Podcasts about assessing

In this episode, Leslie Fuller, ND focused on the often-overlooked musculoskeletal symptoms experienced by women during perimenopause and menopause. She discusses strategies for effective management, including nutrition, resistance training, hormone assessment, and addressing both structural and functional health. This episode offers healthcare professionals and patients evidence-based approaches to support musculoskeletal health through the menopausall transition.Enroll now in: Under-Recognized, Under-Treated, and Misrepresented Realities of the Perimenopause and Menopause Transition, with Leslie Fuller, ND and Jillian Moehle, ND at https://pages.kharrazianinstitute.com/fuller-moehle-perimenopause00:00 Menopause-related musculoskeletal issues06:32 Assessing musculoskeletal conditions10:25 Identifying osteoporosis risk factors13:48 Comprehensive management for inflammation repair15:07 Discussing menopause and bone health18:48 Future FDA approval and nutrition strategies24:30 Effects of Isoflavones and Lignans25:40 Calcium and vitamin D benefits31:14 Creatine and CoQ10 for muscle health33:42 Importance of aerobic and resistance training38:13 Combating sarcopenia through referrals39:17 Screening for menopausal musculoskeletal syndromeSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/solving-the-puzzle-with-dr-datis-kharrazian. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

View the Show Notes Page for This Episode Become a Member to Receive Exclusive Content Sign Up to Receive Peter's Weekly Newsletter In this episode, Peter explores the critical topic of breast cancer screening, examining why thousands of women continue to die from breast cancer each year despite the availability of effective screening tools. He explains the strengths and limitations of current screening strategies, reviews the recommendations from major medical organizations, and discusses why screening guidance can often seem confusing or contradictory. Peter outlines a practical framework for understanding breast cancer risk and personalizing screening decisions, including when to begin screening, how frequently to screen, and which imaging modalities may be most appropriate based on an individual's risk profile. Throughout the episode, he emphasizes that while population-based guidelines provide an important foundation, optimizing outcomes requires a more personalized approach aimed at helping women make informed screening decisions that can improve the chances of early detection and successful treatment. We discuss: Why women still die from breast cancer: the benefits of screening, the problem of under-screening, and the need for risk-based screening strategies [1:45]; Current screening recommendations, why they differ between organizations, and the importance of personalized screening decisions [6:30]; A framework for personalizing screening [8:45]; Assessing baseline breast cancer risk: genetics, family history, breast density, lifestyle factors, and the role of risk calculators in personalized screening [9:30]; Balancing cancer detection and false positives: how breast cancer risk influences screening intensity and imaging choices [17:45]; Mammography as the foundation of breast cancer screening: detecting ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and the advantages of 3D versus 2D mammography [21:00]; MRI for high-risk women: the benefits of supplemental screening, abbreviated MRI, and the emerging role of contrast-enhanced mammography [23:00]; The role of ultrasound: supplemental cancer detection, diagnostic evaluation, and limitations compared with mammography and MRI [26:00]; Choosing the right breast cancer screening strategy: imaging modality selection, screening hierarchies, and the importance of imaging center quality [28:00]; How often should you screen for breast cancer? [30:15]; At what age should you start screening? [37:30]; Breast cancer in younger women: aggressive tumor biology, BRCA-related risk, breast density, and individualized decisions about when to begin screening [41:45]; Inflammatory breast cancer, the limitations of screening mammography for symptomatic disease, and the importance of promptly evaluating new breast symptoms in both women and men [44:45]; From risk assessment to personalized screening: a practical framework for reducing breast cancer mortality through earlier and more effective detection [46:30]; and More. Connect With Peter on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube

