Podcasts about ARPA

Zarpa el Arpa - 20 de diciembre 2025 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

Zarpa el Arpa - 13 de diciembre 2025 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

En este episodio de Arpa Talks conversamos con Sonia Contera, nanotecnóloga y catedrática de Física en la Universidad de Oxford.Hablamos de mecánica cuántica, de la búsqueda de una teoría del todo y de algunas de las grandes narrativas científicas contemporáneas: la vida en Marte, el envejecimiento o la creación de vida en el laboratorio.Contera explica por qué muchas de estas promesas —muy presentes en el discurso de las grandes tecnológicas— funcionan más como relatos de sentido que como horizontes científicos reales, y qué límites físicos, biológicos y epistemológicos encuentran. La conversación se abre también a las fracturas del ecosistema científico actual, al peso del statu quo y a la dificultad de investigar fuera de los marcos dominantes.Frente a ello, defiende la necesidad de recuperar una ciencia más libre, más realista y capaz de jugar, abierta a explorar caminos no previstos y a aceptar resultados inesperados.Una conversación exigente y estimulante sobre ciencia, investigación y los límites del conocimiento.——¿Quieres apoyar Arpa Talks?1. Únete al canal de WhatsApp de Arpa Editores: https://chat.whatsapp.com/GHChxe1LBlbCGWnBfmvXhu2. Patrocina Arpa Talks y recibe libros de Arpa cada mes: https://arpaeditores.com/products/patrocinio-arpa-talks3. Responde a nuestra encuesta. Son 60 segundos y es anónima:https://forms.gle/DJHyLwVgLk9weY9H84. ¡Compra libros de Arpa! http://www.arpaeditores.com——YouTube: ‪@ArpaTalks‬ Spotify: https://bitly.cx/G6aCDApple Podcast: https://bitly.cx/gLW2INewsletter: https://arpaeditores.com/pages/newsletter Twitter: https://x.com/arpaeditoresMail: talks@arpaeditores.com——Música de Alfo G. Aguado x Udio

Claude Debussy (1862-1918) - Sonata n. 2 in fa maggiore per flauto, viola e arpa, L 1451.      Pastorale - Lento, dolce rubato2.      Interlude - Tempo di minuetto (fa minore)3.      Finale - Allegro moderato ma risoluto Mario Ancillotti, flautoLorenzo Falconi, violaAlessia Luise, arpa

CDMX llama a celebrar Navidad sin pirotecnia  Notre Dame, el monumento más visitado de París tras su reapertura  ¿Sabía qué el arpa es el símbolo sagrado en la cultura yaqui?  Más información en nuestro podcast

Zarpa el Arpa - 6 de diciembre 2025 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

Welcome to the latest episode of Carolina Cabinet! Host Peter Pappas is joined by intrepid reporter Myron Pitts and co-host Laura Musler for Cumberland County's smartest hour of talk radio. In this lively conversation, the trio digs into the pulse of Fayetteville's local politics, from election filings and the perennial drama at city council to candid reflections on voter turnout and the real impact of local government on our daily lives.You'll hear a refreshing dose of bipartisanship as Laura Musler and Myron Pitts examine what keeps local politics both passionate and pragmatic, debating everything from the transparency of ARPA funds to why potholes—and clean water—aren't partisan issues. Plus, they take on some big-picture topics like healthcare, the changing landscape of media, and the importance of community involvement, while keeping the conversation grounded in the issues that matter most to residents.If you've ever wondered about how decisions made at city council shape our future, or what really drives local political engagement, this episode is for you. Whether you're a longtime Fayetteville resident or just want smarter local talk, tune in to Carolina Cabinet for insight, wit, and a thoughtful look at the stories shaping our community.big-picture topics like healthcare, the changing media landscape

