Podcast appearances and mentions of Alfred P Sloan

From robbing banks to earning a PhD in neuroscience, former hacker Moran Cerf has unique perspective on what makes people tick. In this episode of Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu, Moran explains the brain science of how self-narrative determines our reality. Moran is a fascinating blend of a wide variety of disciplines, and this diversity has led him to explore some promising, albeit nontraditional ways of investigating the brain, namely cracking open the skull and peering inside whilst the person is still living. His discoveries have made him a much sought after speaker and leading thinker who's influencing academia and business in equal measure. His innovative theories about the brain have been published in Nature, the highest-ranking journal in the world, and he consults regularly for hit shows such as Mr. Robot and Limitless. His education is a wondrous grab bag of joy and includes a PhD in neuroscience from Caltech and both an MA in philosophy and a BSc in physics from Tel Aviv University. He's a visiting faculty member at MIT's Media Lab, and was named one of the 40 leading professors under 40. Moran is the Alfred P. Sloan professor at the American Film Institute where he teaches a screenwriting course on science and film. He holds multiple patents and is a multi-timed national storytelling champion whose talks have garnered him millions of views. He is the professor of neuroscience and business at the Kellogg School of Management and the neuroscience program at the Northwestern university. In this episode, Moran and Tom investigate the hidden powers of the brain and how they can be harnessed to achieve greatness. ORIGINAL AIR DATE: 1-10-17 SHOW NOTES [2:35] Moran recalls the four times that he physically robbed a bank. [7:40] Moran discusses why we don't actually make our own decisions. [12:17] Tom and Moran talk about the multiple puppeteers in our brains. [16:07] Moran expounds on how to move past the point of giving up. [20:48] Moran admits how making a big mistake changed his life. [26:56] Tom and Moran talk about how you can rewrite your past. [31:31] Moran describes how you can get more motivation. [35:48] Moran shares how you can literally change overnight. [42:10] Tom and Moran talk about how to use self-deception as a tool to push forward. What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here: If you want my help... STARTING a business: join me here at ZERO TO FOUNDER SCALING a business: see if you qualify here. Get my battle-tested strategies and insights delivered weekly to your inbox: sign up here. ********************************************************************** If you're serious about leveling up your life, I urge you to check out my new podcast, Tom Bilyeu's Mindset Playbook —a goldmine of my most impactful episodes on mindset, business, and health. Trust me, your future self will thank you. ********************************************************************** Join me live on my Twitch stream. I'm live daily from 6:30 to 8:30 am PT at www.twitch.tv/tombilyeu ********************************************************************** LISTEN TO IMPACT THEORY AD FREE + BONUS EPISODES on APPLE PODCASTS: apple.co/impacttheory ********************************************************************** FOLLOW TOM: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/ Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en Twitter: https://twitter.com/tombilyeu YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

2024. május 23., csütörtök 8-9 óra Emelkedő klímakockázatok mellett is új rekord a zöld hitelek állományánál. Az MNB meghosszabbította Zöld tőkekövetelmény-kedvezmény programját, mely révén a bankok 2023 végén közel 880 milliárd forint hitelt nyújtottak. Emelkedtek a hitelintézetek klímakockázatai: eddigi legmagasabb értékén áll az MNB Banki Karbonkockázati Indexe és a klímakockázati háló alapján is nőttek a hitelezési portfóliókban a klímakitettségek. Az MNB ESG ajánlással készül és negyedévente zöld adatokat is publikál– áll a jegybank negyedik alkalommal publikált Zöld pénzügyi jelentésében. A nemzeti bank bemutatta új zöld honlapját is. Holczinger Norbert, az MNB Fenntartható pénzügyek főosztályának vezetője és Binder István felügyleti szóvivő ARANYKÖPÉS Ha az esetek 51 százalékában jól csinálod, akkor hős leszel. Alfred P. Sloan (1875) FUTÓMŰ: In memoriam Alfred P. Sloan Alfred P. Sloan a General Motors elnöke és vezérigazgatója 1923–1956 között († 1966). Képe ott van Várkonyi Gábor irodájában, Ferdinand Porsche, Giugaro, Soichiro Honda és Gandini mellett. A Center of Automotive Research a vezető gyártók profitabilitását vizsgálva arra jutott, hogy az egész iparágban csökkentek a haszonkulcsok, bár ez várható volt. Ennek okai és a számok. Úgy tűnik, hogy nem jön létre az autóipari "Airbus", zátonyra futott a Renault/VW együttműködés az olcsó villanyautó gyártása kapcsán. Van viszont kínai-német szövetség az Audinál, valamint kínai-orosz szövetség a Volgánál. Várkonyi Gábor, autópiaci szakértő

Brian Chesky is the co-founder and CEO of Airbnb. Under Brian's leadership, Airbnb has grown into a community of over 4 million hosts who have welcomed more than 1.5 billion guests across over 220 countries and regions. I had the privilege of working under his leadership, so it is a great honor to have him on the show. We discuss:• How Airbnb has shifted their thinking on product management• Why bureaucracy happens in companies, and how to avoid it• The importance of founders diving into the details• Why Airbnb moved away from traditional growth channels and what they are doing instead• Airbnb's newly released features• How and why Brian encourages his team to set ambitious goals• Why he says he still has a lot to prove—Enter to win $1,000 in Airbnb credit: https://forms.gle/UX7mWoajxhVPi9bK9—Brought to you by Sidebar—Catalyze your career with a Personal Board of Directors | Jira Product Discovery—Atlassian's new prioritization and roadmapping tool built for product teams | Eppo—Run reliable, impactful experiments—Find the transcript for this episode and all past episodes at: https://www.lennyspodcast.com/episodes/. Today's transcript will be live by 8 a.m. PT.—Where to find Brian Chesky:• X: https://twitter.com/bchesky• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brianchesky/—Where to find Lenny:• Newsletter: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com• X: https://twitter.com/lennysan• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lennyrachitsky/—In this episode, we cover:(00:00) Brian's background(05:18) The current structure of product management at Airbnb(09:21) How fast-moving companies become slow-moving bureaucracies(12:20) Brian's thoughts on performance marketing(13:50) Airbnb's rolling two-year roadmap(15:30) Brian's journey as CEO in a growing company(18:34) Best practices for A/B testing (20:30) Who inspired Airbnb's new direction(23:18) The first changes Brian implemented at the onset of the pandemic(24:51) Why founders should be “in the details” (30:15) Airbnb's marketing, communication, and creative functions(31:38) Advice for founders on how to lead(34:15) Tips for implementing Airbnb's business methodology (38:48) Airbnb's winter release(41:47) Why Airbnb no longer has separate guest and host teams (42:38) Brian's thoughts on design trends (45:36) The importance of empowering hosts with great tools(45:57) How setting ambitious goals improves team performance (50:05) Tips for preventing burnout(56:02) Tips for personal and professional growth (58:19) Why Brian says he still has a lot to prove(1:02:58) Paying it forward(1:05:03) A fun fact about Brian(1:09:26) Airbnb's origin story—Referenced:• Localmind: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/localmind• Config 2023 in review: https://www.figma.com/blog/config-2023-recap/• Why Founders Fail: The Product CEO Paradox: https://techcrunch.com/2013/08/10/why-founders-fail-the-product-ceo-paradox/• Hiroki Asai on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hiroki-asai-a44137110/• Jony Ive on Crunchbase: https://www.crunchbase.com/person/jonathan-ive• Charles Eames: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Eames• Airbnb 2023 Winter Release: https://news.airbnb.com/en-in/airbnb-2023-winter-release-introducing-guest-favorites-a-collection-of-the-2-million-most-loved-homes-on-airbnb/• Airbnb 2023 winter release reel: https://x.com/bchesky/status/1722243847751970861?s=20• John Wooden's website: https://coachwooden.com/• An 85-year Harvard study found the No. 1 thing that makes us happy in life: It helps us ‘live longer': https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/10/85-year-harvard-study-found-the-secret-to-a-long-happy-and-successful-life.html• Sam Altman on X: https://twitter.com/sama• Alfred P. Sloan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_P._Sloan• Bob Dylan quote: https://quotefancy.com/quote/950807/Bob-Dylan-An-artist-has-got-to-be-careful-never-really-to-arrive-at-a-place-where-he• OpenAI: https://openai.com/• Michael Seibel's website: https://www.michaelseibel.com/• Y Combinator: https://www.ycombinator.com/• The Norman Rockwell Museum: https://www.nrm.org/• Rhode Island School of Design: https://www.risd.edu/• Joe Gebbia on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jgebbia/• Nathan Blecharczyk on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/blecharczyk/—Production and marketing by https://penname.co/. For inquiries about sponsoring the podcast, email podcast@lennyrachitsky.com.—Lenny may be an investor in the companies discussed. Get full access to Lenny's Newsletter at www.lennysnewsletter.com/subscribe

Episode 280s McNamara's Impact on Ford In 1946, as Henry Ford II grappled with the chaos his grandfather had left behind, the company lost a staggering $85 million (about $1.4 Billion today) within eight months. Enter Robert S. McNamara, the brightest star among the Whiz Kids – a group of ten highly educated and ambitious men who had worked together in the U.S. Army's Air Force. Together, they breathed new life into Ford Motor Company.Did Henry Ford II seek the brilliance of General Motors' Alfred P. Sloan when he named Robert S. McNamara as president of Ford Motor Company? As GM's dominance grew in the 1920s and '30s, Ford aspired to surpass them. McNamara, a non-Ford family member, infused modernity into the company like an invigorating breath of fresh air. However, while Sloan sculpted the contemporary automotive corporation, McNamara embodied a sterile, numbers-driven manager.Both Sloan and McNamara were modern managers; however, McNamara was cold and distant—a bean counter who prioritized statistical analysis over product innovation.As Ford's fortunes were resurrected, Henry Ford II savored an additional triumph – in 1957, Ford outsold Chevrolet for the first time in over two decades. Observers noted McNamara's quick adaptability and his establishment of robust financial controls but struggled to pinpoint a lasting legacy.McNamara's ascent to Ford's presidency symbolized the rise of the modern manager, but would he be considered for such a position today? Doubtful. The legendary Robert Lutz should remind us that product reigns supreme. Today, bringing in someone without strong industry experience is risky.In 1960, McNamara retired from Ford, less than a month after becoming President, to accept President John F. Kennedy's invitation to serve as Secretary of Defense. He remained in this post after Kennedy's death to support President Lyndon B. Johnson during the tumultuous Vietnam War era. Through war and peace, Robert S. McNamara's sharp intellect and sense of fiscal responsibility helped preserve Ford Motor Company during a time of crisis.www.nodrivinggloves.com#cars #car #collectorcars oldcars #cartalk #electriccars #ev #hotrod #carhistory #automotivehistory #automobile #thisdayinautomotivehistory #thisdayinhistory #classiccars #sloan #fordfalcon #secertaryofdefense #NaPodPoMo

This and all episodes at: https://aiandyou.net/ .   Giving us a long perspective on the impact of today's large language models and #ChatGPT on society is Bart Selman, professor of Computer Science at Cornell University. He's been helping people understand the potential and limitations of AI for several decades, commenting on computer vision, self-driving vehicles, and autonomous weapons among other technologies. He has co-authored over 100 papers, receiving a National Science Foundation career award and an Alfred P. Sloan research fellowship. He is a member of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a contributing scientist at the two Asilomar conferences on responsible AI development. In the conclusion of our interview we talk about self-driving cars, the capability of large language models to synthesize knowledge across many human domains, Richard Feynman, our understanding of language, Bertrand Russell, AIs as co-authors on research papers, and where Bart places us on a scale of artificial general intelligence ability.  All this plus our usual look at today's AI headlines. Transcript and URLs referenced at HumanCusp Blog.        

This and all episodes at: https://aiandyou.net/ .   Giving us a long perspective on the impact of today's large language models and #ChatGPT on society is Bart Selman, professor of Computer Science at Cornell University. He's been helping people understand the potential and limitations of AI for several decades, commenting on computer vision, self-driving vehicles, and autonomous weapons among other technologies. He has co-authored over 100 papers, receiving a National Science Foundation career award and an Alfred P. Sloan research fellowship. He is a member of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In the first part of the interview we talk about common sense, artificial general intelligence, computer vision, #LLM and their impact on computer programming, and how much they might really be understanding. Bart will also give his take on how good they are, how to understand how they're working, and his experiments in getting ChatGPT to understand geometry. All this plus our usual look at today's AI headlines. Transcript and URLs referenced at HumanCusp Blog.        

In today's episode, we meet with Danny O'Malley a producer on Chef's Table, and Alex Rivest, an MIT-educated neuroscientist. Together they directed a riveting climate documentary disguised as an adventure epic that speaks to the heart versus the viewer's mind. CANARY is the film featuring Lonnie Thompson's climate odyssey atop the Quelccaya Ice Cap. Join us as we delve into the remarkable work and life of Dr. Lonnie Thompson, a pioneering glaciologist whose research has been instrumental in shedding light on the impacts of climate change. Dr. Thompson has spent decades studying glaciers and ice caps around the world, but his work on the Quelccaya Ice Cap is particularly significant. Located high in the Peruvian Andes, Quelccaya is one of the world's largest tropical ice caps. It serves as a critical indicator of climate change due to its sensitivity to temperature variations. Dr. Thompson's research involves drilling ice cores to extract ancient air bubbles, allowing scientists to analyze the Earth's past climate conditions with unparalleled precision. The documentary, "CANARY" takes us on a breathtaking journey to the top of the Quelccaya Ice Cap, where Lonnie, his team, and an entire film crew conduct and film the research. At an elevation of 18,000 feet, this desolate, icy expanse provides a stark visual representation of the profound changes our planet is undergoing. Through stunning visuals and interviews with the scientists, the film documents the dramatic retreat of Quelccaya's ice, which has accelerated in recent decades. At the peak of Dr. Thompson's career, he received some devastating health news that threatened to halt his progress. The directors draw a parallel between Lonnie's struggles to accept his health condition, and the broader challenge that many of us face in accepting the reality of climate change caused by a warming atmosphere.  Through their dedication and storytelling, Dr. Thompson, Rivest, and O'Malley inspire us all to take action to protect our world for future generations. Links: Find showings here: https://canary.oscilloscope.net/ Join us at Climate Week NYC here: https://www.climateweeknyc.org/events/canary-documentary-film-screening   Guest Bios (provided by the guest):  Danny O'Malley Danny O'Malley is a Grammy-nominated and James Beard-nominated film director, best known for his work on Netflix's Chef's Table, where he serves as co-executive producer and director. Danny has an extensive background in filming, collaborating with various bands across the U.S., including Tegan and Sara, The Rentals, The Decemberists, Kraftwerk, and more. Notably, his documentary ‘States', part of Tegan and Sara's release ‘Get Along' was nominated for a Grammy in the category of Best Long Form Music Video. Danny initially made his mark in documentary television as a story producer, and his work has been featured on major platforms such as Netflix, Fox Sports One, and NBC. On Chef's Table, Danny is a key driving force shaping the character-driven storytelling that defines the show's signature style. Danny, and his directing partner Alex Rivest PhD, won the Alfred P. Sloan development grant in 2017, which led to the creation of his first feature ‘Canary.'   Alex Rivest Alex Rivest is an MIT-trained PhD Neuroscientist. Having worked alongside Nobel Prize winner Dr. Susumu Tonegawa, Alex's research has been published in two of the most highly renowned scientific journals, Science and Nature Neuroscience. Alex grew up in an environment where curiosity and question-asking were highly valued, and he has dedicated his life to helping teach others about the wonders of the world. As an educator, he received the Angus MacDonald Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching at MIT and founded the nonprofit Blue Kitabu, which built a sustainable primary school in central Ghana. As a science filmmaker, Alex's videos have accumulated over 70 million views online, and have been featured everywhere, from billboards in Times Square to installations in science museums, and even in an opera production of “Das Rheingold.” CANARY is his directorial debut.

Today on Speaking Out of Place we talk with Jennifer Jacquet, who is an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Director of XE: Experimental Humanities and Social Engagement at NYU. She is also deputy director of NYU's Center for Environmental and Animal Protection. Her research focuses on animals and the environment, Agnotology, and attribution and responsibility in the Anthropocene. She is author of The Playbook: How to Deny Science, Sell Lies, and Make a Killing in the Corporate World-- a work of 'epistolary non-fiction' that makes the business case for scientific denial. Among other things, we learn how corporations create an arsenal of experts and pseudo-experts at prestigious universities to create misinformation and disinformation for corporate profit, and at great cost to the public. At the end, we make the case for a partnership between the sciences and the humanities to fight such lies and violence.Jennifer Jacquet is an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Director of XE: Experimental Humanities and Social Engagement at NYU. She is also deputy director of NYU's Center for Environmental and Animal Protection. Her research focuses on animals and the environment, Agnotology, and attribution and responsibility in the Anthropocene.  Along with The Playbook, Jacquet also wrote Is Shame Necessary? (Pantheon/Penguin, 2015) about the evolution, function, and future of the use of social disapproval in a globalized, digitized world. She is the recipient of a 2015 Alfred P. Sloan research fellowship and a 2016 Pew fellowship in m3arine conservation.