Roman Yampolskiy has spent two decades trying to prove that superintelligent AI can be controlled. He couldn't. I invited him on to make his case. Subscribe if you want science with evidence, not speculation. Roman is a professor of computer science at the University of Louisville and one of the earliest researchers in AI safety. His book AI: Unexplainable, Unpredictable, Uncontrollable started as an attempt to solve the alignment problem. After decades of work, it became a proof that the problem cannot be solved. Not difficult. Mathematically impossible. I push back hard. We go after the Einstein test: can a large language model trained only on pre-1911 physics reproduce what Einstein did with the same data? We ran that experiment. It failed. Roman and I disagree about what that means. We also get into the halting problem and what it actually tells us about predicting smarter-than-human behavior, whether value alignment is a real problem or a well-funded category error, the case for a government moratorium on frontier model development, and why Roman thinks giving an AI agent access to your computer is the dumbest thing a smart person can do. What you'll hear: Whether AI control is mathematically impossible or just unsolved Why Roman thinks all current AI safety work is security theater What the halting problem actually means for superintelligence The alignment problem: real issue or well-funded category error Why Roman wants a moratorium on frontier model development What to tell your kids about careers in a world where Roman might be right If you listen to other people, the best you can become is average. CHAPTERS 00:00 Creating a mind without an off switch 01:34 Solving problems beyond our own intelligence 04:08 Einstein's epiphany and the limit of AI intuition 08:18 Assessing the Einstein test: Why the experiment failed 12:22 Path dependency: Are LLMs and GPUs our QWERTY? 16:10 The barriers preventing AI from solving physics 21:54 Safety vs. Capability: Why toddlers are safe but teens are not 23:06 The halting problem: Predicting agents smarter than us 25:58 The impossibility of a system proving its own integrity 28:18 Regulation: Genuine safety or a gift to oligarchs? 33:28 Is human cognition non-computable? Penrose vs. the field 39:00 Ethical duties: Must we treat AI with humanity? 43:00 From internet memes to monsters: Decoding the book cover 46:22 Customized realities: Can everyone have their perfect world? 49:50 Von Neumann probes and the panspermia hypothesis 55:02 Categorizing AI: The one version that should terrify you 58:22 Pause AI: The movement for a development moratorium 59:58 Career advice for kids in a post-professional world 01:07:58 Cross-examining Sam Altman 01:15:48 Roman's dream debate 01:19:50 Lessons for a younger self Substack: https://briankeating.substack.com Get the transcript, fascinating bonus content, and my Monday M.A.G.I.C. Message: https://briankeating.com/yt Have a .edu email and live in the USA? You automatically win a meteorite: https://BrianKeating.com/edu Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 Support Into the Impossible on Patreon, get my weekly M.A.G.I.C. Message, unfiltered bonus content, and live monthly Office Hours with me: https://www.patreon.com/drbriankeating Join this channel for perks, monthly Office Hours, and your name in the Member Roster at the end of every episode: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuw/join Featured Guest: Roman Yampolskiy on Twitter/X: https://x.com/romanyam?lang=en AI: Unexplainable, Unpredictable, Uncontrollable: https://www.romanyampolskiy.com/books/ My books: Losing the Nobel Prize (memoir): http://amzn.to/2sa5UpA Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/03ezQFu Focus Like a Nobel Prize Winner: https://a.co/d/hi50U9U Galileo's Dialogue (first-ever audiobook): https://a.co/d/iZPi9Un Twitter/X: https://x.com/BrianKeating Substack: https://briankeating.substack.com Blog: https://briankeating.com/blog Audio-only: https://briankeating.com/podcast #intotheimpossible #briankeating #AIrisk #artificialintelligence #aisafety #podcast #superintelligence #RomanYampolskiy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last time we spoke about the Hubei-Henan Campaign of 1940-1941. In November 1940, a Central Hubei operation using multiple task forces aimed to exploit Chinese dispersal, achieving only local successes and no lasting territorial gains. The Japanese then tried again in late January 1941 with a major offensive into southern Henan. Despite concentrating a large force, the campaign failed strategically. After the Henan failure, Japan attempted to regain momentum in spring 1941 by attacking western Hubei around Yichang on the Yangtze. Despite an initial barrage and rapid early gains, Japanese forces became exposed in a narrow salient. The Chinese reorganized their river defenses and launched a converging counteroffensive, driving the invaders back and ending the engagement where it began, with the Japanese suffering heavy casualties and their westward push thwarted.   #206 The Battle of Shanggao Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. The year 1940 had brought a particular humiliation. In August of that year, Communist General Peng Dehuai had launched the Hundred Regiments Offensive — a massive, coordinated assault across North China that shattered Japanese rail and supply lines, embarrassed Imperial General Headquarters, and demonstrated that the Chinese were far from finished. Japan's response had been brutal, the infamous "Three Alls" campaign of reprisals across the countryside. But the damage had been done, and the attention of Imperial General Headquarters shifted northward. The autumn of 1940 had also seen the First Battle of Changsha, where the Japanese 11th Army under General Sonobe Yahachirō pushed south into Hunan Province expecting to overwhelm the Chinese defenders and finally deal a decisive blow to Chiang Kai-shek's armies. Instead, General Xue Yue — the "Tiger of Changsha" — had allowed the Japanese to advance deep into his prepared killing ground before counterattacking from multiple directions. The Japanese had been forced to retreat in disorder, and the front in Hunan and Jiangxi settled once again into sullen stalemate. It was in this atmosphere of frustrated ambition and strategic inertia that the seeds of Shanggao were sown. By February 1941, Imperial General Headquarters had decided to redeploy the 33rd Division — then garrisoned in the town of Anyi, in northwestern Jiangxi — to North China. The transfer was scheduled to begin in early April, and it made strategic sense: the north required reinforcement, and the front in Jiangxi had been quiet enough that one division could be spared. The problem was that the 33rd Division's departure would leave a gap in Japanese dispositions, and no significant offensive operation had yet been conducted to weaken the Chinese forces that would be left facing a thinned-out Japanese line. Lieutenant General Ōga Shigeru, the energetic commander of the Japanese 34th Division, saw opportunity in the window that existed before the 33rd departed. His division was concentrated around Xishan and Wanshou Palace, astride the Xiang–Gan Highway — the main road running westward through Jiangxi — and across that highway lay the town of Shanggao and the Chinese forces defending it. Ōga proposed exploiting the presence of both divisions for a coordinated strike: a sharp, limited offensive to crush Chinese field forces around Nanchang and the Jiangxi interior before the 33rd Division's train north. The 11th Army headquarters, now commanded by General Marube, endorsed a cautious concept — a "quick strike" with limited objectives. But the 34th Division's staff, energized by Ōga's ambition, had already run well ahead of this guidance. Large-scale requisitioning of coolies for logistics was underway; training exercises aimed at the specific terrain around Shanggao had been conducted; planning had progressed in far more detail than a "limited" operation warranted. This eagerness would prove to be the Japanese undoing before the first shot was fired. Chinese intelligence networks, always attentive to the movement of porters and the telltale preparations that preceded a Japanese offensive, quickly detected the scale of these preparations and reported them to General Luo Zhuoying, commander of the Chinese 19th Army Group. By the time the Japanese columns were forming up to march, Luo had already hardened his defenses and laid the groundwork for a trap. General Luo Zhuoying was not a passive commander. He served simultaneously as commander of the 19th Army Group and as Deputy Commander of the 9th War Zone — the latter post placing him directly under General Xue Yue, the victor of Changsha. Luo had spent the lull after Changsha doing what Chinese commanders across the theater had learned was essential: reorganizing, retraining, and above all improving the defensive architecture of his sector. The plan Luo devised for meeting the anticipated Japanese offensive was elegant in its simplicity and demanding in its execution. Rather than contesting the Japanese advance at the frontier, he would allow the enemy to push westward, yielding ground through three successive defensive lines while bleeding the attackers at every step. The first and second lines would slow the Japanese, exact casualties, and stretch their logistics. The third line — anchored at Shanggao itself — would be the killing ground. There, the Chinese forces would hold fast while other formations swung around the Japanese flanks and rear to close the encirclement. The Japanese, having marched deep into Chinese-held territory with their supply lines thinning and their flanks exposed, would find themselves surrounded rather than victorious. For this plan to work, each Chinese formation had to perform its role with discipline. The 70th Corps, deployed in the north along the arc from Shitou Street through Fengxin to Jing'an, would have to conduct a controlled fighting retreat — yielding ground but making the Japanese pay for it, never breaking and running. The 49th Corps would hold the southern flank and create conditions for flanking action. And the 74th Corps — General Wang Yaowu's elite formation, comprising the 51st, 57th, and 58th Divisions — would hold the final line at Shanggao and serve as the anvil upon which the Japanese advance would shatter. The 74th Corps was by 1941 one of the most battle-hardened formations in the Nationalist Army. It had fought at Shanghai in 1937, at Wuhan in 1938, and in the hills and valleys of Jiangxi through the years since. Its men knew the terrain around Shanggao. They had prepared positions in depth, studied the approaches, and rehearsed the defensive plan Luo had designed. When the Japanese came, they would be ready. Against the Chinese 70,000 — distributed across eleven divisions in four corps, with additional provincial security forces for local coverage — the Japanese would throw roughly 20,000 men: three major formations advancing in coordinated columns. The disparity in numbers was stark, but the Japanese had the advantages of offensive initiative, air superiority, and the formidable fighting quality that the Imperial Army had demonstrated throughout the war in China. The question was whether those advantages would be enough to overcome a prepared defense wielded by a commander who had invited the attack. The operational plan devised by the Japanese 11th Army called for three columns to converge simultaneously on Shanggao from north, center, and south — a classic encirclement concept that, if executed with precision, would catch the Chinese defenders in a tightening vice. In the north, the main force of the 33rd Division under Lieutenant General Sakurai Shōzō would drive westward from its bases around Anyi and Ganzhoujie, descending the Liao River valley to threaten the Chinese right flank and prevent the 70th Corps from interfering with operations in the center.In the center, Ōga's 34th Division would advance along the Xiang–Gan Highway — the direct route from Nanchang toward Shanggao — capturing the town of Gao'an along the way and pressing relentlessly westward until it reached the main defensive positions. This was the principal striking force, the column designed to crack open the Chinese defenses and seize the objective.In the south, the Independent Mixed 20th Brigade under Major General Ikeda would cross the Jin River and advance along its south bank, eventually swinging north to link up with the 34th Division and complete the encirclement of whatever Chinese forces remained in the Shanggao area. The plan was coherent on paper. But it contained a structural flaw so serious that, in retrospect, it is difficult to understand how the 11th Army's staff allowed it to proceed uncorrected. The success of any converging operation depends on synchronization — on each column hitting its objectives on schedule and maintaining communication with the others so that each can react to developments on the other prongs. Yet the 11th Army headquarters made no recorded effort to coordinate the 33rd and 34th Divisions before the battle began. There was no forward command post established to oversee the operation. General Marube remained at Hankou, hundreds of miles to the north, throughout the battle — as remote from the fighting as a Tokyo bureaucrat. Operational decisions were left entirely to the individual divisions, with no mechanism to coordinate their actions if something went wrong. Something was going to go wrong. Luo Zhuoying had seen to that. On the morning of March 15, 1941, all three Japanese columns stepped off simultaneously, advancing into the misty hills and rice paddies of northwestern Jiangxi. In the north, Sakurai's 33rd Division moved briskly from Anyi toward Fengxin. The town fell by noon, and the division pressed westward in good order. The Japanese infantry moved confidently along the Liao River valley, experienced soldiers who had fought across China and had no particular reason to expect what was coming. The Chinese 70th Corps gave ground — as it had been ordered to — but did so on its own terms, occupying and then abandoning successive pieces of high ground along both banks of the river, making the Japanese advance uncomfortable and costly. Gradually, almost imperceptibly, the 33rd Division was being drawn forward into terrain that favored the defender. By March 18 and 19, the 33rd Division had pushed all the way to Guzhu'ao and Huamenlo — a considerable advance, but one that had taken the division far from its base at Anyi. And it was here, far from support and with flanks increasingly exposed, that the Chinese blocking forces closed in. Chinese infantry, who had been waiting in prepared positions in the high ground overlooking the river valley, launched coordinated counter-attacks that struck the 33rd Division from multiple directions. The fighting was fierce and costly. In two days of close combat, the division suffered more than 2,500 casualties — a grievous toll that represented a significant fraction of its effective strength. The northern column had been stopped dead. On March 19, Sakurai ordered the 33rd Division to reverse course. By March 23, after four days of painful withdrawal under pressure, it had pulled back to Anyi — the same place it had started. The northern prong of the Japanese offensive had accomplished nothing except the loss of thousands of men. In the south, the Independent Mixed 20th Brigade had a rougher start. Its initial attempt to cross the Gan-Jin river junction at noon on March 15 was repulsed by Chinese defenders, and it was only under cover of darkness that the brigade managed to force a crossing. Once across, it moved westward along the south bank of the Jin River, but progress was slow and contested. A detachment — the Gan River Detachment — ran into fierce resistance from the 26th Division of the Chinese 49th Corps on March 19. The brigade's main body meanwhile fought its way through the 51st Division of the 74th Corps, but the 107th Division and elements of the 51st managed to contain the advance at the Laichunling–Zhutoushan line. On the night of March 20, the main body of the 20th Brigade crossed the Jin River at Huifu to link up with the 34th Division — but a portion of its troops, cut off on the south bank, was destroyed by Chinese forces. The southern column was across the Jin River, but it had taken losses and was already engaged in ways its planners had not anticipated. In the center, the 34th Division fared best in the early going. Ōga's division moved westward from Xishan along the Xiang–Gan Highway on March 16, and by the 17th had captured Gao'an — a meaningful early success. The Chinese 74th Corps, executing Luo's plan faithfully, dispatched only screening forces east of the Tangpu River to slow the Japanese advance rather than contesting it decisively. The main body of the 74th Corps fell back to the third-line positions at Sixi, Guanqiao, and Tangpu, preparing the killing ground that Luo had designated. Simultaneously, the 26th Division and most of the 105th Division from the 49th Corps were shifted across the Gan River to operate south of the Jin River on the Japanese left flank, and the 72nd Corps was ordered to maneuver on a wide envelopment around Daxia and south of Ganfang. By March 20–21, the 34th Division had pressed forward to attack the Chinese positions at Sixi and Guanqiao. Ōga's men were confident — they had taken Gao'an, they were moving, and the objective of Shanggao lay within reach. But as the division pushed toward Shangjijia, it ran squarely into the 57th and 58th Divisions of the 74th Corps, fighting with a tenacity that told the Japanese plainly enough: this was where the Chinese intended to stand. The week of March 21–24 brought the battle to its crisis. The 34th Division hammered at the Chinese positions defending Shanggao itself, while on the flanks, the fighting took on a character that neither side had entirely anticipated. On March 21, General Wang Yaowu — commanding the 74th Corps from his headquarters in Shanggao — decided it was time to do more than absorb Japanese blows. He ordered General Li Tianxia to clear Japanese forces from the south bank of the Jin River and advance on Gao'an, with the aim of cutting the 34th Division's supply line and threatening its rear. It was an aggressive move, and if it had worked, it might have produced a decisive result earlier than history would record. It did not work — at least not immediately. That very evening, the Independent Mixed 20th Brigade, which had been reorganizing after the chaos of the river crossing, launched a powerful offensive at dawn on the 22nd. Li Tianxia's lead elements had barely set out from Shitou Street when they collided head-on with the main force of the 20th Brigade, which had crossed back from the north bank of the Jin River. The Japanese thrust was coordinated and aggressive: one column circled wide to attack Lazhu Mountain; another swung south of Hu Family west of Shitou Street to strike Li's division in the flank and rear; and nine aircraft with four artillery pieces bombarded the Chinese positions from north to south. Li's division could not hold against this convergent assault and fell back to the high ground southwest of Shitou Street. Wang Yaowu reacted quickly. He ordered Li's main body to wheel left to face the new threat and simultaneously dispatched the Army's Field Supplementary Regiment — held in reserve near Yintang — on a forced march to Huayang to block the Japanese westward drive. This regiment, racing down roads strafed by nine enemy aircraft, covered 15 li per hour and seized Huayang and the high ground to its northeast by around seven in the morning. By nine, the 20th Brigade arrived in strength and — supported by more than ten aircraft — launched a fierce assault on the regiment's positions. The regiment's officers and men held firm, taking heavy casualties but refusing to break. Frustrated at Huayang, the 20th Brigade shifted its effort to the Kuang Family area, linking up with over a thousand men who had crossed from Baichetou to the south bank and pushing along the river toward Xiongfang in an attempt to outflank the Chinese left wing. The Supplementary Regiment sent its 1st Battalion with a mortar company to meet this threat, and the two forces met in a fierce engagement. When the Japanese reinforced their assault and deployed incendiary bombs and poison gas, Xiongfang fell by early afternoon — but Li Tianxia immediately sent two regiments from his right flank to take it back, and by midnight the position was in Chinese hands again. Shitou Street and Jigong Ridge were simultaneously recaptured. The Independent Mixed 20th Brigade now found itself in an increasingly uncomfortable position, fighting with the Jin River at its back and the initiative slipping away. Meanwhile, the main event was being fought in the rubble and ridgelines around Shanggao itself. From March 22 to 25, the 34th Division and whatever remnants of the 20th Brigade could contribute threw themselves repeatedly at the defensive line anchored on Stone Arch Bridge, Xia Po Bridge, Xu Lou, Pan Family Bridge, Cloud Head Mountain, and Lei Family Mountain. This was not the fluid, mobile warfare that the Japanese had envisioned but brutal, grinding attritional combat for individual strongpoints and ridgelines, with positions changing hands multiple times in a single day. The Japanese air arm was deeply involved. Ōga's division had close air support that could operate even in poor weather, and Group 3 of the Japanese Air Force hammered the Chinese positions with sustained effort. On the morning of March 24, after the 34th Division fed in more than 3,000 additional troops transferred across the Jin River, the Air Force dispatched over seventy aircraft that dropped more than 1,700 bombs, largely destroying the defensive positions of Liao Lingqi's division. The Japanese exploited the resulting chaos and twice broke through gaps in the line — but were driven out each time by Chinese counterattacks. At noon, enemy aircraft bombarded in relays and Japanese infantry broke through at Xia Po Bridge. It was at this moment that Li Hanqing, commanding the Chinese infantry defense in that sector, did what officers throughout history have done when systems fail and only personal example can stem the tide: he personally led his officer cadre in repeated counter-attacks, hand-to-hand fighting in the rubble until the Japanese were finally expelled. By this point, the 34th Division's offensive capacity was nearly spent. At the same time — and this was the critical shift that would determine the battle's outcome — General Luo Zhuoying recognized that the moment to spring the trap had arrived. The northern column had already been broken and sent reeling back toward Anyi. The southern column was pinned against the Jin River with its back to the water. The central column was bled white against the defenses of Shanggao. Luo now ordered all his armies to close in from multiple directions. On the morning of March 22, he had already begun revising his orders; by noon on the 23rd, the forces of Liu Duoquan and Li Jue had occupied Shitou Street, Guanqiao Street, and Yanggong Market, pressing on Huifu and Gaoyao. The encirclement of the 34th Division was not yet complete, but its shape was unmistakably forming. By March 25, the 34th Division knew it was in mortal danger. Surrounded on three sides, its ammunition running low and its casualty lists growing by the hour, the division urgently appealed to the 11th Army for rescue. The message that arrived in Hankou was a shock. General Marube and his staff, who had remained at their distant headquarters throughout the battle without establishing a forward command post, had not properly grasped the scale of the disaster unfolding in Jiangxi. The lack of coordination between the 33rd and 34th Divisions — the structural flaw that had been built into the operation from its conception — had allowed Luo Zhuoying to defeat each column separately, and now the central column faced annihilation. The 11th Army responded in a scramble. Chief of Staff Kinoshita was dispatched by aircraft to Nanchang with Operations Staff Officer Lieutenant Colonel Yamaguchi and Captain Ōne to organize a relief operation. The 33rd Division — barely recovered from its own battering in the north — was ordered to sortie immediately and fight its way to the 34th Division's relief. Sakurai organized his battered 33rd Division into three rescue columns. Infantry Brigade Commander Araki Shōji took the right column, leading Infantry Regiment 215 with one mountain artillery battalion. Infantry Regiment 214 formed the left column. The divisional commander himself led the central column with the main divisional force. On March 24 and 25, all three columns sortied from strongpoints at Niuxing, Fengxin, and other positions, attacking across the Wuqiao River and through Cunqian Street toward Tangpu and Guanqiao. The relief operation brought the battle to its most complicated moment. On the morning of March 25, the 33rd Division launched a fierce assault on the forces that Luo Zhuoying had positioned to tighten the encirclement from the north — striking Zhang Yanchuan's division at Kengkou Leng, Jiezipo, and Nancha Luo. Zhang's division, struck simultaneously from the front and rear, withdrew at dusk to near Tu Di Wang Temple, where it linked up with Tang Boyin's division. What happened next became one of the most controversial decisions of the entire battle. Zhang Yanchuan was serving as deputy army commander in the absence of Li Jue from the front. Surveying the situation — his own division under heavy pressure, the 33rd Division's relief columns pushing aggressively — Zhang concluded that the position was untenable. On his own authority, without authorization from Luo Zhuoying or any superior commander, he withdrew both his own and Tang Boyin's divisions to Fenghuang Market and Zhuangfang. The consequence was immediate and severe. The withdrawal opened a corridor through which the 33rd Division entered Guanqiao and linked up with the encircled 34th Division. An encirclement that had taken days of blood and sacrifice to construct was torn open by a single unauthorized decision. Luo Zhuoying, when he received word of Zhang's withdrawal the following morning, was furious — but he could not change what had already happened. He could only adapt. The breakout itself was an ordeal. A portion of the 34th Division that attempted to escape to the east was intercepted near Huifu by a division of the 49th Corps and lost roughly half its strength before being compelled to turn back. The main body ultimately broke out on March 27, withdrawing in march order that told its own story of disaster: headquarters, baggage, artillery, casualties, field hospital, rear guard — all moving in what the records describe as "a wretched state." On the night of March 27, Japanese troops escorting the 34th Division's field hospital — a field artillery company of the 8th Battery — were completely annihilated in a Chinese night attack. When the division reached Longtuan Xu on March 28, the stretcher-bearer column carrying the wounded stretched some seven to eight kilometers along the road. That same day, the 33rd Division's Infantry Regiment 214 finally made contact with the 34th Division's headquarters, completing what amounted to a rescue of men who had already endured their defeat. The 33rd Division's mountain artillery batteries exhausted their entire ammunition supply covering the retreat and required emergency aerial resupply drops to continue. The 34th Division limped back to its original garrison on April 2. Despite the setback caused by Zhang Yanchuan's unauthorized withdrawal, Luo Zhuoying did not abandon his design. Assessing his situation on the morning of March 26, he found reason for cautious optimism: Wang Yaowu's army was still making progress at Shanggao; the Japanese south of the Jin River had largely been cleared; and Sichuan Army and Northeastern Army units that had been moving to reinforce the battle had now reached the field, meaning Chinese forces retained significant numerical superiority. He resolved to execute a second encirclement. At nine in the morning of March 26, Luo issued strict orders: Zhang Yanchuan's and Tang Boyin's divisions were to immediately comply with their original orders and block the enemy near Guanqiao; Yu Chengwan's division was to attack northward via Pan Family Bridge; Liao Lingqi's and Song Yingzhong's divisions were to press toward Guanqiao with full force; Wang Kejun's division was to strike the enemy's flank and rear east of Guanqiao; Fu Yi's division was to advance south of Jiang Family Isle; and Chen Liangji's division was to swing southeast via Changpu to complete the enemy's destruction. The second ring was being drawn. On March 28, as the 34th Division's battered column trudged eastward toward survival, Wang Kejun's division advancing from Yanggong Market moved to intercept it. The Chinese occupied high ground north and south of Yanggong Market and along Mozi Ridge, and what followed was a grinding all-day battle that fixed the Japanese column at the Xiama Bei–Huxing Ridge line. Part of the 20th Brigade, moving up from Gao'an to assist the withdrawing 34th Division, was blocked near Long Tu Market. Liao Lingqi's division pursued the enemy rear guard to the Changling–Manmei high ground, where the fighting erupted with renewed intensity. At noon, part of Li Tianxia's division arrived and deployed along the Shangluoxiang–Shanyuan–Fangtounao line to harass the Japanese right flank; part of Yu Chengwan's division reached Longxing Mountain and outflanked Guanqiao Street from the south. The surviving Japanese defenders in Guanqiao withdrew into the town for a last stand, and after Liao's division pressed the assault, street fighting raged until five in the afternoon, when over 600 defenders were annihilated. Over 2,000 troops of the Independent Mixed 20th Brigade conducted a fighting withdrawal from Long Tu Market and Yanggong Market, covered by Japanese aircraft bombing to shield the 34th Division's retreat. By noon on March 30, the Japanese had abandoned both strongpoints and scattered northeastward. One group of over 600 men fled directly into the main positions of Zhang Yanchuan's division — an ironic fate, given Zhang's earlier withdrawal — and were largely annihilated. The encircling forces had been essentially dispersed, and the two pursuit columns now pressed forward under the overall direction of General Xue Yue, who had assumed personal coordination of the chase. On March 27, Luo Zhuoying — confident that victory was secured — issued a general order for a final offensive and announced substantial cash rewards to his troops: prizes offered for the capture of Japanese officers, artillery pieces, regimental colors, and other materiel. The rewards were both a practical incentive and a mark of how far the battle had tipped. By midnight on March 31, Chen Hongshi's advance column had recovered Gao'an; Wang Tiehan's division had recovered Xiangfu Guan. On April 2, the divisions of Zhang Yanchuan and Song Yingzhong recovered Fengxin; that afternoon Wang Tiehan's division took back Xishan and Wanshou Palace — the very base from which the 34th Division had launched its offensive. By April 3, the pursuing armies had reached the vicinity of Dacheng and Ganzhoujie. On April 8 and 9, the 70th Corps recovered the outpost strongpoints around Anyi before halting operations. The Japanese had retreated into their original positions and were defending from prepared terrain. The pursuit was over. The Battle of Shanggao had lasted nineteen days and nights. No battle of the Second Sino-Japanese War was ever free of the fog of competing claims, and Shanggao was no exception. On March 29, before the pursuit had even concluded, Luo Zhuoying telegraphed Chiang Kai-shek with his accounting of the victory. His numbers were dramatic: Major General Iwanaga, the Japanese infantry commander, killed; regimental commander Colonel Hamada, killed; over 15,000 Japanese killed or wounded in total. Chinese losses, Luo reported, exceeded 20,000. Ten guns, over a thousand rifles, and numerous machine guns had been captured. His superior, General Xue Yue, was skeptical. In a telegram to Chiang Kai-shek on April 5, Xue reduced Luo's numbers by twenty percent, reporting 12,520 Japanese killed or wounded and 14 prisoners captured. The discrepancy between two Chinese commanders reporting on the same battle speaks to the difficulty of battlefield accounting in any era, and suggests something of the competitive pressures that shaped how Chinese commanders reported their victories to Chongqing. The official Chinese histories, compiled after the war in the History of the War of Resistance, reported approximately 15,000 Japanese killed or wounded, 17 prisoners taken, and significant quantities of captured materiel: 6 mountain guns, 1 mortar, 24 light machine guns, 408 rifles, 24 grenade launchers, and over 111,717 rounds of various ammunition. Chinese casualties, by the same records, were 17,119 killed or wounded and 2,814 missing. Japanese records for the battle do not survive — a consequence of the wholesale destruction of Imperial Army documentation at the war's end. Contemporary scholars, working from other sources, estimate actual Japanese combat losses at approximately 5,500 killed and wounded. This is substantially lower than the Chinese claims, as was nearly always the case in the war, but represents a significant defeat by any measure: roughly a quarter of the force committed, many of them veterans impossible to replace. Chiang Kai-shek subsequently awarded the victorious Chinese units a commendation prize of 150,000 yuan — a substantial sum that marked the battle's significance in Nationalist eyes. The outcome at Shanggao was not accidental. Several interlocking factors combined to produce a Chinese victory, and each deserves consideration. The most fundamental was Luo Zhuoying's defensive plan. The decision to trade space for time — to absorb the Japanese advance through three successive defensive lines rather than contest the frontier — required both tactical confidence and a willingness to accept initial setbacks that could easily be misread as defeat. Chinese forces had to give ground, and they did. They had to suffer through the early days of Japanese advance without breaking and running, drawing the enemy forward and allowing the encirclement to take shape. That they largely succeeded in executing this plan reflects the improving quality of the Nationalist Army by 1941: better trained, better led at the operational level, and — critically — equipped with a strategic design that matched the actual balance of forces. The defeat in detail of the Japanese columns was equally important. By neutralizing the 33rd Division in the north before it could contribute to the central effort, and by pinning the 20th Brigade against the Jin River with its back to the water, Luo's forces ensured that the 34th Division faced the third-line defenses essentially alone — outnumbered, overextended, and unsupported. The Japanese operational concept had been a three-pronged convergence; what actually materialized was a single exhausted division hammering at a prepared defense while two other columns were rendered ineffective. The absence of coordination within the Japanese 11th Army was a gift that kept giving throughout the battle. No forward command post. No mechanism for the divisions to adjust their operations in response to each other's situations. No ability to recognize, in real time, that the northern column was being destroyed and redirect resources accordingly. General Marube's decision to remain at Hankou while his men died in Jiangxi was not merely an administrative failure; it was an operational catastrophe. Japanese commanders acknowledged this failing explicitly after the battle, but the acknowledgment changed nothing for the dead. Zhang Yanchuan's unauthorized withdrawal — the single most consequential individual decision of the battle — ultimately prevented a complete annihilation of the 34th Division rather than affecting the battle's outcome. The 34th Division escaped; but it did so in a "wretched state," having lost enormous numbers of men and equipment. It broke out, not triumphed. The encirclement Luo had constructed was torn open, but the Japanese paid dearly for the breach. The consequences of Shanggao rippled outward in ways that shaped the subsequent course of the war in central China. The transfer of the 33rd Division to North China — the original logistical rationale for the entire operation — was delayed by the division's involvement and subsequent losses at Shanggao. When it finally arrived at the Battle of Central Plains  the following month, it did so on the eve of battle with no time for preparation or orientation, entering combat under severely disadvantaged conditions. The operation that was supposed to facilitate a smooth redeployment had instead damaged one of the two units involved and delayed the other. For the Chinese 74th Corps, Shanggao had an ironic consequence. The Japanese 11th Army, following the battle, formally designated the 74th Corps as a priority target — a "standing enemy" and directed its forces to seek out and destroy it in future operations. At the First Battle of Changsha that September, the 11th Army specifically oriented its forces against the 74th Corps, a testament to the lasting impression that corps's fierce resistance at Shanggao had made on its adversaries. The compliment of being specifically targeted by the enemy was one the 74th Corps had earned in blood at Shanggao's ridgelines and shattered bridges. More broadly, the battle was widely regarded at the time, and has been regarded since, as one of the most significant Chinese tactical victories of the first four years of the War of Resistance. Its significance lay not only in the casualties inflicted — those were contested and probably inflated in the Chinese records — but in what it demonstrated. The improving tactical and operational competence of the Nationalist Army was on display. The deliberate defense, the layered withdrawal, the coordinated encirclement — these were not the operations of an army that had been fighting desperately for survival since 1937 and had learned nothing. They were the operations of an army that had studied its defeats and adapted. Shanggao did not change the strategic situation in China. The front in Jiangxi remained where it had been; the Japanese still occupied Nanchang and the major cities; Chiang Kai-shek was still in Chongqing and the war was still far from over. But it demonstrated something important: that the Chinese Army, given capable commanders, a sound plan, and the discipline to execute it, could do more than survive Japanese offensives. It could reverse them, encircle them, and pursue them back to where they came from. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. In March–April 1940, Japanese forces attacked Shanggao with a limited, multi-pronged plan. Chinese troops used elastic defense and coordinated counter-moves, turning initial advantages into a trap. After intense fighting and air strikes, a coordinated encirclement and timely breakout routed the Japanese, forcing retreat despite their numbers in a costly battle.

