Podcasts about Challenger

In this episode of Aviation News Talk, we begin with the developing details Weather accidents in general aviation often happen to pilots who genuinely believe they're cautious about flying in marginal conditions. But when you look closely at the chain of decisions that lead up to VFR-into-IMC crashes, a consistent pattern emerges—fatigue, long flights, pressure to complete a trip, weakening visibility, and the belief that "I can stay just under this." In Episode 404 of Aviation News Talk, Max Trescott unpacks a tragic example of this pattern and shows how NTSB data helps explain why GA pilots continue to stumble into weather accidents. Max begins with a detailed look at a 2023 crash involving a Piper Archer, N21480, flown by a 66-year-old private pilot who was en route from Maine to Sun 'n Fun. The pilot had made this long trip multiple times before and was familiar with the route. He departed Maine, stopped twice for fuel, and ended the day by sleeping on a couch in a pilot lounge—after ordering Uber Eats at around 8 p.m. According to his wife, the pilot routinely camped at airports, carried sleeping gear and guitars, and prided himself on being cautious about weather. The next morning, however, the signs of fatigue were visible. An airport employee who spoke with the pilot noted he looked tired and "could see the fatigue in his eyes." Despite checking weather and considering waiting out an approaching system, the pilot ultimately chose to depart. He told ATC he wanted to remain low—around 1,600 feet—to stay VFR under the cloud layer. Unfortunately, this strategy is one of the most dangerous choices a VFR pilot can make. Staying low reduces options, shrinks reaction time, and increases the likelihood of inadvertently entering IMC. Eight minutes after informing ATC he wanted to stay low to maintain VFR, the pilot's track shows the airplane turning right and descending. When the controller asked if he was maneuvering to stay below the clouds, the pilot replied: "Mayday, mayday, in the clouds, I'm going down." Witnesses described the airplane descending nearly straight down. The NTSB report revealed worsening weather, nearby convective activity, cloud bases around 1,300 feet AGL, and an overcast layer with tops near 3,500 feet. The pilot had passed an airport less than two miles before the crash—an airport he may have been trying to return to during his final 360-degree turn. But like many non-instrument-rated pilots who enter IMC unintentionally, he lost control within about a minute, consistent with studies showing that VFR pilots often lose control within three minutes of entering clouds. Max then connects this accident to a broader NTSB study, Risk Factors Associated with Weather-Related General Aviation Accidents (SS-05/01). This landmark analysis compared 72 weather-related accidents with 135 non-accident flights occurring nearby at the same time. The goal was to uncover what differentiates pilots who get into trouble from those who do not. The results were eye-opening. The most significant predictor was the age at which a pilot earned their first certificate, not their age at the time of the accident. Pilots who learned to fly at age 25 or younger had the lowest risk. Those who trained between 25 and 35 had a 4.5-times higher risk, between 35 and 45 had a 4.8-times higher risk, and pilots who started at 45 or older had a 3.4-times higher risk. The South Carolina pilot earned his certificate at around age 49. Another major factor was lack of an instrument rating. Non-instrument-rated pilots had a 4.8-times greater likelihood of a weather accident. Long flights were also a major contributor: legs of 300 miles or more sharply increased risk. Pilots involved in accidents were less likely to have obtained thorough weather briefings and more likely to have had previous incidents or accidents. One of the most striking findings concerned written and checkride performance. Accident pilots had cumulative pass rates averaging 84–86%, while non-accident pilots averaged around 95%. Some accident pilots had multiple failed checkrides, including one commuter pilot who had failed nine practical tests. The study concluded that stronger written and checkride performance was statistically linked to lower accident involvement. From there, Max shifts to what pilots can do differently, starting with awareness. Humans are poor at detecting gradual reductions in visibility—the "frog in warm water" problem. Max describes an early flight to Massachusetts where visibility slowly degraded from 25 miles to around 10 miles, yet he didn't notice until the change became