Podcast appearances and mentions of Aaron Sorkin

Justin Timberlake Biography Flash a weekly Biography. Justin Timberlake's last few days have been quieter on the surface, but there are a few developments and reverberations that matter for his long term story. The biggest biographical signal right now is the renewed spotlight on his role as Sean Parker in The Social Network, thanks to fresh coverage of the upcoming companion film The Social Reckoning. Digital Spy reports that Aaron Sorkin's new movie is bringing the Facebook origin story back into the cultural conversation, with Justin's original turn as Parker specifically referenced as part of the returning mythology around the platform and its founders. Vogue Adria likewise name‑checks Justin's performance as Sean Parker when framing how the new film will revisit the tech revolution era, underscoring how a role he shot more than a decade ago is still central to how pop culture remembers the birth of social media. That continued relevance of his screen work quietly strengthens the “multi‑hyphenate” thread in his biography, even in a week without a new Timberlake movie on the slate. Around the edges of the news cycle, Justin's musical legacy has been unusually present. TikTok guitar covers of Mirrors and dance tributes using I Want You Back and other *NSYNC‑era choreography are trending again, with creators explicitly tagging Justin Timberlake and *NSYNC, a reminder that his catalog remains a go‑to emotional and nostalgic touchstone for younger musicians and dancers discovering him in real time. Fan pages on Facebook continue to resurface his Today Show performance with *NSYNC, keeping the narrative of periodic reunions alive; however, there are no verified reports from major outlets of any new tour dates, official *NSYNC projects, or solo releases announced in the last 24 hours. Any rumors of surprise drops or secret sessions are, at this stage, pure fan speculation without confirmation from Justin, his label, or primary entertainment trades. On social media, there have been passing pop‑culture mentions tying him to long‑standing associations, from Sean Parker and Napster explainers to clips recalling his Saturday Night Live work and Jimmy Fallon collaborations, but again, no major new on‑camera appearance or live event tied directly to him has been verified by outlets like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, or People in the past day. In other words, this particular chapter in the Justin Timberlake biography is one of legacy echo rather than headline shock: the roles he has already played, both in music and on film, are doing the talking right now, even as he keeps his next move off the public radar a little longer. Thanks for listening and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an update on Justin Timberlake, and search the term Biography Flash for more great biographies. Thanks for listening. This has been a Quiet Please production. Get the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOta

On today's show, Sean and Amanda cover one of their most anticipated movies of the year: Steven Spielberg's alien thriller ‘Disclosure Day,' starring Josh O'Connor and Emily Blunt. Before diving in, Sean revels in the glory of an all-time New York Knicks victory that extended their NBA Finals lead over the San Antonio Spurs to 3-1 (0:43). Then, they hit myriad movie news headlines and, most importantly, react to the first trailer for Aaron Sorkin's ‘The Social Reckoning' (12:47). Next, they have a wide-ranging conversation about ‘Disclosure Day,' which they found to be an incredibly fascinating movie, not without flaws, and an amazing platform for Emily Blunt, who delivers the best performance of her career (38:05). Finally, they go into full spoilers and break down specific plot points, character motivations, and the final shot of the film (1:05:29). Hosts: Sean Fennessey and Amanda Dobbins Producer: Jack Sanders Production Support: Lucas Cavanagh Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Huge pop culture drop today!

Bienvenidos a un nuevo episodio de “Cinefilia y Otras Hierbas”. Soy su anfitrión, José Enrique Guzmán, y hoy el estudio se llena de una cadencia muy especial. Hoyno necesitamos explosiones, ni persecuciones de autos, ni coreografías de artes marciales para dejarlos al borde del asiento.Hoy el espectáculo está en la palabra.Continuamos con nuestro Ciclo de Aaron Sorkin, el guionista que convirtió el diálogo en cine de acción puro. Sorkin es un cirujano del verbo; sus personajes no hablan para comunicarse, hablan para competir, para desafiar, para devorarse entre sí. La calidad de su diálogo tiene una musicalidad y una precisión milimétrica donde una coma mal puesta puede arruinar una escena completa. Sus palabrascortan, emocionan y tienen el mismo ritmo frenético que una persecución a trescientos kilómetros por hora en una autopista.Y la prueba reina de esto es la película que nos convoca hoy: “Steve Jobs” (2015). Una genialidad interpretada de manera magistral por Michael Fassbender, dirigida por la energía cinética de Danny Boyle y acompañada por una descomunal Kate Winslet.La historia de cómo se gestó esta producción es casi tan dramática como la película misma.Tras el éxito de La Red Social, Sony quería repetir la fórmula. Scott Rudin, el productor, le llevó el proyecto a Sorkin basándose en la monumental biografía de Walter Isaacson. Originalmente, David Fincher iba a dirigirla y Christian Bale iba a ser Jobs, pero tras exigencias de presupuesto y un cambiode estudio que llevó el proyecto a Universal, Fincher quedó fuera y entró Danny Boyle. Bale renunció porque, según se cuenta, sintió que el volumen y la velocidad del diálogo de Sorkin eran una montaña humana imposible de escalar.Fue ahí donde apareció Fassbender para darnos la interpretación de su vida.Pero el verdadero milagro de esta obra radica en la estructura de su guion. Esta película merecía y merece muchísimo más reconocimiento del que tuvo en su momento, a pesar de las nominaciones al Oscar para Fassbender y Winslet. Sorkindesafió todas las leyes de la biopic tradicional. Esta no es unapelícula al uso de "nació, creció, inventó una computadora y murió" No. Sorkin estructuró el guion como una obra de teatro en tres actos perfectos, donde toda la acción ocurre tras bambalinas, exactamente 40 minutos antes de tres de los lanzamientos más importantes de la carrera de Jobs.Seamos claros desde ahora mismo: esto no es un documental. Si vienes buscando rigor histórico absoluto o una cronología exacta de los hechos, estás en el lugar equivocado. Al igual que pasó con La Red Social, Sorkin se toma licencias dramáticas gigantescas. En la vida real, Steve Jobs nunca tuvo esas confrontaciones operísticas con su mano derecha Joanna Hoffman, con Steve Wozniak, con John Sculley y con su hija Lisa, todas juntas en un pasillo, minutos antes de salir a cambiar el mundo. Eso no pasó así.Pero esa es la magia de la dramatización. Es un recurso creativo brillante para hacer un estudio de personaje profundo, descarnado y fascinante. Sorkin utiliza esos 40minutos de tensión previa a los eventos para desnudar el mito, para confrontar al genio con la gente que lo rodeaba y para explorar el costo humano de la genialidad. Es un lienzo dramático magnífico, una tragedia shakesperianamoderna en la era de Silicon Valley.Hoy, en Cinefilia y Otras Hierbas, vamos a analizar a profundidad los tres actos de este guion, la puesta en escena de Boyle y cómo el diálogo puede ser el efectoespecial más poderoso del cine.Empezamos.Patreon: patreon.com/cinefiliayotrashierbas⁠Correo: cinefiliayotrashierbas@gmail.comNo olviden suscribirse, compartir este episodio y dejar un comentario y un like, eso nos ayudará a crecer y a encontrar más audiencia.¡Que lo disfruten!#AaronSorkin⁠ ⁠#MichaelFassbender⁠ ⁠#Cine⁠ ⁠#KateWinslet #DannyBoyle

Take pleasure in the gut-wrenching excitement of a 90s action milestone! This week on The Dana Buckler Show, we are heading straight to Alcatraz to break down Michael Bay's 1996 definitive high-concept thriller, The Rock.Coming off the success of Bad Boys, Michael Bay was handed the keys to a massive blockbuster budget, a killer premise, and an absolutely legendary cast. The result? A beautifully shot, fast-paced, explosion-filled masterpiece that stands as a high-water mark for the golden era of 90s action cinema and Hollywood summer blockbusters.In this cinema retrospective, film historian Dana Buckler dives deep into: The Powerhouse Trio: The incredible, lightning-in-a-bottle chemistry between Nicolas Cage's frantic, vinyl-loving FBI chemical weapons expert Stanley Goodspeed and Sean Connery's sophisticated, badass British operative John Patrick Mason. The Sympathetic Villain: Ed Harris's brilliant, nuanced performance as General Hummel—an antagonist with legitimate, tragic motives that elevate the stakes way beyond a standard hostage situation. The Pinnacle of 90s Action: From the iconic, destructive Ferrari car chase through the streets of San Francisco to the brutal shower room standoff, we break down why the practical effects and set pieces in this film still hold up today. The Uncredited Script Doctors: How Hollywood legends like Quentin Tarantino, Aaron Sorkin, and Jonathan Hensleigh secretly helped polish the razor-sharp dialogue. Whether you're a long-time fan who can quote "Your best! Losers always whine about their best" line-for-line, or you're revisiting this classic Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer production era for the first time, grab your green smoke and join us for the ultimate film review.Welcome to The Rock!Join our Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/danabucklershowJoin my Patreon for early access to all episodes, plus a new exclusive podcast, go to Patreon.com/howisthismovieSubscribe to the podcast on your favorite podcast platform by going to https://linktr.ee/DanaBucklerShowJoin our Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/danabucklershowJoin Our Patreon for early access to all episodes, plus a new exclusive podcast, go to Patreon.com/howisthismovie #TheRock #TheDanaBuckler Show #90sAction #NicolasCage #SeanConnery #MichaelBay #FilmPodcast #MovieHistory #CinemaRetrospective #ActionMovies #90sCinema #FilmBuff

With more twists than that time Twisted Sister turned up at a Chubby Checker concert, and then went to watch the film ‘Twister' while eating a massive bag of Liquorice Twists, Chris has chosen a drama (is it a drama?), thriller (is it a thriller?), legal melodrama (is it a legal melodrama?) from 1993: MALICEEND CREDITS- Presented by Robert Johnson and Christopher Webb- Produced/edited by Christopher Webb- "Still Any Good?" logo designed by Graham Wood & Robert Johnson- Crap poster mock-up by Christopher Webb- Theme music ("The Slide Of Time") by The Sonic Jewels, used with kind permission(c) 2026 Tiger Feet ProductionsFind us:Twitter @stillanygoodpodInstagram @stillanygoodpodBluesky @stillanygood.bsky.socialEmail stillanygood@gmail.comhttps://linktr.ee/stillanygoodSupport the show

The 2024 election was a disaster for the Democrats. They have never been held to account for any of it. That would ordinarily be the job of the legacy media, but they've long since abandoned any pretense of objectivity. They are part of the “resistance,” and friendly fire is not in the job description.Do I sound bitter? I suppose I am. I once believed in not just the Democratic Party but the Obama coalition. I was a loyal, devoted soldier who believed we were all fighting the good fight, even before Trump won. We were the side that cared about climate change, women's rights, the poor, and the marginalized.It took me decades to go from being a cynical 18-year-old in the 1980s who didn't think there was any point to voting to a person who believed my vote could change the world. That cynicism would be polished off over time, as we headed into the 1990s with political correctness and therapy culture on the rise. We wanted to fix ourselves. We wanted — needed — to fill the void left by the doom spiral in the aftermath of the “Me Generation” and their counterculture revolution.It was Bill Clinton, by way of Aaron Sorkin, who ultimately pulled us out of it and primed us for a spiritual revival under the euphoric, history-making win of Barack Obama. I believed in hope and change. I believed in a new America.I believed my friends on Facebook who treated me with respect and love every time I fired off an impassioned plea for votes. I believed all of the women who made those signs for the Women's March, the Climate March, and the Gun Control March. I, too, thought Trump's win meant America couldn't handle the first black president and the Confederacy was back for another round.What I know now is that none of it was real. We were not the New Puritans leading the country into the promised land. We were like every other political party, seeking absolute power and total control. Any truthful autopsy would have to start there. The Democrats have been lying to themselves and lying to their voters about what these last ten years have really been about: the refusal to relinquish power after losing an election. Democracy becomes a problem for a party that no longer believes in it if the wrong people win.From Real Clear Politics podcast Andrew Walworth, Tom Bevan and Carl Cannon:Any honest autopsy of the 2024 election would have to start back in 2016, when Hillary Clinton was anointed by Obama, who leapfrogged Biden, meaning Biden would finally get his shot in 2020. They should have thought that one through because it would come back to bite them four years later when they pushed him out of office.They practice top-down democracy, in which party leaders attempt to steer voters in the right direction rather than allowing candidates to make the case to the people. The problem with the Democrats is that they needed someone like Donald Trump to blow through their carefully laid plans.The shame of what the Democrats did in 2024 is almost as bad as what they did in 2020 to orchestrate Joe Biden's win. Both of these elections were rooted in the mass delusion that Donald Trump wasn't just a political opponent but an existential threat, so anything goes - even censoring the Hunter Biden laptop, or pushing out a duly elected president.That delusion gave them unlimited power in their minds, which made them the most corrupt political party in my lifetime, taking what never belonged to them, pushing “resistance theater” throughout American society, and coming up mostly empty anyway.A real autopsy would require cleaning house on all of it, admitting everything. It would require admitting to their voters that they knew they were lying about Trump to cover up their own failures.After all, wouldn't it have been easier just to offer the people something better rather than treating Trump like a supervillain that could not be destroyed by ordinary means? No, because their biggest problem is that their only vision for the future is to reach back into the past. They still want to undo the Trump presidency rather than learn from it. They are fighting to bring back the utopia we all built under Barack Obama, and that has been the Democrats' fatal mistake.Barack Obama's grip on the party means they can't move forward.A real autopsy would have to talk about Obama's ongoing influence and control of the party. Why do you think he's making appearances with Zohran Mamdani and James Talarico? He sees them as the party's future because they are Obama clones, more or less. You don't see him out there boosting Gavin Newsom, just as you don't see many leaders on the Left rising to take Obama's place. They must all be shadows of him, which is why it was Kamala Harris in 2024, Joe Biden in 2020, and Hillary Clinton in 2016.Obama couldn't lose. He was treated like a god and king. He was never going to let Trump win this ten-year war. He couldn't hand the country over to the guy who dared question his birth certificate, the guy they called a “racist” and a “rapist,” but more than that, he represented the undoing of the Obama Coalition and the worldwide movement it inspired. There was no way the Democrats were ever going to let that happen. By 2016, they had control of almost everything, from institutions to universities to culture, so why not use it? Exiling and disenfranchising Trump voters was all done in the name of Barack Obama. You see, it had to be racism that gave rise to Trump because Obama couldn't fail.Isn't it so much easier to blame America? To blame it on sexism and racism? Isn't that what they tell themselves now about 2024? America wasn't ready for any woman, especially a woman of color? Isn't it easier to see it that way rather than address the real problem with the utopia we all built: it shuts too many people out?The Culture of Silence and the Climate of FearThe Vanity Fair story about how Democrats fear Kamala Harris running again is telling. Or rather, not telling. They are too afraid to use their real names. It is still considered blasphemy inside the Democratic Party to criticize her, as she has attained Obama-level status. She campaigned for Obama back in 2008 and was once called the “female Obama.” Harris rode the coattails of making history.Winning was easy for her. She was pretty and tough. She made the Democrats look good and won every single race as her star began to rise: District Attorney, Attorney General, Senator, and Vice President, next in line behind a very old Joe Biden. Probably, he would have stepped aside and handed her the presidency had he won a second term. Either way, Harris was not the best choice for Vice President, and the Democrats knew that at the time.The 100 people who signed a letter urging Biden not to choose Harris for “cosmetic reasons” were then shamed back into silence lest they be called racists and misogynists. The so-called autopsy vindicates Harris, which is all part of the same game. She is too big to fail and too popular to be cast aside, especially now after the redistricting fight has put Democrats back in “Jim Crow 2.0” mode.A real autopsy would have to confront this: how they continue to fall back on the same blame game: it's those racists over there. It's not our fault. We haven't failed our voters. We have to stop them. We have to keep fighting this war against them, our fellow Americans.How can they even begin to confront who they are and what they've become? How can they reckon with all of the madness they've put the American people through for ten long years? The January 6th show trials, the lies about Kenosha being a “Civil Rights” protest, the mocking and celebrating of Charlie Kirk's assassination, the raiding of Mar-a-Lago, the censoring of dissent via the FBI on social media, Russiagate, the collapse of a once-thriving culture, impeachments, indictments, and the unending No Kings protests.If they want a real autopsy, they should talk to people like me, once loyal supporters who were chewed up and spit out by a political party that could not tolerate even simple questions about “cancel culture” mass hysteria, or the rising intolerance in the Left writ large, or why someone's career would go up in flames just for voting for Trump. And forget about asking whether toddlers should wear masks or pre-teens should take medication that sterilizes them for life.I walked away from the party in 2020. I couldn't believe what I watched them do, what I helped them do, to drag Joe Biden over the finish line. I knew he was too old. I knew Kamala Harris was a ticking time bomb. I knew it would all blow up in our faces eventually. But lying was so much easier, especially with a full-court press serving as a propaganda front. They have been lying for so long that they don't even know how to stop. The biggest lie was that Trump was a “fascist.” They're still telling that lie. They're still scaring Americans into manic desperation every day. The lies are what drove me away. I couldn't live with them. The truth matters, especially if you're cutting up the body to find out what killed it.The lies began in 2016 when Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, and loyalists like me couldn't face the truth about why she lost. It was one lie piled on top of another, and no one had the courage to face down the social media mobs to set the record straight. Any dissent was met with strict reprisals. Before long, everyone settled into a climate of fear and a culture of silence as the new normal.Their problem goes back to the Art of War. If you don't know yourself or your enemy, you will succumb in every battle. They should first try to understand themselves. If they could just see who and what they are, and why America would choose Trump a second time, they'd be halfway there. Then, if they could understand Trump, who he really is, rather than the character they invented, they'd finally come back to the real world with the rest of us.The Democrats are in love with the dream Obama sold, not the reality of what America became with the Democrats in power. There are too many truths left to face. There are too many ghosts haunting them. There is no point in performing an autopsy on a body with nothing inside but smoke mirrors. // This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sashastone.com/subscribe

