launch and i and i asked man look let's pull it up on youtube let's see if there's live coverage of the launch and indeed we were watching this this live spacex rocket that got launched we were able to get a fantastic view of it as we were driving we were following the live stream as we were going yeah it was it was great we saw it it was like i mean damn it i was driving i couldn't take a good picture but it looked i wait.
|
Sam:
[1:39:50]
| I was gonna say you pulled over to look it up on youtube right.
|
Ivan:
[1:39:53]
| No no no my son oh.
|
Sam:
[1:39:54]
| He looked it up on youtube.
|
Ivan:
[1:39:55]
| He looked it up on youtube okay yeah yeah yeah so he added you know he looked he looked at he pulled it up on youtube yeah so we he pulled it up we had it on the over there so we he was able to you know so we were able to confirm that yep we had a we were looking at the live but man i i wish i taking a good picture that was like we had a really really good look at the launch it was like it was we had a we had a spectacular look at that launch last night it's so cool to see those night launches okay okay yeah yeah so anyway i.
|
Sam:
[1:40:26]
| I remember from when i lived there.
|
Ivan:
[1:40:28]
| No i know you told i know you told me yeah those night launches are are awesome there.
|
Sam:
[1:40:33]
| There was one that I regret to this day. The very first launch I ever saw when I lived in Florida. Well, first launch I saw ever because I never saw one before I lived in Florida, was, I believe it was like a space probe we were sending to Mercury or something. I forget, but it was a really big rocket and it was the middle of the night. It was scheduled to go off at three in the morning or something. And Amy, Brandy, and I were all talking about watching it. And so I was staying up for it. And then... Amy and Brandy went to bed and I'm like, what the hell you're going to bed. And so when it was time, I didn't wake them up because I was like, well, they chose to go to bed.
|
Ivan:
[1:41:24]
| Right.
|
Sam:
[1:41:25]
| They were probably assuming I would wake them up, but I was like, they chose to go to bed. Guess they're not interested. They don't care. And I went outside. I watched the launch from right outside. This was your relative's house that we've stayed in for a year or so. and went outside. It was really bright. It was really loud. The windows rattled. It was, it turned out to be the biggest, most powerful launch in the entire time I lived in Florida. And it was one of very few night launches and it was really spectacular. And I did not wake them up. And so I regretted it for the entire rest of time that I had not waken them up because I had like, Because later, they were like, why didn't you wake us up? And then I'm like, oh, it's okay. There'll be another launch. And there was another launch, and then another launch, and then another launch. But none of them were as spectacular as that launch. So I felt bad. Anyway.
|
Ivan:
[1:42:23]
| No, well. Yeah.
|
Sam:
[1:42:25]
| Okay, next up, we're talking about X now. We both agreed that X would not close down in 2024. We were right.
|
Ivan:
[1:42:34]
| We were right.
|
Sam:
[1:42:35]
| This next one, we should debate. We both agreed that X will have completed the transition to a sort of, conservative site like gab or truth that and then specifically we said that the mainstream doesn't pay attention to and if we just said completed the transition to yeah.
|
Ivan:
[1:42:59]
| We would have been right but the mainstream does pay attention to.
|
Sam:
[1:43:01]
| It the mainstream absolutely pays attention to it even more so now that trump won i was good i was gonna say like like after the election there was a further exodus of people off of x and that i think makes it even more of sort of a pure conservative trolling whatever but listen i.
|
Ivan:
[1:43:22]
| Feel that people pay attention to x now kind of like in the vein of like how people pay attention to what happens on fox news.
|
Sam:
[1:43:29]
| Yeah or truth or.
|
Ivan:
[1:43:31]
| Truth yeah it is that it's not because it and because even a lot of the sports voices which that was one of their like say bread and butter that.
|
Sam:
[1:43:42]
| One of the folks that were sticking around that were sticking around many.
|
Ivan:
[1:43:46]
| Of them have begun to leave they haven't all left.
|
Sam:
[1:43:49]
| Right but.
|
Ivan:
[1:43:50]
| Definitely a good portion of them.
|
Sam:
[1:43:52]
| Well and are using.
|
Ivan:
[1:43:53]
| Alternatives they're just.
|
Sam:
[1:43:55]
| Not like no same thing that that process has accelerated like more news people have left as well more of various other communities but there's still a core that's there there's still a core that's there and its relevance has actually increased because Trump one and musk is like all up in trump and you know so i.
|
Ivan:
[1:44:14]
| Don't know here here's the one thing well i don't know let's save that for another day.
|
Sam:
[1:44:19]
| Anyway all right so we were both wrong um we both agreed that elon would still be in charge of x we were both right on that one, okay now we made predictions on the most googled person of the year, Now, I found a source for this and like we'd had a conversation and looked at previous Googled people in 2023 and previous years because we made a prediction of it the year before as well. But we hadn't specified before, like the source I found separated this into U.S. versus whole world. And the answer depends on this. So which should we count? We never said one way or another. We just said most Googled person of 2024. We didn't say U.S. only. So should we be talking the global or should we be talking U.S.?
|
Ivan:
[1:45:13]
| We have to be talking the global. If we just said most Googled person in the U.S. and we didn't qualify it as the U.S., then it's the most Googled fucking person and most Googled person. So who was it?
|
Sam:
[1:45:23]
| And I think that we said, yeah, I didn't go back to compare previous years. I didn't find the source we looked at last year. Anyway, we both said Trump would be the most Googled person of the year.
|
Ivan:
[1:45:34]
| Okay. And?