 If you're a scientist, and you apply for federal research funding, you'll ask for a specific dollar amount. Let's say you're asking for a million-dollar grant. Your grant covers the direct costs, things like the salaries of the researchers that you're paying. If you get that grant, your university might get an extra $500,000. That money is called “indirect costs,” but think of it as overhead: that money goes to lab space, to shared equipment, and so on.This is the system we've used to fund American research infrastructure for more than 60 years. But earlier this year, the Trump administration proposed capping these payments at just 15% of direct costs, way lower than current indirect cost rates. There are legal questions about whether the admin can do that. But if it does, it would force universities to fundamentally rethink how they do science.The indirect costs system is pretty opaque from the outside. Is the admin right to try and slash these indirect costs? Where does all that money go? And if we want to change how we fund research overhead, what are the alternatives? How do you design a research system to incentivize the research you actually wanna see in the world?I'm joined today by Pierre Azoulay from MIT Sloan and Dan Gross from Duke's Fuqua School of Business. Together with Bhaven Sampat at Johns Hopkins, they conducted the first comprehensive empirical study of how indirect costs actually work. Earlier this year, I worked with them to write up that study as a more accessible policy brief for IFP. They've assembled data on over 350 research institutions, and they found some striking results. While negotiated rates often exceed 50-60%, universities actually receive much less, due to built-in caps and exclusions.Moreover, the institutions that would be hit hardest by proposed cuts are those whose research most often leads to new drugs and commercial breakthroughs.Thanks to Katerina Barton, Harry Fletcher-Wood, and Inder Lohla for their help with this episode, and to Beez for her help on the charts.Let's say I'm a researcher at a university and I apply for a federal grant. I'm looking at cancer cells in mice. It will cost me $1 million to do that research — to pay grad students, to buy mice and test tubes. I apply for a grant from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Where do indirect costs come in?Dan Gross: Research generally incurs two categories of costs, much as business operations do.* Direct or variable costs are typically project-specific; they include salaries and consumable supplies.* Indirect or fixed costs are not as easily assigned to any particular project. [They include] things like lab space, data and computing resources, biosecurity, keeping the lights on and the buildings cooled and heated — even complying with the regulatory requirements the federal government imposes on researchers. They are the overhead costs of doing research.Pierre Azoulay: You will use those grad students, mice, and test tubes, the direct costs. But you're also using the lab space. You may be using a shared facility where the mice are kept and fed. Pieces of large equipment are shared by many other people to conduct experiments. So those are fixed costs from the standpoint of your research project.Dan: Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) is how the federal government has been paying for the fixed cost of research for the past 60 years. This has been done by paying universities institution-specific fixed percentages on top of the direct cost of the research. That's the indirect cost rate. That rate is negotiated by institutions, typically every two to four years, supported by several hundred pages of documentation around its incurred costs over the recent funding cycle.The idea is to compensate federally funded researchers for the investments, infrastructure, and overhead expenses related to the research they perform for the government. Without that funding, universities would have to pay those costs out of pocket and, frankly, many would not be interested or able to do the science the government is funding them to do.Imagine I'm doing my mouse cancer science at MIT, Pierre's parent institution. Some time in the last four years, MIT had this negotiation with the National Institutes of Health to figure out what the MIT reimbursable rate is. But as a researcher, I don't have to worry about what indirect costs are reimbursable. I'm all mouse research, all day.Dan: These rates are as much of a mystery to the researchers as it is to the public. When I was junior faculty, I applied for an external grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) — you can look up awards folks have won in the award search portal. It doesn't break down indirect and direct cost shares of each grant. You see the total and say, “Wow, this person got $300,000.” Then you go to write your own grant and realize you can only budget about 60% of what you thought, because the rest goes to overhead. It comes as a bit of a shock the first time you apply for grant funding.What goes into the overhead rates? Most researchers and institutions don't have clear visibility into that. The process is so complicated that it's hard even for those who are experts to keep track of all the pieces.Pierre: As an individual researcher applying for a project, you think about the direct costs of your research projects. You're not thinking about the indirect rate. When the research administration of your institution sends the application, it's going to apply the right rates.So I've got this $1 million experiment I want to run on mouse cancer. If I get the grant, the total is $1.5 million. The university takes that .5 million for the indirect costs: the building, the massive microscope we bought last year, and a tiny bit for the janitor. Then I get my $1 million. Is that right?Dan: Duke University has a 61% indirect cost rate. If I propose a grant to the NSF for $100,000 of direct costs — it might be for data, OpenAI API credits, research staff salaries — I would need to budget an extra $61,000 on top for ICR, bringing the total grant to $161,000.My impression is that most federal support for research happens through project-specific grants. It's not these massive institutional block grants. Is that right?Pierre: By and large, there aren't infrastructure grants in the science funding system. There are other things, such as center grants that fund groups of investigators. Sometimes those can get pretty large — the NIH grant for a major cancer center like Dana-Farber could be tens of millions of dollars per year.Dan: In the past, US science funding agencies did provide more funding for infrastructure and the instrumentation that you need to perform research through block grants. In the 1960s, the NSF and the Department of Defense were kicking up major programs to establish new data collection efforts — observatories, radio astronomy, or the Deep Sea Drilling project the NSF ran, collecting core samples from the ocean floor around the world. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — back then the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) — was investing in nuclear test detection to monitor adherence to nuclear test ban treaties. Some of these were satellite observation methods for atmospheric testing. Some were seismic measurement methods for underground testing. ARPA supported the installation of a network of seismic monitors around the world. Those monitors are responsible for validating tectonic plate theory. Over the next decade, their readings mapped the tectonic plates of the earth. That large-scale investment in research infrastructure is not as common in the US research policy enterprise today.That's fascinating. I learned last year how modern that validation of tectonic plate theory was. Until well into my grandparents' lifetime, we didn't know if tectonic plates existed.Dan: Santi, when were you born?1997.Dan: So I'm a good decade older than you — I was born in 1985. When we were learning tectonic plate theory in the 1990s, it seemed like something everybody had always known. It turns out that it had only been known for maybe 25 years.So there's this idea of federal funding for science as these massive pieces of infrastructure, like the Hubble Telescope. But although projects like that do happen, the median dollar the Feds spend on science today is for an individual grant, not installing seismic monitors all over the globe.Dan: You applied for a grant to fund a specific project, whose contours you've outlined in advance, and we provided the funding to execute that project.Pierre: You want to do some observations at the observatory in Chile, and you are going to need to buy a plane ticket — not first class, not business class, very much economy.Let's move to current events. In February of this year, the NIH announced it was capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% on all grants.What's the administration's argument here?Pierre: The argument is there are cases where foundations only charge 15% overhead rate on grants — and universities acquiesce to such low rates — and the federal government is entitled to some sort of “most-favored nation” clause where no one pays less in overhead than they pay. That's the argument in this half-a-page notice. It's not much more elaborate than that.The idea is, the Gates Foundation says, “We will give you a grant to do health research and we're only going to pay 15% indirect costs.” Some universities say, “Thank you. We'll do that.” So clearly the universities don't need the extra indirect cost reimbursement?Pierre: I think so.Dan: Whether you can extrapolate from that to federal research funding is a different question, let alone if federal research was funding less research and including even less overhead. Would foundations make up some of the difference, or even continue funding as much research, if the resources provided by the federal government were lower? Those are open questions. Foundations complement federal funding, as opposed to substitute for it, and may be less interested in funding research if it's less productive.What are some reasons that argument might be misguided?Pierre: First, universities don't always say, “Yes” [to a researcher wishing to accept a grant]. At MIT, getting a grant means getting special authorization from the provost. That special authorization is not always forthcoming. The provost has a special fund, presumably funded out of the endowment, that under certain conditions they will dip into to make up for the missing overhead.So you've got some research that, for whatever reason, the federal government won't fund, and the Gates Foundation is only willing to fund it at this low rate, and the university has budgeted a little bit extra for those grants that it still wants.Pierre: That's my understanding. I know that if you're going to get a grant, you're going to have to sit in many meetings and cajole any number of administrators, and you don't always get your way.Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison [between federal and foundation grants] because there are ways to budget an item as a direct cost in a foundation grant that the government would consider an indirect cost. So you might budget some fractional access to a facility…Like the mouse microscope I have to use?Pierre: Yes, or some sort of Cryo-EM machine. You end up getting more overhead through the back door.The more fundamental way in which that approach is misguided is that the government wants its infrastructure — that it has contributed to through [past] indirect costs — to be leveraged by other funders. It's already there, it's been paid for, it's sitting idle, and we can get more bang for our buck if we get those additional funders to piggyback on that investment.Dan: That [other funders] might not be interested in funding otherwise.Why wouldn't they be interested in funding it otherwise? What shouldn't the federal government say, “We're going to pay less. If it's important research, somebody else will pay for it.”Dan: We're talking about an economies-of-scale problem. These are fixed costs. The more they're utilized, the more the costs get spread over individual research projects.For the past several decades, the federal government has funded an order of magnitude more university research than private firms or foundations. If you look at NSF survey data, 55% of university R&D is federally funded; 6% is funded by foundations. That is an order of magnitude difference. The federal government has the scale to support and extract value for whatever its goals are for American science.We haven't even started to get into the administrative costs of research. That is part of the public and political discomfort with indirect-cost recovery. The idea that this is money that's going to fund university bloat.I should lay my cards on the table here for readers. There are a ton of problems with the American scientific enterprise as it currently exists. But when you look at studies from a wide range of folks, it's obvious that R&D in American universities is hugely valuable. Federal R&D dollars more than pay for themselves. I want to leave room for all critiques of the scientific ecosystem, of the universities, of individual research ideas. But at this 30,000-foot level, federal R&D dollars are well spent.Dan: The evidence may suggest that, but that's not where the political and public dialogue around science policy is. Again, I'm going to bring in a long arc here. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was, “We're in a race with the Soviet Union. If we want to win this race, we're going to have to take some risky bets.” And the US did. It was more flexible with its investments in university and industrial science, especially related to defense aims. But over time, with the waning of these political pressures and with new budgetary pressures, the tenor shifted from, “Let's take chances” to “Let's make science and other parts of government more accountable.” The undercurrent of Indirect Cost Recovery policy debates has more of this accountability framing.This comes up in this comparison to foundation rates: “Is the government overpaying?” Clearly universities are willing to accept less from foundations. It comes up in this perception that ICR is funding administrative growth that may not be productive or socially efficient. Accountability seems to be a priority in the current day.Where are we right now [August 2025] on that 15% cap on indirect costs?Dan: Recent changes first kicked off on February 7th, when NIH posted its supplemental guidance, that introduced a policy that the direct cost rates that it paid on its grants would be 15% to institutions of higher education. That policy was then adopted by the NSF, the DOD, and the Department of Energy. All of these have gotten held up in court by litigation from universities. Things are stuck in legal limbo. Congress has presented its point of view that, “At least for now, I'd like to keep things as they are.” But this has been an object of controversy long before the current administration even took office in January. I don't think it's going away.Pierre: If I had to guess, the proposal as it first took shape is not what is going to end up being adopted. But the idea that overhead rates are an object of controversy — are too high, and need to be reformed — is going to stay relevant.Dan: Partly that's because it's a complicated issue. Partly there's not a real benchmark of what an appropriate Indirect Cost Recovery policy should be. Any way you try to fund the cost of research, you're going to run into trade-offs. Those are complicated.ICR does draw criticism. People think it's bloated or lacks transparency. We would agree some of these critiques are well-founded. Yet it's also important to remember that ICR pays for facilities and administration. It doesn't just fund administrative costs, which is what people usually associate it with. The share of ICR that goes to administrative costs is legally capped at 26% of direct costs. That cap has been in place since 1991. Many universities have been at that cap for many years — you can see this in public records. So the idea that indirect costs are going up over time, and that that's because of bloat at US universities, has to be incorrect, because the administrative rate has been capped for three decades.Many of those costs are incurred in service of complying with regulations that govern research, including the cost of administering ICR to begin with. Compiling great proposals every two to four years and a new round of negotiations — all of that takes resources. Those are among the things that indirect cost funding reimburses.Even then, universities appear to under-recover their true indirect costs of federally-sponsored research. We have examples from specific universities which have reported detailed numbers. That under-recovery means less incentive to invest in infrastructure, less capacity for innovation, fewer clinical trials. So there's a case to be made that indirect cost funding is too low.Pierre: The bottom line is we don't know if there is under- or over-recovery of indirect costs. There's an incentive for university administrators to claim there's under-recovery. So I take that with a huge grain of salt.Dan: It's ambiguous what a best policy would look like, but this is all to say that, first, public understanding of this complex issue is sometimes a bit murky. Second, a path forward has to embrace the trade-offs that any particular approach to ICR presents.From reading your paper, I got a much better sense that a ton of the administrative bloat of the modern university is responding to federal regulations on research. The average researcher reports spending almost half of their time on paperwork. Some of that is a consequence of the research or grant process; some is regulatory compliance.The other thing, which I want to hear more on, is that research tools seem to be becoming more expensive and complex. So the microscope I'm using today is an order of magnitude more expensive than the microscope I was using in 1950. And you've got to recoup those costs somehow.Pierre: Everything costs more than it used to. Research is subject to Baumol's cost disease. There are areas where there's been productivity gains — software has had an impact.The stakes are high because, if we get this wrong, we're telling researchers that they should bias the type of research they're going to pursue and training that they're going to undergo, with an eye to what is cheaper. If we reduce the overhead rate, we should expect research that has less fixed cost and more variable costs to gain in favor — and research that is more scale-intensive to lose favor. There's no reason for a benevolent social planner to find that a good development. The government should be neutral with respect to the cost structure of research activities. We don't know in advance what's going to be more productive.Wouldn't a critic respond, “We're going to fund a little bit of indirect costs, but we're not going to subsidize stuff that takes huge amounts of overhead. If universities want to build that fancy new telescope because it's valuable, they'll do it.” Why is that wrong when it comes to science funding?Pierre: There's a grain of truth to it.Dan: With what resources though? Who's incentivized to invest in this infrastructure? There's not a paid market for science. Universities can generate some licensing fees from patents that result from science. But those are meager revenue streams, realistically. There are reasons to believe that commercial firms are under-incentivized to invest in basic scientific research. Prior to 1940, the scientific enterprise was dramatically smaller because there wasn't funding the way that there is today. The exigencies of war drew the federal government into funding research in order to win. Then it was productive enough that folks decided we should keep doing it. History and economic logic tells us that you're not going to see as much science — especially in these fixed-cost heavy endeavors — when those resources aren't provided by the public.Pierre: My one possible answer to the question is, “The endowment is going to pay for it.” MIT has an endowment, but many other universities do not. What does that mean for them? The administration also wants to tax the heck out of the endowment.This is a good opportunity to look at the empirical work you guys did in this great paper. As far as I can tell, this was one of the first real looks at what indirect costs rates look like in real life. What did you guys find?Dan: Two decades ago, Pierre and Bhaven began collecting information on universities' historical indirect cost rates. This is a resource that was quietly sitting on the shelf waiting for its day. That day came this past February. Bhaven and Pierre collected information on negotiated ICR rates for the past 60 years. During this project, we also collected the most recent versions of those agreements from university websites to bring the numbers up to the current day.We pulled together data for around 350 universities and other research institutions. Together, they account for around 85% of all NIH research funding over the last 20 years.We looked at their:* Negotiated indirect cost rates, from institutional indirect cost agreements with the government, and their;* Effective rates [how much they actually get when you look at grant payments], using NIH grant funding data.Negotiated cost rates have gone up. That has led to concerns that the overhead cost of research is going up — these claims that it's funding administrative bloat. But our most important finding is that there's a large gap between the sticker rates — the negotiated ICR rates that are visible to the public, and get floated on Twitter as examples of university exorbitance — and the rates that universities are paid in practice, at least on NIH grants; we think it's likely the case for NSF and other agency grants too.An institution's effective ICR funding rates are much, much lower than their negotiated rates and they haven't changed much for 40 years. If you look at NIH's annual budget, the share of grant funding that goes to indirect costs has been roughly constant at 27-28% for a long time. That implies an effective rate of around 40% over direct costs. Even though many institutions have negotiated rates of 50-70%, they usually receive 30-50%.The difference between those negotiated rates and the effective rates seems to be due to limits and exceptions built into NIH grant rules. Those rules exclude some grants, such as training grants, from full indirect cost funding. They also exclude some direct costs from the figure used to calculate ICR rates. The implication is that institutions receive ICR payments based on a smaller portion of their incurred direct costs than typically assumed. As the negotiated direct cost falls, you see a university being paid a higher indirect cost rate off a smaller — modified — direct cost base, to recover the same amount of overhead.Is it that the federal government is saying for more parts of the grant, “We're not going to reimburse that as an indirect cost.”?Dan: This is where we shift a little bit from assessment to speculation. What's excluded from total direct costs? One thing is researcher salaries above a certain level.What is that level? Can you give me a dollar amount?Dan: It's a $225,700 annual salary. There aren't enough people being paid that on these grants for that to explain the difference, especially when you consider that research salaries are being paid to postdocs and grad students.You're looking around the scientists in your institution and thinking, “That's not where the money is”?Dan: It's not, even if you consider Principal Investigators. If you consider postdocs and grad students, it certainly isn't.Dan: My best hunch is that research projects have become more capital-intensive, and only a certain level of expenditure on equipment can be included in the modified total direct cost base. I don't have smoking gun evidence, it's my intuition.In the paper, there's this fascinating chart where you show the institutions that would get hit hardest by a 15% cap tend to be those that do the most valuable medical research. Explain that on this framework. Is it that doing high-quality medical research is capital-intensive?Pierre: We look at all the private-sector patents that build on NIH research. The more a university stands to lose under the administration policy, the more it has contributed over the past 25 years — in research the private sector found relevant in terms of pharmaceutical patents.This is counterintuitive if your whole model of funding for science is, “Let's cut subsidies for the stuff the private sector doesn't care about — all this big equipment.” When you cut those subsidies, what suffers most is the stuff that the private sector likes.Pierre: To me it makes perfect sense. This is the stuff that the private sector would not be willing to invest in on its own. But that research, having come into being, is now a very valuable input into activities that profit-minded investors find interesting and worth taking a risk on.This is the argument for the government to fund basic research?Pierre: That argument has been made at the macro-level forever, but the bibliometric revolution of the past 15 years allows you to look at this at the nano-level. Recently I've been able to look at the history of Ozempic. The main patent cites zero publicly-funded research, but it cites a bunch of patents, including patents taken up by academics. Those cite the foundational research performed by Joel Habener and his team at Massachusetts General Hospital in the early 1980s that elucidated the role of GLP-1 as a potential target. This grant was first awarded to Habener in 1979, was renewed every four or five years, and finally died in 2008, when he moved on to other things. Those chains are complex, but we can now validate the macro picture at this more granular level.Dan: I do want to add one qualification which also suggests some directions for the future. There are things we still can't see — despite Pierre's zeal. Our projections of the consequence of a 15% rate cap are still pretty coarse. We don't know what research might not take place. We don't know what indirect cost categories are exposed, or how universities would reallocate. All those things are going to be difficult to project without a proper experiment.One thing that I would've loved to have more visibility into is, “What is the structure of indirect costs at universities across the country? What share of paid indirect costs are going to administrative expenses? What direct cost categories are being excluded?” We would need a more transparency into the system to know the answers.Does that information have to be proprietary? It's part of negotiations with the federal government about how much the taxpayer will pay for overhead on these grants. Which piece is so special that it can't be shared?Pierre: You are talking to the wrong people here because we're meta-scientists, so our answer is none of it should be private.Dan: But now you have to ask the university lawyers.What would the case from the universities be? “We can't tell the public what we spend subsidy on”?Pierre: My sense is that there are institutions of academia that strike most lay people as completely bizarre.Hard to explain without context?Pierre: People haven't thought about it. They will find it so bizarre that they will typically jump from the odd aspect to, “That must be corruption.” University administrators are hugely attuned to that. So the natural defensive approach is to shroud it in secrecy. This way we don't see how the sausage is made.Dan: Transparency can be a blessing and a curse. More information supports more considered decision-making. It also opens the door to misrepresentation by critics who have their own agendas. Pierre's right: there are some practices that to the public might look unusual — or might be familiar, but one might say, “How is that useful expense?” Even a simple thing like having an administrator who manages a faculty's calendar might seem excessive. Many people manage their own calendars. At the same time, when you think about how someone's time is best used, given their expertise, and heavy investment in specialized human capital, are emails, calendaring, and note-taking the right things for scientists [to be doing]? Scientists spend a large chunk of their time now administering grants. Does it make sense to outsource that and preserve the scientist's time for more science?When you put forward data that shows some share of federal research funding is going to fund administrative costs, at first glance it might look wasteful, yet it might still be productive. But I would be able to make a more considered judgment on a path forward if I had access to more facts, including what indirect costs look like under the hood.One last question: in a world where you guys have the ear of the Senate, political leadership at the NIH, and maybe the universities, what would you be pushing for on indirect costs?Pierre: I've come to think that this indirect cost rate is a second-best institution: terrible and yet superior to many of the alternatives. My favorite alternative would be one where there would be a flat rate applied to direct costs. That would be the average effective rate currently observed — on the order of 40%.You're swapping out this complicated system to — in the end — reimburse universities the same 40%.Pierre: We know there are fixed costs. Those fixed costs need to be paid. We could have an elaborate bureaucratic apparatus to try to get it exactly right, but it's mission impossible. So why don't we give up on that and set a rate that's unlikely to lead to large errors in under- or over-recovery. I'm not particularly attached to 40%. But the 15% that was contemplated seems absurdly low.Dan: In the work we've done, we do lay out different approaches. The 15% rate wouldn't fully cut out the negotiation process: to receive that, you have to document your overhead costs and demonstrate that they reached that level. In any case, it's simplifying. It forces more cost-sharing and maybe more judicious investments by universities. But it's also so low that it's likely to make a significant amount of high-value, life-improving research economically unattractive.The current system is complicated and burdensome. It might encourage investment in less productive things, particularly because universities can get it paid back through future ICR. At the same time, it provides pretty good incentives to take on expensive, high-value research on behalf of the public.I would land on one of two alternatives. One of those is close to what Pierre said, with fixed rates, but varied by institution types: one for universities, one for medical schools, one for independent research institutions — because we do see some variation in their cost structures. We might set those rates around their historical average effective rates, since those haven't changed for quite a long time. If you set different rates for different categories of institution, the more finely you slice the pie, the closer you end up to the current system. So that's why I said maybe, at a very high level, four categories.The other I could imagine is to shift more of these costs “above the line” — to adapt the system to enable more of these indirect costs to be budgeted as direct costs in grants. This isn't always easy, but presumably some things we currently call indirect costs could be accounted for in a direct cost manner. Foundations do it a bit more than the federal government does, so that could be another path forward.There's no silver bullet. Our goal was to try to bring some understanding to this long-running policy debate over how to fund the indirect cost of research and what appropriate rates should be. It's been a recurring question for several decades and now is in the hot seat again. Hopefully through this work, we've been able to help push that dialogue along. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Zarpa el Arpa - 29 de noviembre 2025 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