Chris Paul is joined by his good friend Josh Capps, a literature professor and screenwriter from Louisiana, sitting in for Burning Bright. The two break down Warren Beatty's 1998 political satire Bulworth, which Beatty wrote, directed, and starred in opposite Halle Berry, Oliver Platt, Don Cheadle, Isaiah Washington, and a nearly silent Sean Astin. Josh argues the film sits on a fascinating cultural crux point. He thinks 1998 was the pivot year when Hollywood shifted toward heavy programming, citing The Truman Show, Deep Impact, Armageddon, and The Siege all landing in the same window. The guys dig into Bulworth's opening confession that political assassinations are just a normal Tuesday for a senator with a fixer on speed dial, the eerie parallel between Bulworth dropping the mask once he had a hit out on himself and the way Trump later dispensed with the political pretense entirely, and Aaron Sorkin's fingerprints on the worst Halle Berry monologues about NAFTA and manufacturing. They also wander through the rise of West Coast rap as a marketing tool aimed at young kids, Public Enemy's 1994 song calling out a fake World Health Organization pandemic, the hierarchy of corporate political influence, and the difference between memory and story.

A Few Good MenHosts: Clark Coffey & Cullen McFaterIn this episode, Clark Coffey and Cullen McFader discuss Rob Reiner's 1992 film 'A Few Good Men,' exploring its cultural impact, performances, and the writing style of Aaron Sorkin. They delve into personal experiences with the film, the direction, and the philosophical questions it raises about the justice system. The conversation also touches on visual storytelling techniques and the balance between performance and cinematography in the film, the limitations of Aaron Sorkin's narrative style, and the performances of the lead actors. They discuss how the film addresses philosophical questions about morality and justice, while also analyzing the character dynamics and emotional depth brought by the supporting cast. The conversation highlights the film's entertainment value and its impact on audiences, reflecting on how perceptions of military culture have evolved over time.Subscribe to Soldiers of Cinema for honest, wide-ranging conversations on film, from cult favorites to award-winners - with two filmmakers, decades apart.TrailerDirector: Rob ReinerStarring:Tom CruiseJack NicholsonDemi MooreSocials:FacebookTwitterInstagram

The Rage Select Podcast is SHOOTING FOR THE STARS this week as Amanda and Jeff discuss their complicated feelings about Aaron Sorkin as well as Jeff's suprising turn to The Dark Side and ALL THE NEWS of the week! MP3 here - http://traffic.libsyn.com/rageselect/RageSelectEpisode643.mp3 RSS feed here - http://rageselect.libsyn.com/rss iTunes here - https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/rage-selects-podcast/id657490976 Email address for your questions: mail@rageselect.com FOLLOW Tessa on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/tessamorrison FOLLOW Matt on Twitter! - https://twitter.com/spankzilla85 FOLLOW Brian Salisbury on Twitter! - https://twitter.com/JunkfoodCinema FOLLOW Jeff on Twitter - https://twitter.com/RageSelect FOLLOW Grant on Twitter - https://twitter.com/BaronVonGrant LIKE Rage Select on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/RageSelect Listen to our podcast and if you enjoy it, SUBSCRIBE! Check out the full website at http://www.rageselect.com #rageselect #podcast

Today, I'm thrilled to announce my interview with veteran actress Patricia Conolly, who has appeared in over 30 Broadway shows. Tune in to hear some of the stories of her legendary career, including acting with Laurence Olivier in THE BROKEN HEART, a note Tom Stoppard gave her during THE COAST OF UTOPIA, playing for Lauren Bacall in WAITING IN THE WINGS, understanding her part in THE HEIRESS, a mystical experience taking over for Geraldine Page in BLITHE SPIRIT, working with the APA company on YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU, a kind gesture from Aaron Sorkin during TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, what Tony Randall asked her during JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG, using an accent for THE FRONT PAGE, having dinner with Tennessee Williams, and so much more. Don't miss this in-depth conversation with a true theater legend.

It's a special crossover episode between The Breakdown and Jeremy Appel's "The Orchard"!

Originally recorded on May 6, 2026 on substack, we're excited to be able to bring the whole conversation to all of our platforms! 

In this chat, Nate and Jeremy cover the separatist data breach, the current NDP strategy against Smith and the UCP, the disassembly of democratic protections in Alberta, the future of journalism and...Aaron Sorkin?If you're able to support our legal defense fund to fight back against the $6 Million lawsuit against us by Sam Mraiche, the man who imported Vanch masks and the Turkish Tylenot as well as who hosted MLA's and Ministers in his skybox as he had business with the government...You can do that at www.savethebreakdownab.ca!As always, if you appreciate the kind of content that we're trying to produce here at The Breakdown, please consider signing up as a monthly supporter at our Patreon site at www.patreon.com/thebreakdownab and we can now accept e-transfers at info@thebreakdownab.ca!If you're looking for our new merch lineup, you can find that at www.thebreakdownabmerch.comIf you're listening to the audio version of our podcast, please consider leaving us a review and a rating, and don't forget to like and follow us on Substack, Bluesky, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Threads!#abpoli #ableg #cdnpoli

Tonight on TV Party Tonight, Jesse and Mark revisit Season One of HBO's The Newsroom, Aaron Sorkin's cable news drama that premiered June 24, 2012. Starring Jeff Daniels as anchor Will McAvoy, the series follows the staff of fictional network ACN as they attempt to produce serious journalism inside a system driven by ratings, corporate pressure, and personal dysfunction. Featuring Emily Mortimer, Olivia Munn, Sam Waterston, Dev Patel, Alison Pill, John Gallagher Jr., and Thomas Sadoski, the show blends newsroom chaos with Sorkin's signature rapid-fire dialogue and moral grandstanding. Critics praised the performances—Daniels won an Emmy—and the ambition of the series, while others criticized its smug tone, hindsight politics, and lecture-heavy writing. More than a decade later, The Newsroom remains a fascinating time capsule of the early 2010s media landscape and the growing battle between journalism, entertainment, and outrage culture.Disclaimer: The following may contain offensive language, adult humor, and/or content that some viewers may find offensive – The views and opinions expressed by any one speaker does not explicitly or necessarily reflect or represent those of Mark Radulich or W2M Network.Mark Radulich and his wacky podcast on all the things:https://linktr.ee/markkind76alsohttps://www.teepublic.com/user/radulich-in-broadcasting-networkFB Messenger: Mark Radulich LCSWTiktok: @markradulichtwitter: @MarkRadulichInstagram: markkind76RIBN Album Playlist: https://suno.com/playlist/91d704c9-d1ea-45a0-9ffe-5069497bad59 

Jesse Jackson, contact center leader and host of Set Lusting Bruce, joins Mark Graban to share his favorite mistake: going gun-shy as a new leader when veterans push back with "we tried that, it didn't work." Jesse explains why that deference cost him his best ideas, and how a Harry Chapin story about "two kinds of tired" reshaped the way he leads. Episode page with video, links, and more We get into the real cost of staying quiet when you're new, the difference between listening to your team and being silenced by them, and the Aaron Sorkin line about surrounding yourself with smart people who disagree with you. Jesse also shares a cautionary tale about volunteering for a role he wasn't ready for, and what he changed about how he chooses opportunities now. The conversation moves into what psychological safety actually looks like day to day - treating new ideas as honest experiments rather than ego defense, and making sure team members feel heard even when their advice isn't taken. We close with a stretch of podcasting craft (forgetting to hit record, scheduling buffers, the value of embracing tangents) plus tangents of our own on Bruce Springsteen, the misunderstood patriotism of "Born in the U.S.A.," and Spinal Tap. If you've ever walked into a new role with ideas and quietly let them die in the face of "that won't work here," this episode will give you a sharper way to think about when to push and when to listen.

Tom Duncan and Sara Shea continue their journey through Season 1 of The West Wing, this time with episode 1.22 - the first season finale. We are joined by friend of the show, Klarissa Beckstead (I've Seen That One podcast). In this episode, Sara is given a difficult choice, our intrepid hosts grade The West Wing - Season 1, and they pick what's to come next for Season 2.Chapters:00:00 Introduction02:45 Recap of Season One and Episode 22 of The West Wing05:59 Emotional Reactions to the Season Finale08:52 Character Development and Plot Predictions11:48 Political Themes and Real-World Parallels14:45 Interpersonal Relationships and Character Dynamics17:47 Discussion on the Iraqi Plotline20:52 Reflections on Historical Context and Relevance26:12 Character Favorites and Dynamics28:42 Exploring Toby's Depth and Complexity29:44 Emotional Resonance of Space Tragedies31:34 Cliffhangers and Viewer Reactions33:44 Anticipation for Future Episodes39:39 Navigating Choices, Decisions, and Chaos48:39 Overview of Season Ratings and Rankings51:33 Acting Performance Evaluation54:33 Writing Quality Assessment57:36 Intangibles and Emotional Impact01:00:35 Cinematography and Visual Presentation01:03:30 Narrative Structure and Cohesion01:06:34 Character Development and Dynamics01:20:27 Character Development and Mistakes01:22:41 Ratings and Expectations for Season One01:25:03 Editing and Pacing in Aaron Sorkin's Work01:28:15 Final Thoughts on Season One Ratings01:29:30 Choosing the Next Show: Options and Decisions01:41:27 Deciding on 'The Good Wife' for Next SeasonKeywords:The West Wing, TV analysis, character development, political drama, episode review, emotional impact, storytelling, season one, character analysis, show notes, TV show analysis, binge-watching, season finale, show grading, streaming options

McKay's focus today is on the power of discovering what lies within ourselves, and he begins by introducing the story of Aaron Sorkin. Armed with a passion for drama and theater from an early age, it wasn't until Aaron dared to fail that he found success. His story serves as a testament to the power of daring to fail and discovering what lies within us.McKay also shares the stories of Eric and Laura, individuals who both faced adversity and overcame it to find success. Their stories, along with Sorkin's, inspire us all to embrace our own journeys and discover our potential. They also teach us that, to find what lies within us, we must be resilient, determined, and willing to let go of what we cannot do, while remembering who we are and where we came from. Mckay's words of wisdom here today, combined with these powerful narratives, empower us all to discover the very best that lies within us.Episode Highlights:Open Your Eyes' two-year anniversary Aaron Sorkin's storyHow the best that lies within us can lead to remarkable successEric and Laura's stories of overcoming adversity and finding success Embracing our journeys and discovering our potentialThe power of resilience and determinationLetting go of what we cannot doRemembering who we are and where we came fromDiscovering the best that lies within youQuotes:"The best that lies within you is waiting to be discovered.”"Success is not the absence of failure; it's the persistence through failure.""Daring to fail is not about wanting to fail. It's about recognizing that failure is a possibility, and deciding to take the risk anyway.""Believe in yourself, and the rest will fall into place.""The most important thing to do is to get started, even if it's a small step.""The things I cannot do, I will let go. But the things I can do, I will learn to do well.""She continued to write, and she became a successful author, living out her passion for writing about horses and racing.""To find what lies within you, you may need to remember who you are and where you came from."Links:https://www.mckaychristensen.org/

Our most-requested movie is celebrating its 30th anniversary! It's the kind of movie where a cable car inextricably flies straight up into air out of nowhere... A scene so amazing that Isaac Slade calls in to premiere a sequel to his Fray hit "Over My Head (Cable Car)" right here on this episode! We also have a brand new segment called "When was the last time David Hallgren watched this movie?" that we think will really go places. What if Quentin Tarantino wrote the Nicolas Cage parts, Aaron Sorkin wrote the government scenes, Sean Connery hired British writers and basically just played James Bond, and somehow it all came together into the only Michael Bay film in the Criterion Collection? The Rock absolutely should not work — and absolutely does.If you'd like to advertise with us or sponsor us, please e-mail greatbadmoviesshow@gmail.comSubscribe to Great Bad Movies wherever you listen to podcastsMore Great Bad Movies online:InstagramGreat Bad Movies WebsiteYouTubeEmail us at greatbadmoviesshow@gmail.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Host Jesse Jackson welcomes returning guest Jeff Blum, a Chicago-based freelance sports and entertainment writer and para-professional working with autistic students. They briefly discuss current sports topics including the Bulls' streaky season, trades, and franchise management, plus comparisons to other struggling teams. Jeff shares limited impressions of Springsteen's large “Tracks 2” set, mentions favorite deep cuts, and discusses seeing the Springsteen-related film, praising its entertainment value and its connection to renewed appreciation for the album Nebraska. The conversation then shifts to Aaron Sorkin's work, starting with Sports Night and covering The American President, A Few Good Men, The West Wing, The Newsroom, Moneyball, The Social Network, Steve Jobs, Molly's Game, and Charlie Wilson's War, emphasizing sharp dialogue, morality, journalism standards, and changing media culture. Jeff plugs upcoming writing on the Olympics and a list of 1976 albums turning 50 in 2026, and Jesse closes with show contact and network information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“You can't handle the truth!” But can you handle finally watching A Few Good Men? In this episode of Missing Frames, Shawn introduces returning guest Richie Pepio to Rob Reiner's iconic courtroom drama A Few Good Men. Together, they unpack what makes the movie work, from Aaron Sorkin's signature dialogue (and early “Sorkinisms”) to Reiner's direction and the film's stacked cast, including Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, and Demi Moore.Along the way, Shawn and Richie reflect on Sorkin's evolution as a writer, the film's origins as a stage play, and why A Few Good Men remains such a defining showcase for powerhouse acting and a reminder that Rob Reiner was truly one of the all-time great filmmakers.HOSTSShawn EastridgeRichie Pepio