To celebrate hitting 2k followers on Twitter, I decided to unlock the first part of our investigation into Pelley, Gen. Smedley Butler, & the Wall St. Putsch conspirators—enjoy. Two ways to support PPM: follow @parapower_mapping on Insta & subscribe to the Patreon before Pt. III drops in a couple days: patreon.com/ParaPowerMapping We're talking Bill Pelley—literal Nazi agent, Christian Theosophical crank, spiritualist, newspaperman, espionage agent, screenwriter, reborn clairvoyant, founder of a UFO cult, Soulcrafter, publisher of shitty antisemitic magazines, & founder of an American Nazi paramilitary known as the Silver Legion. But first, we parse the failed Wall St. Putsch (aka Bizness Plot), setting the stage for our investigation of Pelley, as various industrialist backers of the scheme, conspirators, & the legislative body that uncovered it (maybe involuntarily) figure into W.D.P's story. We're talking McCormack-Dickstein Committee, predecessor to HUAC; Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, Alfred P. Sloan, I. DuPont, JP Morgan Jr., Prescott Bush, Felix & Max Warburg, Grayson Murphy, Gerald Macguire, & a # of references to Henry Ford in this one. We discuss:  Marine Corps Gen. Butler & the Bonus Army; possibility the American Legion was funded w/ coups in mind; FDR cucked by Wall St.; the Putsch's origins in Executive Order 6102; Biz Plot taking inspiration from German putsches; John L. Spivak's exposé in "New Masses"—gotta give it to Spivak for his farsighted analysis of the capitalist underpinnings of rising fascism in Germany & US; coup organizer Gerry MacGuire's sus death at 36 yrs old a mere year or 2 after the plan unraveled; the Co. that had Murphy as board member; Robert Sterling Clark serving under Butler = potential complicity; Butler's undercover escapade in Standard Oil-backed int'l espionage; Butler, Clark, & Murphy's shared military campaigns (China, Boxer Rebellion, & Philippine-American War specifically); speculation about whether—contrary to the conscientious antiwar activist portrayals—Smedley was infiltrating antiwar & left mvmts in US; Butler's military career lasting exactly 33 years (

In this episode of the Speaking Out of Place podcast, Professor David Palumbo-Liu interviews Jennifer Jacquet, who is an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Director of XE: Experimental Humanities and Social Engagement at NYU. She is also deputy director of NYU's Center for Environmental and Animal Protection. Her research focuses on animals and the environment, Agnotology, and attribution and responsibility in the Anthropocene. She is author of The Playbook: How to Deny Science, Sell Lies, and Make a Killing in the Corporate World-- a work of 'epistolary non-fiction' that makes the business case for scientific denial. Among other things, we learn how corporations create an arsenal of experts and pseudo-experts at prestigious universities to create misinformation and disinformation for corporate profit, and at great cost to the public. At the end, we make the case for a partnership between the sciences and the humanities to fight such lies and violence.Jennifer Jacquet's research focuses on animals and the environment, Agnotology, and attribution and responsibility in the Anthropocene. She is author of The: How to Deny Science, Sell Lies, and Make a Killing in the Corporate World (Pantheon/Penguin, 2022)-- a work of 'epistolary non-fiction' that makes the business case for scientific denial. She also wrote Is Shame Necessary? (Pantheon/Penguin, 2015) about the evolution, function, and future of the use of social disapproval in a globalized, digitized world. She is the recipient of a 2015 Alfred P. Sloan research fellowship and a 2016 Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation.https://jenniferjacquet.com https://as.nyu.edu/faculty/jennifer-jacquet.htmlwww.palumbo-liu.com https://speakingoutofplace.com https://twitter.com/palumboliu?s=20

In this episode of the Speaking Out of Place podcast, Professor David Palumbo-Liu interviews Jennifer Jacquet, who is an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Director of XE: Experimental Humanities and Social Engagement at NYU. She is also deputy director of NYU's Center for Environmental and Animal Protection. Her research focuses on animals and the environment, Agnotology, and attribution and responsibility in the Anthropocene. She is author of The Playbook: How to Deny Science, Sell Lies, and Make a Killing in the Corporate World-- a work of 'epistolary non-fiction' that makes the business case for scientific denial. Among other things, we learn how corporations create an arsenal of experts and pseudo-experts at prestigious universities to create misinformation and disinformation for corporate profit, and at great cost to the public. At the end, we make the case for a partnership between the sciences and the humanities to fight such lies and violence.Jennifer Jacquet's research focuses on animals and the environment, Agnotology, and attribution and responsibility in the Anthropocene. She is author of The: How to Deny Science, Sell Lies, and Make a Killing in the Corporate World (Pantheon/Penguin, 2022)-- a work of 'epistolary non-fiction' that makes the business case for scientific denial. She also wrote Is Shame Necessary? (Pantheon/Penguin, 2015) about the evolution, function, and future of the use of social disapproval in a globalized, digitized world. She is the recipient of a 2015 Alfred P. Sloan research fellowship and a 2016 Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation.https://jenniferjacquet.com https://as.nyu.edu/faculty/jennifer-jacquet.htmlwww.palumbo-liu.com https://speakingoutofplace.com https://twitter.com/palumboliu?s=20

In this episode of the Speaking Out of Place podcast, Professor David Palumbo-Liu interviews Jennifer Jacquet, who is an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Director of XE: Experimental Humanities and Social Engagement at NYU. She is also deputy director of NYU's Center for Environmental and Animal Protection. Her research focuses on animals and the environment, Agnotology, and attribution and responsibility in the Anthropocene. She is author of The Playbook: How to Deny Science, Sell Lies, and Make a Killing in the Corporate World-- a work of 'epistolary non-fiction' that makes the business case for scientific denial. Among other things, we learn how corporations create an arsenal of experts and pseudo-experts at prestigious universities to create misinformation and disinformation for corporate profit, and at great cost to the public. At the end, we make the case for a partnership between the sciences and the humanities to fight such lies and violence.Jennifer Jacquet's research focuses on animals and the environment, Agnotology, and attribution and responsibility in the Anthropocene. She is author of The: How to Deny Science, Sell Lies, and Make a Killing in the Corporate World (Pantheon/Penguin, 2022)-- a work of 'epistolary non-fiction' that makes the business case for scientific denial. She also wrote Is Shame Necessary? (Pantheon/Penguin, 2015) about the evolution, function, and future of the use of social disapproval in a globalized, digitized world. She is the recipient of a 2015 Alfred P. Sloan research fellowship and a 2016 Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation.https://jenniferjacquet.com https://as.nyu.edu/faculty/jennifer-jacquet.htmlwww.palumbo-liu.com https://speakingoutofplace.com https://twitter.com/palumboliu?s=20

In this episode of the Speaking Out of Place podcast, Professor David Palumbo-Liu interviews Jennifer Jacquet, who is an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Director of XE: Experimental Humanities and Social Engagement at NYU. She is also deputy director of NYU's Center for Environmental and Animal Protection. Her research focuses on animals and the environment, Agnotology, and attribution and responsibility in the Anthropocene. She is author of The Playbook: How to Deny Science, Sell Lies, and Make a Killing in the Corporate World-- a work of 'epistolary non-fiction' that makes the business case for scientific denial. Among other things, we learn how corporations create an arsenal of experts and pseudo-experts at prestigious universities to create misinformation and disinformation for corporate profit, and at great cost to the public. At the end, we make the case for a partnership between the sciences and the humanities to fight such lies and violence.Jennifer Jacquet's research focuses on animals and the environment, Agnotology, and attribution and responsibility in the Anthropocene. She is author of The: How to Deny Science, Sell Lies, and Make a Killing in the Corporate World (Pantheon/Penguin, 2022)-- a work of 'epistolary non-fiction' that makes the business case for scientific denial. She also wrote Is Shame Necessary? (Pantheon/Penguin, 2015) about the evolution, function, and future of the use of social disapproval in a globalized, digitized world. She is the recipient of a 2015 Alfred P. Sloan research fellowship and a 2016 Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation.https://jenniferjacquet.com https://as.nyu.edu/faculty/jennifer-jacquet.htmlwww.palumbo-liu.com https://speakingoutofplace.com https://twitter.com/palumboliu?s=20

In this episode of the Speaking Out of Place podcast, Professor David Palumbo-Liu interviews Jennifer Jacquet, who is an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Director of XE: Experimental Humanities and Social Engagement at NYU. She is also deputy director of NYU's Center for Environmental and Animal Protection. Her research focuses on animals and the environment, Agnotology, and attribution and responsibility in the Anthropocene. She is author of The Playbook: How to Deny Science, Sell Lies, and Make a Killing in the Corporate World-- a work of 'epistolary non-fiction' that makes the business case for scientific denial. Among other things, we learn how corporations create an arsenal of experts and pseudo-experts at prestigious universities to create misinformation and disinformation for corporate profit, and at great cost to the public. At the end, we make the case for a partnership between the sciences and the humanities to fight such lies and violence.Jennifer Jacquet's research focuses on animals and the environment, Agnotology, and attribution and responsibility in the Anthropocene. She is author of The: How to Deny Science, Sell Lies, and Make a Killing in the Corporate World (Pantheon/Penguin, 2022)-- a work of 'epistolary non-fiction' that makes the business case for scientific denial. She also wrote Is Shame Necessary? (Pantheon/Penguin, 2015) about the evolution, function, and future of the use of social disapproval in a globalized, digitized world. She is the recipient of a 2015 Alfred P. Sloan research fellowship and a 2016 Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation.https://jenniferjacquet.com https://as.nyu.edu/faculty/jennifer-jacquet.htmlwww.palumbo-liu.com https://speakingoutofplace.com https://twitter.com/palumboliu?s=20

In this episode of the Speaking Out of Place podcast, Professor David Palumbo-Liu interviews Jennifer Jacquet, who is an Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Director of XE: Experimental Humanities and Social Engagement at NYU. She is also deputy director of NYU's Center for Environmental and Animal Protection. Her research focuses on animals and the environment, Agnotology, and attribution and responsibility in the Anthropocene. She is author of The Playbook: How to Deny Science, Sell Lies, and Make a Killing in the Corporate World-- a work of 'epistolary non-fiction' that makes the business case for scientific denial. Among other things, we learn how corporations create an arsenal of experts and pseudo-experts at prestigious universities to create misinformation and disinformation for corporate profit, and at great cost to the public. At the end, we make the case for a partnership between the sciences and the humanities to fight such lies and violence.Jennifer Jacquet's research focuses on animals and the environment, Agnotology, and attribution and responsibility in the Anthropocene. She is author of The: How to Deny Science, Sell Lies, and Make a Killing in the Corporate World (Pantheon/Penguin, 2022)-- a work of 'epistolary non-fiction' that makes the business case for scientific denial. She also wrote Is Shame Necessary? (Pantheon/Penguin, 2015) about the evolution, function, and future of the use of social disapproval in a globalized, digitized world. She is the recipient of a 2015 Alfred P. Sloan research fellowship and a 2016 Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation.https://jenniferjacquet.com https://as.nyu.edu/faculty/jennifer-jacquet.htmlwww.palumbo-liu.com https://speakingoutofplace.com https://twitter.com/palumboliu?s=20

Welcome back to ParaPower Mapping. We cont. our comp. paranoid analysis of the history of Nazi occultism today by examining a fairly-forgotten figure in contemporary America: William Dudley Pelley—literal Nazi agent, Christian Theosophical crank, spiritualist, newspaperman, int'l espionage agent, screenwriter, reborn clairvoyant, founder of a UFO cult, Soulcrafter, publisher of shitty antisemitic magazines, & founder of the American Nazi paramilitary known as the Silver Legion. Full Version: patreon.com/ParaPowerMapping But first, we attempt to parse the failed Wall St. Putsch (aka Bizness Plot), setting the stage for our investigation of Pelley, as various plutocratic & industrialist backers of the scheme, conspirators, & the legislative body that uncovered it (maybe involuntarily) figure into W.D.P's story. We're talking McCormack-Dickstein Committee, predecessor to HUAC; Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, Alfred P. Sloan, I. DuPont, JP Morgan Jr., Prescott Bush, Felix & Max Warburg, Grayson Murphy, Gerald Macguire, etc.; a # of references to Henry Ford in this one. We discuss: Marine Corps Gen. Butler & the Bonus Army; possibility the American Legion was funded w/ coups in mind; FDR cucked by Wall St.; the Putsch's origins in Executive Order 6102; Biz Plot taking inspiration from German putsches; John L. Spivak's exposé in "New Masses"—gotta give it to Spivak for his farsighted analysis of the capitalist underpinnings of rising fascism in Germany & US; coup organizer Gerry MacGuire's sus death at 36 yrs old a mere year or 2 after the plan unraveled; the corporations that counted Murphy as board member; Robert Sterling Clark serving under Butler = potential complicity; Butler's undercover escapade in Standard Oil-backed int'l espionage; Butler, Clark, & Murphy's shared military campaigns (China, Boxer Rebellion, & Philippine-American War specifically); speculations about whether, contrary to the conscientious antiwar activist he's often portrayed as, Smedley was infiltrating socialist & communist mvmts in the US; Butler's military career lasting exactly 33 years (

In this episode of the Sentient Media Podcast, host Ana Bradley interviews Dr. Jennifer Jacquet about the controversial topic of octopus farming. Dr. Jacquet discusses the reasons behind the resistance to octopus farming in the 21st century and the ethical implications of mass-producing a beloved animal species. They explore the current status of proposed octopus farms in different countries, including the world's first factory farm for octopuses in Gran Canaria. Dr. Jacquet shares insights into what an octopus factory farm might look like and the potential impact on the animals' well-being. They also discuss the reasons for choosing a land-based facility for octopus farming and the public's response to this issue. This episode provides valuable perspectives on the challenges and ethical considerations surrounding octopus farming.Dr. Jennifer Jacquet is a professor in Department of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of Miami. She is the recipient of a 2015 Alfred P. Sloan research fellowship and a 2016 Pew fellowship in marine conservation. Along with Becca Franks, Peter Godfrey-Smith and Walter Sanchez-Suarez, she published an article on “The Case Against Octopus Farming” in 2019. 

Berkley Brady, based in Calgary, Alberta, is a producer, DGC director, and writer, known for her work in film and television. Operating under the corporate entity Nika Productions Inc., Brady draws inspiration from cinematic and art history, hip-hop culture, and the natural landscape. With a passion for storytelling on screens of all sizes, Brady's creative pursuits reflect her diverse influences.Raised in a family of storytellers and night owls, Brady's multicultural background as a Metis on her father's side and predominantly Scottish on her mother's side shaped her early experiences. A vivid childhood memory involves sitting under a restaurant table, captivated by her father's animated storytelling, which brought laughter and joy to the listeners.In 1986, Brady relocated to Calgary, a city nestled between the Rocky Mountains and the prairies, where she discovered her teenage passions for books, snowboarding, and indulging in the mystique of brooding boys with baggy pants. Her dedication to snowboarding led her to compete in half-pipe competitions, even achieving a notable third-place ranking in her province in 1994. Brady's connection to snowboarding extends beyond the sport itself; she views its physicality, flow, and rhythm as influences that shape her directorial approach. The mathematical curves and musicality inherent in snowboarding inform her intuitive collaboration with actors and her pursuit of fluid camera work.After completing university, Brady embarked on a journey as an assistant to documentary and experimental filmmakers, immersing herself in projects such as editing documentaries on the International Criminal Court and capturing potlatch ceremonies. These early experiences kindled her passion for narrative filmmaking, leading her to pursue an MFA in film directing at Columbia University in New York City. During her six-year stay in the city, she absorbed its vibrant cultural landscape, exploring various art forms, including dance and the legacy of hip-hop. Brady's time at Columbia involved working as a Teacher's Assistant at Barnard College and collaborating with different production companies as a reader. Additionally, she produced her first award-winning short film, "The Immaculate Reception," which premiered at Sundance Film Festival, marking her inaugural visit to the renowned event.Brady's accolades continued to accumulate as she won the prestigious Alfred P. Sloan award, which provided the opportunity to create her debut short film, "Blow Out." This atmospheric piece delves into the story of a lone geologist battling her crew on an isolated, snow-blown oil rig.Despite being inspired by the creativity and ambition surrounding her in the United States, Brady decided to return to Canada in 2016, driven by love. She is happily married to Ian Lister, a notable Canadian cinematographer. Brady cherishes the artistic landscape of Canada and directed her first two episodes of the upcoming TV series "Secret History of the Wild West." With the support of Telefilm funding, she ventured into feature film directing, completing her debut feature, "Dark Nature," in the autumn of 2022. The film premiered at Fantasia in Montreal, marking a significant milestone in her career.Currently, Brady's creative focus lies in directing horror films infused with adventure and evocative emotions. For her, the perfect film is one that elicits laughter, screams, and tears. With a desire to offer guilt-free escapes, Brady aspires to craft stories that employ genre conventions to tackle significant and sometimes challenging ideas.Connect with the Film School'd Podcast:– Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/filmschoold– Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/filmschooldpod/– Twitter: https://twitter.com/FilmSchooldPod– YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdgrswiL4AGviAOcbzfYCAwContinue the Conversation in the Official Film School'd Discussion Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/filmschoold

Hvor farlig er CO2 for miljøet? Gjesten i denne episoden er Richard Lindzen. Han er en dynamisk meteorolog. Han har bidratt til utviklingen av teorier for Hadley-sirkulasjonen, hydrodynamisk ustabilitetsteori, indre gravitasjonsbølger, atmosfærisk tidevann og den kvasi-toårige oscillasjonen av stratosfæren. Hans nåværende forskning er fokusert på klimafølsomhet, rollen til cirrusskyer i klimaet og bestemmelsen av temperaturforskjellen fra tropene til pol. Han har oppnådd flere grader fra Harvard University, og vunnet flere priser innen sitt fagfelt, for eksempel Jule Charney-prisen for "svært betydningsfull forskning innen atmosfæriske vitenskaper". Mellom 1983 og 2013 var han Alfred P. Sloan-professor i atmosfæriske vitenskaper ved MIT hvor han oppnådde emeritusstatus i juli 2013.