Yemek yemenin farzları:1. Aç olmayacak kadar yemek,2. O yemeği yiyince ağzına lezzet gelmesini Allâhü Azimü'ş-şan'dan bilmek,3. Yediği zaman doymayı ve içtiği zaman kanmayı Allâhü Azimü'ş-şan'dan bilmek,4. Helalinden yemek,5. O yemeğin kuvveti geçinceye dek Allâhü Teâlâ'ya kulluk etmek,6. Kanaat etmek,Yemek yemenin sünnetleri:1. Pabucunu çıkarıp yemek,2. Diz çöküp yemek,3. Sofrayı aşağı kurmak,4. Sirke yemek,5. Âhirinde (sonunda) hâmd etmek,6. Yemeğe başlarken besmele demek,7. Yemek evvelinde tuz yemek,8. Arpa ekmeği yemek,9. Ekmeği eliyle parçalamak,10. Üç parmağıyla yemek,11. Önünden; yemek kabın kenarından yemek,12. Ekmek ufağını devşirmek,13. Kabı parmağıyla sıyırmak,14. Üç kere parmakların yalamak,15. Dişini kurcalamak,16. Lokmayı küçük almak,17. Çokça çiğnemek.Yemek yemenin mekruhları:1. Sol eliyle yemek,2. Yemeği koklamak,3. Pişmiş eti bıçak ile kesmek,4. Besmeleyi terk etmek.Yemek yemenin haramları:1. Karnı doyduktan sonra yemek (eğer misafir, yemek sahibi yemedikçe yemezse yahut sahurda kuvvet ziyade olsun diye olursa doyduktan sonra yemek caizdir),2. İsraf etmek,3. Haram li-gayrihi yani aslı harâm olmayıp, sonradan hâsıl olan bir sebepten dolayı harâm olan şeyin evvelinde besmele demek -(ulema küfründe ihtilaf ettiler),4. Davetsiz yere gitmek,5. İzinsiz gayrın ekmeğini almak ve izinsiz gayrın bağına girmek ve meyvesini koparmak,6. Bedenine maraz (hastalık) olacak şeyi yemek,7. Altın ve gümüş tabaktan yemek,8. Riya (gösteriş) ile hazırlanmış yemekten yemek,9. Nezrettiği (adadığı) yemeği yemektir.(Mızraklı İlmihal, s.34)