obvious. To counter this, he recommends periodically estimating visibility in flight using runway lengths, moving-map distances, landmarks, and horizon clarity. Max also teaches a simple method for estimating cloud clearance using a 45-degree reference point on the cloud base. By timing how long it takes to reach the point beneath the cloud and using your groundspeed, you can determine if you're maintaining the required 500-foot clearance. The same geometry works for estimating horizontal cloud distance. Finally, Max emphasizes fatigue and decision-making. After nearly 10 hours of flying the day before, poor sleep on a couch, and an early morning departure, the pilot in the accident was not at peak performance. Nutrition also matters—low glucose levels degrade decision-making. Max stresses the need to set clear weather trigger points before departure, brief passengers on them, and stick to the plan. For any pilot who flies VFR, especially on long cross-country trips, this episode highlights why VFR-into-IMC accidents still happen—and how to stay VFR by using better judgment, better tools, and objective visibility cues. If you're getting value from this show, please support the show via PayPal, Venmo, Zelle or Patreon. Support the Show by buying a Lightspeed ANR Headsets Max has been using only Lightspeed headsets for nearly 25 years! I love their tradeup program that let's you trade in an older Lightspeed headset for a newer model. Start with one of the links below, and Lightspeed will pay a referral fee to support Aviation News Talk. Lightspeed Delta Zulu Headset $1199 HOLIDAY SPECIALNEW – Lightspeed Zulu 4 Headset $1099 Lightspeed Zulu 3 Headset $949Lightspeed Sierra Headset $749 My Review on the Lightspeed Delta Zulu Send us your feedback or comments via email If you have a question you'd like answered on the show, let listeners hear you ask the question, by recording your listener question using your phone. News Stories Successful Parachute Pulls Hurricane Relief Flight Crashes in Florida General Aviation Adapts as FAA Adjusts Restrictions Fire Destroys Three Aircraft at Avon Park, Florida Hawker accident pilots chose not to wait for a test pilot Pilot presses wrong lever in unfamiliar plane N59BR, Challenger 1 experimental aircraft rudder pedals crash Joby Tests Military Hybrid VTOL Helicopter pilot pleads guilty in 2021 TN crash that killed passenger New Details on Alaska Airlines Pilot Who Tried To Kill Engines Mid-Flight Mentioned on the ShowBuy Max Trescott's G3000 Book Call 800-247-6553 Max's FLYING Column on use of the Autopilot APR key Free Index to the first 282 episodes of Aviation New Talk So You Want To Learn to Fly or Buy a Cirrus seminars Online Version of the Seminar Coming Soon – Register for Notification Check out our recommended ADS-B receivers, and order one for yourself. Yes, we'll make a couple of dollars if you do. Get the Free Aviation News Talk app for iOS or Android. Check out Max's Online Courses: G1000 VFR, G1000 IFR, and Flying WAAS & GPS Approaches. Find them all at: https://www.pilotlearning.com/ Social Media Like Aviation News Talk podcast on Facebook Follow Max on Instagram Follow Max on Twitter Listen to all Aviation News Talk podcasts on YouTube or YouTube Premium "Go Around" song used by permission of Ken Dravis; you can buy his music at kendravis.com If you purchase a product through a link on our site, we may receive compensation.

Articles and features from the the Community Challenger, a weekly newspaper in Buffalo, NY

Was bringen Shopping-Agenten dem Online-Handel? In den neuesten Exchanges unterhalten sich Jochen Krisch und Marcel Weiß über die Agentic Shopping Möglichkeiten in den neuen KI-Browsern und warum nicht nur Amazon ein Problem damit hat. Werbepartner: SCAYLE ist eine der am schnellsten wachsenden Enterprise E-commerce Plattformen der Welt und macht Enterprise Commerce einfach: unter anderem für Europas größten Schuhhändler, Deichmann, für einen der größten Optiker Europas, Fielmann oder auch für DEN Traditions Department Store aus London, Harrods. Im Gartner Magic Quadrant for Digital Commerce 2025 wurden sie jetzt als Challenger ausgezeichnet - mehr dazu und den vollständigen Bericht findest Du hier: https://fcld.ly/gartner-2025

Amanda Lang takes a ‘by the numbers' look at how technology shifts are affecting Canada’s jobs market. She then digs further into the issue with John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray and Christmas. In Canada, jobs are holding on, but the economy is facing a tsunami of job losses in the public sector – Amanda speaks with Jim Stanford, Director of the Centre for Future Work.

