The “Anti-Gravity” Drive Everyone’s Talking About ⚡️

Transcript

[Music] Hey there. I need a haircut. And today we have a kind of a special space themed lightning round video for you guys. Um, I haven't talked about space stuff as much lately as I maybe used to, but we're going to fix that today. Space stuff on today's lightning round [Music] video.

Thanks for joining us today. For those of you who don't know, lightning round videos are a thing that I do on this channel where I take questions from Patreon supporters and channel members who support at a certain level. Uh they get to ask questions, I give them answers to the best of my ability. Anyway, these are not as uh heavily researched as my normal videos. Just more of a lightning round thing, which is why I call it lightning round.

So, if that's something you would like to do, you can just go to patreon.com/anserswithjo or just click the little membership thing down below. Take a look at what the offers are. Maybe you could ask a question like our first guy right here. All right. Corey Zahas asked, "What are your thoughts on the recent research into Exodus drive and it's reported anomalous thrust in excess of 1g? Are we seeing tendrils of new physics or just getting fooled by another vacuum chamber anomaly?" Well, first of all, welcome Cory.

This is his first lightning round question, so let's uh let's see if I can do it justice. Okay, so um no, I haven't heard anything about the Exodus drive before uh until I got this question, but it looks like it's another propellantless drive. uh kind of thing kind of like the M drive. So, there have been several propellantless drives uh proposed over the years like the M drive that I just talked about and I've covered that way back when. Maybe we can put a little sticker up here.

But, um the thing about propellentless drive, it really is kind of like the holy grail of space technology. This is why so many people are are trying to to make something like this happen. So, yeah, what we use right now, they call it chemical rockets. That's basically what we we call the rockets that we use right now. They use chemicals that you burn or combine in a certain way in order to, you know, push the exhaust out, creates thrust in the other direction.

But the problem is chemical rockets are are extremely limited and they're subject to what they call the tyranny of the rocket equation. So it's like the bigger the payload that you need to get into space, the more fuel you need to get that payload up there because you're trying to get more mass up there. But that extra fuel to get that extra payload up there itself adds weight which means you need more fuel to counteract the weight of the fuels which which adds more weight and and then you need more fuel to get that weight. There's there's a reason why they call it tyranny. So it's always this this finding this fine balance getting a rocket into space is a very balanced equation of like just just the right amount of propellant to get it up there but not even an ounce more.

And if you're going out into deep space beyond the moon or or or Mars, Jupiter, that kind of thing, um you can't just like push the whole way. You you kind of do a burn to get out of the Earth's atmosphere and you make sure that your trajectory is correct. And it's really more like firing an arrow. Like you got to get it all just right there because you launch it and then you just coast the rest of the way. Now, that means that there's not a whole lot of adjusting you can do after you fire.

There is some, don't get me wrong, there is some, but there that's a problem. But there's also the problem that you can't really go very fast. You can only go a certain speed because you only have so much chemical juice to burn to get up to the speed to get where you're going. So like if you were able to have a constant acceleration the whole time, even a tiny tiny one, that adds up a little bit at a time over long enough periods of time, you get going super fast, like way faster than you could with a chemical rocket. This is kind of the idea behind ion drives.

And I love ion drives. I think they're really cool. Uh they have a very very low uh thrust. You can never launch an ion drive straight from the surface of the earth into space. It has nowhere near enough power to do that.

But once you're in space and you're kind of going where you want to go, uh that ion drive will just add a little bit of acceleration and it just compounds and compounds over time until you're going super fast. But even ion drives run out of fuel. They run on like xenon and argon and stuff. So, this is why the idea of a propellantless drive is so alluring. If there's something that doesn't get expelled as you travel, something that doesn't run out over time, but even adds just the tiniest tiniest amount of acceleration, given enough time, you could reach incredible speeds and outperform a chemical rocket.

This is why so many companies are working on a propellantless drive. And this is why every time there's any kind of breakthrough in propellantless drives, it makes headlines all around the world. Propulses do have one tiny problem and that is that it kind of um breaks all the laws of physics. Propulsion as we know it only operates on the whole uh every action there's an equal and opposite reaction thing. You push stuff that way and then you travel that way and you have nothing going out this way and it's still going that way.