Hello Interactors,This has been a wild week in our neighborhood. It was a car enthusiasts dream. Too bad our family’s biggest car enthusiast, my son, was busy working his summer job. It was guys like him that got America hooked on cars. And now our planet is cooked. Is it a lost cause? As interactors, you’re special individuals self-selected to be a part of an evolutionary journey. You’re also members of an attentive community so I welcome your participation.Please leave your comments below or email me directly.Now let’s go…GET A HORSEFlying down the freeway I see a woman climb out of the sunroof of her car. She’s alone. A semi-truck pulls alongside as she leaps from the car onto the bed of the trailer. Pulling alongside the car in front of her, I see the driver put on a black blindfold. He crosses his arms across his chest like he’s preparing for a collision. Just then, the truck in front of him slams on their brakes. His car comes to a screeching halt as does the woman’s empty car behind him. The man lifts his blindfold, stares into a camera mounted on his dashboard, and gruffly states, “I guess it works.”This isn’t a stunt I watched on Tik Tok, but a Hyundai Genesis ad from 2015. It starts with a voiceover from the sacrificial stuntman in the lead car, “The challenge is to show the driver assist features in an exciting way. But you guys, it seems, are a little hard to excite. Maybe the only way is to put our own lives on the line. Proof, through jeopardy.”Our neighborhood was blocked off this week to film a Genesis car commercial. Nothing this dramatic, they just drove their luxury cars around the block. They descended a hill that features an unobstructed distant view of the Seattle skyline beyond a glistening blue Lake Washington. Fancy cars in a fancy suburb. A suburb whose name features prominently on the Costco toilet paper most of you wipe your fanny biscuits with – Kirkland. Maybe we’re not so fancy after all, but our neighborhood does have nice views.We didn’t see stunt doubles hurling themselves from the sunroofs of luxury cars that day. In fact, we barely saw a single human being. The windows were tinted black, and the streets were empty, except for the police and production assistants. I stepped on the sidewalk to walk down the street and got yelled at by a Kirkland cop. “SIR! PLEASE BACK OFF THE SIDEWALK!” They, like the drivers, were being instructed by the commercial’s director on a walkie-talkie from inside a customized SUV. It had a massive camera boom stretching from the roof over the front end – like a carrot dangling in front of a mule.The truth is, it’s not just car commercials that wish there were no pedestrians on the street. Anytime any of us get behind the wheel of a car we wish the streets were free of people. And bikes. And, yes, other cars and busses too. It’s no wonder most every car commercial features a single driver on a smooth open road…void of people and cars. What bliss. No worries, no conflicts, no delays, just me on my street going between my house and my Costco to hoard my toilet paper.But believe it or not, people needed to be convinced automobiles were useful – let alone desirable. It wasn’t a car commercial that convinced them of this. It was their neighborhood car enthusiasts. People needed to be convinced of the promise of new machines. Innovation doesn’t just sell itself. Sociologists who study social movements say innovations that shape society are framed by “ideological activists who exploit political opportunities to mobilize resources.” They participate in what sociologists call ‘meaning-work’ which demonstrates their ideology as being meaningful, valid, and appropriate.New industries become broadly legitimized only after these industry activists are successful in converting radical concepts into something useful. Elements of a larger belief system must be framed in the context of daily life. So, automobile clubs organized events that demonstrated the benefits of the automobile. This idea was taken from bicycle clubs of the 1800s who used bicycle races to demonstrate the utility, reliability, and health benefits of cycling. Most automobile clubs were born out of bicycle clubs. Both were elite modes of transport using the latest industrial technology. The first automobiles were simply motorized quadricycles. Those motors were especially useful for getting up a hill.Biking up hills is hard. Biking for long distances requires endurance. And what happens if your bike breaks down? Reliability of both bikes and horse carriages was a big deal. These challenges of everyday life were just what automobile industry activists (i.e. automobile clubs) needed to demonstrate the benefits of an automobile. So, they organized demonstration events that included hill climbs and races pitting one car maker against another to see which was the fastest and most reliable.The first was on Thanksgiving of 1895 financed by the Times-Herald. Eleven cars were invited, five showed up and only two managed to finish the event. The winner was awarded $10,000 ($350,000 today) and it went to the Duryea Brothers –America’s first automaker. Their gasoline car topped out at 8MPH in below freezing temperatures…in the snow. Reminding people of the challenges of taking a horse and buggy through the snow, the Times-Herald reported that the car made it “through deep snow and along ruts that would have tried horses to the utmost.”But these events weren’t universally convincing. In 1896, an event organized by the Rhode Island State Fair Association featured an electric car. The Riker Electric won the race and $5,000 but the crowd was underwhelmed. They began chanting, “GET A HORSE. GET A HORSE. GET A HORSE.” That refrain became a popular expression used to make fun of automobile drivers. For years people would yell as they passed, “GET A HORSE!”By July of 1905, the publication Horseless Age, declared the beginning of the American dominant car culture. After a national reliability event by the American Automobile Association (AAA), The Glidden Tour, they reported that it “proved the automobile is now almost foolproof. It has proved that American cars are durable and efficient...it has strengthened our belief in the permanence of the motor car.’’A year later, in 1906, Munsey Magazine also declared the end of making fun of the automobile by writing, the “uncertain period of the automobile is now past. It is no longer a theme for jokers and rarely do we hear the derisive expression ‘Get a horse.’” And three years later, in 1909, Charles Duryea atoned that the “novelty of the automobile has largely worn off.” Soon Ford started pulling out of demonstration events and became the first mass produced reliable car in the world. The belief system of those early innovation activists had taken hold. Their meaning-work was done. They had demonstrated and convinced the public that their once radical inventions were more useful, usable, and desirable than horses, buggies…and bikes.THE GENIE GETS OUT OF THE BOTTLEWith the public convinced and nationwide reliability events tapering off, automobile activists turned their attention to roads. The Good Roads Movement had been around since the 1880s and was started by a bicycle club, the League of American Wheelman. But in 1910 that organizations efforts were overshadowed by the Automobile Association of America (AAA). By the 1920s, automobiles were competing for space with streetcars that were ubiquitous in cities big and small across the country. Streetcar systems were so vast you could almost traverse the country by streetcar city to city. But for the first time, funds and space for public rail infrastructure had competition. Should tax dollars be spent on developing and maintaining rail for trains and streetcars or roads for bikes and automobiles?Meanwhile, large motor coaches were also being produced. One of the first manufacturers and operators in America was John D. Hertz of Hertz rental car fame. He had been operating busses in Chicago since 1916, and in 1923 started the Yellow Coach Manufacturing Company, a subsidiary of another popular name, the Yellow Cab Company. He went on to start other companies with visions of bringing busses and busing to all of America.In 1925 General Motors (GM) bought a controlling stake in Yellow Coach and changed the name to Yellow Truck and Coach Manufacturing Company.  Then, in 1926 Yellow Coach purchased the struggling New York Railways Corporation with the idea of converting it to a bus company. By 1930, the depression put added pressure on the competition for infrastructure funds. Financially struggling streetcars companies were often forced by local governments to lease street access and pay for rail maintenance and services (like snow removal). Companies were also sometimes forced to cap fare prices to protect lower income residents from getting priced out of public transportation by private firms. By the 1930s most streetcars were worn down and their companies bankrupt. It made them easy prey for companies like General Motors to buy them out.And so they did. GM started a subsidiary called United Cities Motor Transport (UCMT) with the sole purpose of buying out streetcar companies and converting them to bus lines in small cities. They succeeded in Saginaw, Michigan, and Springfield, Ohio and then tried Portland, Oregon. But the American Transit Association, a public transit advocacy group, stepped in and the UCMT was forced to dissolve in 1935. But it didn’t stop General Motors. That same year they converted a streetcar in New Jersey to a ‘trackless trolly’ – a bus attached to an electric wire that could detach to pick up passengers in lower populated areas. An idea that is alive to this day.The conversion from tracks to wheels was catching on. In 1936, two brothers in Minnesota who had been modestly busing school children and miners since 1920, either decided or were ‘encouraged’ to expand. They announced a reorganization of their company, National City Lines, "for the purpose of taking over the controlling interest in certain operating companies engaged in city bus transportation and overland bus transportation."  That same year, 1936, this tiny outfit bought 13 streetcar companies in three states in the Midwest. They pushed westward and south to three more states in 1937. They also formed a subsidiary in Oakland, California called Pacific City Lines (PCL) with the intention of converting streetcar operations on the west coast to bus lines. In 1938 they approached GM’s Yellow Coach company to help finance further expansion. By 1939 they had secured funding from not only GM, but  Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, and Mack Trucks. By the end of 1939, just three years after owning and operating a couple rural busses in Minnesota, National City Lines took control of 29 local streetcar and public transportation companies in 27 cities across 10 states. By 1947 that grew to 46 systems, 45 cities, and 16 states.That also marked the end of the buying spree. In 1947 they were indicted on these two counts of conspiracy by the Federal District Court of Southern California: 'Conspiring to acquire control of a number of transit companies, forming a transportation monopoly' and 'Conspiring to monopolize sales of buses and supplies to companies owned by National City Lines.' In 1948 the case was appealed by the U.S. Supreme Court and they ordered the case be moved to the Midwest in the Federal District Court in Northern Illinois.A year later, in 1949, General Motors, Standard Oil of California, Firestone and others were convicted of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to local transit companies controlled by National City Lines and other companies. But they were acquitted on charges of conspiracy to monopolize the ownership of streetcar and other public transportation companies. GM was fined a paltry $5000 ($62,000 today) dollars for their involvement. Their treasurer, also the director of Pacific City Lines was fined $1. That almost seems like a wink and nod more than a punishment. That one man single-handedly dismantled a $100 million electric public transportation system up and down the west coast of the United States.In Los Angeles alone, 280 million passengers a year were using the electric streetcar system. They were forced into buses or cars – if they could afford them. By 1953, just four years after the great General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy people were already complaining of traffic in LA. Within a decade, nearly four million cars were crawling around the Los Angeles Metropolitan area. The era of automobile dependency in the United States was in full swing. And there’s no getting that genie back in the bottle.SAFETY FOR WHOM?The CEO of GM, Alfred P. Sloan, wasn’t just pooling money with his cronies to buy out electric streetcar companies. Back in 1932, the same time he was conspiring to monopolize, he also created the ‘National Highway Users Conference’. He filled it with automobile, oil, and highway construction executives as a non-profit lobbying group intent on bringing an end to the government funding of mass transportation. This resulted in the creation of the U.S. Highway Trust Fund which was then used to fund the creation of the U.S. Interstate Highway System. Between 1952 and 1970 the U.S. government spent nearly two billion dollars on highways. Rail systems got just one quarter of a million.1970 also marked the year the ‘National Highway Users Conference’, ‘Automotive Safety Foundation’, and the ‘Auto Industries Highway Safety Committee’ were merged to form the ‘Highway Users Federation’. In 1995 the name was changed to the 'American Highway Users Alliance’ which to this day is “dedicated to more successful and aggressive issue advocacy on behalf of the highway community.” They went on to lead a “successful national lobbying, media and grassroots advocacy campaign to enact legislation officially designating and funding the National Highway System.” A year later, in 1996, Al Gore, the Nobel prize winner for climate change advocacy, keynoted their 40th anniversary conference. An inconvenient truth.This organization was also the member of the Global Climate Coalition from 1989 to 2001. This was the largest climate policy group in the world. It was an international coalition that opposed actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and challenged the science behind climate change. They also played a significant role in the United States denying ratification of the 1992 Kyoto Protocol.In 2004 a former U.S. Federal Highway Administration staffer, Greg Cohen, became the CEO of the organization. He was behind the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, better known as SAFETE-LU. This George W. Bush administration bill included funding for the purchase of land in Illinois for freeway expansion. Bush worked directly with the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, on the bill. It turned out Hastert owned the very land slated for freeway expansion. The celebration of the passing of the bill was held at the headquarters of the road construction equipment maker, Caterpillar.Four months later Hastert enjoyed a 500% profit in the sale of his land and his net worth went from $300,000 to over $6 million. Hastert went on to be convicted on felony charges, but not for swindling taxpayers’ dollars. He was sent to prison for serial sexual molestation of young boys. He is the highest-ranking U.S. elected official to serve a prison sentence. Will Trump dethrone him? Just last April, the former Highway Alliance CEO, Greg Cohen, received an award by the ‘Road Gang’ (as those in the organization like to call themselves) for his “significant, exemplary contributions to the highway industry.”In 2009 the ‘Road Gang’ opposed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This was the first U.S. bill passed by a branch of the U.S. Federal Government intent on curbing heat-trapping gases responsible for the climate crisis. The ‘Road Gang’ said the “bill will dramatically raise the price of highway fuel through a hidden tax” and that it may “raise the price of gasoline by 77 cents over the next decade.” Worse yet, they worried “none of the revenue raised will be spent on highways.”These caustic climate curmudgeons, car conspirators, tire tycoons, and oil and gas goons are the modern-day automobile enthusiast club. In sociological terms they are ideological activists who exploit financial and political opportunities to mobilize resources. For over a century their ideologically vacuous, homogenous, and one-sided promise of automobility is alive and well but it is also killing us – even as it perpetually promises to save us.Yet we still need demonstrations to convince us. Now safety and reliability are demonstrated by professional stunt drivers filmed on a smooth open road. Desirable luxury automobiles are filmed in a bucolic low-density suburban neighborhood void of cars and people. Ironically, our Kirkland neighborhood was planned and designed in the 1800s – complete with alleys designed to hide buggies, bikes, and carbon belching Buicks. Streets were public spaces where kids could play, and neighbors talked to one another. As car enthusiasts took over so did city planners and city councils hellbent on accommodating there promises. Now these enthusiasts are our elected officials, city planners, and civil engineers. In their mind, most of them anyway, the only meaningful, valid, and appropriate use of the street is for cars. A place where to be safe you need Hollywood production assistants on every corner and a cop in the intersection yelling, “SIR! PLEASE BACK OFF THE SIDEWALK!” It makes me want to yell back, “GET A HORSE!” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