|
Sam:
[1:45:36]
| If we had said U.S., we would have been right.
|
Ivan:
[1:45:38]
| Okay, but we didn't. So who was it?
|
Sam:
[1:45:41]
| Taylor Swift.
|
Ivan:
[1:45:42]
| Wow.
|
Sam:
[1:45:43]
| Which, by the way.
|
Ivan:
[1:45:44]
| Damn.
|
Sam:
[1:45:44]
| You initially said. Still U.S. You initially said Taylor Swift, by the way. But then when I pointed. I pointed out that.
|
Ivan:
[1:45:53]
| You asshole.
|
Sam:
[1:45:55]
| I said it's an election year. Trump is going to be causing controversy all year.
|
Ivan:
[1:45:59]
| You asshole. You talked me out of my decision.
|
Sam:
[1:46:04]
| That's right.
|
Ivan:
[1:46:06]
| Damn it.
|
Sam:
[1:46:09]
| So we were both wrong. You could have been right.
|
Ivan:
[1:46:12]
| I could have been right. But no, I have to listen to you.
|
Sam:
[1:46:15]
| Could have been a contender. Okay. Next up. We both said that Thread's monthly active users would be higher than X monthly active users by the end of the year. The best current numbers I could find were as of, I think it was as of November, something like, I don't know, relatively recent numbers. X was at 550 million active users, Thread was at 130. So X is still ahead. So we were both wrong. We were both wrong.
|
Sam:
[1:46:55]
| We both predicted that Threads would fully federate with Mastodon. I gave a caveat, but with Optin. We were both wrong, though. Threads has made a lot of steps towards full federation, but it is not full federation at this point. It's not full federation. There are all kinds of caveats. It's connected. You can, they just added, they added for a long time ago that people on Mastodon could follow threads. They added more recently that threads people could see replies from Mastodon. They just like a couple months ago added that threads people can follow some Mastodon users under certain circumstances. but when they do, it doesn't show up in their feed. They can like get notifications. There's weird stuff. But it's not full, not even close to full. So we were both wrong. And we had a conditional about like how people on Mastodon would react to that, but that did not happen. So, okay. Next. Oh no, come on. No, no. What is happening? Why is it control Z working? You bastards. Okay. Hold on. I just accidentally like filled three fields in my spreadsheet with AA and command Z.
|
Ivan:
[1:48:25]
| Well, you kept repeatedly sending ads on Slack, which you kept deleting.
|
Sam:
[1:48:34]
| Yes, yes. Okay. Luckily, you know, when I looked up that one thing, I copied the file so I could go into that as a backup.
|
Ivan:
[1:48:45]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:48:46]
| And then put this back in here into the right place. Boom, fixed. Okay. Why wouldn't Command Z work? Come on, Microsoft, Excel. Command Z should work when I accidentally type something into a field. That's like the prototypical place you would want that to work. Okay, anyway, next up, you predicted, and this is a discuss, that once people got the Apple Vision Pro into their hands, they would really like it.
|
Ivan:
[1:49:20]
| Well i think the people that got it in their hands really liked it.
|
Sam:
[1:49:24]
| Yes i agree i think that almost all the reviews were pretty pretty positive there were a few downsides but people people were really impressed they liked it they enjoyed using it etc yeah i further predicted however that the apple headset would not break into the mainstream i think i was right.
|
Ivan:
[1:49:42]
| No you're right yeah it is not and we kept talking about that version 2.0 whatever did this is really like honestly it just feels like a beta in in people's hands right like right.
|
Sam:
[1:49:53]
| Now well and news just in the last few weeks is they have stopped production of the apple vision pro they've got plenty of inventory that's still unsold they're not making more and rumors are unclear in terms of the plans for v2 like usually by this point we'd have like some solid rumors on what's happening with apple vision pro v2 now obviously apple doesn't announce anything till it's actually ready but usually there'd be some rumors some leaks there really aren't on on it i mean there's the usual like they're.
|
Ivan:
[1:50:27]
| Trying to decide what to do i gotta be honest i know you're trying to decide what the next direction is i just just i just think they're not sure.
|
Sam:
[1:50:34]
| Yet yeah because i mean and people have talked about like a variety of like the everyone sort of expected after a year or two, they'll make a much cheaper version.
|
Ivan:
[1:50:45]
| Right.
|
Sam:
[1:50:46]
| But given how the first one has gone over and what the technology limitations are, are they actually ready to do that? Are they not? Are they, what's the level of interest?
|
Ivan:
[1:50:55]
| I mean, like, I, well, anyway.
|
Sam:
[1:50:58]
| Anyway, let's not discuss it. So, the next prediction was also related, which I, you know, we both agreed it will have a spike of good reviews when it first comes out and then disappear from the public consciousness. I think that's roughly true.
|
Ivan:
[1:51:13]
| That's totally true.
|
Sam:
[1:51:14]
| I mean, I have seen a few additional news stories here and there, but like, you know, not a lot. So I'll say, yes, we were both right on that. I also predicted V2 would not come out in 2024. I was right about that. You predicted that you, Yvonne, would not personally buy an Apple Vision Pro.
|
Ivan:
[1:51:35]
| Well, I can say we can take that to the bank.
|
Sam:
[1:51:39]
| You did not. Now, we joked a little bit. I did not make a prediction contrary, but I did joke that you would get a demo in an Apple store and Manu would see it.
|
Ivan:
[1:51:50]
| I got to tell you that the other day I walked into the Apple store for something else and right before the holidays and I saw people doing demos of it and I almost went, oh, I didn't. Nah, I said, nah.