Again, it breaks all the physics. So like for example, this is what the M drive looked like. It's sort of an asymmetrical chamber where microwaves would bounce around inside of it. And because of some kind of pressure differential, it would cause it to move forward a little bit. That was a theory anyway.

But as you can see in this article from 2021, it's been pretty much debunked. Yeah, there's a reason why they call it the impossible engine. But now, there are still some people working on the M drive. They still think that there's something there, but um for the most part, all the measurements have been proven to be sort of false positives. um we're talking about such minuscule amounts of thrust that it's really easy to u see something that's actually something else just even air movement or a twist in you know a cord or something that causes a slight movement but anyway that's M drive we're talking about exodus drive so what's the deal with exodus drive so it was developed by the former NASA head of electrostatics and surface physics laboratory a guy named Charles Buer beller that laboratory is a mouthful but it's super important it's it kind of keeps rockets from exploding because of electrostatic stuff going off and causing fires and explosions.

But yeah, in his time at NASA being with their top expert on electrostatics, he basically came up stumbled upon, you might say, some evidence of an unidentified force, which he just calls the new force. Um, and he claims that it results from a certain type of asymmetrical electrostatic field. Or as he puts it, quote, "Essentially what we've discovered is that systems that contain an asymmetry in either electrostatic pressure or some kind of electrostatic divergent field can give a system of a center of mass a nonzero force component." He probably calls it a new force to avoid a lawsuit from Disney. So, um, do I understand this? No, I do not. Yeah, this is apparently something that he stumbled upon uh like I said 20 years ago when he was working at NASA and so he kind of split off and formed Exodus Technologies.

They've been researching it for a couple of decades now. But yeah, they've been uh improving the thrust on this thing over the last 20 years or so. It's been going up and up to the point that right now they're showing it just above 1g, which means it's breaking the force of Earth's gravity. So yeah, this news that they've broken 1g of force, uh I'm doing I'm doing this for a reason, which I'll get to in a second. This is what made all the headlines.

Uh this is why I'm being asked this question in the first place. So 1g of force uh would essentially counteract gravity, which would be a huge deal. And this kind of does kind of the explanation feels a little weasly to me. So yeah, they first made this announcement in April of last year, uh this whole 1g thing. U they have since kind of walked that back a little bit.

Yeah, he did an interview with the debrief uh website called the debrief and he basically claimed that the statement was based on the weight of the propulsion surface, not the entire rig. By the way, the way this works is like that's the thruster right there and it's all kind of hanging from a string and as this as they turn it on, it sort of rotates and we'll set we'll have some video of that here in a second. So, this whole rig weighs like 40 30 to 40 g. Um, and the thrust is only like a 10 m thrust, but the propulsion surface that looks something like this only weighs like 760 mg. So, what they're saying is that the the the 1g is the force that it would take to lift the 760 mg.

So, that's why it's a little bit weasly. Also, to say that it beat 1g kind of implies that it's going vertical. holds a vertical force and it's actually a rotational force which is kind of a different thing which on one hand I get it. I mean if if you're going to do research on something it takes funding to do that you need to get funding in order to get funding you need to get attention and to get attention you need to make some bold claims. So if you're able to say in some tiny way that you're producing 1g of force even if you're being really squishy with it I can get it.

But on the other hand, I am also getting some very serious deja vu vibes from the other propellentless drives that I've talked about. They all make these big claims based off of something really tiny and then nothing ever came of it. But also to be fair, they are getting some kind of force here as you can see in this video. You kind of have to speed it up because it it goes so slowly. But um he turns it on and the thing does start to rotate.

This is, of course, if you're taking their claims at face value and you think they're not just, you know, fraudulent in the whole thing, which I don't. But I would say they're also being a little bit squishy with their wording here because we're talking about the size of that rig. Um, that rig is only a small part of it because they're pushing like 30 or 40,000 volts to to make this thing run. It's a lot of energy to make this thing run. And all of that is outside of that rig entirely.