In this conversation, Adam Falk and I talk about running research programs with impact over long timescales, creating new fields, philanthropic science funding, and so much more.  Adam is the president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,  which was started by the eponymous founder of General Motors and has been funding science and education efforts for almost nine decades.  They've funded everything from iPython Notebooks to the Wikimedia foundation to an astronomical survey of the entire sky. If you're like me, their name is familiar from the acknowledgement part of PBS science shows. Before becoming the president of the Sloan Foundation, Adam was the president of Williams College and a high energy physicist focused on elementary particle physics and quantum field theory. His combined experience in research, academic administration, and philanthropic funding give him a unique and fascinating perspective on the innovation ecosystem. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did.  Links - The Sloan Foundation - Adam Falk on Wikipedia  - Philanthropy and the Future of Science and Technology Highlight Timestamps - How do you measure success in science? [00:01:31] - Thinking about programs on long timescales [00:05:27] -  How does the Sloan Foundation decide which programs to do? [00:08:08] - Sloan's Matter to Life Program [00:12:54] -  How does the Sloan Foundation think about coordination? [00:18:24] -  Finding and incentivizing program directors [00:22:32] - What should academics know about the funding world and what should the funding world know about academics? [00:28:03] - Grants and academics as the primary way research happens [00:33:42] - Problems with grants and common grant applications [00:44:49] - Addressing the criticism of philanthropy being inefficient because it lacks market mechanisms [00:47:16] - Engaging with the idea that people who create value should be able to capture that value [00:53:05]   Transcript [00:00:35] In this conversation, Adam Falk, and I talk about running research programs with impact over long timescales, creating new fields, philanthropic science funding, and so much more. Adam is the president of the Alfred P Sloan foundation, which was started by the eponymous founder of general motors. And has been funding science and education efforts for almost nine decades. They funded everything from IP. I fond [00:01:35] notebooks to Wikimedia foundation. To an astronomical survey of the entire sky. If you're like me, their name is familiar from the acknowledgement part of PBS science shows. Before becoming the president of the Sloan foundation. Adam was the president of Williams college and I high energy physicist focused on elementary particle physics in quantum field theory. His combined experience in research. Uh, Academic administration and philanthropic funding give him a unique and fascinating perspective on the innovation ecosystem i hope you enjoy this as much as i did [00:02:06] Ben: Let's start with like a, sort of a really tricky thing that I'm, I'm myself always thinking about is that, you know, it's really hard to like measure success in science, right? Like you, you know, this better than anybody. And so just like at, at the foundation, how do you, how do you think about success? Like, what is, what does success look like? What is the difference between. Success and failure mean to [00:02:34] Adam: you? [00:02:35] I mean, I think that's a, that's a really good question. And I think it's a mistake to think that there are some magic metrics that if only you are clever enough to come up with build them out of citations and publications you could get some fine tune measure of success. I mean, obviously if we fund in a scientific area, we're funding investigators who we think are going to have a real impact with their work individually, and then collectively. And so of course, you know, if they're not publishing, it's a failure. We expect them to publish. We expect people to publish in high-impact journals, but we look for broader measures as well if we fund a new area. So for example, A number of years ago, we had a program in the microbiology of the built environment, kind of studying all the microbes that live in inside, which turns out to be a very different ecosystem than outside. When we started in that program, there were a few investigators interested in this question. There weren't a lot of tools that were good for studying it. [00:03:35] By 10 years later, when we'd left, there was a journal, there were conferences, there was a community of people who were doing this work, and that was another measure, really tangible measure of success that we kind of entered a field that, that needed some support in order to get going. And by the time we got out, it was, it was going strong and the community of people doing that work had an identity and funding paths and a real future. Yeah. [00:04:01] Ben: So I guess one way that I've been thinking about it, it's just, it's almost like counterfactual impact. Right. Whereas like if you hadn't gone in, then it, the, it wouldn't be [00:04:12] Adam: there. Yeah. I think that's the way we think about it. Of course that's a hard to, to measure. Yeah. But I think that Since a lot of the work we fund is not close to technology, right. We don't have available to ourselves, you know, did we spin out products? Did we spin out? Companies did a lot of the things that might directly connect that work to, [00:04:35] to activities that are outside of the research enterprise, that in other fields you can measure impact with. So the impact is pretty internal. That is for the most part, it is, you know, Has it been impact on other parts of science that, you know, again, that we think might not have happened if we hadn't hadn't funded what we funded. As I said before, have communities grown up another interesting measure of impact from our project that we funded for about 25 years now, the Sloan digital sky survey is in papers published in the following sense that one of the innovations, when the Sloan digital sky survey launched in the early. Was that the data that came out of it, which was all for the first time, digital was shared broadly with the community. That is, this was a survey of the night sky that looked at millions of objects. So they're very large databases. And the investigators who built this, the, the built the, the, the telescope certainly had first crack at analyzing that [00:05:35] data. But there was so much richness in the data that the decision was made at. Sloan's urging early on that this data after a year should be made public 90% of the publications that came out of the Sloan digital sky survey have not come from collaborators, but it come from people who use that data after it's been publicly released. Yeah. So that's another way of kind of seeing impact and success of a project. And it's reached beyond its own borders. [00:06:02] Ben: And you mentioned like both. Just like that timescale, right? Like that, that, that 25 years something that I think is just really cool about the Sloan foundation is like how, how long you've been around and sort of like your capability of thinking on those on like a quarter century timescale. And I guess, how do you, how do you think about timescales on things? Right. Because it's like, on the one hand, this is like, obviously like science can take [00:06:35] 25 years on the other hand, you know, it's like, you need to be, you can't just sort of like do nothing for 25 years. [00:06:44] Adam: So if you had told people back in the nineties that the Sloan digital sky survey was going to still be going after a quarter of a century, they probably never would have funded it. So, you know, I think that That you have an advantage in the foundation world, as opposed to the the, the federal funding, which is that you can have some flexibility about the timescales on what you think. And so you don't have to simply go from grant to grant and you're not kind of at the mercy of a Congress that changes its own funding commitments every couple of years. We at the Sloan foundation tend to think that it takes five years at a minimum to have impact into any new field that you go into it. And we enter a new science field, you know, as we just entered, we just started a new program matter to life, which we can talk about. [00:07:35] That's initially a five-year commitment to put about $10 million a year. Into this discipline, understanding that if things are going well, we'll re up for another five years. So we kind of think of that as a decadal program. And I would say the time scale we think on for programs is decades. The timescale we think of for grants is about three years, right? But a program itself consists of many grants may do a large number of investigators. And that's really the timescale where we think you can have, have an impact over that time. But we're constantly re-evaluating. I would say the timescale for rethinking a program is shorter. That's more like five years and we react. So in our ongoing programs, about every five years, we'll take a step back and do a review. You know, whether we're having an impact on the program, we'll get some outside perspectives on it and whether we need to keep it going exactly as it is, or adjust in some [00:08:35] interesting ways or shut it down and move the resources somewhere else. So [00:08:39] Ben: I like that, that you have, you almost have like a hierarchy of timescales, right? Like you have sort of multiple going at once. I think that's, that's like under underappreciated and so w one thing they want to ask about, and maybe the the, the life program is a good sort of like case study in this is like, how do you, how do you decide what pro, like, how do you decide what programs to do, right? Like you could do anything. [00:09:04] Adam: So th that is a terrific question and a hard one to get. Right. And we just came out of a process of thinking very deeply about it. So it's a great time to talk about it. Let's do it. So To frame the large, the problem in the largest sense, if we want to start a new grantmaking program where we are going to allocate about $10 million a year, over a five to 10 year period, which is typical for us, the first thing you realize is that that's not a lot of money on the scale that the federal government [00:09:35] invest. So if your first thought is, well, let's figure out the most interesting thing science that people are doing you quickly realize that those are things where they're already a hundred times that much money going in, right? I mean, quantum materials would be something that everybody is talking about. The Sloan foundation, putting $10 million a year into quantum materials is not going to change anything. Interesting. So you start to look for that. You start to look for structural reasons that something that there's a field or an emerging field, and I'll talk about what some of those might be, where an investment at the scale that we can make can have a real impact. And And so what might some of those areas be? There are fields that are very interdisciplinary in ways that make it hard for individual projects to find a home in the federal funding landscape and one overly simplified, but maybe helpful way to think about it is that the federal funding landscape [00:10:35] is, is governed large, is organized largely by disciplines. That if you look at the NSF, there's a division, there's a director of chemistry and on physics and so forth. And but many questions don't map well onto a single discipline. And sometimes questions such as some of the ones we're exploring in the, you know, the matter to life program, which I can explain more about what that is. Some of those questions. Require collaborations that are not naturally fundable in any of the silos the federal government has. So that's very interdisciplinary. Work is one area. Second is emerging disciplines. And again, often that couples to interdisciplinary work in a way that often disciplines emerge in interesting ways at the boundaries of other disciplines. Sometimes the subject matter is the boundary. Sometimes it's a situation where techniques developed in one discipline are migrating to being used in another discipline. And that often happens with physics, the [00:11:35] physicist, figure out how to do something, like grab the end of a molecule and move it around with a laser. And suddenly the biologists realize that's a super interesting thing for them. And they would like to do that. So then there's work. That's at the boundary of those kind of those disciplines. You know, a third is area that the ways in which that that can happen is that you can have. Scale issues where, where kind of work needs to happen at a certain scale that is too big to be a single investigator, but too small to kind of qualify for the kind of big project funding that you have in the, in the, in the federal government. And so you're looking, you could also certainly find things that are not funded because they're not very interesting. And those are not the ones we want to fund, but you often have to sift through quite a bit of that to find something. So that's what you're looking for now, the way you look for it is not that you sit in a conference room and get real smart and think that you're going to see [00:12:35] things, other people aren't going to see rather you. You source it out, out in the field. Right. And so we had an 18 month process in which we invited kind of proposals for what you could do on a program at that scale, from major research universities around the country, we had more than a hundred ideas. We had external panels of experts who evaluated these ideas. And that's what kind of led us in the end to this particular framing of the new program that we're starting. So and, and that, and that process was enough to convince us that this was interesting, that it was, you know, emergent as a field, that it was hard to fund in other ways. And that the people doing the work are truly extraordinary. Yeah. And that's, that's the, that's what you're looking for. And I think in some ways there are pieces of that in all of the programs that particularly the research programs that. [00:13:29] Ben: And so, so actually, could you describe the matter to life program and like, [00:13:35] and sort of highlight how it fits into all of those buckets? [00:13:38] Adam: Absolutely. So the, the, the matter of the life program is an investigation into the principles, particularly the physical principles that matter uses in order to organize itself into living systems. The first distinction to make is this is not a program about how did life evolve on earth, and it's actually meant to be a broader question then how is life on earth organized the idea behind it is that life. Is a particular example of some larger phenomenon, which is life. And I'm not going to define life for you. That is, we know what things are living and we know things that aren't living and there's a boundary in between. And part of the purpose of this program is to explore that it's a think of it as kind of out there, on, out there in the field. And, and mapmaking, and you know, over here is, you [00:14:35] know, is a block of ice. That's not alive. And, you know, over here is a frog and that's alive and there's all sorts of intermediate spaces in there. And there are ideas out there that, that go, you know, that are interesting ideas about, for example, at the cellular level how is information can date around a cell? What might the role of. Things like non-equilibrium thermodynamics be playing is how does, can evolution be can it can systems that are, non-biological be induced to evolve in interesting ways. And so we're studying both biotic and non biotic systems. There are three strains, stray strands in this. One is building life. That is it was said by I think I, I find men that if you can't build something, you don't understand it. And so the idea, and there are people who want to build an actual cell. I think that's, that's a hard thing to do, but we have people who are building in the laboratory little bio-molecular machines understanding how that might [00:15:35] work. We, we fund people who are kind of constructing, protocells thinking about ways that the, the ways that liquid separate might provide SEP diff divisions between inside and outside, within. Chemical reactions could take place. We funded businesses to have made tiny little, you know, micron scale magnets that you mix them together and you can get them to kind of organize themselves in interesting ways. Yeah. In emerge. What are the ways in which emergent behaviors come to this air couple into this. And so that's kind of building life. Can you kind of build systems that have features that feel essential to life and by doing that, learn something general about, say the reproduction of, of, of, of DNA or something simple about how inside gets differentiated from outside. Second strand is principles of life, and that's a little bit more around are [00:16:35] there physics principles that govern the organization of life? And again, are there ways in which the kinds of thinking that informed thermodynamics, which is kind of the study of. Piles of gas and liquid and so forth. Those kinds of thinking about bulk properties and emergent behavior can tell us something about what's the difference between life that's life and matter. That's not alive. And the third strain is signs of life. And, you know, we have all of these telescopes that are out there now discover thousands of exoplanets. And of course the thing we all want to know is, is there life on them? We were never going to go to them. We maybe if we go, we'll never come back. And and we yet we can look and see the chemical composition of these. Protoplanets just starting to be able to see that. And they transition in front of a star, the atmospheres of these planets absorb light from the stars and the and the light that's absorbed tells you something about the chemical composition of the atmosphere. [00:17:35] So there's a really interesting question. Kind of chemical. Are there elements of the chemical composition of an atmosphere that would tell you that that life is present there and life in general? Right. I, you know, if, if you, if you're going to look for kind of DNA or something, that might be way too narrow, a thing to kind of look for. Right. So we've made a very interesting grant to a collaboration that is trying to understand the general properties of atmospheres of Rocky planets. And if you kind of knew all of the things that an atmosphere of an Earth-like planet might look like, and then you saw something that isn't one in one of those, you think, well, something other might've done that. Yeah. So that's a bit of a flavor. What I'd say about the nature of the research is it is, as you could tell highly interdisciplinary. Yeah. Right. So this last project I mentioned requires geoscience and astrophysics and chemistry and geochemistry and a vulcanology an ocean science [00:18:35] and, and Who's going to fund that. Yeah. Right. It's also in very emerging area because it comes at the boundary between geoscience, the understanding of what's going on on earth and absolutely cutting edge astrophysics, the ability to kind of look out into the cosmos and see other planets. So people working at that boundary it's where interesting things often, often happen. [00:18:59] Ben: And you mentioned that when, when you're looking at programs, you're, you're looking for things that are sort of bigger than like a single pie. And like, how do you, how do you think about sort of the, the different projects, like individual projects within a program? Becoming greater than the sum of their parts. Like, like, you know, there's, there's some, there's like one end of the spectrum where you've just sort of say, like, go, go do your things. And everybody's sort of runs off. And then there's another end of the spectrum where you like very explicitly tell people like who should be working on what and [00:19:35] how to, how to collaborate. So like, how do you, [00:19:37] Adam: so one of the wonderful things about being at a foundation is you have a convening power. Yeah. I mean, in part, because you're giving away money, people will, will want to come gather when you say let's come together, you know? And in part, because you just have a way of operating, that's a bit independent. And so the issue you're raising is a very important one, you know, in the individual at a program at a say, science grant making program we will fund a lot of individual projects, which may be a single investigator, or they may be big collab, collaborations, but we also are thinking from the beginning about how. Create help create a field. Right. And it may not always be obvious how that's going to work. I think with matter to life we're early on and we're, you know, we're not sure is this a single field, are there sub fields here? But we're already thinking about how to bring our pies together to kind of share the work they're doing and get to share perspectives. I can give you another example from a program Reno law, we recently [00:20:35] closed, which was a chemistry of the indoor environment. Where we were funded kind of coming out of our work in the microbiology indoors. It turns out that there's also very interesting chemistry going on indoors which is different from the environmental chemistry that we think about outdoors indoors. There are people in all the stuff that they exude, there's an enormous number of surfaces. And so surface chemistry is really important. And, and again, there were people who were doing this work in isolation, interested in, in these kinds of topics. And we were funding them individually, but once we had funded a whole community of people doing. They decided that be really interesting to do a project where, which they called home cam, where they went to a test house and kind of did all sorts of indoor activities like cooking Thanksgiving dinner and studying the chemistry together. And this is an amazing collaboration. So we had, so many of our grantees came together in one [00:21:35] place around kind of one experiment or one experimental environment and did work then where it could really speak to each other. Right. And which they they'd done experiments that were similar enough that they, the people who were studying one aspect of the chemistry and another could do that in a more coherent way. And I think that never would have happened without the Sloan foundation having funded this chemistry of indoor environments program. Both because of the critical mass we created, but also because of the community of scholars that we, that we help foster. [00:22:07] Ben: So, it's like you're playing it a very important role, but then it, it is sort of like a very then bottom up sort of saying like, like almost like put, like saying like, oh, like you people all actually belong together and then they look around and like, oh yeah, yeah, [00:22:24] Adam: we do. I think that's exactly right. And yeah. You don't want to be too directive because, you know, we're, we're just a foundation where we got some program directors and, you know, [00:22:35] we, we do know some things about the science we're funding, but the real expertise lives with these researchers who do this work every day. Right. And so what we're trying to see when, when we think we can see some things that they can't, it's not going to be in the individual details of the work they're doing, but it may be there from up here on the 22nd floor of the Rockefeller center, we can see the landscape a little bit better and are in a position to make connections that then will be fruitful. You know, if we were right, there'll be fruitful because the people on the ground doing the work with the expertise, believe that they're fruitful. Sometimes we make a connection and it's not fruitful in that. It doesn't fruit and that's fine too. You know, we're not always right about everything either, but we have an opportunity to do that. That comes from the. Particular in special place that we happen to sit. Yeah. [00:23:28] Ben: Yeah. And just speaking of program directors, how do you, how do you think about, I mean, like [00:23:35] you're, you're sort of in charge and so how do you think about directing them and, and sort of how do you think about setting up incentives so that, you know, good work like so that they do good work on their programs and and like how much sort of autonomy do you give them? Sort of how does, how does all of that work? [00:23:56] Adam: Absolutely. So I spent most of my career in universities and colleges. I was my own background is as, as, as a theoretical physicist. And I spent quite a bit of time as a Dean and a college president. And I think the key to being a successful academic administrator is understanding deep in your bones, that the faculty are the heart of the institution. They are the intellectual heart and soul of the institution. And that you will have a great institution. If you hire terrific faculty and support them you aren't telling them, you know, you as, and they don't require a lot of telling them what to do, but the [00:24:35] leadership role does require a lot of deciding where to allocate the resources and helping figure out and, and figuring out how, and in what ways, and at what times you can be helpful to them. Yeah. The program directors at the Sloan foundation are very much. The faculty of a, of a university and we have six right now it's five PhDs and a road scholar. Right. And they are, each of them truly respect, deeply respected intellectual leaders in the fields in which they're making grants. Right. And my job is to first off to hire and retain a terrific group of program directors who know way more about the things they're doing than I do. And then to kind of help them figure out how to craft their programs. And you know, there's different kinds of, you know, different kinds of help that different kind of program directors needs. Sometimes they just need resources. Sometimes they need, you know, a collaborative conversation. You know, [00:25:35] sometimes, you know, we talk about the ways in which their individual programs are gonna fit together into the larger. Programs at the Sloan foundation sometimes what we talk about is ways in which we can and should, or shouldn't change what we do in order to build a collaboration elsewhere. But I don't do much directing of the work that program directors to just like, I don't, didn't ever do much of any directing of the work that, that that the faculty did. And I think what keeps a program director engaged at a place like the Sloan foundation is the opportunity to be a leader. Yeah. [00:26:10] Ben: It's actually sort of to double click on that. And on, on, on hiring program directors, it seems it like, I, I, I would imagine that it is, it is sometimes tough to get really, really good program directors, cause people who would make good program directors could probably have, you know, their pick. Amazing roles. And, and to some extent, and, and [00:26:35] they, they, they do get to be a leader, but to some extent, like they're, they're not directly running a lab, right. Like they're, they, they don't have sort of that direct power. And they're, they're not like making as much money as they could be, you know, working at Google or something. And so, so like how do you both like find, and then convince people to, to come do that? [00:26:57] Adam: So that's a great question. I mean, I think there's a certain, you know, P people are meant to be program directors are, are not the, usually the place like the Sloan foundation and different foundations work differently. Right. So but in our case are not people who Otherwise, who would rather be spending their time in the lab. Yeah. Right. And many of them have spent time as serious scholars in one discipline or another, but much like faculty who move into administration, they've come to a point in their careers, whether that was earlier or later in their [00:27:35] career where the larger scope that's afforded by doing it by being a program director compensates for the fact that they can't focus in the same way on a particular problem, that, that the way a faculty member does or a researcher. Yes. So the, the other thing you have to feel really in your bones, which is, again, much like being an academic administrator is that there's a deep reward in finding really talented people and giving them the resources. They need to do great things. Right. And in the case, if you're a program director, what you're doing is finding grantees and When a grantee does something really exciting. We celebrate that here at the foundation as, as a success of the foundation. Not that we're trying to claim their success, but because that's what we're trying to do, we're trying to find other people who can do great things and give them the resources to do those great things. So you have to get a great kind of professional satisfaction from. So there are people who have a [00:28:35] broader view or want to move into a, a time in their careers when they can take that broader view about a field or an area that they already feel passionate about. And then who have the disposition that, that, you know, that wanting to help people is deeply rewarding to them. And, you know, say you, how do you find these folks? It's, it's just like, it's hard to find people who were really good at academic administration. You have to look really hard for people who are going to be great at this work. And you persuade them to do it precisely because they happen to be people who want to do this kind of work. Yeah. [00:29:09] Ben: And actually and so, so you, you sort of are, are highlighting a lot of parallels between academic administration and, and sort of your role now. I think it. Is there anything that, but at the same time, I think that there are many things that like academics don't understand about sort of like science funding and and, and this, that, that world, and then there's many things that it seems like science funders don't understand about [00:29:35] research and, and you're, you're one of the few people who've sort of done in both. And so I guess just a very open-ended question is like, like what, what do you wish that more academics understood about the funding world and things you have to think about here? And what do you wish more people in the funding world understood about, about research? Yeah, [00:29:54] Adam: that is, that is great. So I can give you a couple of things. The, I think at a high level, I, I always wish that on both sides of that divide, there was a deeper understanding of the constraints under which people on the other side are operating. And those are both material constraints and what I might call intellectual constraints. So there's a parallelism here. I, if I first say from the point of view of the, of as a foundation president, what do I wish that academics really understood? I, I, I'm always having to reinforce to people that we really do mean it when we say we do fund, we fund X and we don't fund Y [00:30:35] yeah. And that please don't spend time trying to persuade me that Z, that you do really is close enough to X, that we should fund it and get offended. When I tell you that's not what we fund, we say no to a lot of things that are intrinsically great, but that we're not funding because it's not what we fund. Yeah. We as, and we make choices about what to fund that are very specific and what areas to fund in that are very specific so that we can have some impact, right. And we don't make those decisions lightly, you know, for almost any work someone is doing, we're not the only foundation who might fund it. So move on to someone else. If you're not fitting our program, then argue with us and just understand why it is that, that we do that. Right. I think that is that's a come across that a lot. There's a total parallel, which I think is very important for people in foundations who have very strong ideas about what they should fund to understand that, you know, academics are not going to drop what they're doing and start doing something else because there's a [00:31:35] little bit of money available that, you know, is an academic, of course, you're trying to make. Your questions, two ways, things you can support, but usually driven because some question is really important to you. And if, you know, if some foundation comes to you and says, well, stop doing that and do this, I'll find it. You know why maybe that's, you're pretty desperate. You're not going to do that. So the best program directors spend a lot of time looking for people who already are interested in the thing that the foundation is funding, right? And really underst understand that you can't bribe people into doing something that they, that they, that they otherwise wouldn't do. And so I think those are very parallel. I mean, to both to understand the set of commitments that people are operating under, I would say the other thing that I think it's really important for foundations to understand about about universities is and other institutions is that these institutions. Are not just platforms [00:32:35] on which one can do a project, right? They are institutions that require support on their own. And somebody has to pay the debt service on the building and take out the garbage and cut the grass and clean the building and, you know hire the secretaries and do all of the kind of infrastructure work that makes it possible for a foundation such as Sloan to give somebody $338,000 to hire some postdocs and do some interesting experiments, but somebody is still turning on the lights and overhead goes to the overhead is really important and the overhead is not some kind of profit that universities are taking. It is the money they need in order to operate in ways that make it possible to do the grants. And. You know, there's a longer story here. I mean, even foundations like Sloan don't pay the full overhead and we can do that because [00:33:35] we typically are a very small part of the funding stream. But during the pandemic, we raised our overhead permanently from the 15% we used to pay to the 20% that we pay now, precisely because we've, we felt it was important to signal our support for the institutions. And some of those aren't universities, some of those are nonprofits, right? That other kinds of nonprofits that we're housing, the activities that we were interested in funding. And I just think it's really important for foundations to understand that. And I do think that my own time as a Dean at a college president, when I needed that overhead in order to turn on the lights, so some chemist could hire the post-docs has made me particularly sensitive [00:34:16] Ben: to that. Yeah, no, that's, that's a really good. Totally that I don't think about enough. So, so, so I really appreciate that. And I think sort of implicit implicit in our conversation has been two sort of core things. One, is that the way that you [00:34:35] fund work is through grants and two, is that the, the primary people doing the research are academics and I guess it just, w let's say, w w what is, what's the actual question there it's like, is it like, do you, do you think that that is the best way of doing it? Have you like explored other ways? Because it, it, it feels like those are sort of both you know, it's like has been the way that people have done it for a long time. [00:35:04] Adam: So there's, there's two answers to that question. The first is just to acknowledge that the Sloan foundation. Probably 50 out of the $90 million a year in grants we make are for research. And almost all of that research is done at universities, I think primarily because we're really funding basic research and that's where basic research has done. If we were funding other kinds of research, a lot of use inspired research research that was closer to kind of technology. We would be, you might be [00:35:35] funding people who worked in different spaces, but the kind of work we fund that's really where it's done. But we have another significant part of the foundation that funds things that aren't quite research, that the public understanding of science and technology diversity, equity and inclusion in stem, higher ed of course, much of that is, is money that goes into universities, but also into other institutions that are trying to bring about cultural change in the sciences badly needed cultural change. And then our technology program, which looks at all sorts of technologies. Modern technologies that support scholarships such as software scholarly communication, but as increasingly come to support modes of collaboration and other kinds of more kind of social science aspects of how people do research. And there are a lot of that funding is not being given to universities. A lot of that funding is given to other sorts of institutions, nonprofits, always because we're a [00:36:35] foundation, we can only fund nonprofits, but that go beyond the kind of institutional space that universities occupy. We're really looking for. You know, we're not driven by a kind of a sense of who we should fund followed by what we should fund. We're interested in funding problems and questions. And then we look to see who it is that that is doing that work. So in public understanding some of that's in the universities, but most of it isn't and [00:37:00] Ben: actually the two to go back. One thing that I wanted to to ask about is like It seems like there's, if you're primarily wanting to find people who are already doing the sort of work that is within scope of a program, does it, like, I guess it almost like raises the chicken and egg problem of like, how, how do you, like, what if there's an area where people really should be doing work, but nobody is, is doing that work [00:37:35] because there is no funding to do that work. Right. Like this is just something that I struggled with. It's not right. And so, so it's like, how do you, how do you sort of like bootstrap thing? Yes. [00:37:46] Adam: I mean, I think that the way to think about it is that you work incrementally. That is if, if once, and I think you're, you're quite right. That is in some sense, we are looking for areas that. Under inhabited, scientifically because people aren't supporting that work. And that's another way of saying what I said at the beginning about how we're looking for maybe interdisciplinary fields that are hard to support. One way you can tell that they're hard to support is that there isn't a support people aren't doing it, but typically you're working in from the edges, right. There's people on the boundaries of those spaces chomping at the bit. Right. And when you say, you know, what is the work? You can't do what you would do if you add some funding and tell [00:38:35] us why it's super interesting. That's the question you're asking. And that's kind of the question that drives what we talked about before, which is how do you identify a new area, but it's it it's actually to your point, precisely, it's not the area where everybody already is. Cause there's already a lot of money there. Right? So I would say. You know, if you really had to bootstrap it out in the vacuum, you would have to have the insights that we don't pretend to have. You'd have this ability to kind of look out into the vacuum of space and conjure something that should be there and then have in conjure who should do it and have the resources to start the whole thing. That's not the Sloan foundation we do. We don't operate at that scale, but there's another version of that, which is a more incremental and recognizes the exciting ideas that researchers who are adjacent to an underfunded field. Can't th th th th th the, the excitement that they have to go into a new [00:39:35] area, that's just adjacent to where they are and being responsive to that. [00:39:39] Ben: No, that's, and that's, it sort of ties back in my mind to. Y you need to do programs on that ten-year timescale, right? Like, you know, it's like the first three years you go a little bit in the next three years, you do a little bit in, and by like the end of the 10 years, then you're actually in, in [00:39:59] Adam: that new. No, I think that's exactly right. And the other thing is you can, you know, be more risky or more speculative. I like the word speculative better than risky. Risky makes it sound like you don't know what you're doing. Speculative is meant to say, you don't know where you're going to go. So I don't ever think the grants we're funding are particularly risky in the sense that they're going to, the projects will fail. They're speculative in the sense that you don't know if they're going to lead somewhere really interesting. And this is where. The current funding landscape is really in the federal funding. Landscape is really challenging because [00:40:35] the competition for funding is so high that you really need to be able to guarantee success, which doesn't just mean guarantee that your project will work, but that it will, you know, we will contribute in some really meaningful way to moving the field forward, which means that you actually have to have done half the project already before that's, what's called preliminary data playmate. As far as I'm concerned, preliminary data means I already did it. And now I'm just going to clean it up with this grant. And that is, that's a terrible constraint and we can, we're not bound by that kind of constraint in funding things. So we can have failures that are failures in the sense that that didn't turn out to be as interesting as we hoped it would be. Yeah. I, [00:41:17] Ben: I love your point on, on the risk. I, I, I dunno. I, I think that it's, especially with like science, right? It's like, what is it. The risk, right? Like, you're going to discover something. You might discover that, you know, this is like the phenomenon we thought was a [00:41:35] phenomenon is not really there. Right. But it's, it's still, it's, it's not risky because you weren't like investing for, [00:41:43] Adam: for an ROI. Can I give you another example? I think it was a really good one. Is, is it in the matter of the life program? We made a grant to a guy named David Baker, the university of Washington and hated him. And so, you know, David Baker. And so David Baker builds these little nanoscale machines and he has an enormous Institute for doing this. It's extraordinarily exciting work and. Almost all of the work that he is able to do is tool directed toward applications, particularly biomedical applications. Totally understandable. There's a lot of money there. There's a lot of need there. Everybody wants to live forever. I don't, but everybody else seems to want to, but, so why did, why would, why do we think that we should fund them with all of the money that's in the Institute for protein engineering? Which I think is what it's called. It's because we actually funded him to do some basic science.[00:42:35] Yeah to build machines that didn't have an application, but to learn something about the kinds of machines and the kinds of machinery inside cells, by building something that doesn't have an application, but as an interesting basic science component to it, and that's actually a real impact, it was a terrific grant for us because there's all of this arc, all of this architecture that's already been built, but a new direction that he can go with his colleagues that that he actually, for all of the funding he has, he can't do under the content under the. Umbrella of kind of biomedicine. And so that's another way in which things can be more speculative, right? That's speculative where he doesn't know where it's going. He doesn't know the application it's going to. And so even for him, that's a lot harder to do unless something like Sloan steps in and says, well, this is more speculative. It's certainly not risky. I don't think it's risky to fund David bay could do anything, but it's speculative about where this particular [00:43:35] project is going to lead. [00:43:36] Ben: Yeah, no, I like that. It's just like more, more speculation. And, and you, you mentioned just. Slight tangent, but you mentioned that, you know, Sloan Sloan operates at a certain skill. Do you ever, do you ever team up with other philanthropies? Is that, is that a thing? [00:43:51] Adam: Yeah, we, we do and we love, we love co-funding. We've, we've done that in many of our programs in the technology program. We funded co-funded with more, more foundation on data science in the, we have a tabletop physics program, which I haven't talked about, but basically measuring, you know, fundamental properties of the electron in a laboratory, the size of this office rather than a laboratory. You know, the Jura mountains, CERN and there we, it was a partnership actually with the national science foundation and also with the Moore foundation we have in our energy and environment program partnered with the research corporation, which runs these fascinating program called CYA logs, where they bring young investigators out to Tucson, Arizona, or on to zoom lately, but [00:44:35] basically out to Tucson, Arizona, and mix them up together around an interesting problem for a few days, and then fund a small, small kind of pilot projects out of that. We've worked with them on negative emission science and on battery technologies. Really interesting science projects. And so we come in as a co-funder with them there, I think, to do that, you really need an alignment of interests. Yeah. You really both have to be interested in the same thing. And you have to be a little bit flexible about the ways in which you evaluate proposals and put together grants and so forth so that, so that you don't drive the PIs crazy by having them satisfy two foundations at the same time, but where that is productive, that can be really exciting. [00:45:24] Ben: Cause it seems like I'm sure you're familiar with, they feel like the common application for college. It just, it seems like, I mean, like one of the, sort of my biggest [00:45:35] criticisms of grants in general is that, you know, it's like you sort of need to be sending them everywhere. And there's, there's sort of like the, the well-known issue where, you know, like PI has spend some ridiculous proportion of their time writing grants and it. Sort of a, like a philanthropic network where like, it just got routed to the right people and like sort of a lot happened behind the scenes. That seems like it could be really powerful. Yeah. [00:46:03] Adam: I think that actually would be another level of kind of collective collaboration. Like the common app. I think it would actually in this way, I love the idea. I have to say it's probably hard to make it happen because pre-site, for a couple of reasons that don't make it a bad idea, but it just kind of what planet earth is like. You know, one is that we have these very specific programs and so almost any grant has to be a little bit re-engineered in order to fit into because the programs are so specific fit into a new foundations [00:46:35] program. And the second is. We can certainly at the Sloan foundation, very finicky about what review looks like. And very foundations have different processes for assuring quality. And the hardest work I find in a collaboration is aligning those processes because we get very attached to them. It's a little like the tenure review processes at university. Every single university has its own, right. They have their own tenure process and they think that it was crafted by Moses on Mount Sinai and can never be changed as the best that it possibly ever could be. And then you go to another institution, that thing is different and they feel the same way. That is a feature. I mean really a bug of of the foundation, but it's kind of part of the reality. And, and we certainly, if, if what we really need in order for there to be more collaboration, I strongly feel is for everyone to adopt the Sloan foundation, grant proposal guidelines and review practices. And then all this collaboration stuff would be a piece of cake.[00:47:35] It's like, [00:47:35] Ben: like standards anywhere, right. Where it's like, oh, of course I'm willing to use the standard. It has to be exactly. [00:47:41] Adam: We have a standard we're done. If you would just, if you would just recognize that we're better this would be so much simpler. It's just, it's like, it's the way you make a good marriage work. [00:47:51] Ben: And speaking of just foundations and philanthropic funding more generally sort of like one of the criticisms that gets leveled against foundations especially in, in Silicon valley, is that because there's, there's sort of no market mechanism driving the process that, you know, it's like, it, it can be inefficient and all of that. And I, personally don't think that that marketing mechanisms are good for everything, but I'd be interested in and just like. Sort of response to, to [00:48:23] Adam: that. Yeah. So let me broaden that criticism and because I think there's something there that's really important. There's the enormous discretion that [00:48:35] foundations have is both their greatest strength. And I think their greatest danger that is, you know what, because there is not a discipline that is forcing them to make certain sets of choices in a certain structure. Right. And whether that's markets or whether you think that more generally as, as a, as a kind of other discipline in it, disciplining forces too much freedom can, or I shouldn't say too much freedom, but I would say a lot of freedom can lead to decision-making that is idiosyncratic and And inconsistent and inconstant, right? That is a nicer, a more direct way to say it is that if no one constraints what you do and you just do what you feel like maybe what you feel like isn't the best guide for what you should do. And you need to be governed by a context which assure is strategic [00:49:35] consistencies, strategic alignment with what is going on at other places in, in ways that serve your, you know, that serve the field a commitment to quality other kinds of commitments that make sure that your work is having high impact as a, as a funder. And those don't come from the outside. Right. And so you have to come up with ways. Internally to assure that you keep yourself on the straight and narrow. Yeah. I think there's some similar consideration about which is beyond science funding and philanthropy about the necessity of doing philanthropic work for the public. Good. Yeah. Right. And I think that's a powerful, ethical commitment that we have to have the money that we have from the Sloan foundation or that the Ford foundation, as of the Rockefeller foundation as are in it, I didn't make that money. What's more Alfred P Sloan who left us this money made the money in a context in which lots of people did a lot of work [00:50:35] that don't have that money. Right. A lot of people working at general motors plants and, and, you know, he made that work in a society that support. The accumulation of that fortune and that it's all tax-free. So the federal government is subsidizing this implicitly. The society is subsidizing the work we do because it's it's tax exempt. So that imposes on us, I think, an obligation to develop a coherent idea of what using our funding for the public good means, and not every foundation is going to have that same definition, but we have an obligation to develop that sense in a thoughtful way, and then to follow it. And that is one of the governors on simply following our whims. Right? So we think about that a lot here at the Sloan foundation and the ways in which our funding is justifiable as having a positive, good [00:51:35] that You know, that, that, that attaches to the science we fund or, or just society in general. And that if we don't see that, you know, we, we think really hard about whether we want to do that grant making. Yeah. So it's [00:51:47] Ben: like, I, and I think about things in terms of, of, of like systems engineering. And so it's like, you sort of have these like self-imposed feedback loops. Yes. While it's not, it's not an external market sort of giving you that feedback loop, you still there, you can still sort of like send, like to set up these loops so [00:52:09] Adam: that, so my colleague, one of the program directors here, my colleague, Evan, Michelson is written entire book on. On science philanthropy, and on applying a certain framework that's been developed largely in used in Europe, but also known here in this state, it's called responsible research and innovation, which provides a particular framework for asking these kinds of questions about who you fund and how you fund, what sorts of funding you do, what [00:52:35] sorts of communities you fund into how you would think about doing that in a responsible way. And it's not a book that provides answers, but it's a book that provides a framework for thinking about the questions. And I think that's really important. And as I say, I'm just going to say it again. I think we have an ethical imperative to apply that kind of lens to the work we do. We don't have an ethical imperative to come up with any particular answer, but we have an ethical imperative to do the thinking and I recommend Evan's book to all right. [00:53:06] Ben: I will read it recommendation accepted. And I think, I think. Broadly, and this is just something that, I mean, sort of selfishly, but I also think like there's a lot of people who have made a lot of money in, especially in, in technology. And it's interesting because you look at sort of like you could, you could think of Alfred P Sloan and, and Rockefeller and a lot of [00:53:35] in Carnegie's as these people who made a lot of money and then started, started these foundations. But then you don't see as much of that now. Right? Like you have, you have, you have some but really the, the, the sentiment that I've engaged with a lot is that again, like sort of prioritizing market mechanisms, a implicit idea that, that, like anything, anything valuable should be able to capture that value. And I don't know. It's just like, like how do you, like, have you [00:54:08] Adam: talked to people about, yeah, I think that's a really interesting observation. I think that, and I think it's something we think about a lot is the, the different, I think about a lot is the differences in the ways that today's, you know, newly wealthy, you know, business people, particularly the tech entrepreneurs think about philanthropy. As relates to the way that they made their money. So if we look at Alfred [00:54:35] P Sloan, he he basically built general motors, right? He was a brilliant young engineer who manufactured the best ball bearings in the country for about 20 years, which turned out at the nascent automobile industry. As you can imagine, reducing friction is incredibly important and ball bearings were incredibly important and he made the best ball-bearings right. That is a real nuts. And, but nothing sexy about ball-bearings right. That is the perspective you get on auto manufacturer is that the little parts need to work really well in order for the whole thing to work. And he built a big complicated institution. General motors is a case study is the case study in American business about how you build a large. In large business that has kind of semi-autonomous parts as a way of getting to scale, right? How do you get general motors to scale? You have, you know, you have Chevy and you have a Buick and you're a [00:55:35] Pontiac and you have old's and you have Cadillac and GMC and all, you know, and this was, he was relentlessly kind of practical and institutional thinker, right across a big institution. And the big question for him was how do I create stable institutional structures that allow individual people to exercise judgment and intelligence so they can drive their parts of that thing forward. So he didn't believe that people were cogs in some machine, but he believed that the structure of the machine needed to enable the flourishing of the individual. And that's, that's how we built general motors. That does not describe. The structure of a tech startup, right? Those are move fast and break things, right? That is the mantra. There. You have an idea, you build it quickly. You don't worry about all the things you get to scale as fast as you can with as little structure as you can. You [00:56:35] don't worry about the collateral damage or frankly, much about the people that are, that are kind of maybe the collateral damage. You just get to scale and follow your kind of single minded vision and people can build some amazing institutions that way. I mean, I think it's, it's been very successful, right? For building over the last decades, you know, this incredible tech economy. Right? So I don't fault people for thinking about their business that way. But when you turn that thinking to now funding science, There's a real mismatch, I think between that thinking about institutions and institutions don't matter, the old ones are broken and the new ones can be created immediately. Right? And the fact that real research while it requires often individual leaps forward in acts of brilliance requires a longstanding functioning community. It [00:57:35] fires institutions to fund that research, to host that research that people have long, you know, that the best research is actually done by people who were engaged in various parts of very long decades, careers doing a certain thing that it takes a long time to build expertise and Eva, as brilliant as you are, you need people around you with expertise and experience. There's a real mismatch. And so there can be a reluctance to fund. Th the reluctance to have the commitment to timescales or reluctance to invest in institutions to invest in. There's a I, I think has developed a sense that we should fund projects rather than people and institutions. And that's really good for solving certain kinds of problems, but it's actually a real challenge for basic research and moving basic research forward. So I think there's a lot of opportunity to educate people. And these are super smart people in the tech sector, right. About the [00:58:35] differences between universities and which are very important institutions in all of this and star tech startups. And they really are different sorts of institutions. So I think that's a challenge for us in this sector right now. [00:58:48] Ben: What I liked. To do is tease apart why, why is this different? Like, why can't you just put in more nights to your research and like come up with the, come out with the, like the brilliant insight faster. [00:59:01] Adam: Yeah. I mean, these people who are already working pretty hard, I would say, I mean, you, you know, you're of course, you know, this really well, there are different, I mean, science has, you know, has different parts of science that work on different sorts of problems and, you know, there's, there are problems. Where there's a much more immediate goal of producing a technology that would be usable and applicable. And those require a diff organism organizing efforts in different ways. And, you know, as you well know, the, the national, you know, [00:59:35] the, the private laboratories like bell labs and Xerox labs, and so forth, played a really important role in doing basic research that was really inspired by a particular application. And they were in the ecosystem in a somewhat different way than the basic research done in the universities. You need both of them. And so it, it's not that the way that say the Sloan foundation fund sciences, if everybody only funded science that way, that would not be good. Right. But, but the, the, the big money that's coming out of the, the newly wealthy has the opportunity to have a really positive impact on basically. Yeah, but only if it can be deployed in ways that are consistent with the way that basic sciences is done. And I think that requires some education and, [01:00:22] Ben: and sort of speaking of, of institutions. The, like, as I know, you're aware, there's, there's sort of like this, this like weird Cambridge and explosion of people trying stuff. And I, I guess, like, in addition [01:00:35] to just your, your thoughts on that, I'm, I'm interested particularly if you see, if you see gaps. That people aren't trying to fill, but like, you, you, you think that you would sort of like want to, to shine spotlights on just from, from, from your, your overview position. [01:00:52] Adam: I mean, that's a great question. I, I'm not going to be able to give you any interesting insight into what we need to do. I do think I'm in great favor of trying lots of things. I mean, I love what's going on right now that people are, you know, the, that people are trying different experiments about how to, to fund science. I think that I have a couple of thoughts. I mean, I do think that most of them will fail because in the Cambrian explosion, most of things fail. Right. That is that's if they all succeeded people, aren't trying interesting enough things. Right. So that's fine. I think that there is a, I think that a danger in too much reinventing the wheel. And I, you know, one of the things I, you know, when notice is, is [01:01:35] that you know, some of the new organizations, many of them are kind of set up as a little bit hybrid organizations that they do some funding. And, but they also want to do some advocacy. They're not 5 0 1 they maybe want to monetize the thing that they're, that they're doing. And I think, you know, the, you know, if you want to set a bell labs set up bell labs, there aren't. Magic bullets for some magic hybrid organization, that's going to span research all the way from basic to products, right. And that is going to mysteriously solve the problem of plugging all of the holes in the kind of research, you know, research ecosystem. And so I think it's great that people are trying a lot of different things. I hope that people are also willing to invest in the sorts of institutions we already have. And and that there's a, that there is kind of a balance. There's [01:02:35] a little bit of a language that you start to hear that kind of runs down, that it kind of takes a perspective that everything is broken in the way we're doing things now. And I don't think that everything is broken in the way we do things. Now. I don't think that the entire research institution needs to be reinvented. I think. Interesting ideas should be tried. Right. I think there's a distinction between those two things. And I would hate to see the money disproportionately going into inventing new things. Yeah. I don't know what the right balance is. And I don't have a global picture of how it's all distributed. I would like to see both of those things happening, but I worry a little bit that if we get a kind of a narrative that the tech billionaires all start to all start to buy into that the system is broken and they shouldn't invest in it. I think that will be broken, then it will be broken and we'll [01:03:35] miss a great opportunity to do really great things, right? I mean, the, you know, the, what Carnegie and Rockefeller left behind were great institutions that have persisted long after Carnegie and Rockefeller. We're long gone and informs that Carnegie and Rockefeller could never have imagined. And I would like that to be the aspiration and the outcome of the newly wealthy tech billionaires. The idea that you might leave something behind that, that 50 or a hundred years from now, you don't recognize, but it's doing good right. Long past your own ability to direct it. Right. And that requires a long-term sense of your investment in society, your trust in other people to carry something on after you to think more institutionally and less about what's wrong with institutions, I think would be a [01:04:35] helpful corrective to much of the narrative that I see there. And that is not inconsistent with trying exciting new things. It really isn't. And I'm all in favor of that. But the system we have has actually produced. More technological progress than any other system at any other point in history by a factor that is absolutely incalculable. So we can't be doing everything wrong. [01:04:58] Ben: I think that is a perfect place to stop. Adam. Thanks for being part of idea machines. And now a quick word from our sponsors. Is getting into orbit a drag. Are you tired of the noise from rockets? Well, now with Zipple the award-winning space elevator company, you can get a subscription service for only $1,200 a month. Just go to zipple.com/ideamachines for 20% off your first two months. That's zipple.com/ideamachines.