Tom Duncan and Sara Shea continue their journey through Season 1 of The West Wing, this time with episodes 1.16-1.18, exploring themes like presidential stress, political strategy, and societal values. Join us as we analyze key episodes, character development, and the show's reflection of real-world politics. In this episode, we explore the intricacies of the Federal Reserve, the dynamics of political relationships, and the behind-the-scenes of The West Wing. We delve into monetary policy, character development, and the cultural context of the show, providing insights into American politics and media portrayal.Chapters:00:00 Introduction to the Rewatch02:27 The Dynamics of Rewatching vs. First Watching06:34 The Stress of Leadership in The West Wing11:08 Episode 16: 20 Hours in L.A.32:42 Character Development: Zoe and Charlie33:57 Ethanol Tax Credit Debate36:10 Job Market Evolution and AI Impact38:25 Strained Political Relationships39:56 Romantic Developments in the Workplace42:02 Gays in the Military and Social Issues45:36 Federal Reserve and Economic Policy51:11 Conflict in Relationships56:59 Character Development and Advice01:04:59 Upcoming Challenges and Political Drama01:06:58 The Jackal: A Cultural Reflection01:12:37 Political Themes: Reparations and School Vouchers01:19:33 Character Dynamics: Mallory and Mandy01:25:12 Affirmative Action and DEI: A Critical Discussion01:30:49 Historical Perspectives: Biden, Trump, and Future GenerationsKeywords:The West Wing, political drama, presidential stress, policy analysis, character development Federal Reserve, monetary policy, political relationships, character analysis, Aaron Sorkin, TV analysis, US politics, cultural references, leadership

Based on the book The Accidental Billionaires with a screenplay by Aaron Sorkin and directed by David Fincher, The Social Network is a dramatization of Facebook's founding. The fictional story shows the grit, tenacity, and ruthlessness of its creators. Guests Scott Amyx and Cameron Tau talk about the movie, and how Facebook has caused disruptions impacting people at a very human level, resulting in isolationism and addiction, damaging mental health. But Uplifty aims to do something very different, helping people build relationships.-Scott Amyx is a global innovation expert, venture capitalist, and futurist focused on the intersection of humans and exponential technologies. He is the Founder and CEO of Uplifty, where he builds platforms to enhance human connection in an increasingly automated world, and Chair and Managing Partner at Astor Perkins, a deep-tech and sustainability venture firm. A Harvard Business Review Advisory Council Member, TEDx speaker, and author, Scott has advised governments, Fortune 500s, and startups on breakthrough innovation, smart cities, and the future of work. His work combines cutting-edge technology with human-centered strategies to help people and organizations thrive in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.https://uplifty.ai/about-us/ https://astorperkins.com/ Strive: How Doing The Things Most Uncomfortable Leads to Success by Scott Amyxhttps://amzn.to/4sU2elb -Cameron Tau is a UX and product design professional with a background in psychology, marketing, and data analytics. She served as a UI/UX team lead at Uplifty, driving the app's wireframes and overall user experience while integrating user-centered design principles. Skilled in user research, prototyping, and data-driven decision making, Cameron has created high-fidelity designs that enhance usability and engagement across digital platforms. Her work combines design thinking with analytical insights to deliver seamless and impactful user experiences.https://uplifty.ai/about-us/ -Upliftyhttps://uplifty.ai/ https://www.instagram.com/upliftyai/ -The Social Network (2010)https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/https://youtu.be/lB95KLmpLR4?si=vKPKWSVjCNTHxulx -The Accidental Billionaireshttps://amzn.to/4tJ6a8T -Social media and recent fallouthttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c747x7gz249o https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68161632 https://lite.cnn.com/2026/03/25/media/meta-google-social-media-verdict-advocates

It's a very special West Wing reunion! This week, we're looking back at Rob's 2020 conversation with legendary writer and director Aaron Sorkin, the writer of "The West Wing," as well as films like "The Social Network," "A Few Good Men," and "Molly's Game." They discuss the "West Wing" reunion special, their favorite episodes of the show, how Rob was cast as Sam Seaborn, a disastrous moment from the opening night of "A Few Good Men" in London, and doing Chekov with Christopher Walken. Make sure to subscribe to the show on YouTube at YouTube.com/@LiterallyWithRobLowe! Got a question for Rob? Call our voicemail at 323-570-4551. Your question could get featured on the show! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Tom Duncan and Sara Shea continue their journey through Season 1 of The West Wing, this time with episodes 1.13-1.15, this time with a deep dive into the political and moral complexities of the death penalty, addiction, and personal forgiveness as depicted in 'The West Wing'. Our hosts explore how these themes are portrayed with nuance and emotional depth, reflecting on their relevance in today's political landscape. In this episode, we explore the moral, religious, and political implications of the death penalty.Chapters:00:00 Introduction and Political Disclaimers03:57 Episode Overview: Take Out the Trash Day07:47 Character Relationships and Development11:50 The Hate Crime Bill and Societal Reflections15:55 The Role of Media and Public Perception20:03 Emotional Moments and Personal Connections23:53 Forgiveness and Redemption in Politics30:22 The Complexity of Forgiveness36:17 Exploring the Death Penalty Debate57:02 Moral and Ethical Implications of Capital Punishment01:03:12 Navigating Political Challenges01:04:42 Economic Insights and Political Theory01:06:24 Framing and Storytelling in Drama01:08:56 Character Development and Resolutions01:10:40 Character Favorites and Least Favorites01:12:41 Press Secretary Challenges01:16:35 Racial and Political Implications01:19:55 Episode Rankings and Themes01:22:59 Reflections on the Series and Viewer EngagementSound Bites:"Understanding addiction as a lifelong journey.""Parables that relate to justice and mercy.""The power of empathy in political leadership."Keywords:The West Wing, death penalty, addiction, forgiveness, political drama, Aaron Sorkin, moral dilemmas, public policy, emotional storytelling death penalty, morality, religion, politics, storytelling, character analysis, ethics, legal system, philosophical discussion

Bienvenidos, cinéfilos hierberos, a un nuevo episodio de Cinefilia y Otras Hierbas, cine, televisión, música y videojuegos para escuchar, soy su anfitrión, José Enrique Guzmán y hoy retomamos nuestro ciclo sobre Aaron Sorkin con unapelícula que, para muchos, es un enigma. Verán, existe un error de catálogo muy común: clasificar a Moneyball: El Juego de la Fortuna como cine deportivo. Eso es como decir que La Red Social trata sobre programación o que El Ala Oeste va de arquitectura de interiores.El filme, estrenado en el 2011 es, en realidad, la mejor película que se ha hecho jamás no sobre un deporte, sino sobre la anatomía de un deporte.Es fascinante cómo llegó esto a manos de Sorkin. Imaginen la escena: un libro técnico sobre economía, lleno de porcentajes de llegada a base y jerga estadística que haría bostezar a un actuario de seguros. Varios directores intentaron descifrarlo; Stephen Soderberg hasta quiso filmarlo como un documental de National Geographic sobre tipos con gorra. Pero entonces entró Aaron, se ajustó los anteojos y dijo: 'Esto no es matemáticas, es una guerra ideológica'. Inyectó su característico ritmo de ametralladora en una oficina de Oakland y transformó una hoja de cálculo en una epopeya humana sobre la redención.Lo curioso es que esta cinta ocupa un lugar único en nuestro ciclo: es la única película donde Sorkin comparte el crédito de guion, en este caso con el brillante Steven Zaillian. Zaillian, el hombre detrás de La Lista de Schindler, ya había construido una estructura sólida y austera antes de que Sorkin llegarapara añadir esa efervescencia verbal. Lejos de ser un duelo de egos, fue una simbiosis extraña: Zaillian puso el esqueleto de acero y Sorkin el sistema nervioso de alta tensión. El resultado es un equilibrio perfecto entre la frialdad del dato y el calor de la réplica ingeniosa.La premisa —para los pocos que aún no han sido iluminados— es pura resistencia intelectual. Corre el año 2002. Billy Beane, gerente de los Atléticos de Oakland, se queda sin sus estrellas y, lo que es peor, sin un centavo. Ante el abismo, decidecometer la mayor herejía en la historia del béisbol: dejar de confiar en el 'instinto' de señores mayores que mastican tabaco y empezar a confiar en los datos de un graduado de Yale. Es David contra Goliat, pero con una computadora Dell y mucha cafeína.La cinta no solo fue un triunfo de la crítica; recaudó 110 millones de dólares y cosechó seis nominaciones al Oscar incluyendo Mejor Película, Mejor Actor para Pitt, Mejor Actor de Reparto para un sorprendente Jonah Hill y, por supuesto,Mejor Guion Adaptado para nuestra dupla estelar. También dejó su huella en los Globos de Oro y los BAFTA con múltiples menciones, consolidándose como la película de béisbol más nominada en décadas. Pero su verdadero legado no está en las vitrinas de trofeos, sino en el hecho de que hoy, desde el béisbol hasta la logística de Amazon, todos buscamos 'la falla en el sistema'.Al final, Sorkin y Zaillian nos regalaron un manifiesto sobre el valor de ser la persona más inteligente de la sala y tener el valor de que te odien por ello. Porque, como bien nos susurra la película con una media sonrisa: ¿Cómo no vas a ponerte romántico con el béisbol?Suban el volumen. Empezamos.Patreon: patreon.com/cinefiliayotrashierbas⁠Correo: cinefiliayotrashierbas@gmail.com No olviden suscribirse, compartir este episodio y dejar un comentario y un like, eso nos ayudará a crecer y a encontrar más audiencia.¡Que lo disfruten!#AaronSorkin⁠ ⁠#BradPitt⁠ ⁠#Cine⁠ ⁠#Oakland #Cine

Olivia Munn talks casing Steve Martin's house and being the only actor to talk too fast for Aaron Sorkin. Plus, panelists Rachel Coster, Peter Grosz, and Joyelle Nicole Johnson visit the Supreme CourtTo manage podcast ad preferences, review the links below:See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Tom Duncan and Sara Shea continue their journey through Season 1 of The West Wing, this time turning to episodes 1.7-1.9.Chapters:00:00 Introduction and Historical Context04:43 Diving into the Episodes09:33 Character Dynamics and Political Commentary14:28 Episode 7: The State Dinner Overview19:19 Character Analysis and Plot Development24:07 Themes of Politics and Personal Relationships30:35 Aaron Sorkin's Personal Struggles and Writing Themes32:56 Romantic Relationships in Season One35:53 The Purpose of State Dinners39:29 Political Fundraising and Ethics44:46 Substance Abuse and Public Perception49:23 Media Attention on Political Figures54:37 Character Development and Future Plotlines58:43 Judicial Philosophy and Political Landscape01:02:52 Confirmation Hearings and Controversies01:04:29 Judicial Philosophy and Privacy Rights01:07:26 Tokenism in Judicial Appointments01:10:08 Partisan Politics and Judicial Confirmations01:13:17 Constitutional Law and Its Interpretation01:16:01 Judicial Aspirations and Career Paths01:19:01 Character Development and Ensemble Dynamics01:21:43 Episode Rankings and Future PredictionsKeywords:The West Wing, 1999, political drama, episode analysis, character development, historical context, TV show critique, political drama, judicial philosophy, presidential politics, character analysis, episode review

S.E. is a nationally syndicated columnist, author, podcaster and TV commentator. She hosts Off the Cupp, a podcast which focuses on mental health, and which features interviews with celebrities and newsmakers. She is a columnist at the New York Daily News and has also been published in the New York Times, Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, Washington Post and many other publications. She is currently a political commentator at CNN. She regularly interviews authors for CSPAN's BookTV, and is a regular guest on The View, Real Time w/Bill Maher, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Watch What Happens Live and others. SE has also consulted on Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom and AppleTV's The Morning Show, and has made cameos on House of Cards and SNL. As an author SE has written two books, Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity, and co-authored Why You're Wrong About the RIght. She is on the Advisory Board of Cornell University's Institute of Politics and Global Affairs and INARA.org, and is a No Kid Hungry ambassador S.E. and I discuss the Iran war, MAGA, the midterms, and the general chaos, dysfunction and danger of Trump 2.0. But whenever S.E.'s around, there also has to be a some silly fun too, so there's also some chit-chat about AL Gore, French strikes, and her new "Pee Poo" pod with Adam Kinzinger! Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

Wrapping up our short exploration of Aaron Sorkin, we turn to his 2015 film Steve Jobs. Loosely based on Walter Isaacson's biography, the film unfolds across three vignettes leading up to major product launches. Sorkin uses these moments to dig into Jobs' personal conflicts, as well as his aggressive, domineering approach to work. Enjoy our review of Steve Jobs (2015).   Cinema Spectator is a movie podcast hosted by Isaac Ransom, Juzo Greenwood, and Cameron Tuttle. The show is executive-produced by Darrin O'Neill and recorded and produced in the San Francisco Bay Area, CA. You can support the show at patreon.com/ecfsproductions. Follow us on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter @cinemaspectatorpodcast. Isaac and Cameron began recording podcasts with their first project, Everything Comes from Something (2018), and are now focusing on new weekly content for Cinema Spectator. Cameron Tuttle is a full-time professional cinematographer who majored in film at SFSU and collaborates on corporate, private, and creative productions. Cameron is the expert. Isaac Ransom works full-time as a marketing leader with creative experience in brand, advertising, product, music, and film. Isaac is the casual. Juzo is a producer, director, and avid film enthusiast who knows everything about cinema. The podcast is a passion project by three longtime friends; we hope you enjoy it! Thank you for your time, generosity, and support.