En este episodio de Arpa Talks conversamos con Sergio C. Fanjul, escritor, poeta, periodista y autor de Cronofobia, su nuevo ensayo sobre nuestra relación con el tiempo.Con su estilo híbrido —entre la crónica, la filosofía y el humor— Fanjul explora qué significa vivir acelerados y por qué el tiempo se ha convertido en uno de los grandes conflictos contemporáneos.Hablamos del reloj del cuerpo y el de la mente, de la ansiedad, de la memoria, de la edad, de la paternidad y de cómo nuestra percepción del tiempo cambia a medida que cambia la vida.La conversación se abre también al situacionismo y las derivas urbanas, a la ciencia y la filosofía del tiempo, a la manera en que imaginamos el futuro —o dejamos de imaginarlo— y a ese malestar tan actual que Fanjul llama cronofobia. ——¿Quieres apoyar Arpa Talks?1. Únete al canal de WhatsApp de Arpa Editores:https://chat.whatsapp.com/GHChxe1LBlbCGWnBfmvXhu2. Patrocina Arpa Talks y recibe libros de Arpa cada mes. https://arpaeditores.com/products/patrocinio-arpa-talks3. Responde a nuestra encuesta. Son 60 segundos y es anónima:https://forms.gle/DJHyLwVgLk9weY9H84. ¡Compra libros de Arpa! http://www.arpaeditores.com——YouTube: ‪@ArpaTalks‬ Spotify: https://bitly.cx/G6aCDApple Podcast: https://bitly.cx/gLW2INewsletter: https://arpaeditores.com/pages/newsletterTwitter: https://x.com/arpaeditoresMail: talks@arpaeditores.com——Música de Alfo G. Aguado x Udio

St Louis Mayor Cara Spencer joins Chris and Amy in-studio. She points out that the tornado was about 6-weeks after she took office, but continues to work and plan for the winter months in terms of shelters for impacted people. 'We are not ideal', says Spencer in terms of federal or state funding on recovery. She also talks about the amount of money available through ARPA funds and Rams settlement money. She points out the 'big unknown' as to how flexible the federal government will be to reallocation of money towards tornado relief. She says she feels good heading into winter regarding snow removal.

La mecánica cuántica, el origen de la vida o el envejecimiento siguen siendo los misterios profundos de nuestra existencia. La investigadora Sonia Contera los explora en 'Seis problemas que la ciencia no puede resolver' (Arpa).

La mecánica cuántica, el origen de la vida o el envejecimiento siguen siendo los misterios profundos de nuestra existencia. La investigadora Sonia Contera los explora en 'Seis problemas que la ciencia no puede resolver' (Arpa).

Zarpa El Arpa - 22 de noviembre 2025 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

Yo decidí llorar andando.

The McGraw Show 11-18-25: ARPA Funds, Butterflies, the Concert Rehearsal Facility & Doing Liners by

90% of Gen Z diners like communal table dining. Chris and Amy discuss the findings. ARPA funds face a deadline to be spent by St Louis.

In episode #329, Ben Murray, The SaaS CFO, breaks down the growing debate around SaaS economics versus AI economics. A recent post claimed that “SaaS metrics are broken” and that traditional KPIs no longer apply to AI companies. Ben challenges this idea and walks through why recurring revenue metrics still matter, how revenue models differ across SaaS and AI, and what CFOs need to understand about gross margin, unit economics, and total addressable market. Key Topics Covered Why claims that SaaS metrics are “broken” are inaccurate The difference between SaaS economics and AI economics Why recurring revenue metrics still apply to AI companies How subscription versus usage revenue impacts KPI calculation Gross margin expectations for SaaS vs. AI companies Whether AI companies truly generate more profit per customer The role of absolute profit versus per-customer economics How AI may expand TAM by targeting labor budgets, not just software budgets How Agentic AI affects financial modeling and cost structures Using ROSE (Return on Software Employees) to evaluate AI-driven ROI What You'll Learn Why SaaS metrics still matter for both SaaS and AI companies How CFOs should evaluate margins, ARR, and revenue quality in AI models The difference between rate-based economics (ARPA, ACV) and volume-based economics (absolute profit) How to think about financial strategy when transitioning from a pure SaaS model to an AI-embedded product model How to assess realistic AI unit economics instead of relying on hype Who This Episode Is For SaaS CFOs and finance leaders evaluating AI investments Founders embedding AI into their product and adjusting their financial models Operators who want a grounded understanding of real AI economics Investors assessing how AI shifts revenue models and margins Related Resources Ben's upcoming deep-dive blog post on SaaS vs. AI economics: TheSaaSCFO.com SaaS Metrics Foundation course for mastering KPI's, ARR, MRR, and unit economics: https://www.thesaasacademy.com/the-saas-metrics-foundation ROSE metric framework for analyzing AI-driven productivity and financial systems: https://www.thesaascfo.com/saas-rose-metric/

Zarpa El Arpa - 15 de noviembre 2025 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