Are you ready for the next grizzly bear?—not the animal, but a major market downturn. He discusses the history of market corrections, bear markets, and the rare but devastating grizzly bear markets, illustrating why it's crucial to evaluate your portfolio's risk level during strong market conditions—not during times of crisis. Whether you're approaching retirement or still in your wealth-building years, this episode will prompt you to reconsider your risk tolerance, portfolio diversification, and readiness for inevitable market storms.Outline of This Episode[03:34] Importance of communicating about conflict before it arises [06:27] Discussing market downturns and returns[10:16] Understanding Market Corrections[11:31] S&P 500 correction frequency[16:51] Assessing portfolio risk levels[18:01] Understanding risk and portfolio deviations[24:03] Preparing for market downturns[25:11] Preparing for market downturnsThe Importance of Talking About Risk—Before the DownturnMuch like in relationships, it's best to address potential conflicts before they arise; investors address risk before markets turn volatile. Re-evaluating your comfort with risk and your portfolio's construction when things are calm puts you in the driver's seat. Waiting until a downturn hits can leave you reactionary and vulnerable to poor decisions—like panic selling when it hurts the most.Understanding Corrections, Bear Markets, and Grizzly Bear MarketsI break market volatility into three categories:1. Corrections – The Baby BearA correction is a market drop of at least 10% from its recent high. While the news can make a big fuss about corrections, they are common and, historically, have historically recovered relatively quickly. The S&P 500 has seen 28 corrections since 1969—that's about one every two years. The best move during a correction is strategic rebalancing, not panic.2. Bear Markets – The BearBear markets are drops of 20% or more. Since 1969, they've happened eight times—about once every seven years. Bear markets are more serious than corrections and can be emotionally challenging, but they're still a normal part of the investing cycle. If you're lying awake at night during a bear market, it probably means your portfolio risk wasn't suited to your comfort level before the downturn.3. Grizzly Bear Markets – The Real ThreatA grizzly bear market is a severe drop of 30% or more, and these are rare but devastating. Since 1969, only three have occurred: during the oil and stagflation crisis of the ‘70s, the dot-com bubble in the early 2000s, and the 2008 financial crisis. These markets can take years to recover—some up to 91 months for a portfolio invested solely in the S&P 500.Diversification and RebalancingWhat separates those who weather grizzly bear markets from those who don't? Preparation and portfolio construction. A diversified 60% stocks/40% bonds portfolio has historically fared much better during grizzly bear markets—experiencing smaller drawdowns and much faster recovery times than a pure stock portfolio. By owning more than one asset class and maintaining an “airbag” of bonds and cash, retirees can draw on their safer reserves during downturns, giving stocks time to recover.The Questions Every Investor Should Be AskingIf you're living off your investments, in or near retirement, now is the time to ask:Is my plan set up for the next grizzly bear?Can I withstand a major downturn?Do I have the right mix of stocks, bonds, and cash?Has my advisor “back-tested” my plan against worst-case scenarios?Grizzly bear markets, though rare, are inevitable over a long investing life. The pain is real—but so are the solutions. Assess your risk now, diversify, prepare your cash and bond airbags, and ensure your plan has been rigorously tested for rough times. Addressing risk in your portfolio now leaves you sleeping soundly—no matter what the market throws your way.Connect With Scott WellensSchedule a discovery call with ScottSend a message to ScottVisit Fortress Planning GroupConnect with Scott on LinkedInFollow Scott on TwitterFortress Planning Group on FacebookSubscribe to Best In WealthAudio Production and Show Notes byPODCAST FAST TRACKhttps://www.podcastfasttrack.comPodcast Disclaimer:The Best In Wealth Podcast is hosted by Scott Wellens. Scott Wellens is the principal at Fortress Planning Group. Fortress Planning Group is a registered investment advisory firm regulated by the US Securities and Exchange Commission in accordance and compliance with securities laws and regulations. Fortress Planning Group does not render or offer to render personalized investment or tax advice through the Best In Wealth Podcast. The information provided is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, tax, investment or legal advice.