So there's something else producing all of that energy to get that tiny tiny tiny amount of thrust. But if they are getting even a tiny tiny amount of thrust, that still kind of is not explainable. That still breaks the physics and everything. And if there is something new there that we don't understand that um we could get some understanding on, maybe we could do much bigger things with that. For the record, they do have a patent on this.

It's titled the system and method for generating forces using asymmetrical electrostatic pressure. If you are curious about it. I'll put that in the in the description down below. You can go take a look yourself. Uh but you know, I'll let you guys make of it what you will.

You can talk about it down in the comments. The this guy seems like a pretty affable guy. Uh he is a worldwide expert in the thing he's making claims about and they've been researching it for decades. They've conducted literally thousands of tests. According to some of the articles I just read, it said that they've built over 1500 test articles and notched over 3,000 data sets.

So, they're still kind of going through the data that they've already collected to try to make more sense of it all. And according to the interview I read, they um they they did keep track of like what went wrong with the M drive and all the all the false positives that the that the M drive people ran into. So, they've been trying to like counteract that, try to um you know, factor that into their their measurements and whatnot. But yeah, make no mistake, we're not on the verge of like Fifth Element style flying cars or Star Wars land speeders or anything like this. This is about as minuscule of a force as you can think of.

But yeah, their next step is to try to test this out in space. And so far, actually, no propellantless drives have made it to space. There was one that was testing like quantum inertia that went up uh a couple of years ago, but something went wrong and it and it didn't actually work out. But yeah, putting it up in space would be the ultimate test. Just put it up there, let it run, and just see if it changes its orbit or its trajectory in any way.

I think this is something they're going to try to make happen in the next year or so, according to their plans. Yeah. No, you guys chime in in the comments. Let me know what you think. I know a lot of people see stuff like this and they immediately scream scam.

Um, you know, a lot of people did with the M drive stuff, but you know, like I was saying, I'm all up for researching anything. Um, and you need the money to do the research. And to get the money, you got to make certain kinds of claims, even if that might mean stretching the truth a little bit. Of course, that's how you also wind up with Theronos. But yeah, uh, links to all kinds of stuff down in the description if you want to go check it out and see more for yourself.

Thanks for the question. All right, next up we got space question number two. Ryan Bezwick asked, "Hey Joe, what are your thoughts on Starcatcher's groundbased test of their wireless energy beaming?" Hadn't heard of it. Let's look into this. By the way, when I was uh doing a little bit of research on this, cuz I hadn't really heard of it before.

Turns out Starcatcher is the name of uh a graphic novel in some web tunes. So that's like 99% of what came up in any searches. That's fun. Okay, so first of all, this is not at all what I thought this would be. I thought this was going to be about like beaming power down to Earth, uh, which is something I've talked about before.

It's an idea that's been floated around quite a bit. It's like space-based solar power. You can collect the solar power up above the clouds where you can get 100% of the sun and then bounce that back down to Earth. U, you could create this global network of it and provide power to the other side of the world that's at nighttime that's not getting any solar power. That's something I've heard a lot about.

That's something I think is really interesting. That is not what this is, though. This is actually about beaming solar power to other satellites. So, you're powering other satellites in orbit using solar power that's being collected by a solar collector in space. Might be getting ahead of myself a little bit though.

Um, let's let's talk about the the demonstration they just did. So, yeah, right here, according to their website, Starcatcher completes the first demonstration of space power beaming technology at Everbank Stadium. This is in Jacksonville, Florida. So you can see some pictures here of the actual collector. You can see the quote here.

Today's success puts us one step closer to eliminating power constraints in space and unlocking new capabilities for satellites and the customers they serve. So it says here during the demonstration, Starcatcher's proprietary energy transmission system successfully collected and transmitted concentrated solar energy over 100 meters to multiple off-the-shelf satellite solar arrays, proving the viability of the company's space technology under real world conditions. Is it real world conditions, though? because the actual conditions where it would work would not even be on the world. It would be out in space syntax. But yeah, they actually got a media kit here with some photos from the demonstration uh showing it collected over here.