|
Sam:
[1:52:03]
| Yeah, I didn't actually make that prediction, but I was joking around that you and Manu would try it at the Apple store and then you would get suckered into buying it.
|
Ivan:
[1:52:12]
| Yeah, we didn't. I didn't. I didn't wind up doing that. No, I got tempted. I got tempted to try it, but I did not. I did not do it.
|
Sam:
[1:52:22]
| Okay. Didn't pull the trigger. There we go. Next up, and these next few are all ones for us to discuss. Yes. You predicted, and I thought I would, but I made no predictions at these next two. I talked a lot about it. This is one of the ones where we got into a debate and we talked and we talked and talked, but only you actually ended up making a prediction, even though I meant to. I never actually did. But your prediction, no Gen AI lawsuits significant enough to stop companies from proceeding with their Gen AI plans. Were you right?
|
Ivan:
[1:52:57]
| Yeah.
|
Sam:
[1:52:58]
| Okay. And then also you predicted there would be no Gen-I, Gen-I, there'd be no Gen-AI failure at a massive scale at any company this year.
|
Ivan:
[1:53:13]
| I'm totally right on that. Yeah.
|
Sam:
[1:53:15]
| I mean, there are a variety of like minor screw ups here and there, but nothing like, nothing huge.
|
Ivan:
[1:53:20]
| Yeah. Like what happened at Delta Airlines had nothing to do with AI or something like that.
|
Sam:
[1:53:24]
| Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Next up for me, online streaming services. And this is one of the ones where I predicted something that would be fairly vague so we can interpret. I said, from a user perspective, so not from a financial business perspective, nothing like that, but from a user perspective, the state of online streaming services would continue to just be a mess all year long where no one's really happy with what's going on with streaming.
|
Ivan:
[1:53:52]
| Oh God, that's so true. okay yes oh my god people are really pissed.
|
Sam:
[1:54:03]
| Yeah and so.
|
Ivan:
[1:54:05]
| I mean we're basically like i mean this is you know everybody was like oh we're gonna get rid of the cable bundle we're gonna get rid of the cable bundle yes yes yes and now it's like shit we got rid of the cable bundle now we're paying more i.
|
Sam:
[1:54:19]
| Know there are other things too p there's been a rise of increasing ads and promos in these things.
|
Ivan:
[1:54:27]
| Yes there's.
|
Sam:
[1:54:28]
| Been issues with selection and what's exclusive where and all this kind of stuff that's frustrating. There's been frustration about shows being pulled. Yeah. Like that were on streaming services that are no longer available anywhere because the company was like, ah, it doesn't make us financial sense for us to leave this there. So they pull it out. So there have been, yes. So I'll agree. Yes. Then there were four things that Alex had asked us to predict about what would happen with the Teague comic book or with the Teague game or with the Teague fish. But I confirmed with Alex that the Teague comic book did not happen in 2024. The Teague game did not get finished in 2024 and no Teague fish was actually declared in 2024. So those are all conditionals that are irrelevant and don't count for anything.
|
Ivan:
[1:55:22]
| All right.
|
Sam:
[1:55:23]
| Okay. So that brings us to the end of the technology section.
|
Ivan:
[1:55:28]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:55:29]
| Um, and so I made 16 predictions of which I got 10. Correct. That's 62.5%. You made 16 predictions and got 11 correct. That's 68.8%. So you beat me in this category. Our collective is 32 predictions, 21 correct. That's 65.6%.
|
Ivan:
[1:55:51]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[1:55:53]
| And that's it. So compare to last year. Let's see. So 65.6. Last year, 62.8. So we beat our technology numbers for last year. So that's the first one, this, this first one today that year over year we've beat. Okay. And so with that, it is time for another break. And, and this will be the last one. The last section is hodgepodge and we'll do hodgepodge and then we'll review our overall stats and we'll be done. So here, last break. Here we go. Boop, boop, boop, boop, boop.
|
Break:
[1:56:32]
| Okie dokie. Here it comes. It was just my internet being stupid. My internet being stupid is a new song we will make. Come on, come on, come on, come on, come on, come on, come on, come on, come on, come on. Come on, I'm tired. What's wrong? I'm really tired. You, you, you, it's, it's amazing. To get the show on the road. There's a road? There's a road? Oh my god, there's a road!
|
Sam:
[1:57:37]
| There we go. Every time we play this.
|
Ivan:
[1:57:40]
| And then we wonder why, why, you know, we don't get picked up by some major consolidator of podcasts that gives us millions of dollars. And then this break reminds me of, oh, that's why. Yes, this is our show.
|
Sam:
[1:57:56]
| Well, to be clear. Well, the two things. One, I was going to note that, you know, if you're listening to audio, you can't always see this. But Yvonne is always cracking up during this break. Like, you know, his face is turning red. He's, you know, and I usually like when I edit these, I leave in him laughing over that because I think that's funny. But like, but yeah, no.
|
Ivan:
[1:58:18]
| I mean, I was literally in tears laughing like right now. Yes. Okay. All right. That does, you know, yes.
|
Sam:
[1:58:25]
| Now, in terms of the other though, to be fair, like we've never like reached out to any of those. We've never, aside from that one time where for a few months we bought advertising, we've never really marketed the show. We've never, we've never gone on to like, they're, they're, they're, they're these, they're these various, like, you, you could try to get into podcast circles where you, you promote each other. And like, we go as guests and other people's podcasts.