When we say 'the cloud' what we mean is 'the data centre'. Globally, data centres are projected to consume over 1000 terawatt hours in 2026. What does that mean for energy production, distribution, and consumption? Guest Phil Harris, Cerio President and CEO, joins thinkenergy to shed light on something we all rely on but may not fully understand. From efficiency to sustainability, environmental concerns to Cerio's role improving how data centres manage energy. Listen in for the future of cloud computing.  - Related links  ●       Cerio: https://www.cerio.ai/ ●       Phil Harris on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/paharris/  ●       Trevor Freeman on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/trevor-freeman-p-eng-8b612114  ●       Hydro Ottawa: https://hydroottawa.com/en     To subscribe using Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/thinkenergy/id1465129405 To subscribe using Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7wFz7rdR8Gq3f2WOafjxpl To subscribe on Libsyn: http://thinkenergy.libsyn.com/ --- Subscribe so you don't miss a video: https://www.youtube.com/user/hydroottawalimited Follow along on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hydroottawa Stay in the know on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HydroOttawa Keep up with the posts on X: https://twitter.com/thinkenergypod --- Transcript: Trevor Freeman  00:07 Welcome to think energy, a podcast that dives into the fast, changing world of energy through conversations with industry leaders, innovators and people on the front lines of the energy transition. Join me, Trevor Freeman, as I explore the traditional, unconventional and up and coming facets of the energy industry. If you have any thoughts, feedback or ideas for topics we should cover, please reach out to us at thinkenergy@hydroottawa.com. Hi everyone, and welcome back. Data centres have come up a number of times on this show, and for very good reason, they have become a key underpinning technology for so much of our lives, every time we pull out that phone from our pockets to pull up directions or buy something online or doom, scroll on your social media or new site of choice, every time you use your phone stream a movie, leverage an AI model, whatever you end up using it for, it's funny as I read this list, I'm sure there's like some university student out there who's thinking, man, what is this old man talking about? We don't use our phones for that, whatever the kids are doing these days, whatever we're doing these days with our phones, with our computers, our tablets, et cetera. All of that leverages infrastructure that most of us have never seen and, quite frankly, probably don't really understand we talk about the cloud like it's this amorphous, nebulous thing, but in reality, we're talking about real hardware in a real building that uses real energy, mainly electricity, a lot of water. And this isn't really new, like we've been leveraging centralized data centres for many years now, but what is changing is the scale of the data centres that we're seeing now, and the pace of growth in computing power that we need to do, the things that we want to do, and that our data centres are able to deliver. So just to throw a few numbers at it, the traditional data centre servers that maybe power the early days of on demand online streaming services, for example, they used anywhere from five to 15 kilowatts per rack. But modern server racks that are used to power AI searches, for example, can hit anywhere from 60 to 100 kilowatts per rack. This is great from a power output per rack perspective, but it means massive energy needs, and that is showing up in the size of load requests that we're seeing from new data centres. New data centres today are asking for service connections that are orders of magnitude higher than those built even just five years ago, globally, data centres are projected to consume over 1000 terawatts in 2026 or terawatt hours, sorry, in 2026 and just a quick kind of refresher from high school or wherever you would have learned this, a terawatt is 1000 gigawatts, which is 1000 megawatts. So 1000 terawatt hours, which is roughly equivalent to the annual electricity demand from the country of Japan, an entire country. So given all of this, there are a lot of incentives to find ways to maximize efficiency and reduce some of that energy demand, and that's where my next guest, Phil Harris and his company Cerio come into play. I'll let Phil get into the details of exactly what Cerio does, but essentially, their goal is to reimagine the data centre to maximize sustainability and reduce energy needs. Phil is Cerio's President and CEO, and has been in the networking and data centre industry for over 35 years, including at well known companies like Intel and Cisco. And I'm really excited about this conversation. One to understand, how do we make data centres a little bit more efficient, or maybe a lot more efficient, but also just to really understand, like, what are we talking about when we talk about a data centre? What is actually happening, what is physically inside these buildings, and we'll get into a little bit of that in our conversation. So Phil, welcome to the show.   Phil Harris  04:13 Well, thanks, Trevor. I appreciate it.   Trevor Freeman  04:13 So Phil, obviously we're here today to talk about your work building sustainable data centres, or trying to make data centres a little bit more sustainable. But before we get into that. You know, you've spent your career, you know, decades of your career at different tech giants. Let's call them in telecisco to to mention, you've seen quite a bit of change. No doubt, over your time, has that changed, like, does this industry change linearly? Does it grow fairly steady, or is it kind of big jumps? And are we on the cusp of any major shifts? What can you kind of tell us about the future of this, this sector, data, tech, etc?   Phil Harris  04:48 It's interesting, I think, as companies start, and I was at companies like Cisco, for example, when it was a very small company to when it was very large company. And this should be no surprise for anybody, the bigger the company gets, the harder. It is to change, and they really find that the only way they change is when they absolutely have to, not because they want to, and that's a combination of just inertia and shareholders expectations and a whole bunch of things. So I would say that the bigger the company is, the harder is them, for them to react. And so I think small, nimble companies tend to do much better when there's a lot of transformational technology and development and changes in the overall ecosystem we live in. I think just the second part of your question, you know, I look at the current situation as a point in time where a lot of companies will have to make some significant changes, simply because we're hitting too many walls, technological walls, commercial walls, geopolitical walls, that are really sort of confining what people can do. So I think what's going to about to happen is we're about to see a significant change, and this is not atypical in the industry. If we think about back into the into the start of what we would think of today as computer science around mainframes that were happening in the 60s. You know, for about a decade and a half, two decades, there was a lot of dominance around a particular way of doing things. And then some new innovational technology came along that rapidly changed, that scaled out, and it went from a very dominant set of players to a much larger number of smaller players who could then provide more innovation and more scale and more choice. And I think we're about to see that transition occurring as well.   Trevor Freeman  06:25 So is this, is there sort of like an analogous time, 10 years ago, 20 years ago? Are we on the cusp of, like, the big, the big change that we've seen before? Like, what would you compare this to? You know, in the last 2030, years?   Phil Harris  06:40 Yeah. I mean, I think there's been eras of compute. And if we say, I mean, we can find analogies outside of the compute world, but let's just stay in the compute, computing science world. I gave the mainframe example as one, and then we went to what we call client server, which scaled out rapidly. Telephony. We went from large, big telephone exchanges that started in in the government space, went to very large organizations. Now, basically we've completely scaled out how we make phone calls to use that now 20th century as a terminology. Nobody really makes telephone calls anymore. And we went through this with cloud computing and the Internet, where there was a change in the approach to the way we did things that suddenly gave us a scale out mentality, rather than a scale up mentality. And I think that's what we have to key in on here. Is it that we can take some of you? I was on a panel yesterday where we were talking about scale, and I say, well, to scale or not to scale? That is not the question. It's how do we scale? Do we continue to scale up, which is the current model, or do we start to think about scaling out, which is a more distributed model? So we go from a small number of big things to a large number of smaller things. And typically in computer science, whatever you want to start, storage, compute, memory, telephony, everything we've ever done goes through this arc.   Trevor Freeman  07:59 Yeah, it's it's interesting, and it's, there's obviously my brain's gonna immediately try and find those, those similarities between my world that I live in on the energy side of things. And it's the same question, like, there, there's, there is no path where we're not expanding the amount of energy we need. We're not going to be using more energy. But there are different ways to do that, and there are different paths we can take the business as usual that just grow, grow, grow, decentralized energy production and large scale transmission. Or there's a combination of like, grow those things, but also find alternative methods. More ders more sort of like close to consumer energy sources and storage, et cetera, et cetera. And people that listen to this podcast know I kind of go on ad nauseam about this. So lots of similarities. There another kind of framing or foundational thing that I want to talk through before we really get into the meat of our conversation is helping ground both myself and our listeners, and what exactly we're talking about here. So we, we all use, whether we know it or not, we use, you know, like cloud computing constantly, whether it's in our calls, how we're using the internet, using AI, more, more frequently. Now, what is the physical reality behind that? What's actually happening? What is the term data centre? What is a data centre for our listeners here? What does that look like?   Phil Harris  09:26 Yeah, let's start there. That's a great question. We started recognizing that the amount of power and space required for computers in companies and government in all sorts of different applications was getting larger than we could put in a room, in a closet near maybe where people were using it. We had to sort of create dedicated space, because the power requirements, the cooling requirements, just the noise. You can't hear this, but just in my basement, I have a few different compute systems that my wife continues to tell me is keeping my neighborhood awake. The reality is the environmentals of these things became very difficult. So we created these purpose built locations that had then different requirements in terms of access and facilities and power and cooling and staffing. And so they became a new way of thinking about building compute infrastructure at a building level, not just at the individual computers themselves. So a data is usually a very large room or building, I should say that houses large amounts of compute and storage and other networking equipment. There's a whole range of different technologies that go into a data centre that allows us to process information. That's what a data centre is. To give you some analogies in the US, there's about nearly 6000 data centres, depending on how you measure a data centre. In Canada, we have about 400 in Europe, there's about 750 that we can identify as standalone data centres. You can probably find more places where computers are outside of people's homes, but that's about the ratio we're looking at.   Trevor Freeman  10:59 And we're seeing, I think, and tell me if I'm wrong here, like, all this talk about the AI proliferation, data centre proliferation, we're seeing an expansion of these. Is that we're seeing the size of these data centres expand, or we're seeing just more of them popping up. Like, what does it mean when we say we're seeing, like, data centre growth because of AI, what does that mean?   Phil Harris  11:24 Well, it's fascinating, because now our worlds collide, because the way we now think about how to describe a data centre isn't in the square footage or the number of computers, it's in how much power it consumes, and we now measure it in megawatts, and it starts in 10 megawatts, or single digit megawatts, very small data centres, into average size data centres in the 10s of megawatts, up to now the hundreds and the gigawatts of consumption that you look at these hyperscalers. But I think we have to put this into a sort of a human scale. It helps us to put this in human scale. If I were to go back to ChatGPT actually about now, 15 months ago. ChatGPT-4. If you were to put that data centre footprint into the province of Ontario, for example, where you and I both are right now, it would be the equivalent of a million internal combustion engine cars driving 30 kilometers a day, if you ever drive up the 401 you probably don't want to see another million cars on the 401 Yeah, but that's the amount of energy that we can think of in terms of a data centre of that scale.   Trevor Freeman  12:33 Yeah, and again, kind of putting it in the electrical industry's terms, what we consider as a large load so we have a specific designation of a large load request that is anything five megawatts and higher. And like, up until recently, we would get one or two of those every once in a while, like, it's pretty rare to get a large load request. We are seeing large load requests coming in at a near constant pace now, like the number of large load requests we're getting, and a lot of it is because of this, not all because of data centres or anything like that, but a lot of them are certainly driven by that need for more more computing power, more facilities that support that.   Phil Harris  13:18 That's right. And at the same time, we're seeing a demand on on energy around now home, EV charging, and other aspects of the general distribution of the power, everything's taking a step function. But if I could just say one thing to your point about before I was seven megawatts, was a high load, then we may need to change that scale. It's almost inefficient to build a data centre unless you're somewhere above the 10 megawatt range, because at that point, get somebody else to do it for you.   Trevor Freeman  13:42 Interesting, yeah, and that's where it's sort of like, almost like, renting space in a data centre for a request of that size. Interesting, something that you know, I've seen kind of in your in your writing, on your on your blogs, is the idea that traditional data centres are really built for peak capacity, which absolutely mirrors the power industry. We build our electrical grids for peak capacity, and obviously that leads to a fair amount of inefficiencies. So if you're building just a peak capacity, if you're not at peak capacity, there is an inefficiency happening. There something that you identified. It's a stat from your research talks about graphics processing unit usage rates as low as 20 or 25% so I'm assuming that means kind of like three quarters of that hardware is sitting idle or not being used valuably. Tell us a little bit about what, what Cerio what you're doing, what your composable architecture specifically is doing to reclaim that wasted power and cooling capacity,   Phil Harris  14:44 Yeah, and so it starts off with your the premise you correctly raised is that, if we think about the the equipment, the physical equipment, and how we put these devices and these components together in a data centre, the same model we've been using today is, is about 3035, Years old in terms of individual compute systems, where we run applications, software that has memory and central processing units, those typical things you have in a laptop, or you have every computer. But then we put these accelerators, these GPUs, companies like Nvidia now are the one most valuable companies on the planet, if not the most valuable planet company on the planet, because that's the technology they develop. But we're trying to put these new class of accelerators into an existing compute model which wasn't designed for this. So then itself now starts to fragment the ability to leverage those resources in a data centre. And as you accurately said, it's interesting. If I could geek out on this a little bit for the energy consumer in the room, please. Do we think? We think about the notion not only the megawatts of power going into the data but we we think about what we call power usage efficiency. And that basically says, whatever the power delivered to a data centre, how much of that is applicable to the IT systems in that data centre, a good, well run, efficient data centre is about 1.2 that means about 1.2 times the amount of power that's used is delivered. Your home, for example, is about 30 times the amount of power we use is what's delivered. We are very inefficient from our home use, by the way. But that's another problem to solve in another podcast, but in this case, that's all true until we then ask the question, but what's actually being used at that equipment? And that's now in that 25 to 30% range at any point in time, and we refer to that as stranded and idle assets that, for whatever reason, aren't where the application is or aren't applicable to be used for the application that moment because they're in some other box, or it's a time of day when people use equipment. And by the way, equipment like that isn't being used 24 by seven, but it's drawing power 24 by seven, right? So there's lots of inherent inefficiencies in that model. So what we do is we provide the ability to dynamically have pools of resources where we can dynamically attach resources to a compute system as required, at the scale you're required, and allowing you to be much more efficient in the timing of that and the amount of equipment required to meet your end solution. And by doing that, we can increase the number of accelerators that you apply to a compute system, which inherently means you are much more efficient in those compute systems, because it's not just the computers. As I said before, there's storage, there's firewalls, there's load balances, there's networking equipment, all of that can now be much more efficiently used. All of that is drawing power.   Trevor Freeman  17:35 So is the idea, then, that the equipment not being used, or when you're at a lower demand time in terms of computing power, you've got physical equipment idling, sort of in more idle mode, drawing less resources that you can then ramp up so the peak amount of equipment still there. You're just being more efficient with it when it's not being used. And you've developed a way to sort of dynamically pull that in. Is that what I'm hearing.   Phil Harris  18:00 Exactly, I'll give you an example. A data centre here in Toronto wanted to have a block of 128 GPUs. They could have, they could they could service their customers with, with the current systems they were using previously to deploying our infrastructure, they had to require deploy, actually, 200 GPUs and a very large number of servers in the to house those GPUs. By deploying this area technology, they brought that down to 136 actual GPUs, and they reduced the number of compute platforms by a factor of four. So they reduced it by 75%.   Trevor Freeman  18:35 Yeah, that's fantastic,   Phil Harris  18:36 With exactly the same outcomes to their customers. With no no contention for resources, no oversubscription of resources, just more efficient use of those resources.   Trevor Freeman  18:46 Gotcha. So still able to meet that peak demand, but not sort of firing up that equipment when it's not needed.   Phil Harris  18:53 Well, not just not firing it, not having to have as much stranded equipment, because we can use all the equipment all the time.   Trevor Freeman  19:01 Gotcha. Okay, so in when I was kind of setting up that last question, I used the term composable architecture, and I'll admit that I pulled that from your material. Help me understand what that means. So you know that I've also seen you use composable infrastructure sounds a bit abstract, like, what? What are we talking about here? What does that actually look like?   Phil Harris  19:20 When a consumer, or someone who's building a data centre buys their computer equipment, they usually will actually buy the computers, the GPUs, the storage and other things at the same time, and they will get delivered together, and that box now becomes a unit of compute capacity. But the thing about that is whether you're able to use that entire capacity, the length in which that's a useful there's a lot of innovation churn right now as new things are coming through very quickly. But that box is now solid. You know, it's statically built for the rest of its life. Pretty much, it's very expensive. IBM did a study to take a server out of a rack, these big, six foot racks or bigger, where. These servers are housed with lots of wires going into them, power and data and all sorts of things. It's about $1,000 a minute to take one of those servers out of the rack and either change something that's broken, update something so they just don't get taken out of the rack. Because the average time to take a server out of the rack is about an hour. The math on that's pretty simple. So if I'm spending $60,000 to upgrade a 20,030 $1,000 server, I'm just gonna leave it there and buy another one. So that creates more of these stranded assets. So composability says, Let's separate these things into, as I said, pools of resources, compute accelerators and other devices, and have a fabric between them that allows us to, in real time, assemble a compute system that I need. That's the composing part as I need it, because I can now take the resources anywhere in my data centre, if you've got the right fabric, which we've built that allows you then to real time build that compute system with exactly the same capabilities, exactly the same performance, and without having to change any of your software or the way the service work. Everything has to be off the shelf to make this work, and that's what we've built.   Trevor Freeman  21:05 Got you. So, two of the terms, and you'll forgive me, this is sort of a new sector for me. Two of the terms that are used as metrics to determine performance are power usage, effectiveness, and you've kind of talked about, you know, GPU usage. Is the industry moving more towards that GPU usage metric? Is that just something that you guys are kind of leading the curve on? Or where are we at on that?   Phil Harris  21:34 Oh no, this is very much the industry way of describing not just efficiency, but requirements. And we use very weird terms for this. Every industry has their weird term. Weird terminology, and we're now moving to the for example, in AI, the number of tokens per second when you and I put a request or a question into ChatGPT or CoPilot or chord, whatever we use, those words get translated into tokens, actually numbers. Every compute system is just a big calculator. At the end of the day, we do, we do massive processing on numbers. How many of those tokens can I put into the system? How long does it take to process those tokens and give me a response? And the tokens per second, per watt is now what we're asking. So how many tokens a second, and what power per token is it costing me to process information? And that's the interesting way of thinking about how AI, for example, and that's value started this conversation will be measured is the most amount of tokens per second, per watt. Now, right now, we're focusing on tokens per second. We're not looking at the last denominator, which is watts. So that's why these data centres are getting so ridiculous. Ridiculously large. And you know, we even heard it in the in the State of the Union address in the United States earlier in the week, where, you know, there's now the administration pushing cloud vendors and AI vendors to say, Hey, pretty soon you're gonna be on your own about delivering power. Because, quite frankly, the way you're going. It's going to become untenable to think about that from a national grid perspective. Now, I think that may be a little bit into the future, but I don't think it's a completely unreasonable sentiment at this point.   Trevor Freeman  23:12 Yeah, and I mean, you're talking about, and we talked earlier about the just the scale of energy usage here is reaching a new height, a new level. And if we break it down to the individual racks, you know, these racks of servers or processors that you've got in your data centre, we're now talking about anywhere from 50 kilowatts to 100 kilowatts of cooling need. And that's the big driver of energy usage, I think, is correct here is the cooling need per rack multiplied by, of course, big numbers to get those, you know, 5-10-20-30, megawatt data cetnre we're talking about when we talk about cooling and we talk about, you know, hot spots within a data centre, how does your approach differ from kind of the standard way of doing it.   Phil Harris  24:02 So that's a great question, and I think we should explain why the cooling part, it's a bit like buying really good, expensive wagyu steak every day and then having to spend a lot of money on a gym membership to then go and burn off those calories. So we put all this power into power these compute systems, but then we have to keep them cool, and the harder they that, the faster they run, the more powerful they run, the hotter they get. But we need to cool them. So there's this relationship between the more power we draw, the more cooling we need, and cooling is becoming, as I said, that sort of trade off for performance. Now there's lots of exotic ways of cooling computer systems. We can just blow air across them. We can have a liquid like the radiator in your car, or we can literally drop these compute systems into bars of solvents. Ferdinand Porsche, I like to use of other industry analogies. Ferdinand Porsche, the guy who obviously designed the first Porsches and the VW Beetle, realized if I could distribute the heat of the engine block with a horizontal block, I could blow air across it. It was much more efficient than trying to put a radiator to actually cool down the engine block the way that other cars who have the engine in the front, and it's because of surface area. Now, if I've got to put all my GPUs and CPUs and memory close together, either in the same box or the same rack, that concentration of heat needs to be addressed with cooling. One of the ways we can address this is not only to be very selected when I compose the GPU, it's the only time it's drawing power, but also I can spread them out through my data centre by having a fabric that allows me to connect them to the compute systems with the same performance, but now I can distribute my heat generation. That means I can cool more efficiently, just like that Fernand Porsche analogy of the of the Porsche 911 because now heat over over, spread of distance and surface area is a more efficient way, which means it won't mean that we won't ever get to liquid cooling. I don't think immersion cooling is a good idea for lots of other reasons. It's a necessity, more than an optimization, but we can defer the complexity, the cost of those exotic cooling systems if we're more efficient in a way we use and design our data centres.   Trevor Freeman  26:18 And I guess there's a similar description there of, if you're concentrating all that heat in a specific, you know, physical area within a bigger building room, whatever you want to call it, that that cooling system is having to work to that peak cooling need, so to that hot spot effectively. But it's not working just on that spot. It's working across the whole physical area. If you're spreading that cooling need out across the whole room, one the peak is a little bit lower, and you're just more effectively using your whole cooling system. Is that fair to say?   Phil Harris  26:52 And that's exactly the right way of looking at this. And think about it from this perspective as well. The reason we have to cool is because if we don't call sufficiently, those devices become very unreliable and reduce a useful lifespan without going into who, because they keep this information confidential. But one large cloud provider in the US, for example, a GPU that normally has a lifespan of at least three years, is going down to about nine months right now. And the reason for that reduction the lifespan of the use of that GPU, is because of the heating characteristics within these boxes that are getting even with all these cooling mechanisms are becoming now a reduction in the lifespan. So that means we have to create even, remember, I said what it costs to take a system out of a rack. That means we don't have to apply an efficient and effective cooling strategy, our power strategy and cooling trategy, then we start hitting problems very quickly.   Trevor Freeman  27:50 Got you okay. Okay, so there's a mantra that I admit I hadn't seen before until kind of reading some of your material. It's, it's friends. Don't let friends build data centres. And I think it's referring to, you know, this, this move. And there's so many industries that kind of do this cycle of centralization to decentralization, and the sort of data movement went towards that centralization, and you saw these big, massive data centres. But there's, there's kind of a move now back to, let's call it decentralization or repatriation of data. And so for various geopolitical reasons, organizations, companies, governments, are wanting to pull their data back home and have it kind of be more in their control, living in their own servers. So how are you or how is Cerio helping companies kind of get back into the data centre business or repatriate their data without, kind of, you know, getting into the troubles that led for to that centralization in the first place?   Phil Harris  28:55 Yeah, and by the way, I can't take real credit for that quote. Cole Crawford, who was one of the early guys at Facebook before it became META, and was one of the leading voices in the Open Compute platform movement, which is try and standardize how we do these things. Cole is now the CEO of a company called Vapor IO, and what he was really saying is, it's so complicated and difficult to run data centres, let alone building the capital expense. AI isn't just one thing. There's lots of stages in the workflow of AI. We train these big models. You have heard of large language models like ChatGPT or copilot, but what we use them for the results of those trained models is what we call inference. Now you'll now hear about agentic AI, where we turn those results into actions. Okay, that's the agency part of agentic. Well, the use of AI in the corporate world is now becoming, as you said, both regulated, but from an intellectual property perspective, it's about how I control my data and my information. Because if I put that all into somebody else's large language model, I basically put. Populated somebody else's large language model with what might be my proprietary information or information that's very sensitive, and it's one of the reasons why you'll hear in the press about anthropic for example, trying to put guardrails around the use of their AI, because they're very sensitive to this. Most enterprises, governments of all sorts, have realized, though, they need to have run this in their own data centres, because they need to have control over this in control over this information and the use of this information, that's the repatriation you're talking about, moving these workloads now into the organization that previously said, Hey, cloud computing can take this problem. We're going to now figure out how enterprises, which are far many more of them in far more diverse locations, can now build their own data centres and get the right power, the right efficiency, the right capabilities at the right cost.   Trevor Freeman  30:47 Does that open the door? I mean, earlier, you talked about, you know, if we're talking about a five megawatt data centre, it's almost not worth it. You know, that's just sort of renting space in someone else's. How does that track with an organization that won't have enough data or enough computing power, whatever the metric is to warrant a 30 megawatt data centre for their own data, but wants to get that that control, wants to bring it more in house, is our is your technology helping those smaller data centres exist? Is that the correlation there?   Phil Harris  31:18 We can now move it into one of the things that we another couple of terms that may be an maybe not your your listeners may not be familiar with in the compute world or the data centre world, we talk of brownfield and Greenfield. Brownfield is that which is already there. Greenfield is something I have to build new. A lot of the Brownfield world is what is the predominant sort of quantity of compute power on the planet is primarily brownfield The question is, can I take that existing infrastructure and put the capabilities we've been describing in this discussion into those brownfields? So I can reduce the cost of the expansion of that because I can reuse the compute equipments there, I can now add just the discrete GPU technology, for example, into an existing data centre that doesn't therefore blow the power budget or the cooling envelope within that environment, but I can still now start taking advantage as I figure out what my larger plans are, and at the same time, how do we have a tier of providers? I'll give you an example. There's a company in, again, in Canada, think on who are building a data centre in in Ottawa, it's going to have its own liquid natural LNG as its source of power for its own power requirements. Why? Because they can have the power they need as they need it in that location, and they can provide that secure infrastructure for both government and private enterprises, and think on is certainly in Canada, one of those companies that's really seen to be a trusted partner in this. So it will be a bit of what can I do myself? How do I have a trusted partner? We think of sovereign AI a lot. That means trust more than anything, and that's becoming the new mechanism of thinking about this.   Trevor Freeman  33:04 Thinking about the environmental impact of tech and of data. We've talked about the energy usage here, but there's also the physical aspect to it. Of the pace of improvement in technology means we see obsolescence, or we see kind of technology being outdated fairly quickly. We all, like on the personal level. We all see this with our cell phones, our smartphones, our whatever tech we have at home that seems to be out of date fairly soon. I think that the stat, or that the saying that's out there is, you know, tech is kind of obsolete or becomes trash within three years. Obviously, this is not sustainable. Is this part of the drive of what you're doing? Is it? Are you looking to sort of extend the life of the physical equipment you've touched on this a little bit, but maybe expand a little bit on that?   Phil Harris  33:52 Yeah, this goes a little bit back to that Brownfield-Greenfield discussion. But one way of looking at I guess, is when I put all of these components into what the classic model, the current model, I put my central processing unit, my memory, my storage, my GPUs, all in the same box. What is the thing in that box that I want to take advantage of as new innovation happens, versus that which is happening over a slower evolutionary cycle? Well, right now, if I put everything in the same compute unit. Go back to my cost of taking that box out of the rack. I'm pretty much limited by the slowest innovation curve within that platform. Now as what I can take advantage over time. Interestingly, GPUs are innovating currently at a clip of about once a year. Nvidia comes out the new generation of GPUs once a year, but now we're getting more GPUs into the market. We're getting much more diversity, and that diversity means I'll have more options more often. But if my compute system itself is only innovating once every three years to your point, then if I don't decouple these things, if I don't have the ability to separate these innovations. Curves. I'm always stuck with the slowest innovation curve. One of the things we've done at serial with the fabric we've built and the platform we've built is to allow you now to, if you like, dislocate those innovation curves and those options, so as new technology comes along, I can apply it to the things that are innovating slower and still get the outcomes I'm looking for. And that will significantly increase the existing lifespan of equipment that's in people's data centre.   Trevor Freeman  35:26 So, looking at a data centre of the future, and not, you know, not far into the future, let's say 5-10, years from now, are we seeing some of the same technology still exist within that data centre, or is it, you know, everything gets cycled out within like, what's the generation of a data centre, for example? Like, how often, or how soon will we see it all cycle out?   Phil Harris  35:48 I think you there's a there's a technical answer to that, and the financial answer to that. The depreciation model, so that the capital infrastructure can be written off people's books over a three or five year window is very typical. So we see that there's just a financial inhibition to changing more or faster than that three to five year window. The technical churn, as I said, is happening much more rapidly in the technologies that are drawing most power but providing most capability. So one of the things that we're looking at is how companies now start leasing infrastructure, because if they lease the infrastructure, they can now recycle that and bring new technology in faster into their organizations. But to do that, you've got to have the ability to bring new technology in and not be stuck with these static systems that we have today. So there's a set of financial instruments, and now with work that Cerio is doing, technical capabilities that allow customers to really continue to innovate. So there's no real, hey, it's going to be all churned out in three years. I'll continue to innovate over those three years, reciting the technology that can stay where it is and bringing new technologies as it becomes available at the right financial model.   Trevor Freeman  36:56 I'm curious about what that innovation is. So you talked about Nvidia, kind of essentially a new GPU every year. There's a new version every year. What is the innovation? Are they just is it getting faster and more compute power, and therefore it's pulling more energy? And is that just like a perpetual increase, or is it kind of same compute power, less energy, like, do we ever see, I guess what I'm what I'm getting at with this little bit of a ramble here is, do we ever see that that rate of change in energy usage start to flatten out and come down while we still can grow our computing power? Or does energy usage just continue to grow? Like, are we on a bit of a path with no end right now,   Phil Harris  37:44 History taught us a little bit about this. Gordon Moore, who was one of the founders of Intel actually, we had this term called Moore's Law, and Moore's Law was basically this idea that every 18 months we'll double the number of transistors on a piece of silicon. Now, for those in the computer science world, we understand what that means. For the rest of the world, the Trans World. The transistor is the smallest unit of technology within the computer. It's the basic building block of how we build computers. The central processing is all the GPUs. They all come down to taking literally silicon and in a foundry, we call them, figuring out how to make as many transistors interconnect with each other in a in a smaller area as possible, or the most amount of transistors we can. So a bit of a geeky answer to your question. But the way that we look at how each innovation improves is, are we increasing the number of transistors, which means we can do more math? Remember, all we're doing is processing numbers.   Trevor Freeman  38:41 Per unit, per physical unit, right?   Phil Harris  38:43 Per physical unit.   Trevor Freeman  38:44 Okay.   Phil Harris  38:45 And the way we do that is in these big foundries that process all this silicon into these components. They have, what are called process nodes and the and literally how we etch a transistor, it's called lithography onto a piece of silicon. Tells us the power of that piece of silicon and the more I can etch. So we get into what we call the nanometer scale, or what we call a process node. So every time, if you really look into the spec sheets of Nvidia, every generation, they'll talk about how many nanometers their silicon process is based on. Because the smaller I can get that number, the more transistors I can have on the same amount of silicon, the more processing I have, but every transistor takes power. So with more transistors, I require more power, even though in the same physical space, it looks like the same amount of silicon. Therefore, your question was a great one. Do we ever get to zero nanometers? Well, no, we're going to hit a wall here eventually. So then the question is, that's the scale up model. Try and make one thing as big as possible. How about if we make lots of things powerful, but we have more of them in China, the last year, we heard of deep seek. Deep seek was a Chinese government sponsored effort to try and come up with a. Much more cost effective way of doing the equivalent to ChatGPT. They didn't do that with bigger GPUs. They did it with much smaller GPUs, but many more of them. And that comes back to how efficient I am in deploying lots of things together. And that goes back to my earlier point about we start with scale up. Inevitably, in the industry, we go to scale out.   Trevor Freeman  40:22 And is it fair to say that the power usage per transistor, is that fairly static? Like, is there efficiencies to gain there? Or your GPU is going to use more power because you're packing more transistors into it, and once you hit that wall, that's going to be the power consumption level, is that, right?   Phil Harris  40:43 Well, this is the games that these silicon manufacturers, like Intel, AMD, Nvidia, they're all trying to figure out how to sort of figure out new and interesting ways of packaging all of the silicon in these processing units. And we've got a whole industry and science around the packaging mechanism to make those tiles, and that we now think of them as little tiles of processing power, and some that will be doing very specific jobs. Some will be doing very general jobs. It's now getting to the point where the science around the packaging of these dyes or these tiles is as much as the of the of the innovation, as the actual tiles and the processing on them. So it's an extremely complex technical problem, and we are hitting some walls here, which is why I go back to my earlier point. We're now reaching a point where is it just a technical problem we're solving, or a technical, operational and commercial problem we have to think about? And this is that wall that wall that you asked me about right at the beginning of this conversation. Are we about to hit a wall? And the answer is, yes.   Trevor Freeman  41:46 Interesting. I mean, I'm always fascinated by like, what are the what are the really smart people in the industry focusing their time on? And it's so that's why we're talking to you. Of you know, you're looking at, how do we operationalize this. How do we get the most efficient combination and structure of what we're doing here? There's folks that are looking at, how do we pack the most computing power efficiency into these specific units? I guess there's an aspect of, how do we cool this in the in the most effective way, like, what's, how do we, you know, drive down the cooling power needed? What else is out there, in terms of, like, we have smart people focused on this efficiency. What's the thing that's missing from that, that sort of list?   Phil Harris  42:36 Well, I think maybe what's going on right now. And if I could just add a, unfortunately, just one more layer of complexity.  Remember said we were processing silicon? Well, the Earth's got lots of silicon, but we don't have lots of places to process that silicon. The companies that are formed to process silicon into these processing units, we call them foundries. The world's largest is TSMC, based in Taiwan. And then we have Intel, we have Samsung, we have a few others around the world. Global Foundry is another one. There is a limit, physical limit, because these foundries are huge and they take decades of development and optimization. So if we start breaking ground on a new foundry tomorrow, we'll see output in about five years. So we have a constrained supply. So if I'm if I'm Jensen at Nvidia or any of the big silicon manufacturers, I'm going to optimize that relatively constrained supply to where I'm going to get the best return on my investment. And that's why this scale up model is happening. So given that we know that we won't have any more foundry capacity of scale for another couple of years, at least, then the reality is we've got to think differently about how we're thinking about the processing of that silicon. Do I want just ever bigger processes that become more expensive, more limited in where I can deploy them. And quite frankly, the top 15 consumers in the world of silicon consume about 80% of that silicon, if not more. How do I democratize that? Again, it goes from scale up to a scale out model, where I can use that same processing capacity to produce more silicon.   Trevor Freeman  44:20 Fascinating. Yeah, I just, I took us down a little bit of a nerd out path. You had me really interested in that. Okay, so last question here, we hear this term for a bunch of different reasons. Around the world right now we're hearing this term democratizing, happening a lot, and I know you've talked about democratizing, AI, what does that mean? What does that mean to you, or describe that for us?   Phil Harris  44:48 Yeah, I think it really means. Going back to my last point about if 15 big consumers of silicon are going to consume the vast majority of verbal supply chain, that makes the. At a losing proposition for the rest of the organizations and the rest of the governments and the rest of the individuals on the planet. So how do we make sure that AI can be built both responsibly from a sustainability perspective, right? And I don't mean just the ecological side, but that's important here too, but also from the ability to I was on a panel yesterday between the UK Government and the Canadian government, where we're looking at how do countries around the world have the ability to control their own destiny? And there's this whole notion of sovereignty and AI sovereignty right now that isn't because people want to have closed walls around them, that you want to have choice. They don't want to be dictated to by very dominant players where they, quite frankly, don't have the buying power to compete. You know that the amount of capital going into some of the AI companies, we saw $30 billion going into anthropic last week. That's actually a small increase in their capitalization relative to the other big AI players on the planet. That's $30 billion so we've got to think to ourselves, is that a sustainable model commercially? And the answer is no. So we've got to have technology. We've got to have the right ability to deliver power. We've got to have the right designs of data centres that can keep them cooled in an effective and efficient and responsible way. And we've got to be able to give them enough power to make them viable, to make them useful. That's the democratization we all have to be focused on.   Trevor Freeman  46:25 And we need every, I guess, to sort of round of the point is we need everybody to be able, everybody being, you know, whatever, major industry, countries, whoever, to be able to access that equally, so that we don't have to rely on the major players out there in order to do those things you just said, gotcha.   Phil Harris  46:41 That's exactly right. And look, there'll always be a pyramid here. There always has been a technology. There's always still the big players, right? But the question is, have the big players the stifled out the ability for smaller players to come up, innovate, provide choice, provide alternative ways of looking at things, and that's what got to make sure that we keep the and this always relies on some new technology coming along that enables that. Sarah believes that we've created that next layer in the stack, if you like, of technologies that gives us that opportunity to rethink the innovation curve going forward.   Trevor Freeman  47:14 Very fascinating. Phil, thanks for your time. I really appreciate it. This has been super interesting. It's not an area that I often get to spend my time thinking about so is great to chat today. As as you know, we always kind of round out our interviews with the same series of questions to our guests. So what's a book that you've read that you think everybody should read?   Phil Harris  47:34 Well, I'm not sure I can recommend this for everybody. One of the people who basically, along the lines of some of the things I've been talking about today, who revolutionized the computer world was a gentleman by the name of Linus Torvald in Helsinki in Finland. At the time, he's now based in the States, he realized that there was a dominance around how the operating systems on computers, the things that run the software, was limiting, basically, innovation choice and forcing us down a very closed path. So he wrote something called Linux, which was a new operating system. So be on your phone, your TV, your microwave that's running Linux today. Interesting because there wasn't an operating system that we could then generally deploy. That meant there was more developers had the ability to write applications, more hardware vendors could now have software they could run on their on their platforms. He gave the world a new innovation curve. And every time this happens to my last point, good things happen. Very good things happen for the world, for every individual on the planet. And Linus was one of those individuals who saw that need. And so his book, just for fun, and he's a very quirky guy, as you can probably imagine, is a great book about his philosophical approach to what it takes to change really big problems. And I would encourage all of you just to even just read the first few chapters. It's a fascinating view of how an incredibly smart man, smart individual took on probably one of the biggest problems we had in the 20th and 21st Century of computing, and solved it by recognizing you take a different path.   Trevor Freeman  49:11 Yeah, very cool.   Phil Harris  49:12 As far as shows, um, I don't know. I'm one of these guys. I've got two 13 year old daughters. So my wife and I get to watch TV for a very limited amount of time where we can watch it, about the things we want to watch, so we tend to sort of cram things in. But I'm a huge Aaron Sorkin fan, so if I ever need something on a rainy day to go back just to think about how the world could be, I watch the West Wing. It's a show that's imaginary. It's got incredible script writing, it's got incredible character development, but it really talks about how to think about doing the right thing as well. Now, whether you agree with the politics or not, that's a different question, but just the thought that smart thinking solves big problems, again, sort of It's a bit like the Linus Torvald book. It just speaks to me about sometimes we can solve big problems. With individuals or people who just had the right way of thinking about things.   Trevor Freeman  50:00 Yeah, I think that's the kind of, you know, call it entertainment, because it is entertainment, but it's the entertainment that sticks with you, and that we go back to time and again, is the ones that we can also, like, see the the underlying philosophy, or, you know, theory of change that goes into that entertainment. And it's, it's fun to watch. It's, you know, either humorous or dramatic or whatever, but there's still that underlying message. And I think, yeah, West Wing is a great example of of that. There's a handful of those other sort of classic shows that are in that line too. A free round trip flight anywhere in the world. Where would you go?   Phil Harris  50:40 This is hard. My wife and I were talking about this the other day, and I've had the luxury of traveling just about everywhere. I think there's 15 countries on the planet I haven't been to, but if I ever want to go to one place is Bali. And there's two reasons. One, my wife and I went there for a honeymoon, and it was the beginning of the most important chapter of my life by far. And secondly, it's because it has that balance of everything. It's I love to scuba dive. I love the rainforests, the jungle, the architecture, the people, the food. It just brings everything into one package for me. And so it just again. It's those things that sort of speak to you emotionally and also intellectually. It's one of those things that I could always go back too.   Trevor Freeman  51:26 Fantastic. Who is someone that you admire?   Phil Harris  51:29 In history or today?   Trevor Freeman  51:32 You pick, anything.   Phil Harris  51:33 that's fascinating. I think historically it's under Brit it's hard not to go back to some of my forebears, or my country's forebears, Alan Turing, who, against all adversity, social, political, technical, came up with an inspirational way of thinking about solving what are deemed to be unsolvable. And again, it's a tragic story. I think we've all, if you see the movie that was made about his life, it's a very tragic story, but it's an inspirational story about how, again, if you just take a different approach to solving what seems to be an unsolvable problem, you can you get smart people together. Doesn't have to be a big army of people. I think so. Turing is one of those people that always comes back for me t think, wow, if I could have just some of his courage and some of his imagination and some of his intellect, I'd be a very happy person.   Trevor Freeman  52:29 Yeah, and it's almost, I mean, obviously, a brilliant man, but it's the willing to think in a different way, or willing to approach a problem in a different way that I mean, there's a long list in history of major turning points that are as a result of someone thinking in a different way or doing something in a different way. And I think that's a great example of it.   Phil Harris  52:49 Just about the entire course of human life are in the midpoint of the 20th century, change on that, that man's inspiration, that man's imagination.   Trevor Freeman  52:57 Yeah, and that's, that's not an understatement. That's fantastic. Okay, last question, what's something about, kind of the energy sector, or, you know, your sector that that you're really excited about, or something that you see in the future that you're really excited about?   Phil Harris  53:09 Actually, I see it now, to be honest, there are things in the future. Hey, I have two 13 year old kids. I want to have a sustainable ecology and world environment for them to live in and bring their own families up in. And I think about how we can use power more efficiently, but how we can make it look sustainability is important. I want to see renewable, sustainable energy for the general world as a thesis right now. It's how we can be much more efficient in the use of power and the right power delivery. And I think, as I said, I gave the think on example, that's incredibly exciting, because now, if we can do that at scale, that's an opportunity to do that democratization that I spoke about. So when I think about the things that really excited me about the data centre world, the world I live in, actually that power generation and power availability in a clean, effective, well managed fashion is exactly what we need right now, while the rest of us are solving these transistor problems.   Trevor Freeman  54:04 Yeah, it's, I mean, our listeners are probably going to roll their eyes, because I say this all the time, but one of the things that excites me the most is seeing like we're in a period of change, and that's a really exciting time to be working in this and I kind of hear that from you in your sector as well, and I see it in mine, in the energy sector of we're actually getting to see some of this innovation, some of these like leaps and bounds forward. That's not to say there aren't still problems. It's not to say there aren't steps backwards as well. But it's very cool to be working on this in a time when we're seeing that change, and that's kind of what I'm hearing from you as well. Indeed. Awesome. Phil, thanks so much for your time. I really appreciate it. This has been great. Chatting with you.   Phil Harris  54:42 Trevor, the pleasure is all mine. Thank you.   Trevor Freeman  54:44 Fantastic. Take care.   Phil Harris  54:46 Take care.   Trevor Freeman  54:47 Thanks for tuning in to another episode of the thinkenergy podcast. Don't forget to subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts, and it would be great if you could leave us a review. It really helps to spread the word. As always, we would love to hear from you whether. Feedback, comments or an idea for a show or a guest, you can always reach us at thinkenerg@hydroottawa.com.