Send us Fan MailBefore you can improve your leadership, you need an honest picture of where you are today.In this episode, Dr. Mel Vandevort guides school leaders through a practical self-assessment designed to uncover strengths, identify growth opportunities, and reveal the areas that may be creating unnecessary frustration or overwhelm.Through a series of reflective questions, you'll evaluate your leadership across three critical areas: leading people, managing the work, and supporting learning. You may discover that the challenge you're experiencing isn't where you thought it was.Grab a notebook and prepare to think deeply about your current leadership reality. The awareness you gain today could be the catalyst for meaningful growth tomorrow.In this episode, you'll:• Reflect on your current leadership effectiveness• Identify potential "warning lights" in your leadership practice• Evaluate key areas that impact your daily success• Determine where focused growth could create the greatest impactThis is the second and final free episode in The Principal Operating System™ series. Future episodes and implementation resources will be available exclusively inside the Empowered Educator Community.

When Mayor Zohran Mamdani refused to march in New York City’s Israel Day parade - the first mayor of the city to do so in over 60 years – “did not surprise” Rabbi Josh Weinberg, who participated in the parade. But the liberal Zionist Reform rabbi was surprised to discover that he was marching alongside far-right ministers like Bezalel Smotrich and members of the Kahanist Otzma Yehudit party. Had he known, said Weinberg, Vice President of the URJ for Israel and Reform Zionism, speaking on the Haaretz Podcast, he would’ve held a sign making it clear that “Smotrich’s Zionism does not reflect our ideology at all, and is in fact antithetical to who we are as Jews and Zionists, and even as Americans. His brand of racism, discrimination, xenophobia – everything that he stands for – we want to totally reject while still maintaining our love and support for Israel." Weinberg added that a statement by Smotrich that the New York event resembled the Jerusalem Day flag march – an event regularly marked by harassment and violence towards Palestinians in the city – made him “want to throw up.” Also speaking on the podcast, Haaretz's New York correspondent Etan Nechin said that the Israeli ministers in the parade presented their presence as an “act of defiance by the Israeli Knesset and by the Israeli government” to “show” Mamdani. Assessing the mayor’s relationship with the Jewish community over the first six months of his term, Weinberg praised Mamdani’s initiative to increase spending to secure Jewish institutions with the rise of antisemitism, but regretted his boycott of the parade and his high-profile commemoration of Nakba Day online. Nechin countered with his belief that Mamdani had taken advantage of harnessing his popularity to take advantage of “this sudden historic opportunity to platform and champion Palestinian voices.” Mamdani, he said, “is a symptom of American public opinion – especially young Americans who are having conversations about Israel and Palestine, but not on Israeli or Jewish terms. It’s something that the Jewish community and Israelis will need to contend with.” Read more: Majority of Americans Hold Unfavorable Opinion of Israel as Confidence in Netanyahu Plummets, Pew Survey Finds 'We're Done Apologizing': Inside the Israeli Far Right's Big Weekend Out in New York Mamdani 'Offended' by Participation of Far-right Israeli MKs in Israel Day Parade Nearly Half of Young U.S. Jews Want to Replace Israel With Binational State, Poll Finds How Trump's Second Term Marks the Ascendance of The New Jewish Orthodox RightSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist Dr Fadi joins Laura for an open, practical conversation about pelvic floor health, incontinence, prolapse and the realities of modern obstetrics.Dr Fadi explains how childbirth, ageing and menopause affect the pelvic floor, and why so many women end up living with stress incontinence, prolapse and faecal incontinence in silence. He walks through the full range of treatment options — from physiotherapy and pessaries to urethral bulking, Botox, sacral neuromodulation, robotic surgery, and the mesh procedures paused in Ireland since 2018.The conversation also takes in interstitial cystitis, vaginal oestrogen, the impact of long inductions on older mothers, and the trade-offs women now weigh up between a vaginal delivery and a caesarean section. Dr Fadi closes with a reflection on his time working with Syrian refugees, where he met 13-year-old mothers and a 26-year-old grandmother.

Does building housing near rail stations reduce driving, even if it prices out lower-income residents? Dan Chatman's research suggests the answer hinges not on who lives there, but on how much housing gets built. Chatman, D. G., Xu, R., Park, J., & Spevack, A. (2019). Does Transit-Oriented Gentrification Increase Driving? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(4), 482-495. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0739456X19872255Chatman, Dan (2015) Does Transit-Oriented Development Need the Transit? Access Magazine. https://accessmagazine.org/fall-2015/does-transit-oriented-development-need-the-transit/Chatman, D. G., Rodynansky, S., Boarnet, M., Comandon, A., Snyder, B., Patel, K., & Atkins, J. (2025). Assessing the Quantification Methodology for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/99j4s0bp

Jeremy and Joe evaluate the unlikely possibility of Stefon Diggs returning to the Buffalo Bills and the current stagnation of the veteran wide receiver market. They also explore which NFL quarterbacks are primed for a career redemption and discuss Alex Tuch's contract situation with the Sabres. 02:10 - Joe Brady Mini-Camp Outlook 06:16 - Diggs Return Speculation 10:00 - Veteran Receiver Market 16:02 - NFL Quarterback Glow-Ups 22:44 - Big Boy Steam Locomotive 27:30 - Alex Tuch Contract Talk 31:14 - Birthday Anniversary Discussion 36:00 - NHL Trade Updates 42:26 - Mike Babcock Rumors

Once again, President Trump is falsely claiming election fraud after Democrats advanced in the non-partisan primary for the Los Angeles mayoral race. Trump has blamed mail-in ballots for the result, reviving false claims that have become a familiar feature of his presidency. So what does this tell us about the president's mindset, and the state of America's democracy heading into the midterms? Susan Glasser of The New Yorker joins Bianna from Washington.  Also on today's show: Atlantic staff writer Anne Applebaum; author Jules Boykoff, “Red Card”    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As he comes up on his one-year anniversary at the helm of Professional Fighters League, CEO John Martin spoke to Sean about the PFL's globe-hopping July, the strategy behind regional development leagues like PFL MENA and PFL Africa, and the move away from the playoff and tournament model that defined the promotion's first five years.Through it all, Martin addressed the challenge of getting the PFL into the homes and minds of the casual fight fan, and the effect that broadcast deals, media, and rising superstars like Dakota Ditcheva, Patrick Habirora and Thad Jean can have.0:00 Assessing his first year as PFL CEO3:23 If it had been up to you, would the PFL-Bellator merger have happened?6:19 How much of a consideration was cost-cutting after your arrival?8:29 Was moving away from the playoff/tournament format the right decision?12:15 The hard question: Why does PFL fly under the radar even of many hardcore MMA fans?14:15 Where would you like PFL to be in five years?17:13 On the challenge of building, then keeping, stars

What should you know before investing in a gun safe, vault door, safe room, or storm shelter? In this episode, Brink and Tom sit down with Mark Brasfield, founder of Nashville Safe House and one of the largest Browning safe dealers in the world. Mark shares his journey from the airline industry to entrepreneurship, explains common misconceptions about safe ratings and fire protection, and discusses how homeowners can think strategically about physical security. The conversation also explores storm shelters, vault doors, reputation in business, and the real-world stories that have shaped Mark's approach to helping people protect what matters most. Whether you're considering a safe for firearms, valuables, or family protection during severe weather, this episode offers practical insights from one of the industry's most experienced professionals. 1:40 Mark is the world's largest dealer of Browning safes. 2:20 How Nashville Safe House began - from the airline industry into the security business 3:40 The entrepreneurial mindset 4:45 Aviation management and becoming a pilot at 19. 9:50 Understanding safe classifications and security ratings 11:10 Mark's top safe recommendations: Fort Knox: the "Fort Knox" of the safe industry and Browning: the best all-around option for most buyers 12:20 Misleading fire and security ratings in the safe industry. 14:45 Nashville Safe House's extensive in-stock inventory 19:30 "It's easier to keep a good reputation than to repair a bad one." 21:08 The Nashville Safe House "Wall of Shame"—a collection of safes that have been broken into. 21:59 Types of safe rooms and storm shelters. 23:05 The most popular shelter for existing homes. 24:20 Safe room options for new construction 26:00 There is no such thing as a "FEMA-approved" shelter, only shelters that meet FEMA guidelines. 27:10 What a storm shelter costs 28:20 A powerful tornado story from Murfreesboro, Tennessee 32:50 Who should consider a safe room? Assessing risk levels, threat profiles, and personal priorities. 36:00 Comparing security doors and why Mark believes Fort Knox makes the industry's best vault doors. 38:15 Typical pricing for the vault doors Mark installs: $9,000–$10,000 range. 40:00 Why buying a safe room or vault door should be a thoughtful process 44:15 Learn more at www.thesafehouse.com. Nashville Safe House serves customers through locations in Nashville, Knoxville, and Atlanta.