|
Ivan:
[1:58:53]
| That's a lot of fucking work. Yeah.
|
Sam:
[1:58:56]
| Yeah. You know, we have jobs.
|
Ivan:
[1:58:58]
| We have, you know, we have, we have jobs. You know, that's part of the problem. We got lives. We got jobs. I mean, what the fuck, man?
|
Sam:
[1:59:07]
| Oh, come on. Now, you're the sales guy, Yvonne. You should be selling our show.
|
Ivan:
[1:59:12]
| Sure. I will say that maybe when I retire, I will take that on as a job. Yes.
|
Sam:
[1:59:18]
| You know, at the same time, though, I've always thought, like, you know, there's only a certain degree down that road I'd like to go. Well, I guess it depends on the money, of course. but like you know like i don't like yeah i wouldn't want to like significantly change the show itself in order to be more successful and get more downloaders but on the other hand if you threw enough money on i'd change it to whatever the hell you want you know, you know i i mean i i'd like to think i don't want not.
|
Ivan:
[1:59:53]
| Compromise by artistic integrity sam We're going to give you $1.2 million a year and we're going to fund the staff. I'm like, how do you want me to dance?
|
Sam:
[2:00:02]
| Exactly. Exactly. You know, you, you, you want this to be a MAGA show? Damn right.
|
Ivan:
[2:00:14]
| Elon, we love you. Yes. The cyber truck is fantastic. Yes. It really holds up well against bombs.
|
Sam:
[2:00:23]
| Yes. Okay. Next up, Hodgepodge. The first thing was from, it was, will the rate of malaria drop in Africa? And this was from Ed and he specified reasons why it might drop and stuff like that. The problem I found when looking for this is it looks like numbers are lagged by about a year for like malaria totals. Like I could find 2023 numbers, but no 2024 numbers. And the 2023 numbers I found were in this like annual global malaria report from like a big malaria agency that comes out once a year and only came out a few weeks ago. So like, it seems like the numbers are a bit old. So we have two ways to do this. We could one say, Hey, sorry, we shouldn't have even made this prediction because we don't have reliable 2024 numbers. or we could say, was there a drop from 2022 to 2023? Cause that's the most recent two year stretch we have data from.
|
Ivan:
[2:01:27]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:01:27]
| How do you want to play this?
|
Ivan:
[2:01:29]
| For whatever we have, the recent stretch of data, I guess that sounds like the most sensible.
|
Sam:
[2:01:36]
| Malaria in Africa in 2020. Oh, another question. We only said rate, rate of malaria. The answer is also different if you're talking cases or deaths.
|
Ivan:
[2:01:49]
| I've just got to be cases, right?
|
Sam:
[2:01:51]
| Yeah. Okay. So cases were up from 2022 to 2023, which means we were both wrong.
|
Ivan:
[2:02:02]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:02:03]
| If we had specified deaths, we would have been right. It was slightly down.
|
Ivan:
[2:02:09]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:02:10]
| But cases were up. 2023 over 2022. Okay. The same discussion applies for one year lagged data for the number of cases of wild polio worldwide. So same thing, 2022 versus 2023, we'll do that. So the answer on that. And this one was clearly cases. In 2022, there were 30 cases of wild polio worldwide. We both predicted that would go up. In 2023, it was 12. So it went down from 2022 to 2023. so i will say we will both be wrong okay now one of the things is like we were justifying that by saying like the increasing anti-vax sentiment would affect this blah blah blah and because we're a year lagged timing but i figure this is the best it is it's.
|
Ivan:
[2:03:18]
| Always what we got it is what it is.
|
Sam:
[2:03:20]
| Okay next up, COVID deaths. We both predicted there would be more COVID deaths in 2024 versus 2023 in the U.S. So I pulled the CDC numbers. Like we talked a little bit about, well, we can't really get reliable COVID numbers anymore because X, Y, Z. And you were like, no, for deaths, we can still get fairly reliable numbers because for the people who actually die of it, They get tasks, et cetera. So here are the numbers for the entire pandemic, just so we can see the curve. And I made a nice little chart of this, but you can't see that. 2019, zero. 2020, and this is U.S. only, 367,209. And this is all as of the latest CDC update going through the end of December. 2021, 469,966. That was the peak, 2021. 2022, 255,673. 2023, 75,581. And 2024, 46,087. So it was down.
|
Ivan:
[2:04:36]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:04:37]
| And so we were both wrong.
|
Ivan:
[2:04:38]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:04:39]
| Well, good. Good. Yeah, I agree. Good. My argument had been nobody's being careful anymore, so of course it'll go up. I wasn't predicting like massive up, but up and no. The other thing I looked up, we did not make a prediction on this, but I pulled the numbers to compare. COVID is still killing more people than the flu every year. and has been ever since it arrived. Okay. Okay. Next up, and this had been a question from John, if I remember right. He asked us, would there be a sub two-hour marathon in 2024? The record going into the year from October 2023 was two hours and 35 seconds. And so we both said, that's close enough to two hours. somebody will break that record in 2024 and make it under two. And I mentioned like new technology about shoes and stuff like that. No, that record has stood for the year. It has not been broken. We have not gone under two hours yet. So we were both wrong. Oh no, wait, no, no, no, no. Wait, what are you talking about? You said there would be none. I said there would be. So.
|
Ivan:
[2:05:52]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:05:53]
| Did you find a record?
|
Ivan:
[2:05:55]
| No, no.
|
Sam:
[2:05:57]
| But you said there wouldn't be one. And so you were actually right on that.