I'm not an environmentalist, but rather someone who works to move society toward a healthy relationship with the rest of nature. The notion that we are separate makes no sense to me. So I was drawn to this week's guest, MELANIE CHALLENGER, who writes on the relationship of humans to the living world. She does field research - including in the Arctic and Antarctica, is an award-winning poet, has written librettos for classical choral pieces, has an opera in the works, and is Vice-President of UK's RSPCA. Her books include HOW TO BE ANIMAL: What It Means to Be Human. You can learn more at melaniechallenger.com

In this episode of In-Ear Insights, the Trust Insights podcast, Katie and Chris discuss essential sales frameworks and why they often fail today. You will understand why traditional sales methods like Challenger and SPIN selling struggle with modern complex purchases. You will learn how to shift your sales focus from rigid, linear frameworks to the actual non-linear journey of the customer. You will discover how to use ideal customer profiles and strong documentation to build crucial trust and qualify better prospects. You will explore methods for leveraging artificial intelligence to objectively evaluate sales opportunities and improve your go/no-go decisions. Watch this episode to revolutionize your approach to high-stakes complex sales. Watch the video here: Can’t see anything? Watch it on YouTube here. Listen to the audio here: https://traffic.libsyn.com/inearinsights/tipodcast-sales-frameworks-basics-and-ai.mp3 Download the MP3 audio here. Need help with your company’s data and analytics? Let us know! Join our free Slack group for marketers interested in analytics! [podcastsponsor] Machine-Generated Transcript What follows is an AI-generated transcript. The transcript may contain errors and is not a substitute for listening to the episode. **Christopher S. Penn – 00:00** In this week’s In Ear Insights. Even though AI is everywhere and is threatening to eat everything and stuff like that, the reality is that people still largely buy from people. And there are certainly things that AI does that can make that process faster and easier. But today I thought it might be good to review some of the basic selling frameworks, particularly for companies like ours, but in general, to help with complex sales. One of the things that—and Katie, I’d like your take on this—one of the things that people do most wrong in sales at the very outset is they segment out B2B versus B2C when they really should be segmenting out: simple sale versus complex sales. Simple sales, a pack of gum, there are techniques for increasing number of sales, but it’s a transaction. **Christopher S. Penn – 00:48** You walk into the store, you put down your money, you walk out with your pack of gum as opposed to a complex sale. Things like B2B SaaS software, some versions of it, or consulting services, or buying a house or a college education where there’s a lot of stakeholders, a lot of negotiation, and things like that. So when you think about selling, particularly as the CEO of Trust Insights who wants to sell more stuff, what do you think about advising people on how to sell better? **Katie Robbert – 01:19** Well, I should probably start with the disclaimer that I am not a trained salesperson. I happen to be very good with people and reading the situation and helping understand the pain points and needs pretty quickly. So that’s what I’ve always personally relied on in terms of how to sell things. And that’s not something that I can easily teach. So to your point, there needs to be some kind of a framework. I disagree with your opening statement that the biggest problem people have with selling or the biggest mistake that people make is the segmentation. I agree with simple versus complex, but I do think that there is something to be said about B2B versus B2C. You really have to start somewhere. **Katie Robbert – 02:08** And I think perhaps maybe if I back up even more, the advice that I would give is: Do you really know who you’re selling to? We’re all eager to close more business and make sure that the revenue numbers are going up and not down and that the pipeline is full. The way to do that—and again, I’m not a trained salesperson, so this is my approach—is I first want to make sure I’m super clear on our ideal customer profile, what their pain points are, and that we’re super clear on our own messaging so that we know that the services that we offer are matching the pain points of the customers that we want to have in our pipeline. When we started Trust Insights, we didn’t have that. **Katie Robbert – 02:59** We had a good sense of what we could do, what we were capable of, but at the same time were winging it. I think that over the past eight or so years we’ve learned a lot around how to focus and refine. It’s a crowded marketplace for anyone these days. Anyone who says they don’t really have competitors isn’t really looking that hard enough. But the competitors aren’t traditional competitors anymore. Competitors are time, competitors are resources, competitors are budget. Those are the reasons why you’re going to lose business. So if you have a sales team that’s trying to bring in more business, you need to make sure that you’re super hyper focused. So the long-winded way of saying the first place I would start is: Are you very specifically clear on who your ideal customer is? **Katie Robbert – 03:53** And are there different versions of that? Do they buy different things based on the different services that you offer? So as a non-salesperson who is forced to do sales, that’s where I. **Christopher S. Penn – 04:04** would start. That’s a good place to start. One of the things, and there’s a whole industry for this of selling, is all these different selling frameworks. You will hear some of them: SPIN selling, Solution