The two wide areas are one of the positions that Heart of Midlothian are well stocked in. Calvin Miller and Josh McPake have been added and there is more expected from Sabah Kerjota and Rogers Mato next season. But will Alexandros Kyziridis leave? And with Islam Chesnokov set to depart, will Hearts add any more wingers? #heartsfc #hmfc #heartofmidlothian #football #scottishfootball #spfl #scottishpremiership //////////////////////////////////////////////////// Subscribe to the channel, turn on notifications

Where do you start when you want to level up the production at a new church? And how do you keep pushing forward when life throws you a devastating diagnosis?In this episode, we are joined by Josh Suender of Faith Community Church (Clayton, NC). We start with some practical, high-value tech talk, breaking down the exact first steps you should take to level up your church production. Josh shares his favorite creative AVL gear moves to streamline your workflow, how to keep MultiTracks from getting "weird" and chaotic on stage, and the massive benefits of implementing Bitfocus Companion in your tech booth.In this episode you'll hear: 0:00 Intro: Toby's Adventures in Worship Leading5:30 Josh Suender (Faith Community Church) Joins7:45 Josh's Start in Church Production11:20 Assessing the Production Baseline at a New Job14:00 The First Steps to Level Up Your Church Production16:20 Creative AVL Moves to Streamline Your Tech28:45 Keeping MultiTracks from Getting "Weird" on Stage30:15 Implementing Bitfocus Companion in Your Setup36:00 Josh's Battle for His Life: A Stage 4 Diagnosis48:15 Keep Sundays RunningGet expert help and care on your next integration project with our friends at HouseRight here.  Hang out with us at The Mix in Vegas here! Get more money back in your budget and more space in your closet by selling us your used gear here. Resources for your Church Tech MinistrySell Us Gear: Does your church have used gear that you need to convert into new ministry dollars? We can make you an offer here. Buy Our Gear: Do you need some production gear but lack the budget to buy new gear? You can shop our gear store here.  Connect with us: Sales Bulletin: Get better deals than the public and get them earlier too here!Early Service: Get our best gear before it goes live on our site here. Instagram: Hangout with us on the gram here! Reviews: Leaving us a review on the podcast player you're listening to us on really helps the show. If you enjoyed this episode, you can say thank you with a review! 

  Guest: Parker Panetti   Great conversation with my son Parker about the biblical themes and allusions to Christ in the movie The Sheep Detectives. Fun to watch and listen to everything through a biblical worldview lens - helps discern truth from error and see all stories as pointing to THE great story of Jesus Christ! T4M guys - just a reminder that Training4Manhood is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) ministry and you can make donations either via Zelle (info@training4manhood.com) or by visiting the Training4Manhood website.

Imagine walking into a tense meeting where emotions are running high and instead of trying to find the perfect words, you say just two simple ones that instantly shift the entire dynamic. It sounds almost too simple to work, but for Doug Noll, it's a proven method grounded in neuroscience and tested in some of the most extreme environments imaginable.   After 22 years as a trial lawyer, Doug Noll walked away from the courtroom to become a peacemaker, taking his work into maximum-security prisons, where he trained individuals serving life sentences for murder to become mediators and peacekeepers. Today, he brings those same battle-tested skills into boardrooms and leadership teams, helping organizations navigate conflict, rebuild trust, and transform how people communicate at work.    On this episode of The Workplace Communication Podcast, we're talking with Doug Noll, about the power of naming emotions and why most workplace communication advice misses the mark. Join us as we learn how to recognize what's really happening beneath the surface in high-stakes conversations, how to answer the brain's three subconscious questions, and how to shift from trying to control conversations to creating emotional safety that accelerates trust, collaboration, and results.    Leadership tips you won't want to miss: 

This episode's guests:Ken Walczak, Night Light Consulting.Mark Baker, Soft Lights Foundation.Charles Hood, Author of Nature at Night.Bill's News Picks:  Finland's longest bridge reaches completion in Helsinki, Starr Charles, Dezeen.The Bay Lights Come Back On Tonight After Three-Year Hiatus, SF Gate. Light and ultrasonic noise pollution displaces trawling Daubenton's bats, Scientific Reports.Assessing the benefits of part-night lighting on a tropical bat species endemic to Reunion Island, Biological Conservation.From gas lamps to LEDs: The 100-year war on headlight glare, Kris Culmer, Autocar. Send Feedback Text to the Show!Support the showA hearty thank you to all of our paid supporters out there. You make this show possible.For only the cost of one coffee each month you can help us to continue to grow. That's $3 a month. If you like what we're doing, if you think this adds value in any way, why not say thank you by becoming a supporter!Why Support Light Pollution News?Receive quarterly invite to join as live audience member for recordings with special Q&A session post recording with guests.Receive all of the news for that month via a special Supporter monthly mailer.Satisfaction that your support helps further critical discourse on this topic.About Light Pollution News:Ever wonder why migrating birds crash into buildings? Or why you can't sleep at night? What about where you can still see the Milky Way? Light Pollution News explores how our 24/7 lit world affects everything from wildlife and human health to our understanding of the stars, travel, and the future of our cities. Host Bill McGeeney brings on rotating guests to help dig into the latest research, policy activity, and real-world solutions - from how irresponsible lighting degrades our health to the best dark sky destinations for your next trip. Whether you're a birder, conservationist, astrophotographer, or just someone who misses sleeping in darkness, this is the show that connects the dots between your disappear...

The last year has seen an unusual spate of mid-decade redistricting. It was initiated by President Trump in 2025 when he urged the Texas legislature to redraw maps to favor Republicans in hopes of helping the GOP hold the House and the 2026 midterms.  State legislatures are at the center of these efforts in blue and red states. To offer some perspective, we sat down with Erin Covey, who leads coverage of the U.S. House for the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, and Helen Brewer, who tracks redistricting legislation and developments for NCSL.  Covey explained the change to congressional maps in Texas, California, Virginia, and other states and discussed how the Supreme Court decision in a Louisiana case involving the Voting Rights Act could affect numerous districts over the next few elections.  Brewer offered some perspective on the history of redistricting, including mid-decade redistricting. She also discussed the basis and ramifications of the Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Callais. Resources “Changing the Maps: Tracking Mid-Decade Redistricting,” NCSL Cook Political Report with Amy Walter  

Ronica Cleary - Cleary Strategies On Trying DIY PR: "You don't know what makes you newsworthy. You don't know what lands. You don't know what's a really good pitch and what's not." Every business wants, well actually, needs customers.  How do you get customers?  You get noticed and you get your business in front of potential customers.  How do you grow this awareness?  You can shout from the street corner, cold-call, pay for advertising, or use the tried and true way to build trust and that is to get some news stories written and published about you. The interesting thing about public relations is that, with the right public relation expert, you can control the narrative about your business and grow the awareness of your brand in a trusted space.  People generally trust the news much more than they trust an advertisement.  So if you are in the news, you are much more likely to be a trusted brand. Ronica Cleary has been on the news side of the desk and now helps businesses get noticed with her PR firm, Cleary Strategies.  She and her crew craft the stories and push them to the editors and people that can get them on the pages, print and web, that people read. Listen as Ronica explains the power of PR and how she has built her PR firm from her incredible experience as a television journalist. Enjoy! Visit Ronica at: https://www.clearystrategies.com/ Sponsors: Calls On Call Extraordinary Answering Service, phone answering for small businesses: https://callsoncall.com Some videos have been recorded with Riverside: https://www.riverside.fm/?utm_campaign=campaign_5&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=rewardful&via=james-kademan   Podcast Overview: 00:00 Starting Cleary Strategies Unexpectedly 06:09 Covering Trump's first election campaign 09:09 Media relations and crisis management 11:33 Evolution of media placements 13:59 Pitching to a busy newsroom 18:23 Managing media queries efficiently 22:16 Managing Public Relations Challenges 25:45 Concerns about paid media placements 27:11 Shady PR practices discussion 30:51 Using PR to Boost Visibility 33:50 Developing client content themes 37:20 Building a thought leadership presence 40:08 Importance of a founder's story 42:59 The value of PR in business 46:37 Podcast audience quality over size 50:26 Reflections on Starting a Business 53:56 Assessing contractor fit and retention Podcast Transcription: Ronica Cleary [00:00:00]: We, we think like producers when we pitch our clients. We don't. We have to think as a producer would so that when we present the pitch to the newsroom, it's like we've produced the segment for them and not because they aren't capable, not because they can't, but because maybe they don't have the bandwidth to do so. And so if our pitch comes perfectly packaged with the pieces in place, the B roll ready to go, the expert teed up the potential questions all written for you. You know, they're not going to take it word for word, but it's like all of the pieces are there. James Kademan [00:00:36]: You have found authentic Business Adventures, the business program that brings you the struggle stories and triumphant successes of business owners across the land. Downloadable audio episodes can be found in the podcast link found@drawincustomers.com we are locally underwritten by the Bank of Sun prairie, Calls On Call Extraordinary Answering Service, as well as Live Switch. And today we're welcoming, slash, preparing to learn from Ronica with Cleary Strategies. And today we are talking pr. So Ronica, how is it going today? Ronica Cleary [00:01:07]: It's going so well. Just poured myself a fresh cup of coffee, finished the pot. James Kademan [00:01:12]: So lucky. Ronica Cleary [00:01:13]: We've had a caffeinated day, but it's a good day. James Kademan [00:01:17]: Yeah, nice. Tell me, how long have you been in the PR business? Ronica Cleary [00:01:24]: So I'm approaching eight years this summer. So we started our agency, I always say we opened our virtual doors before it was cool. Yeah, nearly eight. And so it's, we're kind of, I can see in the horizon that 10 year mark, which is exciting. James Kademan [00:01:42]: I don't know what the, what the metrics are, what the data is for. How many businesses make it 10 years? It's not many. So I feel like you're doing very well. Ronica Cleary [00:01:50]: They talk about that five year mark as a really big turning point and I felt it and I think that's a very valid marker for, you know, a shift in your business. But I think you maybe hear less about the 10 year mark because people probably throw in the towel by then. James Kademan [00:02:06]: They're like, forget this, I'm done. No more, no more. Oh, it's funny. How did you end up in the PR business Ronica Cleary [00:02:14]: accidentally? You know, it was not on purpose, but that's been the beautiful part of the journey. So if I'm being more specific than accidentally, I think it was really client request for that type of service. So I'm a former television journalist and when I left TV I did obviously intentionally start a business and open Cleary strategies. But my vision was to do a lot of communicate traditional communications and support with internal communications and writing and, you know, coaching and. But what people were asking for in my network, because when you started business, you know, your first customers are usually in your network, was, you know, you used to be on tv. Can you help me get on tv? And it was, you know, I didn't call it PR in that moment, but I did have an aha moment a few years into running my business where I said, I think I'm a publicist. Like, how did that happen? And, you know, then we, I mean, we realized that was becoming our identity. I've really leaned into it and I love it. Ronica Cleary [00:03:12]: And we are now a full service PR agency. And that is very, very much our identity today. And we don't do any internal comms or anything like that. So a big shift from customer demand and direction, which is a really cool way to grow. And it's been great. James Kademan [00:03:27]: Nice. So what made you get out of tv? I guess that's an assumption. Maybe you haven't. What made you get out of being a video journalist? Ronica Cleary [00:03:35]: So that is, you know, a lot of reasons. But I'll make it brief because we only have 52 minutes. So let's see. I had a really beautiful career in television. I like to say I had a storybook career in tv. And my most recent work in television was as a White House correspondent. I worked in Washington D.C. and I covered the White House as a journalist. Ronica Cleary [00:03:56]: And my contract was coming up for renewal and I was pregnant with our second child. And at the time, my husband and I actually lived in different states. I lived in the District, the, the District area. I lived in Maryland, but right outside of D.C. with our daughter on my own. And most of the time and he was up here in Pennsylvania. And, you know, it just seemed like the right time to live under one roof with a. With the birth of our second coming and now we have three, which is really beautiful. Ronica Cleary [00:04:26]: And family's very important. And I always really was entrepreneurial. I always had a passion and an interest. I had a really bad attempt at entrepreneurship in my 20s, and I didn't have the drive or the focus to really turn it into something. And in my, let's see, how old was I? I guess my mid-30s. When I started this business, I was a different person and I was ready to really give it an honest try in, in the real sense of the, of making a service business work. And it felt like the right time. And I had done so many wonderful things in tv, it wasn't that, you know, I certainly hadn't done everything, but I felt like I had checked that box in my. Ronica Cleary [00:05:09]: And that I could really look back on that and feel accomplished and like the ride was extremely meaningful. And it felt like a time when I could close that chapter in a thoughtful way. So that's. That's kind of the. The Cliff Notes. James Kademan [00:05:24]: All right, this is. I want to go down the White House correspondent journalist a little bit. Ronica Cleary [00:05:29]: Sure. James Kademan [00:05:30]: Tell me about the contract. Was that with a specific channel or. Ronica Cleary [00:05:35]: Oh, yeah, sure. So I worked for the local Fox affiliate in Washington. So my TV contract was with WTTG, and that's Fox 5. That's the local station in Washington. And then if you cover the White House, you can become a member of the White House Correspondents association, which I was. But my contract in television was with the local Fox station in Washington. And, you know, I moved down there to become the political reporter for the station. It's actually, you know, I don't know if your listeners are super into this, but, you know, it's really rare for local stations to have White House correspondence. Ronica Cleary [00:06:09]: Usually that's a network thing or a print and print reporter thing or some radio stations. But I was down there. I covered the presidential election leading up to the election of Donald Trump for the first time, his first campaign. And, you know, I know he is president today, but that first time that he won, I mean, that the, the media momentum was a frenzy. It was all consuming. And so independent of the politics, I was down there at a really unique time that as a local news reporter, they actually said, we need someone in the briefing room. So that's kind of where, like, I call it like a bit of a storybook career, because usually to get in that briefing room, you've got to follow the journey into working at a national network or, you know, working for, I would argue, maybe a. A bigger news outlet. Ronica Cleary [00:06:58]: And while WTTG,...