I think the idea is that they're collecting it on just regular solar panels that they would have on um or smaller solar panels that they would have on satellites up in space. Look at the size of this thing, though. That's that's that's a big boy. I will say I'm not quite sure if this is like they collect it, process it, and then beam it out through like a microwave beam or something like that or if it's literally just an optical thing where they just bounce it around cuz you can see mirrors right there. Uh but there he seems to have like a laser kind of thing.

But anyway, they tested it on a football field. It worked. They're calling it a success. Uh the next thing they want to do is try to test it in space. They've gotten $12.5 million in grants.

uh pretty small potatoes when it comes to space travel stuff, but it's something they can use to develop and grow off of. The big question, of course, is does this make sense? So, their big idea is that they've gotten the size and the mass of satellites down incredibly small over the last 20, 30 years or so, but the power needs have not scaled down as much. Meaning, you still need large batteries or a large solar array, which costs money, which adds space, which adds weight. So the idea is that they can get a solar capture network in space at around 1500 km in orbit. So pretty far up there.

Then they could beam the energy down to client satellites which cuts down on their costs and then they can send the power only when and where it's needed. So like I guess if the satellite is not needing power right now, I can just sort of power down, sit dormant, and then when you know a client wants to use that satellite for something, they can just take the power from uh from space catcher from Star Catcher and uh and use the satellite when it's needed. So yeah, I don't know how big their client base would be for this. Um, but I mean the upside is if they can commercialize this and commoditize power in space, uh, make a little money off of it, that could fund their research and then they wouldn't rely on, you know, taxpayer money and and the whims of government, which can shift all the time. Ultimately, they say they want to set up uh something around the moon for like lunar power from moon bases and maybe eventually earth power, which I do think would be an amazing idea.

Anyway, I'm all for technological advancement and progress. Uh, I'm all for researching and trying new things. I'm with them. I wish the best. I do have a couple of reservations.

Like the cost of all these things that they're solving for, spaceflight, solar panels, batteries, the cost of all these things are going down. So, I'm not sure how needed this is, especially in the coming 10, 20 years. Like, a customer would have to do the math and figure out if the cost of launching a satellite um and and building the satellite and the batteries and the launch, the launch by far is the most expensive part of that. Would that be more or less than the cost they would pay for an ongoing indefinite subscription to this power service? Also, from what I read, it would take a lot of launches to get this network in orbit. Um, this would not be a small thing.

This would have to be a massive infrastructure. Like again, you can see the size of this thing, and it was just a test. This is just the demonstrator. So, actually getting a real infrastructure up in space, it would take probably dozens of of launches. Like, this is something that has to collect a lot of solar energy.

So, it's got to be big to collect all that solar energy. So, in conclusion, good for them. Uh, glad to see the progress. I think that's exciting. Interested to see where things go from here.

Um, they might have to do a space test in the next year or so. I would look forward to that. That'd be cool. Yeah, I'm not sure I 100% get it, but if there's something I'm missing, then please straighten me out in the comments below. All right.

Next question comes from Fishtail. He says, "My favorite slogan, AU H2O 1964, Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign slogan. What are your top five favorite slogans? Was that really his campaign slogan? Gee, I wonder why he didn't win. Now, au gold H2O water. Gold water.

I get it. But I mean, like, you have to be a certain Most people aren't going to get that. It is clever, though. I I'll give it that. It is clever.

It just not everybody's going to get it. So, this is one of those things where it's like somebody asks you what your favorite movie is, and then suddenly you can't think of any movie you've ever seen in your life. Like uh some of you might know, some of you might not know uh before I did YouTube, I was an advertising copywriter for like 15 plus years. So this is sort of my domain. Uh so you would think that I had some like geared up ready to go, but I had to actually kind of think about this for a minute.

So I know I'm biased being from Texas, but one that I would absolutely put near the top of my list would be don't mess with Texas. And the reason why I put this up close to the top is because most people here don't mess with Texas and they think that it's like the slogan for Texas because you see it everywhere. It was actually an anti-litter campaign back in the 70s or 80s. And that's why I say it's a great slogan because it has transcended what it was meant for. Like it's it was a slogan that was literally adopted by Texans as their little mantra.