|
Ivan:
[2:06:00]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:06:01]
| Next was Super Bowl winner predictions.
|
Ivan:
[2:06:04]
| Oh my God. Who the hell did we predict?
|
Sam:
[2:06:07]
| I said the Philadelphia Eagles and you said the San Francisco 49ers.
|
Ivan:
[2:06:12]
| Well, we were both wrong.
|
Sam:
[2:06:13]
| It was actually Kansas City Chiefs.
|
Ivan:
[2:06:14]
| It was Kansas City Chiefs. Yeah.
|
Sam:
[2:06:16]
| You'll like this one. Next one was World Series predictions.
|
Ivan:
[2:06:19]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:06:20]
| I said the Boston Red Sox. You said.
|
Ivan:
[2:06:23]
| That was not wrong. That was not right.
|
Sam:
[2:06:25]
| You said the Los Angeles Dodgers.
|
Ivan:
[2:06:27]
| Holy shit. I got that right.
|
Sam:
[2:06:32]
| Yes, you did.
|
Ivan:
[2:06:33]
| Wow. Wow. Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:06:38]
| Yes.
|
Ivan:
[2:06:38]
| Damn.
|
Sam:
[2:06:39]
| Okay.
|
Ivan:
[2:06:40]
| I'm shocked.
|
Sam:
[2:06:43]
| Now, next up was who would win the most gold medals in the Olympics.
|
Ivan:
[2:06:51]
| Country, I guess.
|
Sam:
[2:06:52]
| Yeah, country. Now, before I get to the prediction, you said something that you said in our conversation about this, that this would be pretty easy because pretty consistently lately it has always been the U.S.
|
Ivan:
[2:07:11]
| Yes.
|
Sam:
[2:07:11]
| But you did not specifically say that that was your prediction, but it was implied by the fact that you saying it was easy. It was pretty consistently the U.S. Should I count that?
|
Ivan:
[2:07:23]
| Yes.
|
Sam:
[2:07:23]
| Okay. So you say U.S. Okay. I said France. Now here's another thing. Okay. So it was not France. It was not France. I was definitely wrong. There was actually a tie where U.S. and China both got 40. Now, here's the question. Do we count silver as a tiebreaker, or do we just say tied for number one counts and you got it right?
|
Ivan:
[2:07:56]
| I'm saying it's a tie because I'll say it's a tie.
|
Sam:
[2:08:00]
| So do we count that as right?
|
Ivan:
[2:08:03]
| Yes.
|
Sam:
[2:08:04]
| For you, you were right?
|
Ivan:
[2:08:05]
| Yeah. By the way, what was the silver number, by the way?
|
Sam:
[2:08:10]
| If you counted silver as a tiebreaker, U.S. comes out ahead because U.S. had 44 silvers, China had 27.
|
Ivan:
[2:08:18]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:08:19]
| Okay. Moving on. These were three different predictions. So, like, we could have counted at, like, I considered, like, because at first I said this as one thing, but then I split it out. So I'm counting it as separate to pad our numbers. We both agreed that there would be no terrorist attacks at the Super Bowl, World Series, or Olympics.
|
Ivan:
[2:08:42]
| Wait, say that again? What?
|
Sam:
[2:08:45]
| We both agreed that there would not be a terrorist attack at the Super Bowl, the World Series, or the Olympics. We were correct. There was no terrorist attack in any of them. And I, yeah, there was.
|
Ivan:
[2:08:57]
| There was like, yeah, there was some train disruptions. I think there was some stuff in the Olympics, but, but not like.
|
Sam:
[2:09:04]
| That was a strike or something, wasn't it? It wasn't a.
|
Ivan:
[2:09:07]
| Yeah. It was more like a labor related thing. It wasn't. Yeah. Yeah. It wasn't like a terror attack.
|
Sam:
[2:09:12]
| So, and, and at first I'd worded the, this, the prediction as one thing, but then I did split it out. So I'm counting that as three predictions and three for me, that we are both correct. Next up was you. You further predicted, more specifically, that there would be no nuke at the Super Bowl.
|
Ivan:
[2:09:33]
| I'm pretty sure that I got that correct.
|
Sam:
[2:09:38]
| You did get that correct. Good. And then we started talking about Tom Clancy novels.
|
Ivan:
[2:09:43]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:09:44]
| Yeah, so.
|
Ivan:
[2:09:45]
| Yeah, so, okay.
|
Sam:
[2:09:46]
| Next up, hurricanes, or tropical storms and hurricanes. So first question was, how many named Atlantic storms would there be? I said 15 to 18. You said 18 to 22.
|
Ivan:
[2:09:59]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:10:00]
| Can you guess what the actual number was?
|
Ivan:
[2:10:02]
| 18.
|
Sam:
[2:10:03]
| It was 18, making us both right.
|
Ivan:
[2:10:05]
| Right.
|
Sam:
[2:10:06]
| It was the one number where our predictions overlapped. Okay. Then we predicted the number of actual hurricanes. I said seven to nine. You said five to nine. The actual number was 11. So we were both wrong. Then we predicted the number of U.S. landfalling hurricanes. I said one to three. You said exactly one. Do you remember on this one?
|
Ivan:
[2:10:38]
| I'm going to guess it was like four.
|
Sam:
[2:10:41]
| It was five. Beryl, Debbie, Francine, Helene, and Milton.