In this episode of the ChinaPower Podcast, Dr. Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Dr. Evan Medeiros join us to unpack President Putin's visit to Beijing. They discuss what the timing reveals about China's diplomatic strategy after the Trump–Xi meeting, and how both sides used optics to serve their own interests. The conversation explores Russia's growing dependence on China, the limits of the partnership including the stalled Power of Siberia II pipeline, and what to watch for in China-Russia security cooperation. Andrea Kendall-Taylor is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Transatlantic Security Program at the Center for a New American Security. Evan Medeiros is the Penner Family Chair in Asia Studies in the School of Foreign Service and the Cling Family Distinguished Fellow in U.S.-China Studies at Georgetown University.

In this episode, a panel of legal experts discusses the different approaches taken by the Second and Ninth Circuits on two key areas of copyright law: substantial similarity and the Server Test. Presented by the New York City Bar Association's Copyright & Literary Property and Entertainment Law Committees, the panel explores recent and emerging case law and the Second and Ninth Circuits' divergent approaches to analyzing substantial similarity, a key element of copyright infringement, as well as the ongoing debate surrounding the Server Test, which addresses whether the posting of online content constitutes a “display” within the meaning of the Copyright Act. Moderated by Dwayne Amos, Associate at Kasowitz LLP, the episode features a panel of leading copyright litigators and experts, including: • Barry Werbin, Counsel, Herrick Feinstein LLP • Aaron Moss, Partner, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP and author of the Copyright Lately blog • Marc Lebowitz, Principal, Lebowitz Law Office • James Bartolomei, Of Counsel, Duncan Firm The wide-ranging discussion covers the practical implications of these divergent approaches for copyright owners, litigators, content creators, online platforms, forum selection, free speech, and the application of copyright law nationwide. This episode was produced by Jose Landivar, Senior Associate at Coates IP LLP, with contributions from Philippa Loengard, Executive Director, Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts and Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School, and support from the New York City Bar Association Communications Team. Copyright Lately: Creative Law for Curious People – www.copyrightlately.com

Washington Wednesday on Trump's most significant achievement, World Tour on Prime Minister Mark Carney's political leverage, and digitizing New Testament manuscripts. Plus, Cal Thomas on unconventional alternatives for Los Angeles voters, a misnamed Bluetooth speaker, and the Wednesday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donateAdditional support comes from And from Dordt University, host of the upcoming At Work in the Garden conference, celebrating God's good design of work. Dordt.edu/gardenFrom Pensacola Theological Seminary... Preparing students to preach God's Word. go.pcci.edu/startseminaryAnd from rom Ambassadors Impact Network, a group of Christian investors funding companies that share the gospel through business. More at ambassadorsimpact.comnonprofit investor group that has helped investor members deploy over $26 million into more than 60 companies since 2018. The network seeks growth-stage businesses led by Christians who tangibly show and share the gospel. If you know an investor interested in faith-aligned private company opportunities, encourage them to explore membership at ambassadorsimpact.com

(15) Malcolm Hoenlein explains that Iran continues its "forever war" by funding Hezbollah despite ongoing truce negotiations. Prime Minister Netanyahu faces internal pressure while assessing potential ceasefires and the ongoing threat of Hamas rebuilding in Gaza.BRUSSELLS

On JHLT: The Podcast, we kick off June with a paper entitled "Serial assessment of modified Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions SHOCK classification in post-cardiotomy patients," which is available online now and in the June issue of JHLT. Today's guests are first author Ufuk Baldan, MD and senior author Patrick Klein, MD, PhD, both of the Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands. We discuss: The heterogeneous nature of post-cardiotomy shock and challenges to treat Should serial assessments become standardized post-cardiac surgery? Does SCAI staging overestimate risk—and how do we interpret the stages we observe immediately post-op? What's next for this line of research? For the latest studies from JHLT, visit www.jhltonline.org/current, or, if you're an ISHLT member, access your Journal membership at www.ishlt.org/jhlt. Don't already get the Journal and want to read along? Join the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation at www.ishlt.org for a free subscription, or subscribe today at www.jhltonline.org.

Assessing your team's culture is an important step for your culture's future development. Jason discusses best practices for assessing the culture and leading real change. View Full Show Notes Here: https://www.jasonvbarger.com/podcast/assessing-your-team-culture/ Jason breaks down the critical architecture of a comprehensive cultural audit, explaining how elite teams can move beyond superficial surveys to actively calibrate their organizational environments. Please rate and review the podcast to help amplify these messages to others! Summary: Why do so many organizations excel at collecting workplace data yet consistently fail when translating those metrics into meaningful execution? In this episode of The Thermostat, Jason V. Barger breaks down the structural gap between simply "taking the temperature" of a workforce and actively "setting the temperature" for future growth. He explores why standard digitized employee engagement surveys often fail when deployed in isolation, and details a holistic methodology designed to map pain points and optimize organizational workflows. Moving past automated human resources checklists, Jason defines a robust, three-angled strategy for a comprehensive cultural audit. This framework blends organization-wide quantitative surveys with deeper cross-functional interviews and executive vantage point discovery sessions. By constructing a participatory assessment process rooted in active listening and clear forward plans, leaders can avoid employee cynicism, secure long-term buy-in, and successfully position corporate culture as a non-negotiable strategy. Essential listening for C-Suite executives, operations directors, and culture transformation advocates committed to leadership in teams, this episode offers a practical blueprint for turning baseline diagnostics into an active, high-performance roadmap. Episode Notes & Timestamps: [00:00] Intro: Jason introduces the essential requirement of evaluating your current corporate state before designing a future trajectory. [00:01] Calibrating the Thermostat: A milestone reflection on 335+ episodes and the ongoing commitment to breathing good oxygen into global workforces. [00:02] Authentic Algorithms: Why genuine human feedback is critical in the age of automated bots, and how listeners can help amplify positive leadership messages. [00:03] The 6 A's Framework: An overview of change management theory and the circular roadmap of Assess, Align, Aspire, Articulate, Act, and Anchor. [00:05] The Survey Trap: Examining why many companies get stuck in a passive loop of "taking the temperature" without ever building a real operational strategy. [00:08] The Cultural Audit Blueprint: How to design a holistic evaluation process using quantitative surveys to isolate trends across all departments. [00:09] Cross-Functional Layers: The power of structured qualitative interviews with multi-tiered representatives to extract deeper frontline insights. [00:10] Senior Leadership Vantage Points: Leading discovery sessions with the executive tier to target pain points and align baseline data with macro visions. [00:11] Core Values as Tools: Parallels between precise, actionable cultural language and utilizing assessment data as a living mechanism rather than a decorative poster. [00:13] Pillar 1 - Participatory Inclusion: Ensuring every employee feels their voice is an essential building block of upcoming operational pivots. [00:14] Pillar 2 - Active Listening Posture: Overcoming survey fatigue by transparently synthesizing, contextualizing, and sharing assessment results back with the workforce. [00:15] Pillar 3 - Decisive Action Plans: Activating the remaining 6A phases to turn qualitative benchmarks into sustainable corporate habits. [00:16] Strategic Inquiries: Jason outlines strategic closing questions to ponder for leaders preparing to gauge their team's current landscape. Key Takeaways for Leaders: Move Beyond Metrics: Avoid institutional cynicism by ensuring that every culture or engagement survey is instantly paired with a visible strategy for operational action. Holistic Diagnostics: Build a multi-angled cultural audit that checks automated survey data against deep cross-functional focus groups and executive roundtables. Foster Active Ownership: Build a highly participatory assessment process where frontline teams realize they are active co-creators of the target organizational temperature. Listen to the full episode and access show notes at: Bio: Jason Barger is a husband, father, speaker, and author who is passionate about business leadership and corporate culture. He believes that corporate culture is the "thermostat" of an organization, and that it can be used to drive performance, innovation, and engagement. The show features interviews with business leaders from a variety of industries, as well as solo episodes where Barger shares his own insights and advice. Connect: Subscribe to our channel: Make Your 2026 Effective!  Book Jason with your team at https://www.jasonvbarger.com Like or Follow Jason

Feral pigs are bad news for wild turkeys – but how bad, and what should you actually do about it? In this episode, we break down the latest research on pig population impacts, what pigs are eating, and why it matters for turkeys.   Resources: How pig removal affects turkeys | Ep 97 McDonough, M. T., et al. (2024). Population response of eastern wild turkey to removal of wild pigs. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 88(8), e22662. Stoakley, T. E., et al. (2025). Wild pigs impact reproductive season movements and space use of wild turkeys. Movement Ecology, 13(1), 59. Thanksgiving Special | Ep 54 Wilson, K. C., et al. (2026). Seasonal variation in wild pig (Sus scrofa) diet revealed by DNA metabarcoding. Wildlife Society Bulletin, e70019. Youngmann, et al. (2023). Assessing springtime vertebrate prey of sympatric mesopredators in the southeastern United States using metabarcoding analysis. Plos one, 18(10), e0293270.   Our lab is primarily funded by donations. If you would like to help support our work, please donate here: http://UFgive.to/UFGameLab   We've launched our second online wild turkey course  ! Enroll in  Wild Turkey Manager: Biology, History & Habitat to learn about the principal biology, mating, behavior, food selection, human dimensions, hunter interactions, and historical context of wild turkeys. This course is accredited by the Society of American Foresters as a Category 2 course worth 7 Continuing Forestry Education credits. Participants can also earn up to 5 CEUs in Category I of The Wildlife Society's Certified Wildlife Biologist Program. Enroll now: https://tinyurl.com/WildTurkeyManagerBio   Be sure to check out our first comprehensive online wild turkey course featuring experts across multiple institutions that specialize in habitat management and population management for wild turkeys. Earn up to 20.5 CFE hours! Enroll Now!    Dr. Marcus Lashley @DrDisturbance, Publications Dr. Will Gulsby @dr_will_gulsby, Publications Turkeys for Tomorrow @turkeysfortomorrow  UF Game Lab @ufgamelab, YouTube   Want to help wild turkey conservation? Please take our quick survey to take part in our research!   Do you have a topic you'd like us to cover? Leave us a review or send us an email at wildturkeyscience@gmail.com!   Watch these podcasts on YouTube   Please help us by taking our (quick) listener survey - Thank you!    Check out the DrDisturbance YouTube channel! DrDisturbance YouTube   Want to help support the podcast? Our friends at Grounded Brand have an option to donate directly to Wild Turkey Science at checkout. Thank you in advance for your support!   Leave a podcast rating for a chance to win free gear!   This podcast is made possible by Turkeys for Tomorrow, a grassroots organization dedicated to the wild turkey. To learn more about TFT, go to turkeysfortomorrow.org.    Music by Artlist.io Produced & edited by Charlotte Nowak