In 1924, the American market for cars became saturated. That meant that almost everyone who could buy a car had already bought one. In order to still sell about the same number of cars, General Motors suggested that new cars should look different every year. This way, at least some car owners would buy a new car every year. This idea was not new. It had already been tried with bicycles, but people say it was Alfred P. Sloan of General Motor's idea. He often used the words dynamic obsolescence, but people who did not like the idea called it planned obsolescence. This plan changed many things in the automobile industry, product design field, and eventually the whole American economy. Smaller companies could not afford to re-style their car models every year. Henry Ford did not like the idea either. Ford was an engineer, and he liked simplicity, economies of scale, and strong design. By 1931, GM sold more cars than Ford and became the strongest company making cars. Changing the design every year meant GM had to use a body-on-frame structure rather than the lighter uni-body design used by most European automakers because uni-body is harder to change. Returning for another feature appearance is our favorite mechanic, Coye Harris of EP Autoworks. Together, we're dive into the history of planned obsolescence, what it looks like under the hood of vehicles on the road today. If you have any questions regarding this or any episode, or have any car related concerns you wish to see covered, don't be shy, reach out to us on social media! www.motorphilia.com www.facebook.com/motorphiliatx www.instagram.com/motorphilia EQ Autoworks www.eqautoworks.com www.facebook.com/eqautoworks www.instagram.com/eq_autoworks