Join me on the couch in Molly Bloom's hotel room at the Four Seasons in downtown Toronto.  Molly began her career as a world-class skier, but while training as a pre-teen was diagnosed with severe scoliosis. Her doctor told her she could never ski again, but even as a pre-teen Molly had incredible strength of mind and she ended up back on the slopes only a year after her surgery.    By age 21, she was ranked #3 in North America. She then took off to LA and began running one of the most exclusive, high-stakes, underground poker games in the world, featuring players like Alex Rodriguez, Tobey Maguire, Leonardo DiCaprio, Ben Affleck, and was raking in millions of dollars per year. Then what happened? The feds went after her! The mafia went after her! And there was a dramatic takedown. While awaiting sentencing, she wrote her life's story in her memoir, Molly's Game. That book became a bestseller and was turned into a movie written and directed by Aaron Sorkin, writer of The West Wing and The Social Network, starring Jessica Chastain (as Molly), Idris Elba, and Kevin Costner.   Molly has been featured on Ellen, NPR, LA Times, VICE, and many more. But beneath the surface is a story that, as she says in this chapter, has never been shared before.    There was a journey happening inside Molly that forced her to look at the downsides of her ambition and addictive personality.    So get into something comfy, grab a seat between us, and let's talk about life altering public defeat, how a memoir transforms into an action-packed Hollywood feature, the liberty in losing everything, finding the 'monetizable asset' in your life, and Molly's 3 most formative books.    Let's flip the page back to Chapter 42 now....