En este episodio de Arpa Talks, conversamos con Enric Jardí, diseñador gráfico, profesor y cofundador de Arpa. Autor de innumerables cubiertas de libros y referente del diseño editorial en España, Jardí reflexiona sobre qué es el diseño y qué hace un diseñador editorial.Hablamos sobre la historia del diseño editorial, cómo se construye una buena cubierta y qué errores conviene evitar al diseñar libros. Jardí comparte también el gran proyecto sobre la imagen en el que lleva años trabajando y que lo ha llevado a profundizar en la percepción, la construcción visual y la forma en que aprendemos a mirar.La conversación aborda además la historia de la tipografía, el diseño de Arpa, los emojis, los memes, la aparición de la IA y la idea de si existe o no una belleza objetiva.Una conversación clara, divertida y llena de ideas sobre cómo miramos, cómo leemos y cómo se diseña un libro.——¿Quieres apoyar Arpa Talks?1. Únete al canal de WhatsApp de Arpa Editores: https://chat.whatsapp.com/GHChxe1LBlbCGWnBfmvXhu2. Patrocina Arpa Talks y recibe libros de Arpa cada mes. https://arpaeditores.com/products/patrocinio-arpa-talks3. Responde a nuestra encuesta. Son 60 segundos y es anónima: https://forms.gle/DJHyLwVgLk9weY9H84. ¡Compra libros de Arpa! http://www.arpaeditores.com——YouTube: ‪@ArpaTalks‬ Spotify: https://bitly.cx/G6aCDApple Podcast: https://bitly.cx/gLW2INewsletter: https://arpaeditores.com/pages/newsletterTwitter: https://x.com/arpaeditoresMail: talks@arpaeditores.com——Música de Alfo G. Aguado x Udio

Zarpa el Arpa - 8 de noviembre 2025 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

Repasamos la actualidad de la semana de la mano de Hans-Günter Kellner, Ana Fuentes, Íñigo Domínguez y Mathieu de Taillac, que pasa por la promoción de las obras culturales españolas con más resonancia internacional del momento: 'Lux', el nuevo disco de Rosalía, y 'Réconciliation', las memorias de Juan Carlos I. Sumamos a la conversación al periodista Sergio Fanjul, que también publica libro, en este caso sobre el miedo al paso del tiempo: 'Cronofobia' (Arpa, 2025).

En este episodio de Arpa Talks conversamos con Pablo Simón, politólogo y profesor de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, una de las voces más lúcidas para entender la política española contemporánea.La conversación comienza definiendo qué es la política, la ciencia política, la filosofía política y cómo se organiza un sistema político, para luego abordar el estado real de la política hoy: si vivimos una crisis del sistema o una crisis de época, por qué parece que “todo va mal” cuando en realidad existe una notable estabilidad, y qué desafíos enfrenta la democracia, especialmente la democracia española, en un tiempo de polarización, desconfianza y desinterés ciudadano.Simón explica cómo funciona el sistema político español, qué papel juegan los partidos, cómo se han transformado las ideologías, y reflexiona sobre cuestiones como la inmigración y las tensiones culturales que marcan nuestro presente político.Una conversación clara y profunda para entender la política más allá del ruido.——¿Quieres apoyar Arpa Talks?1. Únete al canal de WhatsApp de Arpa Editores:https://chat.whatsapp.com/GHChxe1LBlbCGWnBfmvXhu2. Patrocina Arpa Talks y recibe libros de Arpa cada mes. https://arpaeditores.com/products/patrocinio-arpa-talks3. Responde a nuestra encuesta. Son 60 segundos y es anónima:https://forms.gle/DJHyLwVgLk9weY9H84. ¡Compra libros de Arpa! http://www.arpaeditores.com——YouTube: ‪@ArpaTalks‬ Spotify: https://bitly.cx/G6aCDApple Podcast: https://bitly.cx/gLW2INewsletter: https://arpaeditores.com/pages/newsletterTwitter: https://x.com/arpaeditoresMail: talks@arpaeditores.com——Música de Alfo G. Aguado x Udio

El arpa es uno de los instrumentos más antiguos del mundo, con raíces que se remontan a las civilizaciones egipcias y mesopotámicas. Con el paso de los siglos, viajó hasta América Latina, donde se transformó y adoptó características propias en cada país. Del 6 al 8 de noviembre se llevará a cabo el tercer Congreso internacional de Arpistas en Guadalajara Con lo mejor del Arpa de Brasil, chile, Colombia, Paraguay y por supuesto, México; donde se podrán disfrutar Clases maestras, conversatorios, conciertos didácticos, para finalizar con un concierto que será un viaje sonoro a través de cuerdas, ritmos y emociones: el concierto “Arpa Latinoamericana – Sonidos que Nos Hermanan”. En este podcast de El Expresso de las 10, conoceremos más de esta música y sus intérpretes con los Arpistas Mexicanos Miguel Ángel Martínez Estrada y Luis Ku, músico anfitrión del 3er Congreso Internacional de Arpistas.

PRIMERA, Texas - The City of Primera recently held a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Richmond Hills Drainage Project.Cameron County Drainage District No. 5 played a key role in the project.CCDD5 provided a timeline of the events:Developer Julio Carranza required CCDD5 to use five acres on his property for drainage purposes. CCDD5 then partnered with La Feria Irrigation District to carry out the excavation work. The City of Primera then secured an ARPA grant from Cameron County to fund drainage improvements within the Richmond Hills subdivision.Finally, the City of Primera secured a drainage easement linking the subdivision's new drainage system to a new detention pond.“This project stands as a testament to what can be achieved when individuals and government entities work together toward a common goal,” said CCDD5 President Steve Jennings.“The project, in many ways, would not have been possible without the collaboration and shared commitment of all these partners.”Ron Whitlock Reports covered the ribbon-cutting ceremony, securing an audio recording of everything said from the podium. That recording is featured below.Among the speakers was U.S. Rep. Vicente Gonzalez. Go to www.riograndeguardian.com to read the latest border news stories and watch the latest news videos.

Zarpa el Arpa - 1 de noviembre 2025 by Radiotelevisión de Veracruz

Civilisation ou chaos. Cuisine ou barbarie. Deux chocs d'une même ampleur. Sous son air espiègle, la cheffe Maria Nicolau pousse à ouvrir les yeux et à réaliser l'abîme dans lequel nos sociétés se laissent glisser mollement. À l'heure de la standardisation, des plats préparés, de l'uniformisation, la cheffe catalane Maria Nicolau interpelle, bouscule : il est urgent de redonner du sens à l'acte de cuisiner. (Rediffusion) Urgent de se réapproprier cet édifice de nos libertés, si accessible, à la portée de tous, enfants y compris ! Dans les casseroles, se mijotent nos singularités, les paysages, la mer lorsqu'elle est proche, la montagne, les familles, l'amour, la haine, les traditions héritées depuis des générations, les transmissions, les rivalités. Quelques kilomètres suffisent pour humer un ailleurs, pour résister à la monotonie et à la standardisation. Du pain, de la tomate et de l'ail le matin sur du pain et je sais d'où tu viens. Une sauce gombo au petit qui ne boit plus que du lait et je sais d'où tu viens. La «cuisine maison» pour identité, et atout maître, le livre (cri !) de Maria Nicolau «Cuisine ou barbarie» pour guide, révolutionnaire ! Juste, incisif, drôle, émouvant, édifiant et féministe, il est à mettre entre toutes les mains, à transmettre évidemment !!!  Avec Maria Nicolau, cheffe catalane et autrice de «Cuisine ou barbarie», aux éditions Arpa.  Nos grands-mères ont passé toute leur vie à cuisiner, elles ont fait ce qu'elles pouvaient avec ce qu'elles avaient. Elles nous ont sauvés de la faim ! Et là maintenant, à la télévision, les chefs professionnels donnent des recettes et affirment : «C'est ça la vraie cuisine !» Et là, on a des générations, des milliards de femmes ayant donné toute leur vie à la cuisine qui pensent qu'elles ne font pas assez bien ! Quand j'y pense, j'ai tellement honte. Je pense qu'on a folklorisé tout ça. On a dit : «Les grands-mères font de la bonne cuisine, mais c'est juste de la cuisine du quotidien, et elle est bonne parce qu'elles la font avec amour.» Non ! Elles y mettent de la technique ! Les grands-mères supportaient une vraie pression. Dans ce métier qu'est la cuisine domestique, si tu ne cuisines pas bien, si tu ne sais pas gérer un budget, tu n'arrives pas à terminer le mois et à nourrir tes enfants. Il y a de la science là-dedans ! Même si elles n'ont pas eu l'opportunité d'aller à l'école, elles ont la science. Elles ne peuvent peut-être pas dire combien de grammes, de minutes, de secondes, mais elles savent le faire parfaitement, et ça, c'est sérieux ! ► Pour suivre la cheffe Maria Nicolau : - Site internet Maria Nicolau - Instagram - Chroniques sur radio Catalunya - Grandmas Project, une websérie collaborative, de la cuisine et des grands-mères loin du folklore, notamment dans « ce lapin ivre ».  ► Programmation musicale : - « Free » – Prince - « Tatuaje » – Concha Piquer Zarzuela.