Patrick Link has crafted a story about a retired NFL linebacker who must deal with a family tragedy and his own suffering because of the violence of his chosen sport.Headstrong is part of L.A. Theatre Works' Relativity Series featuring science-themed plays. Lead funding for the Relativity Series is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, bridging science and the arts in the modern world.Directed by Bart DeLorenzoProducing Director: Susan Albert LoewenbergDeidrie Henry as Sylvia GreenErnie Hudson as Duncan TroyNtare Guma Mbaho Mwine as Dr. Moses OdameScott Wolf as Nick MerrittRecorded at The Invisible Studios, West Hollywood, in January 2013.

What if we re-imagined the internet to be built by more people, in new ways, that actually worked for us as a public good instead of a public harm? Join Ethan Zuckerman in conversation with Cindy Cohn and Danny O'Brien as they fix and reimagine the internet. They'll talk about what the internet could look like if a diversity of people built their own tools, how advertising could be less creepy, but still work, and how hope in the future will light the way to a better internet. In this episode you'll learn about:The challenges researchers face when gathering information and data about our relationship with social media platforms.Different ways to communicate with groups online and how these alternatives would improve online speech.Ways that third parties have tried to give more user control in social media platforms.How censorship, and who we worry about censoring speech, has changed as the internet has evolved.The problems with surveillance advertising and alternative ideas for advertisements on the internet.How the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act blocks research and innovation, and how we can fix it.How communication on the internet has changed over time, why social media giants aren't getting it right, and how to move forward.This podcast is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Additional music is used under creative commons license from CCMixter includes: http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/zep_hurme/59681Come Inside by Zep Hurme (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/zep_hurme/59681 Ft: snowflakehttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/60335Perspectives *** by J.Lang (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/60335 Ft: Sackjo22 and Admiral Bobhttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/mwic/58883Xena's Kiss / Medea's Kiss by mwic (c) copyright 2018 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/mwic/58883 http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792Drops of H2O ( The Filtered Water Treatment ) by J.Lang (c) copyright 2012 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792 Ft: Airtonehttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/airtone/59721reCreation by airtone (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/airtone/59721 

Financial transactions reveal so much about us: the causes we support, where we go, what we buy, who we spend time with. Somehow, the mass surveillance of financial transactions has been normalized in the United States, despite the fourth amendment protection in the constitution. But it doesn't have to be that way, as explained by Marta Belcher, a lawyer and activist in the financial privacy world. Marta offers a deep dive into financial surveillance and censorship. In this episode, you'll learn about: The concept of the third party doctrine, a court-created idea that law enforcement doesn't need to get a warrant to access metadata shared with third parties (such as companies that manage communications and banking services);How financial surveillance can have a chilling effect on activist communities, including pro-democracy activists fighting against authoritarian regimes in Hong Kong and elsewhere;How the Bank Secrecy Act means that your bank services are sharing sensitive banking details on customers with the government by default, without any request from law enforcement to prompt it;Why the Bank Secrecy Act as it's currently interpreted violates the Fourth Amendment; The potential role of blockchain technologies to import some of the privacy-protective features of cash into the digital world;How one recent case missed an opportunity to better protect the data of cryptocurrency users;How financial surveillance is a precursor to financial censorship, in which banking services are restricted for people who haven't violated the law. This podcast is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Additional music is used under creative commons license from CCMixter includes: http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/zep_hurme/59681Come Inside by Zep Hurme (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/zep_hurme/59681 Ft: snowflakehttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/60335Perspectives *** by J.Lang (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/60335 Ft: Sackjo22 and Admiral Bobhttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/AlexBeroza/59612Kalte Ohren by Alex (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/AlexBeroza/59612 Ft: starfrosch & Jerry Spoonhttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533Warm Vacuum Tube  by Admiral Bob (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533 Ft: starfroschhttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792Drops of H2O ( The Filtered Water Treatment ) by J.Lang (c) copyright 2012 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792 Ft: Airtone

Catherine Tucker is the Sloan Distinguished Professor of Management Science, Professor of Marketing, Chair of the MIT Sloan Ph.D. Program, a co-founder of the MIT Cryptoeconomics Lab, which studies the applications of blockchain, and also a co-organizer of the Economics of Artificial Intelligence Initiatives sponsored by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Her research interests lie in how technology allows firms to use digital data and machine learning to improve performance, and in the challenges this poses for regulation. Professor Tucker has particular expertise in online advertising, digital health, social media, and electronic privacy. Her research studies the interface between marketing and the economics of technology and law. She holds a BA from the University of Oxford and a PhD in economics from Stanford University.

Matt Mitchell started Crypto Harlem to teach people in his community about how online and real life surveillance works, and what they could do about it. Through empowering people to understand their online privacy choices, and to speak up for change when their privacy in real life is eroded, Matt is building a movement to make a better future for everyone.In this episode you'll learn about: Cryptoparties being organized by volunteers to educate people about what surveillance technology looks like, how it works, and who installed itHow working within your own community can be an extremely effective (and fun) way to push back against surveillanceHow historically surveilled communities have borne the brunt of new, digital forms of surveillanceThe ineffectiveness and bias of much new surveillance technology, and why it's so hard to “surveill yourself to safety”Why and how heavily surveilled communities are taking back their privacy, sometimes using new technologyThe ways that Community Control Of Police Surveillance (CCOPS) legislation can benefit communities by offering avenues to learn about and discuss surveillance technology before it's installedHow security and digital privacy has improved, with new options, settings, and applications that offer more control over our online livesThis podcast is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Additional music is used under creative commons licence from CCMixter includes: http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/mwic/58883Xena's Kiss / Medea's Kiss by mwic (c) copyright 2018 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/mwic/58883 http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533Warm Vacuum Tube  by Admiral Bob (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533 Ft: starfroschhttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/airtone/59721reCreation by airtone (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/airtone/59721

We don't always think about what it means to have the information on our devices stay secure, and it may seem like the locks on our phones are enough to keep our private lives private. But there is increasing pressure from law enforcement to leave a back door open on our encrypted devices. Meanwhile, other government agencies, including consumer protection agencies, want more secure devices. We dive into the nuances of the battle to secure our data and our lives, and consider what the future would be like if we can finally end the “crypto wars” and tackle other problems in society. On this episode, hosts Cindy Cohn and Danny O'Brien are joined by Riana Pfeffercorn from Stanford's Centre for Internet and Society to talk about device encryption and why it's important. This podcast is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Additional music is used under creative commons licence from CCMixter includes: http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/AlexBeroza/59612Kalte Ohren by Alex (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/AlexBeroza/59612 Ft: starfrosch & Jerry Spoonhttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792Drops of H2O ( The Filtered Water Treatment ) by J.Lang (c) copyright 2012 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792 Ft: Airtonehttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/mwic/58883Xena's Kiss / Medea's Kiss by mwic (c) copyright 2018 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/mwic/58883  

Dr. Cerf is the intersection of the brain, the business and the art of engagement. His research uses neuroscience to understand the underlying mechanisms of our psychology, emotion, decision-making and dreams. Cerf holds multiple patents and his work has been published in academic journals such as Nature, and portrayed in popular media outlets such as Wired, Scientific American, BBC, CNN, The Atlantic, Time, Forbes and dozens of others. A professor of neuroscience and business (Kellogg School of Management) and the Alfred P. Sloan professor (American Film Institute; 'AFI'), he holds an interesting perspective of what's under the hood. The difference between science and science fiction is time. Dr. Cerf tells us why. Enjoy!   Dr. Cerf's TED Talk Dr. Cerf's LinkedIn   I AM CREATIVE & 7 Gems of Intercultural Creativity books       This episode is produced by CAFFEstrategies.com – an industry leader in intercultural creative thinking development and the home of the 16 Diamond Tools of Creative Thinkers and the 7 Gems of Intercultural Creativity!   The mission of CAFFE Strategies is to equip organizations with strategies of Intercultural Creativity that supports their DE&I goals. Intercultural Creativity is a unique type of training that develops intercultural competence (which is needed for inclusion and belonging) primarily using creative thinking strategies and cognitive processes, which is needed for value creation. In addition to utilizing our 7 Gems of Intercultural Creativity methodology, the other creative thinking strategies used in our trainings include divergent thinking, reframing, un-obvious associations, combinatory thinking, metaphorical processing, transformation ideation, and imagination development, to develop intercultural competence, self awareness, cultural-awareness and creative thinking.          

“Today we're learning things as fundamental as the shape of our universe, or how the universe might've begun or ended. We are learning new things about planets and solar systems beyond our own that could potentially host life. And these … [findings are] fundamental to who we are as humans and who we are as planet citizens.” In this episode of Book Dreams, award-winning astronomer Emily Levesque joins Eve and Julie for an exhilarating exchange about the cosmos. Author of The Last Stargazers: The Enduring Story of Astronomy's Vanishing Explorers, Emily shares what it's like–and why it matters–when scientists search the heavens with massive telescopes using mirrors that can measure twenty, thirty, and even forty feet across. Emily explains red supergiants and how they help us understand the universe, how she and her colleague discovered a new type of star, and how ladybugs and cobras can derail years of work in a matter of minutes. If you've ever sat through a physics class feeling clueless and frustrated, this is the episode for you! And, yes, Julie asks whether there's intelligent life out there. Emily Levesque, a professor in the University of Washington's astronomy department, is the recipient of the 2020 Newton Lacy Pierce Prize and the 2014 Annie Jump Cannon Award from the American Astronomical Society. She's also a 2019 Cottrell Scholar and a 2017 Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellow. Her research program is focused on improving our overall understanding of how massive stars evolve and die. The Last Stargazers, Emily's first popular science book, is an Amazon Best Book of 2020, a finalist for the PEN/EO Wilson Literary Science Writing Award, a finalist for the AAAS/Subaru SB&F Prize for Excellence in Science Books, and a 2021 Alex Award official nominee. Find us on Twitter (@bookdreamspod) and Instagram (@bookdreamspodcast), or email us at contact@bookdreamspodcast.com. We encourage you to visit our website and sign up for our newsletter for information about our episodes, guests, and more. Book Dreams is a part of Lit Hub Radio and the Podglomerate network, a company that produces, distributes, and monetizes podcasts. For more information on how The Podglomerate treats data, please see our Privacy Policy. Since you're listening to Book Dreams, we'd like to suggest you also try other Podglomerate shows about literature, writing, and storytelling like Storybound and The History of Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join us for a live chat as hosts Cindy and Danny speak with cybersecurity expert Tarah Wheeler on Thursday Dec 9th at 2pm PT. They will continue the conversation that started on this episode of the podcast, exploring how we can incentivize computer security and fix computer crime laws: https://www.eff.org/tarahchat======================There are flaws in the tech we use everyday- from little software glitches to big data breaches, and security researchers often know about them before we do. Getting those issues fixed is not always as straightforward as it should be. It's not always easy to bend a corporation's ear, and companies may ignore the threat for liability reasons putting us all at risk. Technology and cybersecurity expert Tarah Wheeler joins Cindy Cohn and Danny O'Brien to explain how she thinks security experts can help build a more secure internet. On this episode, you'll learn:About the human impact of security vulnerabilities—and how unpatched flaws can change or even end lives;How to reconsider the popular conception of hackers, and understand their role in helping build a more secure digital world;How the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a law that is supposed to punish computer intrusion, has been written so broadly that it now stifles security researchers;What we can learn from the culture around airplane safety regulation—including transparency and blameless post-mortems;How we can align incentives, including financial incentives, to improve vulnerability reporting and response;How the Supreme Court case Van Buren helped security researchers by ensuring that the CFAA couldn't be used to prosecute someone for merely violating the terms of service of a website or application;How a better future would involve more collaboration and transparency among both companies and security researchers.This podcast is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology.Resources: ResourcesConsumer Data Privacy:Equifax Data Breach Update: Backsliding (EFF)EFF's Recommendations for Consumer Data Privacy Laws (EFF)Strengthen California's Next Consumer Data Privacy Initiative (EFF)Ransomware:A Hospital Hit by Hackers, a Baby in Distress: The Case of the First Alleged Ransomware Death (WSJ)FAQ: DarkSide Ransomware Group and Colonial Pipeline (EFF)Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA):CFAA and Security Researchers (EFF)Van Buren is a Victory Against Overbroad Interpretations of the CFAA, and Protects Security Researchers (EFF)Van Buren v. United States (SCOTUS)EFF CFAA Revisions – Penalties and Access (EFF)Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Reform (EFF)Electoral Security:Election Security (EFF)This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Additional music is used under creative commons licence from CCMixter includes: http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533Warm Vacuum Tube  by Admiral Bob (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/59533 Ft: starfroschhttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/snowflake/59564rr4Come Inside by Snowflake (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/snowflake/59564 Ft: Starfrosch, Jerry Spoon, Kara Square, spinningmerkabahttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792Drops of H2O ( The Filtered Water Treatment ) by J.Lang (c) copyright 2012 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/djlang59/37792 Ft: Airtonehttp://dig.ccmixter.org/files/airtone/59721reCreation by airtone (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/airtone/59721