|
Ivan:
[2:10:47]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:10:48]
| Okay. And so we were both wrong. We both predicted that it would not be the hottest year ever. And the reason we predicted this was 2023 was not only the hottest year ever, but substantially hotter than the previous records. And we said it was such a big outlier that for sure, even though the trend was upward, 2024 would be down a little bit. It was not. 2024 went up even more, even though 2023 was already a huge jump upward. And so we both predicted not the hottest year ever. and we were both wrong, 2024 is indeed the hottest year, well, within our weather records, within the history of humanity on this planet.
|
Ivan:
[2:11:35]
| On the records that we keep, but we know.
|
Sam:
[2:11:38]
| The temperature was hotter in like pre-dinosaur time.
|
Ivan:
[2:11:44]
| Right after the Big Bang.
|
Sam:
[2:11:46]
| Well, it took Earth a while to form, but there were periods in the history of the planet that were hotter than now, but they were way way way way before humanity even existed i think they were even before the dinosaurs existed i could be wrong about that maybe some dinosaurs saw some of that but anyway there have also been much much colder periods as well but within the range of natural variation of humans this is a record okay next Yeah. You said, well, I said Taylor Swift and Travis, what? I was going to say Travis Tripp, not Travis. It's Travis Kelsey. I said Taylor and Travis would break up. They have not. At least not publicly.
|
Ivan:
[2:12:31]
| No, they have not.
|
Sam:
[2:12:32]
| You said they would stay together and you were right.
|
Ivan:
[2:12:35]
| There you go.
|
Sam:
[2:12:37]
| You predicted there would be an announcement of a Ted Lasso spinoff. as far as i can tell there have been lots of rumors yeah there's rumors but no official.
|
Ivan:
[2:12:48]
| Announcement now there's no official announcement yeah.
|
Sam:
[2:12:50]
| Apparently there was another season announced right though no i don't remember no no anyway it doesn't matter we did not make the prediction we were asked to make that prediction but we did not okay next time person of the year, You predicted it would be Joe Biden. It was not. You changed it. You had initially said Taylor Swift on that one too, but then you were convinced because I was like time person of the year in election years is always the winner of the presidential contest. So you changed from Taylor Swift to Joe Biden, but you would have been wrong in either case. I predicted it would be Trump and I was right. Okay, next. Best picture Oscars. I predicted it would be Barbie. You predicted it would be Oppenheimer. It was Oppenheimer. So I was wrong. You were right. You predicted that Fidel Castro would remain dead. He did. He is still dead. Yeah. You also predicted Trump would die.
|
Ivan:
[2:13:52]
| Well, that was wrong on that one. Although I came close.
|
Sam:
[2:13:54]
| You came close, but no.
|
Ivan:
[2:13:56]
| Just a few inches.
|
Sam:
[2:13:58]
| We both agreed Jimmy Carter would die. And he did right at the very end of it.
|
Ivan:
[2:14:05]
| Jesus. Yeah, it was like- December 30th.
|
Sam:
[2:14:07]
| I believe.
|
Ivan:
[2:14:07]
| Yeah.
|
Sam:
[2:14:10]
| And then, here's the thing. You brought up a list of oldest celebrities. And you started reading through that list, but you did not explicitly make predictions on those people. If you had, you would have gotten several more right. You would have gotten James Earl Jones. You would have gotten Newhart. You would have got, I think there were a couple others that if you'd actually made predictions on those ones you were listing off, you would have gotten several wrong. You also would have gotten a couple wrong, but you know, you would, you would have padded your numbers, but you actually read the list, but did not make predictions from them. I took one person from that list and made a prediction on them, which I said, David Attenborough would die. He has not. He's still alive. Then we went for, okay, how about young people who will die over the course of the year? I said, no, you said Charlie Sheen. I said Kanye West. Neither one of them died.
|
Ivan:
[2:15:17]
| We are both wrong.
|
Sam:
[2:15:20]
| And that's the end.
|
Ivan:
[2:15:21]
| And that's the end. Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:15:23]
| That's the end. So in HodgePodge, I made 20 predictions. I got six right. That's 30% in HodgePodge. In HodgePodge, you made 23 predictions and you got 12 right. That's 52.2%. So you at least got over 50%.
|
Ivan:
[2:15:43]
| There you go.
|
Sam:
[2:15:44]
| Our collective rate for HodgePodge was 41.9%. And compared to last year, ooh, improvement from last year.
|
Ivan:
[2:15:54]
| There you go. All right. Yes.
|
Sam:
[2:15:57]
| Last year, we got 37% collectively on HodgePodge. Okay. So we now at the end of all days, hopefully not really.
|
Ivan:
[2:16:09]
| End of all days.
|
Sam:
[2:16:10]
| End of all days.
|
Ivan:
[2:16:11]
| Okay. That sounds very ominous.
|
Sam:
[2:16:15]
| Hopefully not really. We come to our totals for everything. I made 138 predictions of which I got 70 correct. That's 50.7%.
|
Ivan:
[2:16:29]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:16:31]
| So I did break 50%.
|
Ivan:
[2:16:33]
| We broke the Mendoza line.
|
Sam:
[2:16:35]
| Barely, barely.
|
Ivan:
[2:16:36]
| Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:16:37]
| 50.7%. And you made 133 predictions of which you got 72, correct? That's 54.1%. So you beat me this year.
|
Ivan:
[2:16:49]
| Wow! Yes! Yes!
|
Sam:
[2:16:52]
| We were both pitiful, but you beat me.
|
Ivan:
[2:16:54]
| It was awful. It was terrible.