Civilisation ou chaos. Cuisine ou barbarie. Deux chocs d'une même ampleur. Sous son air espiègle, la cheffe Maria Nicolau pousse à ouvrir les yeux et à réaliser l'abîme dans lequel nos sociétés se laissent glisser mollement. À l'heure de la standardisation, des plats préparés, de l'uniformisation, la cheffe catalane Maria Nicolau interpelle, bouscule : il est urgent de redonner du sens à l'acte de cuisiner. (Rediffusion) Urgent de se réapproprier cet édifice de nos libertés, si accessible, à la portée de tous, enfants y compris ! Dans les casseroles, se mijotent nos singularités, les paysages, la mer lorsqu'elle est proche, la montagne, les familles, l'amour, la haine, les traditions héritées depuis des générations, les transmissions, les rivalités. Quelques kilomètres suffisent pour humer un ailleurs, pour résister à la monotonie et à la standardisation. Du pain, de la tomate et de l'ail le matin sur du pain et je sais d'où tu viens. Une sauce gombo au petit qui ne boit plus que du lait et je sais d'où tu viens. La «cuisine maison» pour identité, et atout maître, le livre (cri !) de Maria Nicolau «Cuisine ou barbarie» pour guide, révolutionnaire ! Juste, incisif, drôle, émouvant, édifiant et féministe, il est à mettre entre toutes les mains, à transmettre évidemment !!!  Avec Maria Nicolau, cheffe catalane et autrice de «Cuisine ou barbarie», aux éditions Arpa.  Nos grands-mères ont passé toute leur vie à cuisiner, elles ont fait ce qu'elles pouvaient avec ce qu'elles avaient. Elles nous ont sauvés de la faim ! Et là maintenant, à la télévision, les chefs professionnels donnent des recettes et affirment : «C'est ça la vraie cuisine !» Et là, on a des générations, des milliards de femmes ayant donné toute leur vie à la cuisine qui pensent qu'elles ne font pas assez bien ! Quand j'y pense, j'ai tellement honte. Je pense qu'on a folklorisé tout ça. On a dit : «Les grands-mères font de la bonne cuisine, mais c'est juste de la cuisine du quotidien, et elle est bonne parce qu'elles la font avec amour.» Non ! Elles y mettent de la technique ! Les grands-mères supportaient une vraie pression. Dans ce métier qu'est la cuisine domestique, si tu ne cuisines pas bien, si tu ne sais pas gérer un budget, tu n'arrives pas à terminer le mois et à nourrir tes enfants. Il y a de la science là-dedans ! Même si elles n'ont pas eu l'opportunité d'aller à l'école, elles ont la science. Elles ne peuvent peut-être pas dire combien de grammes, de minutes, de secondes, mais elles savent le faire parfaitement, et ça, c'est sérieux ! ► Pour suivre la cheffe Maria Nicolau : - Site internet Maria Nicolau - Instagram - Chroniques sur radio Catalunya - Grandmas Project, une websérie collaborative, de la cuisine et des grands-mères loin du folklore, notamment dans « ce lapin ivre ».  ► Programmation musicale : - « Free » – Prince - « Tatuaje » – Concha Piquer Zarzuela.

Da decenni, anche oltre cento anni, le concessioni per l'utilizzo dell'acqua nella produzione di energia sono gestite senza concorrenza: come le concessioni balneari, ma fruttano molto di più e se ne parla molto meno. Brescia ha un ruolo importantissimo e A2A gestisce centrali anche in Calabria e in Friuli. Ne parliamo con il giornalista Isaia Invernizzi. Prima però una serie di notizie relative agli ultimi giorni: la decisione dell'amministrazione guidata la Laura Castelletti sulla raccolta differenziata, con uno sgarbo alla commissione ecologia; l'anniversario dell'occupazione della gru del cantiere della metropolitana per protestare per i diritti degli immigrati; la raccolta firme sulla sicurezza del centro destra bresciano con decine di firme false; i treni che in Franciacorta cancellano gli autobus e le fonderie che vengono fatte chiudere temporaneamente dall'Arpa e nessuno che ne pubblica il nome.

“Council is empowered — they're not using their power.” Brenda Faye Butler from Birmingham to Detroit—walks us through a life that links the Civil Rights South to the Eastside today: a coal miner's daughter who landed here after the 1967 uprising, trained at 14 by Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth to knock doors and teach neighbors the civics needed to pass voter tests, and later inside the Wayne County's first executive administration of Bill Lucas “setting up how government would run.” Brenda unpacks why council-by-district matters, how ARPA and CDBG dollars should “follow the people,” and why CRIO must truly monitor deals “If a developer says they met with the community—who?”. Brenda Butler is a community voice that represents the Eastside residents where politics and business connect. She's real about development math, tax abatements, and the difference between promises and delivery: “Stop saying jobs; people want careers.” We trace her organizing arc—from Chandler Park meetings during the housing crisis to tracking Stellantis benefits and flood relief gaps—tying it all to Legacy Black Detroit's past (migration, unions, church-led civics) and future (youth seats on CACs, manufacturing training, climate resilience). And as a write-in for District 4's Community Advisory Council, she makes it plain: “Bring everyone to the table. That's equity.” By the time she spells the ballot line—“Write in B-R-E-N-D-A F-A-Y-E B-U-T-L-E-R—coal miner's daughter working for us”—you'll hear why her voice maps where Detroit has been and where we're going. Detroit is Different is a podcast hosted by Khary Frazier covering people adding to the culture of an American Classic city. Visit www.detroitisdifferent.com to hear, see and experience more of what makes Detroit different. Follow, like, share, and subscribe to the Podcast on iTunes, Google Play, and Sticher. Comment, suggest and connect with the podcast by emailing info@detroitisdifferent.com

Analysts Don Kellogg and Roger Entner break down Q3 earnings for AT&T and T-Mobile, exploring strengths, weaknesses, and what the numbers reveal about their future as industry leaders.00:00 Episode intro 00:25 AT&T Q3 overview 02:59 Convergence as a key strategy 04:35 T-Mobile Q3 overview 05:27 Price increases and free lines 07:35 AT&T CapEx and rural strategy 09:02 T-Mobile's network leadership 09:27 AT&T and Verizon's new ad campaigns 11:26 Which metrics are trustworthy? 13:38 Networks are meeting customer needs 15:38 Verizon Q3 predictions and episode wrap-upTags: telecom, telecommunications, wireless, prepaid, postpaid, cellular phone, Don Kellogg, Roger Entner, earnings, AT&T, net adds, convergence, fiber, Frontier, spectrum, T-Mobile, cable, FWA, ARPA, network, satellite, Starlink, Verizon, Comcast, Nielsen, churn, Ookla

An ARPA grant from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources allowed the city to invest $5 million to restore the Blue River. Once a favorite for outdoor recreation in Kansas City, the river has become polluted as a result of urbanization.

The city of Vancouver is launching a new Revolving Loan Fund to expand access to capital for small businesses unable to secure traditional financing. With $1.2 million from ARPA and a focus on underserved communities, the city seeks a nonprofit CDFI partner to administer and grow the fund. Proposals are due Dec. 10. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/city-of-vancouver-seeks-partner-to-launch-and-administer-new-revolving-loan-fund/ #Vancouver #EconomicDevelopment #SmallBusiness #CDFI #ARPA #FourthPlain #Entrepreneurship #Funding #BusinessFinance #Washington

From organizing the first energy conference in 1992, which concluded that the Medzamor Nuclear Power Plant should be restarted for the country's survival, to developing AI algorithms combating disinformation campaigns against Armenia, ARPA Institute has long been at the intersection of research, innovation and national strategies for the future. Dr. Hagop Panossian, founder and president of the institute, speaks about the solutions-based approach that has defined ARPA's work for more than three decades.

In this episode, we're joined by Inês Lourenco, VP of Growth at Usercentrics, the privacy-led MarTech company that is powering consent on 2M+ websites & apps across 200 countries for 600k customers.  Inês unpacks how she built a 50-person growth org of cross-functional pods (Monetization & Pricing, Acquisition & Virality, Activation, Partner Experience, CMS Integrations, and Retention) around a simple thesis: growth = product distribution. She details the early, scrappy phase with manual signal detection, nightly queries, and “product specialist” outreach - through to a scalable system that routes users to self-serve, low-touch, or high-touch paths based on predicted AOV, with a hard-earned lesson to start with activation before everything else. We spoke with Inês about turning signals into revenue, structuring pods, and creating an operating cadence where every pod owns its metric such as ARPA growth, NRR/GRR, activation time, and virality share, while collaborating tightly with Product, Marketing, Sales, and CS.  Here are some of the key questions we address: How do you define growth as product distribution and design pods that actually move revenue, not vanity metrics? What signals predict AOV early, and how do you route users to self-serve vs. low/high-touch experiences accordingly? Why did “product specialist” outreach outperform SDR-style messaging, and how do you structure those “baby-step” nudges? If you're starting from scratch, why begin with an Activation pod and what are the first experiments to run? How do you set pod-level metrics (ARPA growth, activation time, virality share, NRR/GRR) and avoid cross-metric collateral damage? What collaboration model keeps Growth aligned with Product, Marketing, Sales, and CS, and who should Growth report to? When shouldn't you build a growth team (and what to do instead if your top of funnel is small)? How do you evolve from consent management to a privacy-led marketing platform, while staying profitable and fast?