Guest Paul Bahr | DeAnn Bahr Panelists Richard Littauer | Allen “Gunner” Gunn | Eric Berry | Justin Dorfman | Pia Mancini | Eriol Fox | Ben Nichols Show Notes Hello and welcome to Sustain! The podcast where we talk about sustaining open source for the long haul. Cue the horns and balloons folks because today's episode is extremely special. We are celebrating our 100th episode!! Can you believe it? We are so fortunate to have everyone with us, including our editors, as our conversations takes us back to the origins of this podcast and how it all began. We find out a little bit more about each panelist, and thoughts about the future of Sustain and plans going forward. The topic of having more controversy on this podcast is discussed, and thoughts on how each panelist sees the impact this podcast has made on open source sustainability and whether or not we can measure it. Go ahead and download this episode now to hear more and thank you for celebrating this momentous event with us! [00:00:58] We start by getting to know the background of each panelist, where they work, and what they do. [00:08:25] Since Richard always states in the beginning of every episode, “Where are we going,” Paul asks where Sustain is going as an organization and if they have any future plans. [00:13:49] Eriol shares some thoughts with us about the future of Sustain Open Source Design. [00:16:12] Richard brings up wishing there was more controversy on the Sustain podcast and the panelists share more. [00:21:07] Pia talks about some things going back to the origins of this podcast. [00:23:40] We hear from everyone on how they see the impact that this podcast has made on open source sustainability, and if they think we can measure open source sustainability. Quotes [00:15:24] “I really do think that the time for design as a topic within open source has never been more rich, involved, and interesting because of the amount of designers understanding what open source is in all of its different flavors and varieties. And, wanting to participate in new ways or old ways or different ways and doing a lot of really interesting stuff lately. So, I really do think it's really a special time for designers in open source from what I can tell.” Spotlight [00:32:37] Gunner's spotlight is OpenNews. [00:33:02] Paul's spotlight is Descript. [00:33:42] Eric's spotlight is Firefox. [00:34:04] Justin's spotlight is Gregor Martynus. [00:34:20] Ben's spotlight is The National Museum of Computing. [00:35:07] Pia's spotlight is SMAT (Social Media Analysis Toolkit). [00:35:38] Richard's spotlight is “Bird Facts with Richard Littauer.” Links SustainOSS (https://sustainoss.org/) SustainOSS Twitter (https://twitter.com/SustainOSS?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) SustainOSS Discourse (https://discourse.sustainoss.org/) Ford Foundation (https://www.fordfoundation.org/) Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (https://sloan.org/) Committing To Cloud Native Podcast (https://podcast.curiefense.io/) Reblaze (https://www.reblaze.com/) Curiefense (https://www.curiefense.io/) Sustain our Docs (Pilot Episode) (https://podcast.sustainoss.org/bonus-docs-pilot) Sustain Open Source Design Podcast (https://sosdesign.sustainoss.org/) Open Collective (https://opencollective.com/) OpenNews (https://opennews.org/) Descript-GitHub (https://github.com/descriptinc) Firefox (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/) Gregor Martynus GitHub (https://github.com/gr2m) Light Years Ahead | The 1969 Apollo Guidance Computer-YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1J2RMorJXM) Social Media Analysis Toolkit (SMAT) (https://www.smat-app.com/) All About Birds-Cooper's Hawk (https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Coopers_Hawk/id) Credits Produced by (Richard Littauer) (https://www.burntfen.com/) Edited by Paul M. Bahr at (Peachtree Sound) (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Show notes by DeAnn Bahr (Peachtree Sound) (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Special Guest: Paul and DeAnn Bahr.

Open source software touches every piece of technology that touches our lives- in other words, it's everywhere. Free software and collaboration is at the heart of every device we rely on, and much of the internet is built from the hard work of people dedicated to the open source dream: ideals that all software should be licenced to be free, modified, distributed and copied without penalty. The movement is growing, and that growth is creating pressure: from too many projects, and not enough resources. The culture is shifting, too, as new people around the world join in and bring different ideas and different dreams for an open source future. James Vasile has been working in open source software for decades, and he joins Cindy Cohn and Danny O'Brien to talk about the challenges that growth is creating, and the opportunities it presents to make open source, and the Internet, even better. If you have any feedback on this episode, please email podcast@eff.org. Please visit the site page at https://eff.org/pod102 where you'll find resources – including links to important legal cases and research discussed in the podcast and a full transcript of the audio, at This podcast is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Jon speaks with entrepreneur and business history chronicler Gary Hoover about the history and morality of business, and what makes people and their businesses thrive.   Subscribe in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you're listening right now.   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objectivestandard Twitter: https://twitter.com/ObjStdInstitute LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/objectivestandardinstitute/   Email Jon at jon@objectivestandard.org with questions, comments, or topic suggestions.   Also check out:   Email Gary Hoover at: ​​garyhoov@msn.com   American Business History Center: https://americanbusinesshistory.org/about/   “The Greatest Businessman in American History: Alfred P. Sloan, Jr.” by Gary Hoover: https://americanbusinesshistory.org/the-greatest-businessman-in-american-history-alfred-p-sloan-jr/ Fewer, Richer, Greener by Laurence B. Siegel: https://amzn.to/3mKH5eb

If you're a brain, it can be tough to stay organized. The world comes at you fast, from all angles, in different sensory formats—sights, sounds, smells. You need to take it all in, but you also need to parse it, process it, categorize it, remember and learn from it. And of course you also need react to it, preferably appropriately.  So what do you do—as a brain—to handle this organizational overload? Well, for one thing, you make maps. Lots of maps.  My guest today is Dr. Rebecca Schwarzlose, a cognitive neuroscientist and author of the new book Brainscapes: The warped, wondrous maps written in your brain—and how they guide you. Rebecca is former editor of Trends in Cognitive Sciences and is currently a postdoctoral scholar at Washington University in St Louis. Her book was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's program in the Public Understanding of Science and Technology. In this conversation, Rebecca and I talk about what brain maps are and why brains evolved to make them. (And just to be clear, it's not just human brains—it's the brains of many creatures.) We talk about how delightfully warped these maps are —and, of course, why. We discuss how we rely on them for vision, touch, smell, and movement, not to mention for thinking about faces, places, numbers, and more. We also discuss the fascinating duality at the heart of these brain maps, which is their balance of universal and unique features. I just love this angle on neuroscience, this way of thinking about the brain as a restless, prodigious cartographer. I thoroughly enjoyed Rebecca's book. And definitely there's a lot in it we couldn't touch on in this episode—details about how the mustache bat makes echolocation maps, for example, and about how new techniques are leveraging brain maps to do something like mindreading. So I hope you enjoy the episode, but I also hope you go and check out Rebecca's book for yourselves. Alright folks, on to my conversation with Dr. Rebecca Schwarzlose. Enjoy!   Notes and links 3:15 – A review article by Dr. Schwarzlose's doctoral advisor, Nancy Kanwisher, on the fusiform face area. (Be sure to check out Dr. Kanwisher's brain course online.) 8:00 – An article on Inouye's work and the “discovery of the visual cortex.” 14:00 – Much work has focused on the metabolic costs associated with the brain. For instance, an article on how metabolic costs of the brain shift over development. 18:30 – A study of cortical magnification in V1 and how it relates to visual acuity. 21:00 – The famous “homunculi” of the brain's touch maps are described and depicted in this article.   28:50 – A recent popular article on the brain's maps of odors. 32:00 – Our interview with Asifa Majid about smell across cultures. 42:00 – An article about how numbers are represented in the parietal cortex. Another article about the relationship between finger discrimination and number discrimination abilities. 46:30 – An article about how the hippocampus supports thinking about the social world. 54:00 – An article about plasticity in the developing brain. 1:01:00 – One of Dr. Schwarzlose's earliest studies, which was on face and body maps in the fusiform gyrus.   Dr. Schwarzlose recommends the following books: Making Space, Jennifer Groh Into the Gray Zone, Adrian Own The New Mind Readers, Russell Poldrack   You can find Dr. Schwarzlose on Twitter (@gothemind) and follow her work at her website.    Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from assistant producer Cecilia Padilla. Creative support is provided by DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

David's 1999 Paper on e-commerce and the environment This week I sat down with David Rejeski, Visiting Scholar with the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), to learn more about his engagement in the Project on the Energy and Environmental Implications of the Digital Economy. With support from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, ELI, the Yale School of the Environment, and the Center for Law, Energy & the Environment at UC Berkeley, the Project is shedding much-needed light on the true environmental and energy implications of the digital economy, focusing on blockchain technologies, sharing platforms, artificial intelligence, and other technologies. We also look back at David's pioneering work on the implications of nanotechnology when he was heading up the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2021 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

Writer & Director, Alexis Gambis discusses with Jan Price his new drama, “Son of Monarchs“ – Sundance winner of the Alfred P. Sloan Prize! ‘The Son of Monarchs' is now showing in select theaters across the country and will be streaming exclusively on HBO Max on November 2nd! After his grandmother's death, a Mexican biologist living in New York returns to his hometown, nestled in the majestic monarch butterfly forests of Michoacán. The journey forces him to confront past traumas and reflect on his hybrid identity, sparking a personal and spiritual metamorphosis.

Part 3 of 3. Tom Stoppard's Arcadia merges science with human concerns and ideals. Set in an English country house in the years 1809-1812 and 1989, the play examines the connections between two modern scholars, the house's current residents and the lives of those who lived there 180 years earlier.Arcadia is part of L.A. Theatre Works' Relativity Series featuring science-themed plays. Lead funding for the Relativity Series is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, bridging science and the arts in the modern world.Additional funding is provided by the Sidney E. Frank Foundation.Directed by John RubinsteinProducing Director: Susan Albert LoewenbergKate Burton as HannahMark Capri as ChaterJennifer Dundas as ThomasinaGregory Itzin as Bernard NightingaleDavid Manis as Captain BriceChristopher Neame as Noakes/JellabyPeter Paige as ValentineDarren Richardson as AugustusKate Steele as ChloeSerena Scott Thomas as Lady CroomDouglas Weston as Septimus

Part 2 of 3. Tom Stoppard's Arcadia merges science with human concerns and ideals, examining the universe's influence in our everyday lives and ultimate fates through relationships between past and present, order and disorder and the certainty of knowledge. Set in an English country house in the years 1809-1812 and 1989, the play examines the lives of two modern scholars and the house's current residents with the lives of those who lived there 180 years earlier.Arcadia is part of L.A. Theatre Works' Relativity Series featuring science-themed plays. Lead funding for the Relativity Series is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, bridging science and the arts in the modern world.Additional funding is provided by the Sidney E. Frank Foundation.Directed by John RubinsteinProducing Director: Susan Albert LoewenbergKate Burton as HannahMark Capri as ChaterJennifer Dundas as ThomasinaGregory Itzin as Bernard NightingaleDavid Manis as Captain BriceChristopher Neame as Noakes/JellabyPeter Paige as ValentineDarren Richardson as AugustusKate Steele as ChloeSerena Scott Thomas as Lady CroomDouglas Weston as Septimus

Tom Stoppard's Arcadia merges science with human concerns and ideals, examining the universe's influence in our everyday lives and ultimate fates through relationships between past and present, order and disorder and the certainty of knowledge. Set in an English country house in the years 1809-1812 and 1989, the play examines the lives of two modern scholars and the house's current residents with the lives of those who lived there 180 years earlier.Arcadia is part of L.A. Theatre Works' Relativity Series featuring science-themed plays. Lead funding for the Relativity Series is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, bridging science and the arts in the modern world.Directed by John RubinsteinProducing Director: Susan Albert LoewenbergKate Burton as HannahMark Capri as ChaterJennifer Dundas as ThomasinaGregory Itzin as Bernard NightingaleDavid Manis as Captain BriceChristopher Neame as Noakes/JellabyPeter Paige as ValentineDarren Richardson as AugustusKate Steele as ChloeSerena Scott Thomas as Lady CroomDouglas Weston as Septimus

“We think better about complex abstract ideas when we can engage with them in a physical way or see a graph or picture of them, rather than just hearing about them.” -Rebecca Schwarzlose PhD In today's episode, Jill has a fascinating conversation with Dr. Rebecca Schwarzlose about the amazing and complex maps in our brains. Dr. Rebecca Schwarzlose is a postdoctoral scholar and cognitive neuroscientist in the Psychiatry Department at Washington University in St. Louis. She received her Ph.D. in Neuroscience at M.I.T. and has served as the chief editor of Trends in Cognitive Sciences, a cognitive and neuroscience journal. At Washington University, Dr. Schwarzlose studies neurocognitive development in children with neurodevelopmental disorders as well as typically developing children. She is the author of the new book, Brainscapes: The Warped, Wondrous Maps Written in Your Brain – and How They Guide You. The book was recently praised in the New York Times as “enlightening and ambitious . . . a book that travels into rich terrain, charted by a smart and eager tour guide.” It was supported by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Program for Public Understanding of Science and Technology. You can find more information about Dr. Schwarzlose and her work on her website (www.rebeccaschwarzlose.com) and blog (www.gardenofthemind.com), as well as on Twitter (@gothemind)     EmpathIQ can help you build more positive reviews online AND by doing so, bring more fulfillment to you about your important work!  click here Claim the DocWorking discount and learn more  Find full transcripts of episodes on the DocWorking Blog  Our New DocWorking THRIVE  Membership is here!! You'll get ongoing Small Group Coaching with our Experienced Team, Ongoing Coaching Support in a Private Community that Fosters Peer Support and Mentorship, and superb virtual courses to include ‘STAT: Quick Wins to Get Your Life Back' with Gabriella Dennery MD and Master Certified Coach Jill Farmer, ‘A New Era of Leadership' and ‘Communication for the Win' with Lisa Kuzman, and so much more!    Join our community by clicking here.   At DocWorking, our specialty is Coaching Physicians. We bring an exceptional experienced team to Coach Physicians to achieve the Best in Life and Medicine.    Doctors devote their lives to caring for others. But does that mean they must sacrifice their own health and wellbeing? Absolutely not!   At DocWorking, we have developed a unique way to embrace it all.   The caring for others that you do so selflessly AND the caring for YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY that you crave in order to bring it all into the perfect balance specific to YOU.   What if we told you that you CAN have it all? The career you dreamed of when you decided to become a doctor AND the life outside of medicine that you desire?   DocWorking empowers physicians to get back on the path to achieving their dreams.   Ace the Boards and Max Your CME Preparing for your board exam or looking for a quick and convenient way to earn CME? Study for your board exam and fulfill your CME requirements with BoardVitals. BoardVitals is the leading online board review platform, with question banks and CME activities available in more than 50 medical and healthcare specialties.   Save Money Now: Refinance Your Student Loan Debt   Take Back Your Time: Get a Virtual Assistant Working in the medical field is fulfilling but it can also be exhausting. Physicians often sacrifice their personal time to carry out their duties. They want to go on vacations, start passion projects, or start side businesses but finding the time seems impossible. Recently, more and more physicians are giving outsourcing a try. Outsourcing allows you to delegate tasks to virtual assistants so you can free up your time and finally do whatever it is you've been wanting to do.   Become a Medical Legal Consultant We at DocWorking are excited to collaborate with Dr. Armin Feldman to bring you this opportunity to develop a side income or even a full time income while using your clinical skills!   Achieve Financial Independence with a Financial Planner/Advisor Change your trajectory: build financial independence and strength by working with our trusted resources. Working with a trusted financial planner and/or financial advisor can help you to create a specific plan that works for you. The right advisor can help you stay on track to reach your financial independence goal and your next vision.   Protect Yourself and Your Family with the Right Insurance Doctors and their families need many types of insurance–and inadequate coverage can cost you dearly. Connecting with trusted insurance professionals in your area is recommended to be sure you're appropriately covered.   Are you a physician who would like to tell your story? Please email Amanda, our producer, at Amanda@docworking.com to be considered. And if you like our podcast and would like to subscribe and leave us a 5 star review, we would be extremely grateful! We're everywhere you like to get your podcasts! Apple iTunes, Spotify, iHeart Radio, Google, Pandora, PlayerFM, ListenNotes, Amazon, YouTube, Podbean You can also find us on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.    Some links in our blogs and show notes are affiliate links, and purchases made via those links may result in payments to DocWorking. These help toward our production costs. Thank you for supporting DocWorking: The Whole Physician Podcast! Occasionally, we discuss financial and legal topics. We are not financial or legal professionals. Please consult a licensed professional for financial or legal advice regarding your specific situation.   Podcast produced by: Amanda Taran