And uh and it's lived beyond its its intended purpose. And the reason why I think that makes it a good slogan is because it it clearly tapped into something deep inside of of Texans. Texans are very proud of being Texan. We're like vegans. Just give us enough time.

We'll tell you. So they were able to come up with a slogan that both, you know, served its purpose of getting the idea across like, you know, littering is is like messing with Texas. It's it's defacing this wonderful place that you love so much, that you identify with so much. But also, it taps into that Texas pride, that Texas feeling of being tough. Like, we all identify as like being tough and stuff, you know? So, like, don't mess with Texas.

And it kind of became it just had a life of its own afterwards. Nike's just Do It campaign is a classic. Um, it's it's it taps into not just like what their product helps you to do, but it's also about the spirit of of adventure and athleticism and and getting out there and and embracing the world and embracing life. Just do it. It's it's a good slogan.

It it it also I think it transcends its its actual product. I was always a fan of the Volkswagen campaigns from the 60s and 70s. I think they were groundbreaking. They kind of actually I should probably say 50s and 60s. They kind of changed advertising because advertising used to just be a whole lot of text just like saying you know n out of 10 doctors smoke camels or whatever you know but then Volkswagen came along and um and they started introducing cleverness to advertising.

So, their think small campaign with the Volkswagen Beetle has always been a favorite of mine. Uh, Apple's think different campaign, even though grammatically it's not quite right. You know, a good measure of a good uh slogan is that it it hits the target market, hits the demographic, and that can mean reaching out to a certain group of people. It can also mean excluding a certain group of people. You're sort of picking your audience.

And when you say think different as Apple did um especially at that particular period of Apple's uh company life um they were kind of on the outs at the time IBM was taking over Microsoft was the big deal. So Apple created these these computers that were brightly colored and really interesting and had design forward elements to it and they thought they they came up with think different be different. Be a different person. Think different. Be creative.

Uh think outside the box. Do the things that other people aren't doing. You're that kind of guy. You're that kind of person. You should get an apple.

Um, diamonds are forever is a fantastic slogan for because it works on a couple of different levels. First of all, people give diamonds in engagement rings, which you know, a marriage is supposed to be forever. It's supposed to be for the rest of your life. Supposed to be. So, giving a diamond means you're really making a commitment to that person.

But also, diamonds are forever in the sense that they are one of the hardest elements on the planet and they do come from like way way back in Earth's history. So, they are super old. Plus, wasn't there a James Bond movie named after that? Can't go wrong there. I do think that the Las Vegas um what happens here stays here slogan uh is good. I think it taps into the sort of sin city u you know, identity that Vegas has.

the idea of like it's a place to go to do all the stuff that you can't do back home. Uh get away, be a little naughty. You don't see a lot of of cities like getting people to go visit them and be naughty. It stands out. I know I'm over five at this point, but I'll finish off with this one.

This one isn't particularly clever, but I think it works really well is the whole Geico 15 minutes can save you 15% or more on car insurance. See how I was able to rattle that off by memory? I mean, a they just use it so many times for so long that it does just get etched into your mind, but b it's a very simple thing. 15 15 uh you know, it's easy to remember and it sells exactly what it can do. The it sells the benefit right there in the slogan. Give you 15 minutes, we'll save you 15%.

Done. But yeah, slogans are fun. Words are fun. All right, we got one more question. It is back on the space topic.

But before I do that, I got to give a shout out to all the new Patreons and subscribers. Zoe, get your wand ready. We're going to bless some people. Here we go. New Patreons this month.

We got Zoe's number one fan. Well done. Uh, Lady Liz Liganfelter, Zagalanowani, Mike, Carrie Christensen, Hookie Knight, Leslie, Jacob Ba, bunch of members. Uh, James Murphy, Cory Zahas, who had a question today. Thank you.