Feral pigs are bad news for wild turkeys – but how bad, and what should you actually do about it? In this episode, we break down the latest research on pig population impacts, what pigs are eating, and why it matters for turkeys.   Resources: How pig removal affects turkeys | Ep 97 McDonough, M. T., et al. (2024). Population response of eastern wild turkey to removal of wild pigs. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 88(8), e22662. Stoakley, T. E., et al. (2025). Wild pigs impact reproductive season movements and space use of wild turkeys. Movement Ecology, 13(1), 59. Thanksgiving Special | Ep 54 Wilson, K. C., et al. (2026). Seasonal variation in wild pig (Sus scrofa) diet revealed by DNA metabarcoding. Wildlife Society Bulletin, e70019. Youngmann, et al. (2023). Assessing springtime vertebrate prey of sympatric mesopredators in the southeastern United States using metabarcoding analysis. Plos one, 18(10), e0293270.   Our lab is primarily funded by donations. If you would like to help support our work, please donate here: http://UFgive.to/UFGameLab   We've launched our second online wild turkey course  ! Enroll in  Wild Turkey Manager: Biology, History & Habitat to learn about the principal biology, mating, behavior, food selection, human dimensions, hunter interactions, and historical context of wild turkeys. This course is accredited by the Society of American Foresters as a Category 2 course worth 7 Continuing Forestry Education credits. Participants can also earn up to 5 CEUs in Category I of The Wildlife Society's Certified Wildlife Biologist Program. Enroll now: https://tinyurl.com/WildTurkeyManagerBio   Be sure to check out our first comprehensive online wild turkey course featuring experts across multiple institutions that specialize in habitat management and population management for wild turkeys. Earn up to 20.5 CFE hours! Enroll Now!    Dr. Marcus Lashley @DrDisturbance, Publications Dr. Will Gulsby @dr_will_gulsby, Publications Turkeys for Tomorrow @turkeysfortomorrow  UF Game Lab @ufgamelab, YouTube   Want to help wild turkey conservation? Please take our quick survey to take part in our research!   Do you have a topic you'd like us to cover? Leave us a review or send us an email at wildturkeyscience@gmail.com!   Watch these podcasts on YouTube   Please help us by taking our (quick) listener survey - Thank you!    Check out the DrDisturbance YouTube channel! DrDisturbance YouTube   Want to help support the podcast? Our friends at Grounded Brand have an option to donate directly to Wild Turkey Science at checkout. Thank you in advance for your support!   Leave a podcast rating for a chance to win free gear!   This podcast is made possible by Turkeys for Tomorrow, a grassroots organization dedicated to the wild turkey. To learn more about TFT, go to turkeysfortomorrow.org.    Music by Artlist.io Produced & edited by Charlotte Nowak

Dan is here for the latest edition of Redmen Weekly. This week's show includes clips from The Biased Football Podcast, Journo Insight, and the end-of-season specials: Keep, Sell or Loan and Player Ratings. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Friday's Football at Four on 973 ESPN South Jersey, Inside the Birds' Adam Caplan takes an inside look at what the #Eagles passing game will look like and who figures to benefit once A.J. Brown is traded.► Subscribe to our Patreon Channel for exclusive information not seen or heard anywhere else and become among smartest Birds fans out there (just ask our members!!) + get all of our shows commercial free!!https://www.patreon.com/insidethebirds► Sign up for our newsletter! • Visit http://eepurl.com/hZU4_n.►Support our sponsors!!► Camden Apothecary: https://camdenapothecary.com/Follow the Hosts!► Follow our Podcast on Twitter: https://twitter.com/InsideBirds► Follow Geoff Mosher on Twitter: https://twitter.com/geoffpmosher► Follow Adam Caplan on Twitter: https://twitter.com/caplannfl► Follow Sam Finkel on Twitter: https://twitter.com/sam_finkelNFL insider veterans take an in-depth look that no other show can offer! Be sure to subscribe to stay up to date with the latest news, rumors, and discussions.For more, be sure to check out our official website: https://www.insidethebirds.com.

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

0:00 - The Avs and the Nuggets are in different situations roster-wise. The Nuggets might know what they need to do, but don't have the cap room to do it. Meanwhile, the Avalanche don't know WHAT to do, and maybe they don't need to do anything! They're different sides of the same weird coin.15:14 - Vic hosted Von Miller's Von's Vision fundraiser last night, and he got the Vonster to give us a few minutes this morning! Von has publicly campaigned for a return to the Broncos for years now. Why? Why does he want to come back? What would his role be?32:49 - Yesterday, Claude Lemiux tragically passed away at the age of 60. RIP an Avalanche legend & an NHL legend.

In today's episode, Dr. Mark Holthouse dives into the fears surrounding breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy, separating myth from evidence with a critical look at the real data. Our expert speaker unpacks the latest clinical trials and position statements, clarifying the nuanced relationship between various hormone therapies and breast cancer risk.We'll explore what the research says about synthetic versus bioidentical hormones, address common patient concerns, and provide actionable insights for risk assessment and individualized care. This episode delivers an integrative approach to hormone therapy and breast cancer, bridging the gap between scientific literature and real-world practice. To enroll in the Sex Steroid Optimization Master Class with Dr. Mark Holthouse, go to https://pages.kharrazianinstitute.com/holthouse-hormoneTo become a Certified Functional Medicine practitioner, visit https://kharrazianinstitute.com/⁠. Try our 7-day free trial, no credit card required. 00:00 WHI study on hormone therapy04:45 Hormone therapy risks discussion07:58 Discussing natural vs synthetic HRT13:11 Transdermal hormone therapy studies17:55 Rethinking full-fat dairy for women21:11 Time restricted eating for women22:57 Assessing breast cancer risk25:30 Understanding genetic risk factors29:37 Evaluating breast cancer risk factorsSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/solving-the-puzzle-with-dr-datis-kharrazian. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Airlines have been adding special seats and beds to accommodate first class and premium travelers. The FAA, however, is questioning the safety of those seats. For more, KCBS Radio News anchor Holly Quan spoke with Bloomberg Chief Aviation Correspondent Siddarth Philip.

Welcome to IDEA Collider. In this episode, host Alex Gray is joined by IDEA Pharma colleagues David Radwaner and Tom Brockbank to dissect the history, strategy, and future of immuno-oncology (IO). The trio explores how PD-1 and PD-L1 therapies revolutionized cancer treatment, acting as a brake on the immune system to offer unprecedented durability and long-term survival for patients.  They take a deep dive into the fascinating commercial and clinical race between Merck's Keytruda and BMS's Opdivo. Learn how Merck's strategic decisions—including smart statistical trial designs, targeted biomarker approaches in first-line non-small cell lung cancer, and tumor-agnostic labels like MSI-high—allowed Keytruda to secure market dominance. Finally, Alex, David, and Tom look ahead to the next ten years, discussing whether emerging players like AstraZeneca and China's Akeso / Summit will displace Keytruda, or if the future lies in combination therapies.    Episode Timestamps:  00:00:00 - Introduction: Meet David Radwaner, Tom Brockbank, and host Alex Gray.  00:01:45 - The Origins of IO: The Nobel Prize-winning discovery of PD-1 and CTLA-4 checkpoints.  00:03:55 - Why PD-1 / PD-L1 Won: The unique breadth of utility and unparalleled durability of long-term survival.  00:06:21 - Keytruda vs. Opdivo: How Merck's strategic trial design and smart statistical work outpaced BMS's early lead.  00:11:48 - The NSCLC Inflection Point: Why narrowing the patient population (PD-L1 - 50%) cemented Keytruda's foundation in first-line lung cancer.  00:14:20 - Tumor-Agnostic Success: Merck's bold move into MSI-high and broad biomarker-led strategies.  00:16:09 - Science or Luck? Analyzing Merck's aggressive and risky clinical development strategy.  00:18:00 - The Next 10 Years: Will anyone displace Keytruda? Assessing the future strategies of Merck, BMS, AstraZeneca, and Akeso/Summit    Don't forget to Like, Share, Subscribe, Rate, and Review!   Keep up with Alex Gray;  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexander-gray-934a653/    Keep up with David Radwaner;  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-radwaner-1b496343/    Keep up with Tom Brockbank;  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-brockbank-159bb4116/      Follow IDEA Pharma On; Website: https://www.ideapharma.com/    Listen to more fantastic podcast episodes: https://ideacollider.simplecast.com/

DuckTerritory's Matt Prehm and Erik Skopil took a look at Oregon's 2026 football schedule. The two broke down each game, making predictions and looking at possible challenges before assessing the difficult of each month. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The HSE has launched new tiered approach to autism assessment and intervention. For the details Adam Harris Founder and CEO of AsIAm, Ireland's Autism Charity.

"Assessing the Chronic Diseases That Have Gripped Children" - Listen to my Morning Monologue: I'm sharing my take on pressing issues, enlightening research on human behavior, answering questions I get by email, and my favorite, most instructive interactions with callers. Everything you'll hear is designed to help you become a better spouse, parent, family member, co-worker, friend, and human being. It's the free therapy you need!  Call 1-800-DR-LAURA / 1-800-375-2872 or make an appointment at DrLaura.com Follow me on social media: Facebook.com/DrLaura Instagram.com/DrLauraProgram YouTube.com/DrLaura Join My Family!! Receive my Weekly Newsletter + 20% off my Marriage 101 course & 25% off Merch! Sign up now, it's FREE! Each week you'll get new articles, featured emails from listeners, special event invitations, early access to my Dr. Laura Designs Store benefiting Children of Fallen Patriots, and MORE! Sign up at DrLaura.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

I accidentally left all four windows down in a rainstorm and it completely soaked my car — and it turned into one of the best mindset lessons I've shared. When unexpected adversity hits your life, the way you respond in those first critical moments determines how much damage actually gets done. In this episode, I break down the three-step process I used to handle the situation and how you can apply it to any storm life throws your way. Key Takeaways You can't always stop the rain, but you can always stop the bleeding — focus on preventing the situation from getting worse before anything else. High stress and panic raise cortisol levels, which actively block your ability to make sound decisions when you need them most. Sitting in a "woe is me" spiral wastes the critical window where action could turn things around. Getting momentum quickly after a setback reduces the sting and starts pulling you back on track, even before the situation is fully resolved. Assessing what went wrong after the dust settles builds experience, and enough experience stacked together becomes wisdom. Action Steps The next time adversity hits, immediately ask yourself: "What can I do right now to keep this from getting worse?" Take that one action before anything else. Shift from asking "why did this happen to me?" to "what is the fix?" as fast as possible — forward momentum is what closes the gap between the problem and the solution. After the crisis is handled, do a honest assessment of what caused it and what you can change or deactivate in your life so it doesn't repeat. Notable Quote Enough of those experiences together, that's called experience. And enough of that experience is called wisdom.