Selling, Insight Selling, Challenger, Sandler, Hopkins, etc. It’s probably not a bad age to at least review them in aggregate because they’re all very similar. What differentiates them are specific tactics or specific types of emphasis. But they all follow the same Kennedy sales principles from the 1960s, which is: identify the problem, agitate the customer in some way so that they realize that the problem is a bigger problem than they thought, provide a solution of some point, a way, and then tell them, “Here’s how we solve this problem. Buy our stuff.” That’s the basic outline. **Christopher S. Penn – 05:05** Each of the systems has its own thin slice on how we do that better. So let’s do a very quick tour, and I’m going to be showing some stuff. If you’re listening to this, you can of course catch us on the Trust Insights YouTube channel. Go to Trust Insights.AI/YouTube. The first one is Solution Selling. This is from the 1990s. This is a very popular system. Again, look for people who actually have a problem you can fix. Two is get to know the audience. Three is the discovery process where you spend a lot of time consulting and asking the person what their challenges are. **Christopher S. Penn – 05:48** Figure out how you can add value to that, find an internal champion that can help get you inside the organization, and then build the closing win. So that’s Solution Selling. This one has been in use for almost 40 years in places, and for complex sales, it is highly effective. **Katie Robbert – 06:10** Okay. What’s interesting, though, is to your point, all the frameworks are roughly the same: give people what they need, bottom line. If you want to break it down into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 different steps because that’s easier for people to wrap their brains around, that’s totally fine. But really, it comes down to: What problems do they have? Can you solve the problem? Help them solve the problem, period. I feel, and I know we’re going to go through the other frameworks, so I’ll save my rant for afterwards. **Christopher S. Penn – 06:47** SPIN Selling, again, is very similar to the Kennedy system: Understand the situation, reveal the pain points, create urgency for change, and then lead the buyers to conclude on their own. This one spends less time on identifying the customers themselves. It assumes that your prospecting and your lead flow engine is separate and working. It is much more focused on the sales process itself. If you think about selling, you have business development representatives or sales development representatives (SDRs) up front who are smiling and dialing, calling for appointments and things like that, trying to fill a pipeline up front. Then you have account executives and actual sales folks who would be taking those warmed-up leads and working them. SPIN Selling very much focuses on the latter half of that particular process. The next one is Insight Selling. Insight Selling is a. **Christopher S. Penn – 07:44** It is differentiated by the fact that it tries to make the sales process much more granular: coaching the customer, communicating value, collaborating, accelerating commitment, implementing by cultivating the relationship, and changing the insight. The big thing about Insight Selling is that instead of very long-winded conversations and lots of meetings and calls, the Insight Selling process tries to focus on how you can take the sales process and turn it into bite-sized chunks for today’s short attention span audience. So you set up sales automation systems like Salesforce or marketing automation, but very much targeted towards the sales process to target each of these areas to say, what unusual insight can I offer a customer in this email or this text message, whatever essentially keeps them engaged. **Christopher S. Penn – 08:40** So it’s very much a sales engagement system, which I think. **Katie Robbert – 08:45** Makes sense because on a previous episode we were talking about client services, and if your account managers or whoever’s responsible for that relationship is saying only “just following up” and not giving any more context, I would ignore that. Following up on what? You have to remind me because now you’ve given me more work to do. I like this version of Insight Selling where it’s, “Hey, I know we haven’t chatted in a while, here’s something new, here’s something interesting that’s pertaining to you specifically.” It’s more work on the sales side, which quite honestly, it should be. Exactly. **Christopher S. Penn – 09:25** Insight Selling benefits most from a shop that is data-driven because you have to generate new insights, you have to provide things that are surprising, different takes on things, and non-obvious knowledge. To do that, you need to be plugged into what’s going on in your industry. If you don’t do that, then obviously your insights will land with a thud because your prospects will be, “Yeah, I already knew that. Tell me something I don’t know.” The Sandler Selling System is again very straightforward: Bonding, rapport, upfront contracts, which is the unique thing. They are saying be very structured in your sales process to try to avoid wasting people’s time. So every meeting should have a clear agenda that you’re going to cover in advance. Every meeting should have a purpose: uncovering pain points, finding budget. **Christopher S. Penn – 10:19** Budget is a distinctly separate step to say, “Can you even pay for our services?” If you can’t pay for our services, there’s no point in us going on to have this conversation. Then decision making, fulfillment, and post-sale. The last one, which probably is the most well known today, is the Challenger Sales Methodology. Challenger is what everybody promotes when you go to a sales event. It has been around for about 10 years now, and it is optimized for the complex