Kevin Hoffer, and Tiffany Johnson. And for the new members that have joined, we've got Tory Kelly, Mark Boyce, the deer aka Connor Owens, Jesse Patton, Malcolm Bowling, Vitalius, BBC AV, uh Joe Francisco, Carl Livingston, Goofy Heathen, Tube Dogs, Tukie Karat, I'm not saying that right, Jesus Flores, Don Lee, Jason Thomas, Rob Macccyver, Helmetf Fire, Deus, Lena Lane, NerdCraft, Nick Snder, Tree Skates, Kids Perfect, and Peter Simmons. Apologies if I got any of those wrong, but thank you guys so much for joining. If you would like to join them, get early access to videos, get a shout out on this video and and do things like Zoom calls and exclusive live streams, all the cool stuff, you can go to patreon.com/anserswithjo, or hit the join button down below to become a member. Thank you guys so much.

All right, our last question today comes from JD Creeper, who asked, "Do you find the increased privatization of space to be concerning?" Make no mistake, these are entities that explore and learn about the universe for the sole purpose of profit and control on Earth. Um, that's that's a big debate, man. Um, there's there's pros and cons. There's pros and cons on that. Like, I've often used the airplane analogy and that in the early days of of u aviation, a lot of that was nationalized.

A lot of it was done by government agencies and eventually it got handed over to private companies. Um, I guess my question is, would you want the airplanes to be nationalized and controlled by the government? I think in some countries that's the exact case. You know, once again, we're talking socialism versus capitalism in terms of how different countries run themselves. But my understanding is uh kind of moving forward from this point, NASA's sort of seeding low Earth orbit to private corporations so that they can focus on more deep space uh throughout the solar system kind of stuff. And I feel like this is a natural progression of things, at least in in the way we've always done things here in the United States.

The government kind of first starts the technology and then it hands it over into private companies. I mentioned airplanes a second ago. You could say the same thing about internet. Now, we keep saying that we're in a a private space race right now. Um, if I had if I had it my way, I would prefer it be a 1960s style space race where like there's a significant percentage or at least a noticeable percentage of the government uh revenue that gets put into space travel.

I would love it if the space travel was that much of a priority for our country, but um you know with with NASA's budget going down over and over again throughout time and again it's sort of subject to the whims of whatever uh party is in power or person that's you know in control then um it it can be hard to keep that on a steady pace moving forward especially over long-term projects which space things usually are. You know I don't see a ground swell of support across the country for people paying extra taxes for space travel. That would be nice, but that's not where we are. Uh, but you know, to your point about that they are profit driven and that they want to control people. Um, I don't know.

I feel like you can make that argument about any company or corporation really. Every company wants to make money and they want to at least control people in the sense that they want people to, you know, spend their money with this company to buy their products or services and whatnot. But you're right. I mean, it's it's a profit- driven enterprise. Um, and there's always room for abuse in that.

Uh, but this this again this this goes across every single sector of humanity when you look at it that way. But if it can be harnessed, if that profit motive can be harnessed to, you know, explore space, learn new technologies, and benefit us all back down here on Earth, which is supposedly the idea. um then you know like I said I I would prefer it if we as a as a country was totally behind space travel in in the way that we used to be. But in lie of that I think this is I think this is the better way to go. Like I had done a video a while back about how like I I felt like moon mining was absolutely going to be a thing if we were ever going to have real long-term permanent bases on the moon because something was going to have to pay for that and only by like you know getting some kind of resource out of the moon some of of some kind of value would would actually you know fund that operation.

And there's no shortage of sci-fi that that is based on like the overcommercialization of of space travel. I mean, you just point to the expanse, but yeah, just like everything else, there's there's a whole debate around, you know, private versus public funding of of projects like this. Um, so it's it's it's an ongoing debate. It's not going to get settled in this video or anything else, but um yeah, like I said, pros and cons. But yeah, one piece of space commercialization that's come about recently with Starlink and Amazon Kyper is space-based internet, which I mentioned the internet just a minute ago as an example of something that kind of started with the government and then got handed over into private hands.

And there were pros and cons in that. There have been plenty of pros with the internet uh and the the commercialization of the internet. Uh there's also been some cons like spam texts and spam emails. Like you know, hey, you just keep getting spam texts and emails and no matter how many times you reply, stop or hit unsubscribe, they just keep coming. It's like the worst game of whack-a-ole in history and it's the bane of our current existence.