In this episode, we're joined by Inês Lorenzo, VP of Growth at Usercentrics, the privacy-led MarTech company that scaled from

The Northern Cheyenne people made history this week. After meeting privately for several hours on Thursday, the Cheyenne Chiefs Council in an unprecedented action drafted a declaration calling for the use of traditional tribal law to remove many of the currently elected members of Tribal Council, along with several Staff, and ban them from ever serving again. Since those members had barricaded themselves inside the Littlewolf Capitol Building, the center of Cheyenne tribal government, along with an illegal Security Force, those Chiefs demanded the offices to be opened back up to the public, and the private Security members removed.  The issue came to a head last week after a questionable meeting of the council, where members passed a resolution to urge removal of Cheyenne President Gene Small, in an action that was later disapproved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.  President Small was pressured because he wants to see a forensic audit of some $90 million in federal ARPA and Covid funds.  To explain exactly what happened, Robert McClean called into Voices of Montana on Friday September to talk with Tom Schultz and Taylor Brown on the statewide radio program. Robert McLean, Jr. is not Cheyenne, but a highly respected local community leader trusted by tribal members.  McLean is a former Principal of Lame Deer Elementary School, former Superintendent at Wyola and St. Labre Schools, and more recently the Lay Advocate at Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court.

Civilisation ou chaos. Cuisine ou barbarie. Deux chocs d'une même ampleur.Sous son air espiègle, la cheffe Maria Nicolau pousse à ouvrir les yeux et à réaliser l'abîme dans lequel nos sociétés se laissent glisser mollement. À l'heure de la standardisation, des plats préparés, de l'uniformisation, la cheffe catalane Maria Nicolau interpelle, bouscule : il est urgent de redonner du sens à l'acte de cuisiner. Urgent de se réapproprier cet édifice de nos libertés, si accessible, à la portée de tous, enfants y compris ! Dans les casseroles, se mijotent nos singularités, les paysages, la mer lorsqu'elle est proche, la montagne, les familles, l'amour, la haine, les traditions héritées depuis des générations, les transmissions, les rivalités. Quelques kilomètres suffisent pour humer un ailleurs, pour résister à la monotonie et à la standardisation. Du pain, de la tomate et de l'ail le matin sur du pain et je sais d'où tu viens. Une sauce gombo au petit qui ne boit plus que du lait et je sais d'où tu viens. La «cuisine maison» pour identité, et atout maître, le livre (cri !) de Maria Nicolau «Cuisine ou barbarie» pour guide, révolutionnaire ! Juste, incisif, drôle, émouvant, édifiant et féministe, il est à mettre entre toutes les mains, à transmettre évidemment !!!  Avec Maria Nicolau, cheffe catalane et autrice de «Cuisine ou barbarie», aux éditions Arpa.  Nos grands-mères ont passé toute leur vie à cuisiner, elles ont fait ce qu'elles pouvaient avec ce qu'elles avaient. Elles nous ont sauvés de la faim ! Et là maintenant, à la télévision, les chefs professionnels donnent des recettes et affirment : «C'est ça la vraie cuisine !» Et là, on a des générations, des milliards de femmes ayant donné toute leur vie à la cuisine qui pensent qu'elles ne font pas assez bien ! Quand j'y pense, j'ai tellement honte. Je pense qu'on a folklorisé tout ça. On a dit : «Les grands-mères font de la bonne cuisine, mais c'est juste de la cuisine du quotidien, et elle est bonne parce qu'elles la font avec amour.» Non ! Elles y mettent de la technique ! Les grands-mères supportaient une vraie pression. Dans ce métier qu'est la cuisine domestique, si tu ne cuisines pas bien, si tu ne sais pas gérer un budget, tu n'arrives pas à terminer le mois et à nourrir tes enfants. Il y a de la science là-dedans ! Même si elles n'ont pas eu l'opportunité d'aller à l'école, elles ont la science. Elles ne peuvent peut-être pas dire combien de grammes, de minutes, de secondes, mais elles savent le faire parfaitement, et ça, c'est sérieux ! ► Pour suivre la cheffe Maria Nicolau : Site internet Maria Nicolau Instagram Chroniques sur radio Catalunya Grandmas Project, une websérie collaborative, de la cuisine et des grands-mères loin du folklore, notamment dans « ce lapin ivre ».  ► Programmation musicale : - « Free » – Prince - « Tatuaje » – Concha Piquer Zarzuela.

Liberty Dispatch Interviews ~ August 30, 2025 In this episode of Liberty Dispatch Interviews, host Andrew DeBartolo interviews ARPA Executive Director Mike Schouten about recent events affecting the organization, including a “controversial” –Let Kids Be Kids– billboard campaign and subsequent censorship and their simultaneous debanking. They discuss the implications of these events for free speech, the legal challenges ARPA faces, and the broader cultural and social dynamics at play, as well as how it appears to be controversial to be Christian in Canada. Schouten emphasizes the importance of Christian advocacy in the public square and the need for continued engagement in political and social issues. The conversation culminates in a call to action for an upcoming rally aimed at protecting minors from harmful medical transitions. Episode Resources: ARPA Canada Website: https://arpacanada.ca/; Event: Let Kids Be Rally | September 27, 2025 | Queens Park, Toronto, ON: https://arpacanada.ca/event/let-kids-be-rally-and-march/; For full access to all our content, including the extended interviews, become a paid subscriber at: ldcanada.substack.com; SHOW SPONSORS:New Sponsor! Bitcoin Mentor: https://bitcoinmentor.io/aff/liberty Invest with Rocklinc: info@rocklinc.com or call them at 905-631-546; Diversify Your Money with Bull Bitcoin: https://mission.bullbitcoin.com/dispatch; BarterPay: https://barterpay.ca/; Barter It: https://www.barterit.ca/; Get freedom from Censorious CRMS by signing up for SalesNexus: https://www.salesnexus.com/ SUBSCRIBE TO OUR SHOWS/CHANNELS: LIBERTY DISPATCH PODCAST: https://libertydispatch.podbean.com; https://rumble.com/LDshow; CONTACT US: libertydispatch@pm.me STAY UP-TO-DATE ON ALL THINGS LD:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/liberty_dispatch/; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertyDispatchCanada; X: @LDCanada - https://x.com/_LDCanada; Rumble: https://rumble.com/LDshow; YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@libertydispatch Please LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, RATE, & REVIEW, and SHARE it with others!

The Republican supermajority in the Iowa Senate has been broken. Gov. Kim Reynolds spoke about teacher and medical professional shortages with other governors. And all of Polk County's ARPA funding has been allocated.

Gene Small began his first 4-year term as the new President of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe less than a year ago, in November 2024.His support for an official Audit of the $90 million that the Cheyenne Tribe received in recent years through federal Covid and ARPA funds, has now stirred a call for his removal. On Monday August 18, tempers flared at the regular TribalCouncil Meeting, resulting physical violence and some arrests.CLICK HERE TO LISTEN to KGHL's exclusive interview with Northern Cheyenne President Gene Small, as he explains his commitment to transparency and accountability, and why he thinks this issue is so important to the Cheyenne people.