sale. The six steps of Challenger are: warming, which is again rapport building; reframing the customer’s problem in a way that they didn’t know. **Christopher S. Penn – 11:05** So they borrowed from Insight Selling to say, “How can we use data and research to alter the way that somebody thinks about their problems into something that is more urgent?” Then you take them into rational drowning: Here’s what happens if you don’t do the thing, which addresses the number one competitor that most of us have, which is no decision, emotional impact. What happens if you don’t do the thing? Here’s a new way of doing the thing, and then of course, our way, and you try to close the sale. Challenger is probably again the one that you see the most these days. It incorporates chunks of the other systems, but all the different systems are appropriate based on your team. **Christopher S. Penn – 11:51** And that’s the part that a lot of people I think miss about sales methodologies: there isn’t a guaranteed working system. There are different systems that you choose from based on your team’s capabilities, who your customers are, and what works best for that combination of people. **Katie Robbert – 12:14** I’m going to say something completely out of character. I think frameworks are too rigid. That’s not something that you would normally catch me saying because generally I say I have a framework for that. But when it comes to sales, the thing that strikes me with all of these frameworks is it’s too focused on the salesperson and not focused enough on the customer that they’re selling to. You could argue that maybe the Insight Selling framework is focused a little bit more on the customer. But really, the end goal is to make money off of someone who may or may not need to be buying your stuff. Sales has always given me the ick. I get that it’s a necessary evil, but then—I don’t know—the. **Katie Robbert – 13:11** The thought of going in with a framework, and this is exactly how you’re going to do it. I can understand the value in doing that because you want people doing things in a fairly consistent way. But you’re selling to humans. I feel like that’s where it gets a little bit tricky. I feel like in order for me—and again, I’m an N of 1, I recognize this all the time, this is my own personal feelings on things—in order to feel comfortable with selling, I feel like there really needs to be trust. There needs to be a relationship that’s established. But it also comes down to what are you selling? Is it transactional? If I’m selling you a pack of gum, I don’t need to build trust and relationship. You have a clear need. **Katie Robbert – 13:55** You have stinky breath, you want to get some gum, you want to chew on it, that’s fine, go buy it. You and I don’t need to have a long interaction. But when you’re talking about the type of work that we do—customer service, consulting, marketing—there needs to be that level of trust and there needs to be that relationship. A lot of times it starts even before you get into these goofy sales frameworks, where someone saw one of us speaking on stage and they saw that we have authority. They see that we can speak articulately, maybe not right that second in an articulate way. They see that we are competent, and they’re like, “Huh, okay, that’s somebody that I could see myself working with, partnering with.” **Katie Robbert – 14:43** That kind of information isn’t covered in any of those frameworks: the trust building, the relationship building. It might be a little nugget at the beginning of your sales framework, but then the other 90% of the framework is about you, the salesperson, what you’re going to get out of your potential customer. I feel like that is especially true now where there’s so much spammy stuff and AI stuff. We’re getting inundated with email after email of, “Did you see my last email? I know you’re not even signed up for my thing, but I’m still trying to sell you something.” We’re so overwhelmed as consumers. Where is that human touch? It’s gone. It’s missing. **Christopher S. Penn – 15:29** So you’re 100% correct. The sales frameworks are targeted towards getting a salesperson to do things in a standardized manner and to cover all the bases. One of the things that has been a perpetual problem in sales management is, “What is this person not doing that should be moving the deal forward?” So for example, with Challenger, if a salesperson’s really good at emotional impact—they have good levels of empathy—they can say, “Yeah, this challenge is really important to your business,” but they’re bad at the reframe. They won’t get the prospect to that stage where their skills are best used. So I think you’re right that it’s too rigid and too self-centered in some respects. **Christopher S. Penn – 16:17** But in other respects, if you’re trying to get a person to do the thing, having the framework to say, “Yeah, you need to work on your reframing skills. Your reframing skills are lackluster. You’re not getting the prospects past this point because you’re not telling them anything they don’t already know.” When you don’t have a differentiator, then they fall back on, “Who’s the lowest price?” That doesn’t end well, particularly for complex sales. What is missing, which you identified exactly correctly, is there is no buyer-side sales framework. What is happening with the buyer? You see this in things like our ideal customer profiles. We have needs, pain points, goals, motivations in the buying process as part of that, to say what is happening. **Christopher S. Penn – 17:03** So if you were to take Challenger—and we’ve actually done this and I need to publish it at some point—what would the buyer’s perspective of Challenger be? If the salesperson said, “Build rapport,” the buyer side is, “Why should I trust this person?” If the seller side is “reframe,” the buyer side is, “Do