For the past seven decades, Tim Matheson has been an on-screen favorite in Hollywood. In his new memoir, 'Damn Glad to Meet You: My Seven Decades in the Hollywood Trenches,' Matheson looks behind-the-scenes of his illustrious career and reveals what it was like to learn from and work alongside the greats, including Lucille Ball, Dick Van Dyke, Steven Spielberg, and Aaron Sorkin. Also 'Virgin River' has its 7th season out now on Netflix.

Finishing our examination of Rob Reiner, we close out the series with the classic legal drama A Few Good Men (1992). Written by Aaron Sorkin, the film carries the sincerity and passion for America you'd expect, along with some of the trademark cheesiness he's known for—but by the end, it's impossible not to love. Jack Nicholson steals the show with a villainous performance, and it all builds to an unforgettable final scene. We hope you've enjoyed our series exploring the films of Rob Reiner!   Cinema Spectator is a movie podcast hosted by Isaac Ransom, Juzo Greenwood, and Cameron Tuttle. The show is executive-produced by Darrin O'Neill and recorded and produced in the San Francisco Bay Area, CA. You can support the show at patreon.com/ecfsproductions. Follow us on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter @cinemaspectatorpodcast. Isaac and Cameron began recording podcasts with their first project, Everything Comes from Something (2018), and are now focusing on new weekly content for Cinema Spectator. Cameron Tuttle is a full-time professional cinematographer who majored in film at SFSU and collaborates on corporate, private, and creative productions. Cameron is the expert. Isaac Ransom works full-time as a marketing leader with creative experience in brand, advertising, product, music, and film. Isaac is the casual. Juzo is a producer, director, and avid film enthusiast who knows everything about cinema. The podcast is a passion project by three longtime friends; we hope you enjoy it! Thank you for your time, generosity, and support.

They say the first ten words in a political debate can kill you. They are the tip of the spear. But it's the next 10-15 words that really matter, because they tell you HOW we're going to get things done. These are the next 15 words on AI.   Hello everyone and welcome to episode 226 of the Resilient Journey Podcast, presented by Anesis Consulting Group!   This week we are joined by Sarah Mohrle, an AI expert who has been in the software engineering world for 25 years. Sarah tells Mark that too many companies are going about AI deployment in the wrong way. They are looking at the tools they want to use BEFORE looking at the business problem they're trying to solve. She talks about the importance of the quality of our data and what tools are ethical. The bottom line for Sarah, and for us as resilience professionals, is to make sure our executives walk into the debate fully prepared.   Be sure to follow The Resilient Journey!  We sure do appreciate it! Check out the Resilient Journey Hub!   Want to learn more about Mark? Click here or on LinkedIn. Special thanks to Bensound for the music.     We want to offer a tip of the cap to Aaron Sorkin and The West Wing for the inspiration for this week's episode.