How could you lose your memory overnight, and what would it mean? The day neurologist Jed Barash sees the baffling brain scan of a young patient with devastating amnesia marks the beginning of a quest to answer those questions. First detected in a cluster of stigmatized opioid overdose victims in Massachusetts with severe damage to the hippocampus--the brain's memory center--this rare syndrome reveals how the tragic plight of the unfortunate few can open the door to advances in medical science. After overcoming initial skepticism that investigating the syndrome is worth the effort--and that fentanyl is the likely culprit--Barash and a growing team of dedicated doctors explore the threat that people who take opioids chronically as prescribed to treat severe pain may gradually put their memories at risk. At the same time, they begin to grasp the potential for this syndrome to shed light on the most elusive memory thief of all--Alzheimer's disease. Through the prism of this fascinating story, Aguirre goes on to examine how researchers tease out the fundamental nature of memory and the many mysteries still to be solved. Where do memories live? Why do we forget most of what happens in a day but remember some events with stunning clarity years later? How real are our memories? And what purpose do they actually serve? Perhaps the greatest mystery in The Memory Thief: And the Secrets Behind How We Remember (Pegasus, 2021) is why Alzheimer's has evaded capture for a century even though it afflicts tens of millions around the world and lies in wait for millions more. Aguirre deftly explores this question and reveals promising new strategies and developments that may finally break the long stalemate in the fight against this dreaded disease. But at its core, Aguirre's genre-bending and deeply-reported book is about paying attention to the things that initially don't make sense--like the amnestic syndrome--and how these mysteries can move science closer to an ever-evolving version of the truth. The research and writing of The Memory Thief was supported in part by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. To discuss and propose the book for an interview you can reach her at galina.limorenko@epfl.ch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

How could you lose your memory overnight, and what would it mean? The day neurologist Jed Barash sees the baffling brain scan of a young patient with devastating amnesia marks the beginning of a quest to answer those questions. First detected in a cluster of stigmatized opioid overdose victims in Massachusetts with severe damage to the hippocampus--the brain's memory center--this rare syndrome reveals how the tragic plight of the unfortunate few can open the door to advances in medical science. After overcoming initial skepticism that investigating the syndrome is worth the effort--and that fentanyl is the likely culprit--Barash and a growing team of dedicated doctors explore the threat that people who take opioids chronically as prescribed to treat severe pain may gradually put their memories at risk. At the same time, they begin to grasp the potential for this syndrome to shed light on the most elusive memory thief of all--Alzheimer's disease. Through the prism of this fascinating story, Aguirre goes on to examine how researchers tease out the fundamental nature of memory and the many mysteries still to be solved. Where do memories live? Why do we forget most of what happens in a day but remember some events with stunning clarity years later? How real are our memories? And what purpose do they actually serve? Perhaps the greatest mystery in The Memory Thief: And the Secrets Behind How We Remember (Pegasus, 2021) is why Alzheimer's has evaded capture for a century even though it afflicts tens of millions around the world and lies in wait for millions more. Aguirre deftly explores this question and reveals promising new strategies and developments that may finally break the long stalemate in the fight against this dreaded disease. But at its core, Aguirre's genre-bending and deeply-reported book is about paying attention to the things that initially don't make sense--like the amnestic syndrome--and how these mysteries can move science closer to an ever-evolving version of the truth. The research and writing of The Memory Thief was supported in part by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. To discuss and propose the book for an interview you can reach her at galina.limorenko@epfl.ch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

How could you lose your memory overnight, and what would it mean? The day neurologist Jed Barash sees the baffling brain scan of a young patient with devastating amnesia marks the beginning of a quest to answer those questions. First detected in a cluster of stigmatized opioid overdose victims in Massachusetts with severe damage to the hippocampus--the brain's memory center--this rare syndrome reveals how the tragic plight of the unfortunate few can open the door to advances in medical science. After overcoming initial skepticism that investigating the syndrome is worth the effort--and that fentanyl is the likely culprit--Barash and a growing team of dedicated doctors explore the threat that people who take opioids chronically as prescribed to treat severe pain may gradually put their memories at risk. At the same time, they begin to grasp the potential for this syndrome to shed light on the most elusive memory thief of all--Alzheimer's disease. Through the prism of this fascinating story, Aguirre goes on to examine how researchers tease out the fundamental nature of memory and the many mysteries still to be solved. Where do memories live? Why do we forget most of what happens in a day but remember some events with stunning clarity years later? How real are our memories? And what purpose do they actually serve? Perhaps the greatest mystery in The Memory Thief: And the Secrets Behind How We Remember (Pegasus, 2021) is why Alzheimer's has evaded capture for a century even though it afflicts tens of millions around the world and lies in wait for millions more. Aguirre deftly explores this question and reveals promising new strategies and developments that may finally break the long stalemate in the fight against this dreaded disease. But at its core, Aguirre's genre-bending and deeply-reported book is about paying attention to the things that initially don't make sense--like the amnestic syndrome--and how these mysteries can move science closer to an ever-evolving version of the truth. The research and writing of The Memory Thief was supported in part by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. To discuss and propose the book for an interview you can reach her at galina.limorenko@epfl.ch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

How could you lose your memory overnight, and what would it mean? The day neurologist Jed Barash sees the baffling brain scan of a young patient with devastating amnesia marks the beginning of a quest to answer those questions. First detected in a cluster of stigmatized opioid overdose victims in Massachusetts with severe damage to the hippocampus--the brain's memory center--this rare syndrome reveals how the tragic plight of the unfortunate few can open the door to advances in medical science. After overcoming initial skepticism that investigating the syndrome is worth the effort--and that fentanyl is the likely culprit--Barash and a growing team of dedicated doctors explore the threat that people who take opioids chronically as prescribed to treat severe pain may gradually put their memories at risk. At the same time, they begin to grasp the potential for this syndrome to shed light on the most elusive memory thief of all--Alzheimer's disease. Through the prism of this fascinating story, Aguirre goes on to examine how researchers tease out the fundamental nature of memory and the many mysteries still to be solved. Where do memories live? Why do we forget most of what happens in a day but remember some events with stunning clarity years later? How real are our memories? And what purpose do they actually serve? Perhaps the greatest mystery in The Memory Thief: And the Secrets Behind How We Remember (Pegasus, 2021) is why Alzheimer's has evaded capture for a century even though it afflicts tens of millions around the world and lies in wait for millions more. Aguirre deftly explores this question and reveals promising new strategies and developments that may finally break the long stalemate in the fight against this dreaded disease. But at its core, Aguirre's genre-bending and deeply-reported book is about paying attention to the things that initially don't make sense--like the amnestic syndrome--and how these mysteries can move science closer to an ever-evolving version of the truth. The research and writing of The Memory Thief was supported in part by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. To discuss and propose the book for an interview you can reach her at galina.limorenko@epfl.ch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

#morancerf #pegasusproject #neuroscience Moran Cerf spoke about Project Pegasus, Full Dive Virtual Reality, Mind Uploading & Hackable Humans, NeuroScience & NeuroMarketing. Moran Cerf is a neuroscientist and business professor at the Kellogg School of Management and the neuroscience program at Northwestern University. Cerf holds multiple patents and his works have been published in wide-circulation academic journals, including Nature and Journal of Neuroscience, as well as popular science journals, including Scientific American Mind, Wired, New Scientist, and others. Additionally, his work has been portrayed in numerous media and cultural outlets, such as CNN, BBC, Bloomberg, NPR, Time, MSNBC, and dozens of others. He has also been featured in venues such as the Venice Art Biennial and China's Art, Science and Technology Association, and has contributed to magazines such as Forbes, The Atlantic, Inc., and others. Cerf has made much of his research accessible to the general public via his public talks at PopTech, TED, TEDx, Google Zeitgeist, DLD and other venues, gathering millions of views and a large following. Additionally, he is the beneficiary of several awards and grants for his work, including the Instructional improvement grant, and the prestigious president scholarship for excellence. He was recently named one of the “40 leading professors under 40, Currently, Cerf is on the board of a number of neuro-tech companies (Nervanix, VR Americas, Best Fit) and is the co-founder of ThinkAlike. He is also the founder of B-Cube. The Alfred P. Sloan professor at the American Film Institute, where he teaches an annual screenwriting class on science in films, Cerf is also a consultant to various Hollywood films and TV shows, such as CBS' “Bull” and “Limitless,” USA Network's “Falling Water,” and more. https://www.morancerf.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/moran-cerf-407187

When Claudia gets pregnant she has a very clear plan for how she wants to give birth. Her pre-natal anxieties inspire her father to create a device for safer deliveries and Claudia realizes that nothing ever goes quite as expected.Bump is part of L.A. Theatre Works' Relativity Series of science-themed plays. Lead funding for the Relativity Series is provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, bridging science and the arts in the modern world.Directed by Rosalind AyresProducing Director: Susan Albert LoewenbergLucy DeVito as Mary, Apple, ReceptionistAnna Lyse Erikson as Lemon, Third WomanAlma Martinez as MariaAnna Mathias as Midwife, Avocado, DoulaAna Ortiz as ClaudiaMoira Quirk as Walnut, Mama, Second WomanHerbert Sigüenza as LuisAndré Sogliuzzo as YouTube GuyDevon Sorvari as Grapefruit, Waiting MotherInger Tudor as Narrator, Plum, Different Mama

What I learned from reading Billy, Alfred, and General Motors: The Story of Two Unique Men, A Legendary Company, and a Remarkable Time in American History by William Pelfrey.[0:01] They were oil and water in all respects. Billy Durant, the high school dropout, was the flamboyant dreamer and gambler, focused on personal relationships and risk. Alfred Sloan, the MIT engineer, was the stern organizer and manager, focused on data, logic, and profit.[4:40] The paradox of this book in two sentences: Sloan's most constant criticism of Durant was that he acted on instinct and whim rather than facts. Yet the achievements and decisions of Durant the dreamer were what made Sloan the manager's spectacular career possible.[6:50] Alfred Sloan telling us it is a lot harder to stay successful over a long period of time: “The perpetuation of an unusual success or the maintenance of an unusually high standard of leadership in any industry is sometimes more difficult than the attainment of that success or leadership in the first place.”[10:45] Walter Chrysler left the highest paying job in the entire automobile industry because of Billy Durant's wasted his time: More than once, Chrysler had been summoned by Durant only to be kept waiting then to discover that the urgent matter that needed to be discussed was nothing that couldn't have been resolved quickly at the plant level rather than wasting top management's time and brainpower.[12:52] Sloan believed Billy Durant had no right to be distracted by the financial markets while Durant was supposed to be running General Motors: Sometimes I used to feel as if he were always holding a telephone in his hand. I think there were twenty telephones in his private office and a switchboard. He had private wires to brokers' offices across the continent. In the same minute, he would buy in San Francisco, sell in Boston. It did not seem to me that the operating head of a corporation had any right to devote himself to the market, even if the stock of the corporation was involved. [17:13] Billy Durant will remind you that everything is possible: What was it in Billy's genes and character that had led the high school dropout from rural Michigan to even dream of building an empire that would change the world?[20:30] Billy Durant would tell you to control the things that are important to your business: Billy Durant would never forget the bitter lesson of what he saw as Paterson's treachery: Always control your own production and, whenever possible, all of the links in the supply chain.[23:05] Unlike Durant, Alfred Sloan had a singular focus. His singular focus was General Motors: By the early 1930s, Alfred Sloan was widely considered to be one of the richest men in the world, but he had no known hobbies and had never sold a single share of General Motors stock. His only known investment of either time or money in anything beyond the domain of General Motors was the purchase of a yacht at the urging of friends and his wife. [26:37] There are ideas worth billions in a $30 history book: In Henry Singleton's case that is literally true. Reading Sloan's book had a multiple billion dollar effect on the outcome of Teledyne.[29:04] Sloan would not tolerate any excuses: Sloan is kinda like Yoda. Do or do not. There is no try.[29:48] A key ideological difference between Alfred Sloan and Billy Durant was how growth should be financed: What Alfred didn't mention in his letter was that Hyatt's growth had come from reinvestment of the company's own profits, rather than the acquisition and stock market strategy mastered by Billy Durant. A divergence of fundamental strategy that would be at the core of the General Motors crisis and showdown of 1920.[31:12] An important lesson from history is that new and important industries can start out looking like toys: In 1899 the automobile industry in America was no more than the strange and wild obsession of a few tinkerers and an amusing diversion for the wealthy investors who backed them. Cars were still widely considered impractical toys and dangerous nuisances by most people. [34:35] Alfred Sloan admired and copied Henry Leland, founder of Cadillac and Lincoln: Of all the American automobile industry's unique and colorful characters, the one whom Alfred Sloan most admired and emulated was Henry Leland. Leland was a perfectionist who expected and demanded higher standards than any of his peers. He accepted no excuses and suffered no fools. Sloan devoted more words and detail to what he learned from Leland than he did any other person.[45:55] Alfred Sloan on why vertical integration was so important in the automobile industry: Every piece of the motor car is essential in the sense that the automobile is not complete unless every part is available. Delay in delivery of any part stops the work. A dependable supply of parts might well make the difference between success and failure.[48:08] Henry Ford's ONE idea was different from every other automobile manufacturer: He was determined to concentrate on the low end of the market, where he believed that high volume would drive costs down and at the same time feed even more demand for the product. It was a fundamental difference in philosophy.[49:35] Comparing and contrasting Billy Durant and Alfred Sloan's approach to growth: For him, the thrill was always in the next deal, not in the nuts and bolts of daily operations. In his mind, empires were built by conquest, not through internal growth. And the road to conquest was through other people's money and other people's confidence in his genius, rather than the quiet, conservative road of knowing the fundamentals of manufacturing and marketing, as was followed by the likes of Henry Leland and Alfred P. Sloan.[56:05] Why Innovation is so important. We must arm the rebels! The automobile sparked not only the great oil boom it also sparked innovations in petroleum refining and metal alloys that led to further innovation in chemicals. It also spawned the motel industry as well as gasoline retailing. Thanks solely to the demand for gasoline to run the internal combustion engine automobile, crude oil production in the United States soared.The first gasoline pump appeared in 1905. By 1915, Standard Oil had developed the first chain of gasoline service stations. In 1916, the federal government began funding the interstate highway system. Ten years later, motels and road side restaurants were common in every state. Thanks to Henry Ford's Model T, Billy Durant's vision of a nation transformed by the automobile had become a reality.[57:47] When most of your revenue comes from one or two major customers you are fragile. Or Why Alfred Sloan sold Hyatt Roller Bearing to Billy Durant: The problem for Alfred and his peers was that, compared with the manufacturers, the suppliers' pockets were not nearly as deep. Expanding their production capacity meant investment in new plant and equipment, but there was no guarantee that the boom would continue once these commitments were made. Nor was there any guarantee from the manufacturers that they would not shift to a different supplier with lower cost at some point in the future, leaving Supplier A stuck with both excess capacity and the cost of the original expansion.[1:14:23] How Alred Sloan positioned General Motors product line: Sloan developed a product strategy targeted at buyers' specific aspirations. Its essence was to divide the market into price segments and offer cars with the most appeal and value in each segment. Sloan called it “a car for every purse and purpose.” No General Motors vehicle division or brand would compete against any other in any of the segments; each was to have a distinct identity and appeal to a distinct buyer.[1:15:10] David Ogilvy on positioning your product: Now consider how you want to ‘position' your product. This curious verb is in great favor among marketing experts, but no two of them agree what it means. My own definition is ‘what the product does, and who it is for.' I could have positioned Dove as a detergent bar for men with dirty hands, but chose instead to position it as a toilet bar for women with dry skin. This is still working 25 years later.[1:16:48] Alfred Sloan —like Sam Walton—made it a priority to visit dealers: I made it a practice throughout the 1920s and early thirties to make personal visits to dealers. I went into almost every city in the United States, visiting from five to ten dealers a day. I would meet them in their own places of business, talk with them across their own desks in their closing rooms and ask them for suggestions and criticism concerning their relations with the corporation, the character of the product, the corporation's policies, the trend of consumer demand, their view of the future, and many other things of interest in the business. I made careful notes of all the points that came up, and when I got back home I studied them.[1:20:46] Billy Durant's metaphor on the difference between him and Alfred Sloan: But, you see, this infantry captain didn't have the disadvantage of a West Point education and he didn't know he couldn't do it, so he just went ahead and did it anyway.---“I have listened to every episode released and look forward to every episode that comes out. The only criticism I would have is that after each podcast I usually want to buy the book because I am interested, so my poor wallet suffers.”— GarethBe like Gareth. Buy a book. It's good for you. It's good for Founders. A list of all the books featured on Founders Podcast.

In 1920, General Motors was a company in trouble. Its founder was fired- for a second time. Henry Ford was eating G.M.'s lunch with his Model T. But a decade later, G.M. had revamped itself into the model of a big business, and would remain so for decades, largely following the same playbook written by Alfred P. Sloan, Jr. in the 1920s. We'll follow its resurgence with help from Paul Lienert, a veteran auto writer and Detroit correspondent for Reuters.

Moran Cerf is a professor of neuroscience and business at the Kellogg School of Management. Prior to his academic career, professor Cerf worked as a hacker for nearly a decade, breaking into leading financial and government institutes to test and improve their security. His hacking background has led him to later pursue non-traditional ways to investigate the brain, using methods and techniques that benefit from heavy computational skills and novel research tools. Notably, he has been working with patients undergoing brain-surgery where he studies behavior, emotion, decision making and dreams by directly recording the activity of individual neurons using electrodes implanted in the patients' brain.He holds multiple patents and his work has been published in wide-circulation academic journals such as Nature, as well as popular science journals such as Scientific American Mind, Wired, New Scientist and more. Additionally, his work has been portrayed in numerous media outlets such as Time, CNN, BBC, Bloomberg, NPR, MSNBC and dozens of others. Additionally, he is the Alfred P. Sloan screenwriting Professor at the American Film Institute.He has been featured in venues such as the Venice Art Biennial and China's Art, Science and Technology conference, and has contributed to magazines such as Forbes, The Atlantic, Inc. and others.Professor Cerf has had short-lived careers as a furniture-designer, a pilot, a radio host, and a filmmaker, and he has served on the boards of pharmaceutical, telecom and fashion companies.He is a multiple-times national story-telling champion ('The Moth'), and his public talks at TED, Google Zeitgeist, PopTech, DLD and others have received millions of views and a large following.In addition to his academic career, professor Cerf is a science consultant for various Hollywood films and TV shows ('Bull', ‘Limitless', ‘Falling Water', and more).Recently, he was named one of the "40 leading professors below 40”.- https://www.morancerf.com/Please do NOT hesitate to reach out to me on Instagram, Twitter or via email mark@vudream.comHumans 2.0 Twitter - https://twitter.com/Humans2PodcastTwitter - https://twitter.com/markymetryMedium - https://medium.com/@markymetryFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/mark.metry.9Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/markmetry/LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-metry/Mark Metry - https://www.markmetry.com/