|
Sam:
[2:16:56]
| Collectively, that's 271 predictions, 142 right. That's 52.4%. Compared to last year, we got 65.96%. Let me do all the years to see like, okay, so this year, 52.4%. And again, this is all the years since 2015. We did this for like three or four years before that on paper that I don't have handy. They're probably stuffed in a box somewhere. I know I didn't throw them away, but they're not anywhere I can find them. Okay, 2015, 70.77%. 2016, 73.0%. 2017, 61.6%. 2018, 64.9%. 2019, 57.4%. 2020, 58.51%. 2021, 58.54%. 2022, 61.69%. 2023, 65.96%. This year, 2024, 52.40%, which if I remember the numbers I just read correctly, is our lowest since 2015.
|
Ivan:
[2:18:13]
| Oh, we did great.
|
Sam:
[2:18:15]
| And I don't have those other previous years, but I don't think we ever got this low in those years either, to be honest.
|
Ivan:
[2:18:21]
| No, we did not.
|
Sam:
[2:18:22]
| I think this is our lowest ever.
|
Ivan:
[2:18:24]
| This is like the worst ever.
|
Sam:
[2:18:27]
| Yes. At this point, well, not quite. Right. We still got more than 50%.
|
Ivan:
[2:18:33]
| We still got more than 50%.
|
Sam:
[2:18:35]
| We're still better than a coin toss.
|
Ivan:
[2:18:37]
| Barely.
|
Sam:
[2:18:38]
| Although, like most of these predictions weren't yes, no predictions. But, you know.
|
Ivan:
[2:18:44]
| Barely.
|
Sam:
[2:18:45]
| Barely.
|
Ivan:
[2:18:45]
| A coin toss.
|
Sam:
[2:18:46]
| Barely. So, I'm thinking we have to do better. The one we just did last week. We have to do better this year, right? Have to.
|
Ivan:
[2:18:58]
| I'm not old.
|
Sam:
[2:18:58]
| We can't drop below 50%.
|
Ivan:
[2:19:03]
| Possible.
|
Sam:
[2:19:04]
| We have to start influencing events to make sure our predictions come true.
|
Ivan:
[2:19:09]
| Okay, that sounds like a bad idea.
|
Sam:
[2:19:12]
| Yeah? No?
|
Ivan:
[2:19:13]
| Yeah.
|
Sam:
[2:19:14]
| Yeah, no, no, no.
|
Ivan:
[2:19:15]
| That sounds like a bad idea.
|
Sam:
[2:19:17]
| Yeah, Democrats do create hurricanes. Yeah.
|
Ivan:
[2:19:21]
| So we need to get on that.
|
Sam:
[2:19:23]
| We need to get our hurricane. Actually, I don't.
|
Ivan:
[2:19:25]
| We need to get the password.
|
Sam:
[2:19:26]
| Did we even predict the hurricane numbers this year? I don't. Yeah, I think we did.
|
Ivan:
[2:19:30]
| Maybe. I don't know. I don't remember.
|
Sam:
[2:19:32]
| It was a week ago. I had forgotten everything.
|
Ivan:
[2:19:35]
| So we need to get the passwords. So we can access the weather modification system. I don't have the passwords. Did you get the passwords?
|
Sam:
[2:19:43]
| I'm working on it.
|
Ivan:
[2:19:45]
| Okay. All right.
|
Sam:
[2:19:45]
| We need to infiltrate the Taylor and Travis relationship so we can make it go the way we predict.
|
Ivan:
[2:19:52]
| Oh, that's what we're going to do. We're going to break up Taylor and Travis Kelsey. Oh, there you go. That sounds like a great play.
|
Sam:
[2:20:00]
| Yeah, I think one of us predicted they would be engaged, and one of us, I don't remember last week. Anyway, what else could we influence? I don't know. It doesn't matter. Anyway, that's it. Our worst predictions ever.
|
Ivan:
[2:20:14]
| Yes!
|
Sam:
[2:20:16]
| Yep, yep.
|
Ivan:
[2:20:17]
| Woo!
|
Sam:
[2:20:18]
| I feel, I feel like we have to bounce back. Like we're well, I mean.
|
Ivan:
[2:20:23]
| Yeah, I mean, it would be, you know, yeah.
|
Sam:
[2:20:27]
| Okay. Anyway, we are done, done, done, done here. You know, Hey everybody, you know where to go. Go to curmudgeons hyphen corner.com. You will find all of our stuff, all the ways to contact us, archives of the show, transcripts, links to links to Facebook, links to YouTube for our, if you want to see the video of all this, or if you ever want to watch us live links to our Mastodon, all that kind of stuff. I have not linked to our TikTok. I am posting our TikToks until TikTok gets banned in a couple of weeks. If it gets banned in a couple of weeks, we made predictions on that last week, But I will say we are getting more views and more comments on our little clips of ourself on TikTok than we get on the actual podcast itself.
|
Ivan:
[2:21:20]
| This week, I can believe that.
|
Sam:
[2:21:21]
| This week, I forgot and was a few days late posting the clips of the prediction show. But like on the one clip where we talked about CO2 emissions, we've got people arguing in our comments about it. Like we got one guy coming in and talking about how, no, actually CO2 is good and we need it to be higher. We got somebody else talking about how like, you know, what humans do with CO2 is trivial in comparison to what nature does. And what about volcanoes? And then you got a couple of guys going in and talking to them, arguing with how wrong they are, defending the correct side because those people are stupid. So we got all kinds of back and forth happening. It's interesting, but you know, if TikTok survives, I will link it from our website at some point. Anyway, we'll also link to our Patreon where you can give us money. Yvonne is, no, Alex.