Bradley Whitford, a classically trained stage actor, gained fame as “Josh Lyman,” on NBC's 'The West Wing,' which earned him his first Emmy award in 2001. He went on to win Emmys in 2015 and 2019 for his work in 'Transparent' and 'The Handmaid's Tale' and is grateful to have had the opportunity last year to direct the show's fifth season penultimate episode, “Allegiance.” He is currently filming “The Diplomat” alongside his West Wing co- star, Allison Janney. Whitford appeared in AMC's limited series 'Parish' alongside Giancarlo Esposito, a drama about a taxi driver whose life is upended after picking up a Zimbabwean gangster. He also starred in the independent film 'I'll Be Right' There with Edie Falco and completed work on Netflix's limited series 'The Madness,' opposite Colman Domingo. He is also known for his work in the Oscar-nominated films 'Get Out,' 'The Post,' 'Scent of a Woman,' and Lin-Manuel Miranda's 'tick, tick… BOOM!' Whitford also produced the documentary, 'Not Going Quietly,' about the life of progressive activist Ady Barkan. Other notable film credits include Warner Bros' 'Godzilla: King of the Monsters,' Disney's 'Saving Mr. Banks,' and HBO's Lyndon B. Johnson biopic, 'All The Way,' among many others.  TV credits include Apple TV+'s 'Echo 3,' NBC's 'Perfect Harmony,' which he executive produced and starred in; FOX/Netflix's 'Brookline Nine-Nine,' Showtime's 'Happy-ish,' ABC's 'Trophy Wife,' CBS' 'The Mentalist,' FOX's 'The Good Guys,' and NBC's 'Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,' among others. Growing up in Wisconsin, Whitford studied theater and English literature at Wesleyan University and attended the Juilliard Theater Center. He has appeared on Broadway in Aaron Sorkin's 'A Few Good Men' and in 'Boeing, Boeing' with Mark Rylance. Off-Broadway credits include 'Curse of the Starving Class,' 'Measure for Measure' at Lincoln Center, and 'Three Days of Rain' at Manhattan Theatre Club. Regional credits include the title role in 'Coriolanus' at the Folger Shakespeare Theatre in Washington, D.C., and Oberon and Theseus in 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' at Hartford Stage. In 2021, Whitford starred in the Old Vic's production of 'A Christmas Carol' at the Ahmanson in Los Angeles as “Ebenezer Scrooge.” Also at the Ahmanson, in 2023, Whitford recently played the scene-stealing “Narrator” in the hit farce 'Peter Pan Goes Wrong.' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this bonus episode, Rob Henderson and I discussed the legacy of Aaron Sorkin, and the end of the political era that his work represented.Discussed in the episode:Sorkin interviewed on the BBC.Rob's NYT piece on The West Wing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

2025 ended with a real gut punch for us film lovers - the sudden and shocking death of Rob Reiner, alongside his wife Michele Singer.  This week, Emilio, Julian and Madeline welcome back friend of the pod and musician extraordinaire Matt Friedman to the table to talk about Reiner and his legacy as one of the most beloved and important American filmmakers of the last forty years.  The group discusses some of the famous individual scenes he helmed, unforgettable performances, Reiner's standout moments as an actor, the films of his that are  most personally resonant, and much more.You can check out Matt's incredible band, and see where he is playing next, by visiting their website: https://stilettobandnyc.com/You can also follow Matt and the band on Instagram @stilettobandnycIf you enjoy our podcast, please rate and review us on your podcast platform of choice. This really helps us find new listeners and grow!Follow us on YouTube, IG and TikTok: @sleeplesscinematicpodSend us an email at sleeplesscinematicpod@gmail.comOn Letterboxd? Follow Julian at julian_barthold and Madeline at patronessofcats

Season 2 of Sports Night finds Aaron Sorkin's cult newsroom dramedy hitting its creative stride. Airing in 1999–2000 on ABC, the sophomore season deepens the tension between idealism and network interference as Casey McCall (Peter Krause) and Dan Rydell (Josh Charles) fight to preserve the integrity of their late-night highlight show. Felicity Huffman's Dana Whitaker continues to anchor the chaos as executive producer, balancing corporate pressure from the network's new ownership with loyalty to her staff.Behind the scenes, Sorkin pushed harder into serialized storytelling, moving away from the early laugh-track experiment and leaning into walk-and-talk dialogue, romantic entanglements, and ethical dilemmas about ratings, loyalty, and creative control. The season sharpens its critique of media consolidation while giving emotional weight to character arcs—especially Dana's authority, Natalie's growth, and Jeremy's insecurity. Smart, fast, and surprisingly heartfelt, Season 2 cements Sports Night as the blueprint for Sorkin's later triumphs.Disclaimer: The following may contain offensive language, adult humor, and/or content that some viewers may find offensive – The views and opinions expressed by any one speaker does not explicitly or necessarily reflect or represent those of Mark Radulich or W2M Network.Mark Radulich and his wacky podcast on all the things:https://linktr.ee/markkind76alsohttps://www.teepublic.com/user/radulich-in-broadcasting-networkFB Messenger: Mark Radulich LCSWTiktok: @markradulichtwitter: @MarkRadulichInstagram: markkind76RIBN Album Playlist: https://suno.com/playlist/91d704c9-d1ea-45a0-9ffe-5069497bad59 

The 1960 novel “To Kill a Mockingbird” became an American classic.    The 1962 film adaptation earned 8 Oscar nominations, 3 wins, and Atticus Finch the #1 spot on AFI's 2003 list of greatest movie heroes.   And the Pulitzer Prize awarded to Harper Lee is believed to be one factor behind her failed friendship with Truman Capote.   In this fascinating podcast, we discuss the legacy of Harper Lee's “To Kill a Mockingbird,” and trace the long journey of this classic work.    What elements of Harper Lee's own life are reflected in “To Kill a Mockingbird”? What does Mary Badham, who played Scout, consider her favorite memory from filming? What role did Harper Lee play in creating Truman Capote's book “In Cold Blood,” and what caused the long-time friends to drift apart? And why has Aaron Sorkin's adaptation of “To Kill a Mockingbird” for Broadway been referred to as a ‘rethink'?   We discuss all this and more!   Thank you to Scamanda creator/investigator Nancy Moscatiello for her shout-out at the top of the episode! Be sure to check out the podcast Scamanda, available everywhere podcasts are found, along with the docuseries of the same name, exclusively on Hulu. Our coverage of the case can be found in Episodes 198, 199, 205, and 206 (September & November 2025)!   How to support Scandal Water: Rate, review, and subscribe! Follow the show on your favorite app or Scandal Water Podcast YouTube channel.  Send your shoutouts to scandalwaterpodcast@gmail.com. Become a member on patreon.com/ScandalWaterPodcast or buymeacoffee.com/scandalwaterpod – which will also grant you access to fabulous bonus content! #OrderintheCourt #JuryDuty #Courtroom #ToKillaMockingbird #HarperLee #TrumanCapote #GregoryPeck #AtticusFinch #Scout #MaryBadham #InColdBlood #AcademyAward #Oscars #PulitzerPrize #JohnGrisham #BestSeller #NewYorkTimesBestSeller #ATimetoKill #TheFirm #Writer #AFewGoodMen #Film #Movies #Podcast #February 

Gene Sperling — the only person to serve as Director of the National Economic Council under two presidents (Clinton and Obama), a senior advisor to President Biden who oversaw the American Rescue Plan, and a consultant and co-writer on NBC's The West Wing — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a wide-ranging conversation. Sperling shares the wild story of how he ended up in Santa Monica, his brush with Aaron Sorkin's legal troubles, and his insider take on how real Washington compares to its fictional portrayals. The conversation then turns to Sperling's deep expertise on the economy, from his defense of the Biden administration's "soft landing" amid global post-Covid inflation to the political lessons of how rising prices have sunk presidencies on both sides of the aisle — including Biden's own re-election bid. The back half of the episode looks squarely at the future. Sperling, who says he's unlikely to serve in another Democratic administration, offers a forceful argument about what comes next: the rising threat of unchecked corporate and tech power, the urgent need for AI policy that puts working people first, and the lessons of globalization that policymakers can't afford to repeat. Drawing on themes from his book Economic Dignity, he makes the case that Americans are hungry for leaders who pair optimism with a real confrontation of economic injustice — and warns that a handful of AI and crypto companies, flush with lobbying dollars, could end up shaping the structure of the economy if left unchallenged. Get your wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with Quince. Don't wait! Go to https://Quince.com/CHUCK for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Gene Sperling joins the Chuck Toddcast 02:00 The wild story of how Gene ended up in Santa Monica 03:15 Aaron Sorkin couldn’t meet with Gene due to legal trouble 06:15 Real politics/news look nothing like “West Wing” or “The Newsroom” 07:30 The one truism about the West Wing is good people trying to do good 09:15 Politics is NOT like House of Cards 10:45 West Wing still remains viable, any chance of a reboot? 12:00 What’s the state of the economy? What do you look for? 12:45 Biden economy was strong growth, but high inflation 13:30 Biden achieved the “soft landing” they were trying for 14:45 Inflation was global and mostly due to Covid supply chain shocks 16:15 The American Rescue Plan had many positive effects 17:15 Every head of state poured money into economies during Covid 18:15 Covid was going to result in either inflation or recession 20:00 Obama couldn’t pass enough stimulus during Great Recession 21:00 A little extra stimulus can help offset future unknowns 21:45 Millennials’ future was permanently damaged by Great Recession 23:00 A generation had never seen high inflation until Covid 24:00 Anger over inflation sunk Biden’s re-election 25:00 Inflation is bipartisan, took down 3 different presidents 26:00 Inflation affects everyone, jobs & unemployment don’t 27:15 Every head of state suffered politically post pandemic 29:15 Will Biden baggage sink Pete Buttigieg, or is that overstated? 31:00 Biden’s conflict was empathy for suffering vs touting achievements 33:15 Biden had the tiniest of margins to pass major legislation 34:30 Gene is unlikely to work in a future Democratic administration 35:15 Pitchforks are being sharpened for corporations and big tech 36:00 Will worker rage fuel the next election? 37:00 Presidents that do well offer optimism, but confront economic injustice 38:30 People don’t want to feel like they are being extracted for profits 40:30 AI growth can’t come at the expense of working people 42:00 AI policy should be shaped around improving conditions for people 43:15 What lessons from globalization can be used to alleviate AI disruption? 45:00 Clinton believed in robust response to globalization 46:00 Clinton couldn’t implement strong safety net after losing congress 47:45 You have to have policies where people don’t feel left behind 49:30 We need to create and fund jobs that create dignity 50:15 We need to create an economic dignity floor for all Americans 52:15 When is a company too big to regulate? 54:30 If companies are disproportionately determining policies, they’re too big 55:15 Crypto & AI are getting what they want from huge lobbying money 56:00 A handful of AI companies could determine structure of the economy 58:15 The Trump White House has invited corporate influenceSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chuck Todd takes a hard look at the state of American governance and institutional trust — or the lack of it. He starts by reflecting on the historical significance of three consecutive one-term presidents, ranking his top five most underrated commanders-in-chief and arguing that both Biden and Trump are unlikely to be viewed as consequential a century from now. From there, Todd pivots to a searing indictment of the current moment: from the Epstein reckoning exposing the government's inability to tell the truth, to DHS being treated as a political plaything by Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski, to the DOD endangering lives in the El Paso FAA incident with zero accountability, to Moderna alleging that HHS refused to even review an mRNA flu vaccine under RFK Jr.'s watch. He connects the dots across a pattern of institutional dishonesty — a Justice Department focused on narrative management, masked ICE agents no one can justify, a fired antitrust chief clearing the way for powerful interests, and a "hostage system" style of governing that holds federal paychecks as leverage — making the case that when the government lies this often, it forfeits the benefit of the doubt on everything, and that the Epstein scandal isn't just a story about one man, but a mirror reflecting a system designed to protect the powerful. Then, Gene Sperling — the only person to serve as Director of the National Economic Council under two presidents (Clinton and Obama), a senior advisor to President Biden who oversaw the American Rescue Plan, and a consultant and co-writer on NBC's The West Wing — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a wide-ranging conversation. Sperling shares the wild story of how he ended up in Santa Monica, his brush with Aaron Sorkin's legal troubles, and his insider take on how real Washington compares to its fictional portrayals. The conversation then turns to Sperling's deep expertise on the economy, from his defense of the Biden administration's "soft landing" amid global post-Covid inflation to the political lessons of how rising prices have sunk presidencies on both sides of the aisle — including Biden's own re-election bid. The back half of the episode looks squarely at the future. Sperling, who says he's unlikely to serve in another Democratic administration, offers a forceful argument about what comes next: the rising threat of unchecked corporate and tech power, the urgent need for AI policy that puts working people first, and the lessons of globalization that policymakers can't afford to repeat. Drawing on themes from his book Economic Dignity, he makes the case that Americans are hungry for leaders who pair optimism with a real confrontation of economic injustice — and warns that a handful of AI and crypto companies, flush with lobbying dollars, could end up shaping the structure of the economy if left unchallenged. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit the publishing of the Communist Manifesto and argues that while its critiques of the excesses of capitalism were correct… it’s revolutionary prescriptions led to the worst authoritarian states in modern history. He also answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Get your wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with Quince. Don't wait! Go to https://Quince.com/CHUCK for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 03:30 We’ve had 3 straight one term presidents, deem them all failures 04:45 Inability to win reelection will always be seen as an asterisk 05:45 Top 5 most underrated presidents 06:00 James Polk was the only voluntary one term president 06:45 James Garfield was a fierce advocate for civil rights 07:30 George H.W. Bush was accomplished, but not a good politician 08:30 John Quincy Adams laid out modern American infrastructure 09:00 Jimmy Carter did many things that have aged well 10:15 In 100 years, Biden & Trump likely won’t be viewed as consequential 11:45 Biden & Trump can’t be evaluated fairly for many years 12:30 What does a real reckoning look like in the Trump era? 13:45 The institution least capable of reckoning with Epstein is the government 14:15 The private sector is forcing accountability, the government isn’t 15:15 Trust is the currency of government, and Trump’s doesn’t have it 16:15 The Justice Department is only worried about narrative management 17:30 The system looks like a club, designed to protect the powerful 18:45 Epstein is a test of whether the government can tell the truth 20:00 DHS shutting down, politicians using paychecks as leverage 20:30 We a governing via a “hostage system” 21:45 There isn’t a single good argument for masking ICE agents 22:15 The Democrats’ demands are not extreme, they’re common sense 23:15 Noem & Lewandowski treating DHS like their personal plaything 24:00 Pattern of government saying one thing, facts saying another 25:15 Whatever Noem says first, you can’t believe it. She gaslights the public 26:00 The government has lied too many times, gets no benefit of the doubt 26:45 El Paso FAA incident is case study for public distrusting institutions 27:45 DoD was lying to the FAA, FAA pulled the emergency brakes 29:00 DoD put lives in danger with no accountability 29:30 Moderna says HHS refused to review MRNA flu vaccine 30:15 The U.S. is not a stable country to develop & release products 31:00 Kennedy only offers crackpot theories & totally unfit for office 32:00 We can’t trust the government to tell us the truth about anything 32:30 DOJ fired antitrust chief, powerful interests get what they want 34:00 Epstein isn’t just a scandal, it’s a mirror 43:30 Gene Sperling joins the Chuck Toddcast 45:30 The wild story of how Gene ended up in Santa Monica 46:45 Aaron Sorkin couldn’t meet with Gene due to legal trouble 49:45 Real politics/news look nothing like “West Wing” or “The Newsroom” 51:00 The one truism about the West Wing is good people trying to do good 52:45 Politics is NOT like House of Cards 54:15 West Wing still remains viable, any chance of a reboot? 55:30 What’s the state of the economy? What do you look for? 56:15 Biden economy was strong growth, but high inflation 57:00 Biden achieved the “soft landing” they were trying for 58:15 Inflation was global and mostly due to Covid supply chain shocks 59:45 The American Rescue Plan had many positive effects 1:00:45 Every head of state poured money into economies during Covid 1:01:45 Covid was going to result in either inflation or recession 1:03:30 Obama couldn’t pass enough stimulus during Great Recession 1:04:30 A little extra stimulus can help offset future unknowns 1:05:15 Millennials’ future was permanently damaged by Great Recession 1:06:30 A generation had never seen high inflation until Covid 1:07:30 Anger over inflation sunk Biden’s re-election 1:08:30 Inflation is bipartisan, took down 3 different presidents 1:09:30 Inflation affects everyone, jobs & unemployment don’t 1:10:45 Every head of state suffered politically post pandemic 1:12:45 Will Biden baggage sink Pete Buttigieg, or is that overstated? 1:14:30 Biden’s conflict was empathy for suffering vs touting achievements 1:16:45 Biden had the tiniest of margins to pass major legislation 1:18:00 Gene is unlikely to work in a future Democratic administration 1:18:45 Pitchforks are being sharpened for corporations and big tech 1:19:30 Will worker rage fuel the next election? 1:20:30 Presidents that do well offer optimism, but confront economic injustice 1:22:00 People don’t want to feel like they are being extracted for profits 1:24:00 AI growth can’t come at the expense of working people 1:25:30 AI policy should be shaped around improving conditions for people 1:26:45 What lessons from globalization can be used to alleviate AI disruption? 1:28:30 Clinton believed in robust response to globalization 1:29:30 Clinton couldn’t implement strong safety net after losing congress 1:31:15 You have to have policies where people don’t feel left behind 1:33:00 We need to create and fund jobs that create dignity 1:33:45 We need to create an economic dignity floor for all Americans 1:35:45 When is a company too big to regulate? 1:38:00 If companies are disproportionately determining policies, they’re too big 1:38:45 Crypto & AI are getting what they want from huge lobbying money 1:39:30 A handful of AI companies could determine structure of the economy 1:41:45 The Trump White House has invited corporate influence 1:49:45 What if Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie ran on “accountability” ticket 1:51:00 A bipartisan ticket of “pox on both their houses” could be powerful 1:51:45 ToddCast Time Machine February 21st, 1848 1:52:00 Marx & Engels publish the communist manifesto 1:52:45 Monarchies were colliding with modern economic forces 1:54:15 Marx argued that capitalism is destabilizing if left unchecked 1:55:15 If the manifesto was called something else, how would we view it? 1:55:45 Marx doesn’t argue reform, says that capitalism will destroy itself 1:56:30 Communist states didn’t emerge until decades after manifesto 1:57:15 Manifesto gave dictators arguments to grab power 1:58:00 Marx talked in economics, dictators exploited his language 1:59:30 Communism took hold in places where industrialization fell behind 2:00:15 Manifesto gets invoked badly by both sides in American politics 2:01:00 Marx’s diagnosis was spot on, his solutions were questionable 2:02:30 Lack of regulation for AI will push people to radicalism 2:03:00 Ask Chuck 2:03:15 Does something seem off with the administration’s economic numbers? 2:07:30 Do we need a punchier title than “Gate” for political scandals? 2:10:00 Do we need to withhold congressional salaries during shutdowns? 2:14:00 Missing intellectuals like Rahm Emmanuel leading the country 2:16:00 What is the criteria for impeachment of cabinet members? 2:18:45 Favorite football/baseball players as a kid?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For our next President in our Good Presidents month, we hit up the quintessential American President: The American President. Generic name? Sure. Love story or political drama? Both. With amazing performances from Michael Douglas, Annette Bening, Martin Sheen, David Paymer, Samantha Mathis, and Michael J. Fox; witty writing from Aaron Sorkin; and deft direction from Rob Reiner, the American President is a movie that we need right now.