The future of Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) subsidies is a pressing issue for retirees and anyone shopping for health insurance on the ACA marketplace.  With the generous subsidies brought by the American Rescue Plan Act set to expire at the end of 2025, I break down exactly how these subsidies work, what changes are coming in 2026, and what that means for your wallet. We're talking eligibility thresholds, how income is calculated, why premiums might rise, and—most importantly—shares practical strategies for lowering your adjusted gross income to continue qualifying for subsidies as the rules tighten. Whether you're planning to retire before age 65 or just want to make sure you're making the most of affordable health options, this episode is packed with actionable advice to help you navigate the shifting health insurance landscape. Stay tuned to hear how you can prepare before the subsidy cliff arrives. You will want to hear this episode if you are interested in... [00:00] ARPA health subsidy set to expire. [06:48] Special enrollment eligibility criteria. [09:49] Estimate income for subsidy applications. [12:50] Retirement subsidy eligibility insights. [16:38] Managing income for post-2025 health subsidies. [19:50] Retirement planning and tax strategies. What Retirees Need to Know About Expiring Subsidies in 2026 For many Americans considering early retirement, one of the pressing concerns is the high cost of health insurance before Medicare eligibility kicks in at age 65. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), often called Obamacare, has provided critical subsidies—tax credits that reduce monthly health insurance premiums for individuals and families who earn between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL). Thanks to these subsidies, many retirees have found coverage that's far more affordable than what existed before the ACA. These subsidies aren't static, however. Their availability, amount, and eligibility thresholds have changed over time, notably with the enhancements set by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) during the pandemic. But much of that is set to change again at the end of 2025, and retirees need to understand what's at stake and how they can prepare. How ACA Subsidies Work Right Now Currently, the vast majority of people purchasing health insurance through the ACA marketplace receive premium assistance. As of 2024, 91% of the 21 million marketplace participants benefit from some kind of subsidy, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. These subsidies are calculated based on household income and size, and for now, thanks to ARPA, even those earning above the previous 400% FPL cutoff have been able to secure relief. The system works on a sliding scale: the higher your income (relative to the FPL), the lower your subsidy—and vice versa. For instance, a single retiree in most U.S. states falls under the subsidy limit if their Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) is less than $60,640 (400% of the 2024 federal poverty level). For a couple, that threshold is $84,600. The subsidies fill the gap between what the government deems an affordable percentage of your income and the cost of a benchmark “silver” marketplace plan. The Big Change: Subsidy Cliff Returning in 2026 A crucial point highlighted in episode 267 of Carolyn C-B's podcast with Ryan Morrissey: the most generous version of these subsidies, courtesy of the ARPA, will sunset at the end of 2025. We are about to return to a world where if your income exceeds 400% of the FPL by even just $1, you lose all subsidy assistance—an abrupt subsidy cliff. Previously, the ARPA smoothed this out, allowing gradual decreases rather than outright elimination at the cutoff. That made planning far simpler for retirees managing taxable withdrawals from savings or retirement accounts. Starting in 2026, the sudden loss of these subsidies at the income cliff could mean the difference between a manageable $400 monthly premium and a staggering $2,700+ for a similar plan. To add to the challenge, insurers anticipate higher premiums in 2026 as healthier enrollees fall off plans due to pricing and subsidy loss. Planning Strategies for Retirees With the looming subsidy cliff, retirees may need to rethink their approach to generating retirement income. Since eligibility is based on income, not assets, it's possible to have significant savings but low reportable income, qualifying you for subsidies. Key strategies include: Harvest Extra Income Before 2026: Consider accelerating IRA distributions, realizing capital gains, or selling assets in 2025 while subsidies remain generous. Build Up Liquid Assets: By moving assets into cash accounts before retirement, retirees can “live off” cash in years they need to keep income low, preserving subsidy eligibility. Utilize Roth and Home Equity Withdrawals: Roth IRA distributions (if held 5 years and owner is 59½ or older) don't count toward MAGI; home equity lines or reverse mortgages can also provide non-taxable funds. Make Use of Pre-tax Contributions: While still working, increase contributions to 401(k)s, IRAs, and HSAs—these lower MAGI and can be a tool for subsidy planning. Congress may choose to extend or reform these subsidies again, but as of now, retirees should assume the cliff is returning. If you plan to retire—and especially if you'll rely on individual ACA coverage before age 65—be proactive. Monitor federal updates, calculate your projected MAGI, and consult a knowledgeable financial advisor for personalized guidance. Open enrollment begins November 1st each year—make sure to check your state's marketplace for updated premiums and subsidy parameters for 2026. Planning now can safeguard your health and your finances through a rapidly changing insurance landscape. Resources Mentioned Retirement Readiness Review Subscribe to the Retire with Ryan YouTube Channel Download my entire book for FREE  The Affordable Care Act (ACA) American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Access Health CT  Health Insurance Marketplace  Connect With Morrissey Wealth Management  www.MorrisseyWealthManagement.com/contact   Subscribe to Retire With Ryan

Celeste Lewis, longtime manager of the Pam Miller Downtown Arts Center (PMDAC), joins host Kate Savage to reflect on more than a decade of transformation at this Lexington cultural hub. Celeste traces the building's evolution from a retail block to a multi-use arts center, noting key milestones like the closure of beloved venues Alfalfa's and Ann Tower Gallery, changes in gallery spaces, and how the center navigated challenges—including revitalizing underutilized floors through crucial ARPA funding. She details the diversity and purpose of PMDAC's three galleries, the explosion of community engagement in the newly renovated event and rehearsal spaces, and the joys and logistics of programming for both Moondance Amphitheater and the upcoming Phoenix Park amphitheater. Along the way, Celeste and Kate touch on the vital role the arts play in community vitality and share how Lexington's collaborative spirit keeps the arts scene both accessible and ever-evolving.For more and to connect with us, visit https://www.artsconnectlex.org/art-throb-podcast.html

La periodista Isabe Jiménez visita 'La Ventana' para hablarnos de su nuevo proyecto, 'Mis Raíces', un programa de entrevistas en el que conversará con personajes como Blanca Romero, Ana Peleteiro, el ministro de Economía, Carlos Cuerpo, o la influencer Dulceida. Mientras, Pedro Vallín presenta en 'La Ventana' 'Casandra y yo', publicado por Arpa. Un libro en el que Vallín ha recopilado sus conversaciones con la inteligencia artificial ChatGPT, a la que bautizó como Casandra. Con ella ha reflexionado sobre política, sobre filosofía y sobre el mundo actual.

Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas:A full week after the fact, Donald Trump is visiting Texas today to observe the flood damage in Kerr County: https://apnews.com/article/trump-texas-floods-fema-phase-out-b77d9681d2d39f8c201351b54ecf944f...The Kerr County Sheriff's Department took a full 90 minutes to relay a flood warning called in by a firefighter in Ingram as the floodwaters were rising: https://abcnews.go.com/US/kerr-county-officials-waited-90-minutes-send-emergency/story?id=123631023...Instead of installing the outdoor flood warning system discussed for years but put off for lack of funding, Kerr County spent an over $10 million ARPA windfall in 2021 on other stuff: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/10/texas-kerr-county-commissioners-flooding-warning/...One might think that Chip Roy, Kerr County's U.S. Congressman, might send down federal dollars earmarked for flood safety infrastructure - until one is reminded that Chip Roy is the biggest tightwad in Washington: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/you-need-fewer-bureaucrats-chip-roy-uses-tx-flood-as-excuse-to-cut-government/ar-AA1I3X5xGovernor Abbott's hopes that the flood might shield his cynical redistricting power grab from public outcry and opposition might be overly optimistic: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/10/greg-abbott-midterms-republicans...One political academic predicts that as things currently stand, the Republicans could suffer "a complete sweep" in 2026: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/10/texas-republican-redistricting-mapsTexas State Senator Angela Paxton, after for years suffering the public shame of her husband's infidelity and the impeachment that followed, has filed for divorce from Attorney General Ken Paxton: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/10/angela-paxton-divorce-texas-attorney-general-ken/The merch to match your progressive values awaits at our web store! Goodies at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://store.progresstexas.org/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Thanks for listening! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://progresstexas.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

El reconocido arpista mexicano celebra la música y diversidad cultural de América Latina en el marco de la exhibición Hidden Stories, este domingo 6 de julio en Sídney. Conversamos con el artista sobre su éxito como músico en Australia y su participación en la iniciativa multicultural.

Nuevos instrumentos que se incorporan al flamenco: el arpa de Ana Crismán y los contrabajos de Pablo Martín Caminero y José el Marqués.Escuchar audio

La historia que unió a Elon Musk con Donald Trump y que terminó transformándolos en exs. Alabanzas, amenazas, sorpresas y recalculaciones. Una historia de egos e intereses que unió al Elon Musk con Donald Trump. Nada, como lo que quedó de aquel tórrido romance entre el hombre más rico del mundo y el presidente del país más poderoso del mundo. Una telenovela fabulosa para los que amamos los finales felices ECDQEMSD podcast episodio 6061 Love Story Love Hysteria - corazones rotos entre Donald Trump y Elon Musk Conducen: El Pirata y El Sr. Lagartija https://canaltrans.com Noticias del Mundo: El romance Trump Musk terminó - Colombia y el terremoto - Disparos contra candidato presidencial - La gira de Milei - Expo gatitos - Alcohol, azúcar, tequila y ositos de goma - Lord and Lady Beckham - La Spice Girl - G.I. Joe. Historias Desintegradas: Reunión en la empresa - El jefe de los jefes - Encargado del papel higiénica - Payasos que se derriten - Banda Payaso - Siempre en Domingo - Banda Machos, Bronco, El Recodo - Motivando al alumno - Jaime Dragón Bádminton - La costa india - La Reencarnación - Los archivos - Archivaldos - Pájaro campana - Arpa paraguaya y más... En Caso De Que El Mundo Se Desintegre - Podcast no tiene publicidad, sponsors ni organizaciones que aporten para mantenerlo al aire. Solo el sistema cooperativo de los que aportan a través de las suscripciones hacen posible que todo esto siga siendo una realidad. Gracias Dragones Dorados!! NO AI: ECDQEMSD Podcast no utiliza ninguna inteligencia artificial de manera directa para su realización. Diseño, guionado, música, edición y voces son de  nuestra completa intervención humana.