|
Sam:
[2:22:16]
| Yeah money this this is what we're we're reviewing predictions this time an actual prediction show was last week well this will not count because it wasn't last week but alex wants a prediction from you yvonne will daddy add a condescending rabbit to apple fnaf no and i will make i will also say no here you go okay i was just gonna say at various levels on our patreon we will We'll give you a, we will mention you on the show. We will send you a postcard. We'll send you a mug, all that kind of stuff. I just, my wife right now this afternoon is taking a mug to Monica who co-hosted a couple weeks ago. So she has, she is getting her mug and all that kind of stuff. But importantly at $2 a month or more on the Patreon, or if you just ask nicely or ask at all we will invite you to the curmudgeon's course slack where throughout the week yvonne and i chat about all kinds of stuff share news links all of those kinds of things and so this is long do you do you have a highlight yvonne or do you want to just say goodbye oh.
|
Ivan:
[2:23:26]
| Do i have a highlight i forgot about this part.
|
Sam:
[2:23:28]
| You don't have to do one where hold on hold on.
|
Ivan:
[2:23:32]
| Hold on hold on Hold on. Let me see what we got. Uh, uh, buh, buh, buh, buh, buh, buh, buh, buh. Well, Sam shared this TikTok. Yes. That was sent to me. The title, the title caption was, The Lulu Disney adults. The average person visits Disney 3.5 times. And in the video, it shows this person who is like going, Oh, you mean 3.5 times a year? And they're like, no, no, no, no, no, no. 3.5 times in their lives. No, no. Like, like what is their lives? Like, like one year. What are you, what are you, what are you talking about? 3.5? How was, you know? Yeah. So yes, there is a subset of people that yes, absolutely believes that everybody. Yeah. Goes to Disney.
|
Ivan:
[2:24:23]
| 3.5 times a year, which I realize is a very, you know, you know, Florida, I think there, there is a big caveat here. People that live relatively close go much more often. It's very common to see people with like, you know, Disney annual pass, like stickers that live around here because, you know, it's, it's a couple of hours drive. It's very close, but look, anybody that doesn't live like within a regular driver's system that goes more than three times a year is insane. i mean i mean they're they're absolutely out of our fucking minds and and by the way i i i also find people that they're really adults that go like just by themselves without kids yeah, they're also i mean i like i said i think i've done that twice in my adult life you know and one was an award trip that i got from hp okay and and the other one was somebody i know that said hey why don't we go and i was like why not we had fun but i'm like it's not like i i i never like initiated a trip that way so.
|
Sam:
[2:25:22]
| Right i i am holding down to average i am still a zero for any disney park.
|
Ivan:
[2:25:28]
| All right you know good you got you know probably some years to make that up.
|
Sam:
[2:25:32]
| That there you go you know.
|
Ivan:
[2:25:33]
| Here's the thing five times a lifetime so.
|
Sam:
[2:25:36]
| I know here's the thing like i actually have no desire to do it like it's not even on my list.
|
Ivan:
[2:25:41]
| I really here's a problem i think that i am absolutely convinced that there are certain things there that you would do that you would find cool maybe not to go repeat again but i am pretty sure that you would find certain things they're cool i'm not saying that you would find everything cool but i do think that because of a lot of shit that gets said about disney that you keep thinking no it's just this whatever it's whatever there are certain very cool things about it that i know that you would go you're like oh yeah i never saw this well let.
|
Sam:
[2:26:13]
| Me put it this way the only way i can currently imagine myself ending up at.
|
Ivan:
[2:26:19]
| Disney?
|
Sam:
[2:26:19]
| It's taking Alex. No.
|
Ivan:
[2:26:21]
| Oh, is that I could drag you there?
|
Sam:
[2:26:23]
| Yeah, is you drag me there. I visit you in Florida and you drag me there. Otherwise, I see no way that that would ever happen. Like, Alex, do you want to go to Disney World? No. He does not want to go to Disney World.
|
Ivan:
[2:26:37]
| Huh?
|
Sam:
[2:26:37]
| You know, no. That is the only way, is if you practically force me to do it.
|
Ivan:
[2:26:44]
| I don't plan on doing that. Yeah.
|
Sam:
[2:26:46]
| Okay. Well, so there you go.
|
Ivan:
[2:26:48]
| All right. Okay.
|
Sam:
[2:26:49]
| Well, let's wrap the puppy up. In future years, you can add the prediction, does Sam go to Disney World or Disneyland or any Disney park worldwide? Yeah.
|
Ivan:
[2:27:00]
| Open it up.
|
Sam:
[2:27:02]
| Go to Paris, Disneyland Paris or something.
|
Ivan:
[2:27:05]
| Yeah. Yeah.
|
Sam:
[2:27:06]
| Okay. We're done. Thank you, everybody, for joining us. Hope you liked it. I say this every year, but I think it's actually important that we hold ourselves accountable like this. Lots of people make predictions. very few people go back and check their predictions yes accuracy yeah we do that and we have.
|
Ivan:
[2:27:25]
| Confirmed that last year we were absolutely pitiful.
|
Sam:
[2:27:29]
| We were indeed okay with that we are out of here thank you so much have a great week everybody and next week we will be back to sort of the normal show talking about the events of the week later all goodbye bye, Thank you. Okay, here we go. I'm hitting a stop. Goodbye, Vaughn.
|
Ivan:
[2:28:20]
| All right, bye.
|