Keeping with tradition, we follow up our best of 2025 episode with its natural companion: our episode on the most anticipated films of 2026. After an odd 2025 where many of our most exciting picks turned out to fall short of expectations, we can only hope that 2026 might fare better. Indie gems, huge blockbusters in Nolan's The Odyssey and Dune: Messiah, and other new projects from beloved auteurs, 2026 is shaping up to pack quite a punch. Tune in and find out our individual picks!

“You can't handle the truth…”   If you're a fan of  the 1992 classic “A Few Good Men”-- a film is widely considered to be one of the top 10 courtroom dramas in American film history– this episode is for you!   What mystery surrounds a Marine involved in the real-life incident that inspired “A Few Good Men”? How did Aaron Sorkin's sister (and cocktail napkins) help him create the story? Why did a TV exec question Demi Moore's casting? And what have Jack Nicholson's castmates said about their experience working with the legendary actor?   We discuss all this and more, including a brief tribute to director Rob Reiner.    How to support Scandal Water: Rate, review, and subscribe! Follow the show on your favorite app or Scandal Water Podcast YouTube channel.  Send your shoutouts to scandalwaterpodcast@gmail.com. Become a member on patreon.com/ScandalWaterPodcast or buymeacoffee.com/scandalwaterpod – which will also grant you access to fabulous bonus content! #OrderintheCourt #JuryDuty #Courtroom #AFewGoodMen #AaronSorkin #RobReiner #TomCruise #JackNicholson #DemiMoore #KevinPollack #KevinBacon #Film #Movies #Podcast #February

In this episode, we break down MONEYBALL — the sports drama that turned statistics, failure, and belief into one of the most compelling stories ever told. We dive into Brad Pitt's performance as Billy Beane, Aaron Sorkin's razor-sharp dialogue, and how the film transforms data and spreadsheets into real emotional stakes. We analyze the themes of ego, tradition versus innovation, and why Moneyball works even if you don't care about baseball. From quiet character moments to its unconventional ending, this movie proves that winning isn't always the point — and we break down exactly why it hits so hard.   Chapters: 00:00 Jonah Hill for the win 6:47 The problem with true sports movies 12:46 The historical inaccuracies 20:22 The original plan for the movie & BTS stories 28:21 How Chris Pratt got this movie 30:39 The brutal nature of cutting players 33:36 Dark story behind the scenes of this movie 37:14 Brad Pitt knows how to perform for bangers 38:55 Making inside baseball digestible 41:15 How they shot in multiple stadiums within budget 42:35 Questionable decisions in this movie 44:34 Beautiful filmmaking in the small moments 49:33 A performance heavy movie 53:19 Brad Pitt finish your beer! 1:01:15 The ending... not a fan 1:03:30 The most brutal person in this movie 1:06:10 The smallest detail Kade loves 1:12:13 Our official rating & final thoughts 1:16:25 Cue the music

This is a preview of a premium episode from our Patreon feed, Paid Costly For Me! Head over to Patreon.com/PodCastyForMe to hear more for just $5 a month. Most movies weren't directed by Steven Soderbergh, but few were as notably not directed by Steven Soderbergh as this one: MONEYBALL, the true story of the 2002 Oakland Athletics' revolutionary sabermetrics-based hiring strategy, was 5 days from shooting when Sony pulled the plug on Soderbergh's version. After a rewrite by Aaron Sorkin and a few cast change-ups, a slicker, Fincher-lite version directed by Bennett Miller made it to theaters, and we're talking about the whole deal. This ep has it all, quite frankly: in-depth script revision analysis, baseball talk, sports politics, and a long conversation about how statistics and "disruption" inform the world. It turns out everything is Moneyball, maybe? Give this one a listen, folks. As always, thanks to Jetski for our theme music and to Jeremy Allison for our artwork.

The Senate Banking Committee on Thursday delayed its scheduled markup hearing for the Clarity Act, after Brian Armstrong, CEO of the crypto exchange Coinbase, voiced opposition. Meanwhile, Bank stocks crashed slightly after a bullish earnings week.~This episode is sponsored by Uphold~Uphold Get $20 in Bitcoin - Signup & Verify and trade at least $100 of any crypto within your first 30 days ➜ https://bit.ly/pbnuphold00:00 intro00:03 Sponsor: Uphold00:27 Brian Armstrong Stops CLARITY Act00:57 DeFi Fights Back01:20 Elizabeth Warren Amendments01:30 CNBC Blames Coinbase01:59 Banks Need Help?02:50 Bank Stocks Crash03:19 Smart Money Exits Banks03:37 Bank of America Earnings Call04:55 Banks terrified05:15 Senator struggles to defend Banks06:00 Competition?06:27 Aaron Sorkin says Coinbase is too powerful06:42 Lobby vs People Power07:41 Ripple, Robinhood, Kraken didn't read?08:50 Coinbase explains bill problems09:33 Freedom of Speech10:02 Cynthia Lummis disappointed?10:21 Bitwise Flip-Flops10:50 Who Are These Idiots?11:20 StandWithCrypto Campaign worked12:15 Call Your Congressman!!12:52 What Happens Next?13:44 Polymarket Odds Crash14:25 outro#Crypto #XRP #Bitcoin~Coinbase Crashes BANKS!!

Sports Night is an American half-hour comedy-drama centered on a fictional cable sports news program of the same name. Season 1 premiered on ABC on September 22, 1998, following the creative staff as they navigate friendships, romantic entanglements, and ethical dilemmas while producing a nightly broadcast under constant network pressure. Created by Aaron Sorkin and produced by Imagine Television and Touchstone Television, the first season established the show's fast, dialogue-driven style and tension between journalistic integrity and ratings demands.The ensemble cast includes Robert Guillaume as managing editor Isaac Jaffe, Felicity Huffman as executive producer Dana Whitaker, Peter Krause as anchor Casey McCall, Josh Charles as co-anchor Dan Rydell, Sabrina Lloyd as senior associate producer Natalie Hurley, and Joshua Malina as associate producer Jeremy Goodwin. Recurring guest roles in season one featured William H. Macy as ratings consultant Sam Donovan and Brenda Strong as rival producer Sally Sasser.Disclaimer: The following may contain offensive language, adult humor, and/or content that some viewers may find offensive – The views and opinions expressed by any one speaker does not explicitly or necessarily reflect or represent those of Mark Radulich or W2M Network.Mark Radulich and his wacky podcast on all the things:https://linktr.ee/markkind76alsohttps://www.teepublic.com/user/radulich-in-broadcasting-networkFB Messenger: Mark Radulich LCSWTiktok: @markradulichtwitter: @MarkRadulichInstagram: markkind76RIBN Album Playlist: https://suno.com/playlist/91d704c9-d1ea-45a0-9ffe-5069497bad59 

“You can't handle the truth.” Join Ian & Liam for our 313th episode as we step into the pressurised courtroom, moral brinkmanship, and razor-sharp dialogue of Rob Reiner's A Few Good Men (1992). Button up the dress whites, take your seats, and prepare for a film obsessed with duty, power, and the stories institutions tell themselves to survive. This week we discuss: Aaron Sorkin's dialogue as a weapon — rhythm, repetition, and confrontation. Is this peak Sorkin, or the moment his style becomes unmistakably dominant? Tom Cruise as Lt. Kaffee — charming, evasive, underestimated. Is this Cruise's most interesting performance precisely because he starts behind the power curve? Jack Nicholson's Colonel Jessup — operatic, terrifying, magnetic. Does the film become his the moment he enters it? The courtroom structure — how the film drip-feeds information, builds pressure, and engineers one of the most famous climaxes in cinema history. The ethics at the heart of the story — where does responsibility lie: with the men who carried out orders, or the system that created them? Ian talks about criticisms of the ending and if they're reading the film correctly  We explores how masculinity functions in the film — honour, obedience, pride, and camaraderie The supporting cast — Demi Moore's steely professionalism, Kevin Bacon's moral slipperiness, and who almost got Kevin Pollak's role That scene — inevitability versus surprise. Does the famous monologue work because it's shocking, or because it feels unavoidable? The ending — justice served, or merely order restored? What actually changes once the truth is out? And finally, whether A Few Good Men is the Best Film Ever — or simply one of the most watchable, endlessly quotable courtroom dramas ever made. Become a Patron of this podcast and support the BFE at https://www.patreon.com/BFE We are extremely thankful to our following Patrons for their most generous support: Juleen from It Goes Down In The PM Hermes Auslander James DeGuzman Synthia Shai Bergerfroind Ariannah Who Loves BFE The Most Andy Dickson Chris Pedersen Duane Smith (Duane Smith!) Randal Silva Nate The Great Rev Bruce Cheezy (with a fish on a bike) Richard Ryan Kuketz Dirk Diggler Stew from the Stew World Order podcast NorfolkDomus John Humphrey's Right Foot Timmy Tim Tim Aashrey Paul Komoroski Buy some BFE merch at https://my-store-b4e4d4.creator-spring.com/. Massive thanks to Lex Van Den Berghe for the use of Mistake by Luckydog. Catch more from Lex's new band, The Maids of Honor, at https://soundcloud.com/themaidsofhonor Also, massive thanks to Moonlight Social for our age game theme song. You can catch more from them at https://www.moonlightsocialmusic.com/

Andrew Ross Sorkin (1929: The Inside Story of the Greatest Crash in Wall Street History) is a financial columnist, TV anchor, and author. Andrew joins the Armchair Expert to discuss a kid telling him when he was young that god drew him wrong, actually working with Aaron Sorkin (no relation) on his show The Newsroom, and landing an unofficial internship at The New York Times as a senior in high school. Andrew and Dax talk about why his motto as a finance journalist was ‘chasing interesting,' understanding not trusting the stock trading system because it doesn't deserve to be trusted, and his tips for getting ChatGPT to tell the truth with verifiable facts. Andrew explains writing an exposé on going into debt to buy stocks, shocking and unexpected stories of fallout from the stock market crash of 1929, and parallels he sees in current financial trends accompanied by an argument for transparency.Follow Armchair Expert on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Watch new content on YouTube or listen to Armchair Expert early and ad-free by joining Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Start your free trial by visiting wondery.com/links/armchair-expert-with-dax-shepard/ now.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Republican-run government has shut down, Trump is using misinformation to blame Democrats, and Erin and Alyssa explain what's at stake. Then they dive into Ezra Klein's recent bad takeapalooza, on everything from Charlie Kirk's legacy to pro-life Democrats. And, of course, there's the latest Epstein files news, some races to watch in Virginia, and a big week for creeps, overall. They wrap up in the Sanity Corner with a discussion about their excitement for Aaron Sorkin's The Social Reckoning and a petty roast of Ivanka Trump's Instagram. Explaining the G.O.P.'s Misleading Talking Point on the Looming Shutdown (NYT 9/29)Ta-Nehisi Coates on Bridging Gaps vs. Drawing Lines (NYT 9/28)RFK Jr. launches FDA review of abortion pill (ABC News 9/24)Musk, Thiel and Bannon named in Epstein docs released by Dems (Axios 9/26)Elon Musk's Father Accused of Child Sexual Abuse (NYT 9/25)Money manager Howard Rubin detained in sex trafficking case after feds cite hitman threat (CNBC 9/26)Ryan Walters steps down as Oklahoma schools chief to lead anti-teachers union group (The 19th News 9/26)The State of Our Nation: Gauging Americans' political opinions in 2025 (The 19th* 9/25) Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.