In this episode, we discuss today's AI financing wave looks more disciplined than past infrastructure investment booms, yet it still demands selectivity. The discussion and content provided within this podcast is intended for informational purposes only and may not be appropriate for all investors. Reliance upon information provided in a podcast is at the sole responsibility of the listener. The information included herein is not based on any particularized financial situation, or need, and is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, a forecast, research, investment advice or a recommendation for any specific PIMCO or other security, strategy, product or service. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. Investors should speak to their financial advisors regarding the investment mix that may be right for them based on their financial situation and investment objective. Podcasts may involve discussions with non-PIMCO personnel and such content contain the current opinions of the speaker but not necessarily those of PIMCO. Other podcasts may consist of audio recording of an existing PIMCO article and such material contains the current opinions of the manager. The opinions expressed in all podcasts are subject to change without notice. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. PIMCO as a general matter provides services to qualified institutions, financial intermediaries and institutional investors. This is not an offer to any person in any jurisdiction where unlawful or unauthorized. For additional important information go to www.pimco.com/gbl/en/general/legal-pages/podcast-disclosuresCMR2026-0521-5513952-T

Did the biblical authors believe in a divine council of heavenly beings surrounding God? In this episode, Dru Johnson sits down with Hebrew Bible scholar Jamie Duguid to unpack one of the most controversial debates in modern biblical scholarship: the meaning of “sons of God” in Deuteronomy 32 and the growing influence of Michael Heiser's Divine Council worldview. The conversation explores the Hebrew phrase bene elohim, the Divine Council interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8, and whether the Bible presents Yahweh as ruling among other divine beings. Duguid and Johnson examine the textual evidence behind the debate, including the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac translations, and Isaiah 40–55. They also discuss Genesis 6, Psalm 82, angels, demons, ancient Near Eastern religion, monotheism vs. henotheism, and why the Divine Council framework has become so influential through scholars like Heiser. If you've wondered whether the Bible teaches the existence of other gods, spiritual powers, or a heavenly council, this episode offers a careful, scholarly, and deeply accessible exploration of one of the Bible's most fascinating theological questions.   Read more of Dr. Duguid's work here: https://www.quaerendum.com/   We are listener supported. Give to the cause here: https://hebraicthought.org/give For more articles: https://thebiblicalmind.org/ Social Links: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HebraicThought Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hebraicthought Threads: https://www.threads.net/hebraicthought X: https://www.twitter.com/HebraicThought Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hebraicthought.org Chapters: 00:00 Introduction to the Divine Council Debate 07:14 Understanding Elohim and Divine Beings 13:22 The Role of the Divine Council in Scripture 18:52 The Importance of the Masoretic Text 24:55 Exploring Alternative Texts: Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch 31:04 The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls on Biblical Texts 33:21 Exploring the Dead Sea Scrolls 35:39 Textual Variations in Biblical Manuscripts 40:11 Theological Implications of Textual Differences 45:18 Assessing the Nature of Divine Beings 51:57 Reconceptualizing Godhood in Scripture 56:57 Critiques and Responses to Heiser's Work  

In this episode of the ChinaPower Podcast, Ambassador Edgard Kagan joins us to unpack President Trump's recent summit with President Xi Jinping. He discusses the contrasting U.S. and Chinese readouts, Beijing's push for a “constructive relationship of strategic stability,” and the priorities of each side. The conversation examines China's role in Iran, Taiwan, and what to watch as Trump and Xi prepare for additional meetings later this year.  Ambassador Edgard Kagan is senior adviser and Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

The transfer portal has changed the dynamics of college football. Wide receiver positions are particularly challenging to evaluate this year. CFF viability is different from Debbie viability for players. Teams need to assess their rosters for potential trades before the supplemental draft. Quarterback depth is strong this year, but wide receiver depth is lacking. CFF teams can still compete even with weaker rosters if managed well. Identifying breakout players is crucial for success in CFF. Supplemental drafts can provide valuable assets for rebuilding teams. It's important to balance CFF and Debbie assets in roster management. Understanding league rules can impact roster strategies. Stay healthy to maximize player potential. Drew Mestamaker may be overrated this offseason. Darien Mensah is a more reliable asset than Mestamaker. Wide receiver depth is crucial for team success. Focus on rebuilding running back positions in drafts. Evaluate current rosters for potential trades. G6 running backs can provide value in supplemental drafts. Player hype can often be misleading. Assessing player performance against competition is key. Roster management is essential for long-term success. Felix Sharpie is new to the game, indicating a rebuilding phase. Rebuilding a team requires careful evaluation of key players. Supplemental drafts are crucial for acquiring talent. Wide receiver positions are challenging to fill effectively. Active trading can help teams stay competitive throughout the season. Marcellus Hawkins is a potential breakout player for Virginia Tech. Carter Vargas is a strong candidate for RB1 at Cal. Phil Steele's depth charts provide valuable insights for roster decisions. Understanding player potential is key to successful drafting. Teams must adapt to injuries and off-field issues affecting players. 00:00 "We're going to be reviewing some C2C teams"   04:48 "Is this feel like a down year for CFF purposes?"   06:03 "This is a little bit of a reset year"   09:10 "The hardest position to nail is wide receiver"   21:29 "This team is ready to go"   33:25 "There's some holes in question marks"   36:15 "The running backs really are the star of the show"   36:48 "You just got to stay healthy."   40:28 "I think the same for Messamaker."   44:28 "You need to go hit your supplemental hard."   61:03 "Give me some feedback, guys."   61:10 "You can tell he's new to the game."   62:37 "You're in what I would consider a full rebuild."   63:27 "There's some players to work with here."   65:13 "Carter Vargas could take over as RB1."   69:31 "Wide receivers are always tough to replace."   75:49 "Marcellus Hawkins is projected to be the RB one."   Chapters   00:00 Introduction and Guest Introduction   03:48 CFF Landscape and Current Trends   06:50 Team Breakdown: Thomas Peterson's Roster   18:42 Team Breakdown: Husker One's Roster   31:55 Team Breakdown: 50 Shades of Elps' Roster   36:48 Evaluating Player Potential and Team Needs   39:13 The Hype Around Drew Mestamaker   41:58 Wide Receiver Strategies and Comparisons   44:31 Rebuilding the Roster: Focus on Running Backs   51:47 Assessing the Current Roster and Future Prospects   58:40 Breaking Down Felix Sharp's Roster   61:10 Rebuilding Challenges in College Football   63:45 Evaluating Key Players and Potential   66:24 The Importance of Supplemental Drafts   70:15 Navigating the Wide Receiver Market   72:27 Strategies for Competitive Teams   83:11 Final Thoughts and Future Prospects Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Anezka Christovova, Ben Ramsey and Michael Harrison discuss the latest market developments and their impacts for the EM fixed income asset class.   This podcast was recorded on 20 May 2026. This communication is provided for information purposes only. For more information; please visit www.jpmm.com/research/disclosures for important disclosures. © 2026 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved. This material or any portion hereof may not be reprinted, sold or redistributed without the written consent of J.P. Morgan. It is strictly prohibited to use or share without prior written consent from J.P. Morgan any research material received from J.P. Morgan or an authorized third-party (“J.P. Morgan Data”) in any third-party artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems or models when such J.P. Morgan Data is accessible by a third-party.

In this edition of the Peristyle Podcast, Shotgun Spratling is joined by co-host RJ Abeytia in studio for a special pop-up episode with Shotgun being in town. Shotgun picks the brain of RJ about his spring camp observations and takeaways, including the overall improved depth of the roster and thoughts on where the USC football culture stands after a spring where 31 freshmen were indoctrinated. In the second segment of the show, Shotgun and RJ run through the roster giving their anticipated two-deep depth chart along with where they foresee the biggest position battles taking place this fall when the Trojans return to the practice field before opening with a Week 0 game against San Jose State. Please review, rate and subscribe to the Peristyle Podcast on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! Make sure you check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠USCFootball.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for complete coverage of this USC Trojan football team. 

Roland Garros 2026 is almost here but first… we need to dive into the 2026 Rome Recap — Andy Roddick and Jon Wertheim break down Jannik Sinner's historic run: six consecutive Masters 1000 titles, a Career Golden Masters, and stats that are simply unplayable. Plus, the incredible story of Elina Svitolina: a transformed player post-motherhood, representing Ukraine with pride while her country faces ongoing conflict. We also sit down with Marta Kostyuk (ranked a career-high #15) fresh off her Madrid title for a candid conversation about her win at the 2026 Madrid Open, growing up on the tennis court, and what it means to be a Ukrainian athlete right now. COMMENT BELOW: Who are your favorites heading into the 2026 French Open?

This week on the TABLE TALK interview podcast, Jeff sat down with Ty Daubert from PhilliesNation.com for a great and in-depth conversation about the current state of the Phillies farm system. How does the depth look in the minors? The guys dove into top prospects Aiden Miller and the concerns about his health as well as Gage Wood's fastball. Might we see OF Felix Reyes and SS Christian Cairo up in the majors? All of this and much more this week on the Table Talk interview show!SUBSCRIBE on YouTube: youtube.com/@thephiladelphiasportstableHead over to our website for all of our podcasts and more: philadelphiasportstable.comFollow us on Threads: @philadelphiasportstableFollow us on Twitter/X: @PhiladelphiaPSTFollow us on Instagram: @philadelphiasportstable.Follow us on Facebook: facebook.com/PhiladelphiaSportsTable

Navigating the world of tethered oral tissues (TOTs) can often feel like wading through murky waters. With so much conflicting information out there, it's incredibly easy for clinicians to fall into the trap of letting a visual anatomical structure dictate their entire treatment plan. But looking at a tongue or lip tie doesn't tell you the whole story.In this solo episode, Hallie Bulkin dives deep into the complexities of diagnosing and treating tethered oral tissues during feeding evaluations. She pulls back the curtain on why presence does not automatically equal cause, and why a systematic, function-first approach is the only way to truly help your pediatric patients.Whether you are feeling the pressure from families to provide quick answers or trying to differentiate between a primary and secondary driver of a feeding challenge, this episode is a crucial masterclass in clinical decision-making. Tune in to learn how to move past the anatomy trap and build ultimate confidence in your functional assessments.Key Topics & TakeawaysThe Murky Waters of TOTs: Why diagnosing and treating tethered oral tissues has become a clinical minefield, and how to navigate it safely.Presence vs. Cause: A critical reminder that just because an anatomical tie exists does not mean it is the primary driver of the family's feeding struggles.Common Clinical Traps: How relying solely on visual anatomy can lead to incomplete treatment plans and poor patient outcomes.The Function-First Framework: Why evaluating dynamic feeding function is the only way to give structural anatomy its true meaning.Primary vs. Secondary Drivers: Learn how to decipher when a tie is the root cause of a feeding issue versus when it is simply an incidental finding.Soundbites"Don't let anatomy lead your feeding plan.""Presence does not equal cause.""Feeding function gives anatomy its true meaning."Timestamps00:00 – Introduction to Tethered Oral Tissues and clinical challenges.01:24 – The murky waters of diagnosis and the role of anatomy.02:32 – Understanding feeding challenges as multifactorial.03:02 – Limitations of relying solely on anatomy.04:22 – Common clinical traps in tethered oral tissue cases (Traps 1 & 2).05:11 – Trap No. 3: Treating the restriction instead of the feeding pattern.07:13 – Trap No. 4: Skipping a full feeding assessment because the tie feels explanatory.07:50 – Pressure to provide quick answers and the importance of function.08:15 – Shifting focus to feeding function over anatomy.09:21 – Feeding function as the key to meaningful anatomy interpretation.10:00 – Primary vs. secondary drivers of feeding difficulties.11:50 – When ties are incidental and not the main issue.12:10 – Assessing functional impact and developing confidence.13:30 – The value of structured feeding assessment training.14:37 – Empowering clinicians with feeding function knowledge & final wrap-up.Links & ResourcesDive deeper with Tongue Tie BootcampWORTH A LISTEN: CONTINUE YOUR JOURNEYEpisode 348: Tongue Ties, Sleep Apnea & More: The Patient-Centered Approach to Airway DentistryEpisode 363: Tongue Ties, Oral Habits & the Future of Airway HealthSTAY CONNECTED & GROW YOUR PRACTICE