That's because all these lists that you keep unsubscribing from are getting your information from the same place. data brokers. Let's just say I have some some random plutonium laying around and I want to sell that plutonium and I don't have time to build a salesunnel with a landing page and social media campaigns which would it would probably get me in trouble with some various international nuclear watchdog organizations but I just want to start sending out emails to people but I don't have anyone to email. So I can go to these companies called data brokers and what they do is they kind of mine the internet for people's information. They buy email lists from various online platforms and then they organize all that information, information about hundreds of millions of people including you, into categories or buckets is what they call it based on demographics and interest and stuff.

So I can go to a data broker and find people who have an interest in buying plutonium I guess. So now I have an email list apparently of people who want to buy plutonium, whatever. But I start sending out spam emails trying to get people to buy my plutonium. And let's say you get one of those emails. You curse a few times.

You hit unsubscribe, which is the right thing to do, especially the cursing. Congratulations. You are now off of my Plutonium email list. You won't get any more emails from me, but you're still on that data broker list. And there is no unsubscribe button for that.

Which is why sometimes you'll set up an account on website A because you need to buy something for a gift or whatever, and then suddenly you're getting all these emails from some random company B. That's because within literal hours of you making that account for company A, these data brokers have bought that list from company A and sold it to company B. And the game of infinite whack-a-ole continues. All of this is somehow perfectly legal. However, it is illegal for them to keep your information if you directly ask them to remove it, which you can.

You have the right to do that. But it's not easy. In fact, it's kind of impossible. There are hundreds of these data brokers keeping thousands of lists with millions of data points all buying and selling to each other in a giant bird's nest of connections and it's all automated. You could personally send removal requests every single day for the next 10 years and they'll never get off of all of them.

It's you versus a giant machine and it's designed to be impossible to escape unless you have a giant machine of your own. That's where Incogn comes in. Incogn is a service that basically uses their own tactics against them by automating the removal process. They send out hundreds of removal requests on a daily basis, and then they follow up day after day after day, relentlessly hunting down your information and removing it from their dastardly web. Over time, you'll see the number of spam calls and emails go down to a point where you can actually live your life in some kind of relative peace from that.

Anyway, but there's actually an even bigger reason to use incogn, something way worse than data brokers, and that's people search sites. Like, data brokers suck, but they're kind of just an annoyance. People's search sites can put you in legitimate danger. These are sites that literally anybody can access. Not not just a business or some marketing group or whatever.

These are open to the public. So employers, landlords, government workers, random strangers, they can all get access to your property records, your financial data, even your political beliefs. Like stalkers often use these people search sites to get information about their victims and scammers to find their marks. Incogn will get you off of those people search sites, too. It's kind of a weird thing to say in a sponsor read, but I wish this company didn't have to exist, but unfortunately it it we live in a world where it very much does.

So, put incognito to work protecting your privacy today and save 60% off the annual plan by signing up at incogn.com/joscott and use the code joecott at checkout. That'll give you a whole year at a ridiculously discounted price and you can see for yourself how much of a difference it makes. It certainly won't get worse. So, you can escape the spam trap. There is hope.

Just go check out incognit the link down below. All right. Thank you guys so much for watching. If this is your first time here, maybe check out this video. It might not be a lining around video.

It's more my regular thing, but uh you might like that. Google thinks you might like it. Or you can check out any on the sidebar over here. If you're watching on your browser, is anybody actually watching your browser anymore? Is that even a thing? Anyway, either way, go check them out. If you enjoy my videos, I invite you to subscribe.

I come back at videos on some Mondays. We'll be spinning up to a normal level again soon, I promise. Big thanks to all the patrons who wrote in with their questions. Um, and to all the patrons who don't support at that level and are just supporting uh the way you do, you guys, I really do appreciate it. Means a lot to me.

Uh, but yeah, I think that's it for today. You guys go out there, have an eye openening rest of the week, stay safe, and I'll see you next time. Love you guys. Take care.