I understand the problems I have? And does the salesperson understand the problems that I have? I don’t care about new insights. Solve my problem.” If the seller side is rational drowning, the buyer side is, “What is working? What isn’t working?” Emotional impact is where they do align, because if you have a whole bunch of stuff that’s not working, it has emotional impact. “New way” from the seller side becomes, for the buyer side, “Why is this better?” **Christopher S. Penn – 17:59** Why is this better than what we’re already doing? And then our solution versus the existing solution, which is typically, again, our number one sales competitor is no decision. One of the things that does not exist or should exist is using—and this is where AI could be really helpful—an ideal customer profile combined with a buyer-side buying framework to say, “Hey salesperson, you may be using this framework for your selling, but you’re not meeting the buyer where they are.” **Katie Robbert – 18:35** I also wonder, too. We often talk about how the customer journey is broken in a way because there’s an assumption that it’s linear, that it goes from step one to step two to step three to step four. I look at something like the Challenger framework and my first thought is, “Well, that’s assuming that things go in a linear and then this and then this fashion.” What we know from a customer journey, which to your point we need to marry to the selling journey, is it’s not always linear. It doesn’t always go step one to step two to step three. I may be ready for a solution, and my salesperson who’s trying to sell me something is, “Wait a second, we need to go through the first four steps first because that’s how the framework works.” **Katie Robbert – 19:24** And then we’ll get to your solution. I’m already going to get frustrated because I’m thinking, “No, I already know what the thing is. I don’t want to go through this emotional journey with you. I don’t even know you. Just sell me something.” I feel like that’s also where, in this context, frameworks are too rigid. Again, I’m all for a framework in terms of getting people to do things in a consistent way so you build that muscle memory. They know the points they’re supposed to hit. Then you need to give them the leeway to do things out of order because humans don’t do things in a linear way every single time as well. **Katie Robbert – 20:03** I think that’s what I was trying to get at: it’s not that I don’t think a framework is good for sales. I think frameworks are great, I love them. But every framework has to have just enough flexibility to work with the situation. Because very rarely, if ever, is a situation set up perfectly so that you can execute a framework exactly the way that it’s meant to be run. That’s one of the challenges I see with the sales framework: there’s an assumption that the buyer is going through all of these steps exactly as it’s outlined. And when you train someone on a framework to only follow those steps exactly in that order, that’s when, to your point, they start to fall down on certain pieces because they’re not adaptable. They can’t. **Katie Robbert – 20:52** Well, no, we’ve already done the self-awareness part of it. I can’t go backwards and do that again. We did that already. I’m ready to sell you something. I feel like that’s where the frustration starts 100%. **Christopher S. Penn – 21:04** So in that particular scenario, what we almost need to teach people is it’s the martial arts. There’s this expression: learn the basic, vary the basic, leave the basic behind. You learn how to do the thing so that you can actually do the thing, learn all the different variations, and eventually you transcend it. You don’t need that example anymore because you’ve learned it so thoroughly. You can pull out the pieces that you need at any given time, but to get to that black belt level of mastery, you need to go through all the other belts first. I think that’s where some of the frameworks can be useful. Whereas, to your point, if you rigidly lock people into that, then yeah, they’re going to use the wrong tool at the wrong time. **Christopher S. Penn – 21:49** The other thing—and this is something which is very challenging, but important—is if your sales team is properly trained and enabled, the incentive structure for a salesperson is to sell you something. There may be situations—we’ve run into plenty of them as principals of the company—where we’ve got nothing to sell you. There’s nothing that will fix your problem. Your problem is something that’s outside the scope of what we offer. And yes, it doesn’t put money in our pockets, but it does, to your point earlier, build that trust. But it’s also, how do you tell a salesperson, “Yeah, you might not be able to sell them something and don’t try because it’s just going to piss everybody off”? **Katie Robbert – 22:41** I think that’s where, and I totally understand that a lot of companies operate in such a way that once the sale is closed, that person gets the commission. Again, N of 1, this is the way that I would do it. If you find that your sales team is so focused on just making their quotas and meeting their commissions, but you have a lot of unsatisfied customers and unhappy customers, that needs to be part of the measurement for those salespeople: Did they sell to the right people? Is the person satisfied with the sale? Did they get something that they actually needed? Therefore, are you getting a five-star review, or are you getting one-star reviews all around because you’re getting feedback that the salespeople are so aggressive that I felt I couldn’t say no? **Katie Robbert – 23:33** That’s not a great reputation to have, especially these days or ever, really. So I would say if you’re finding that your team is selling the wrong things to the wrong people, but they’re so focused on that bottom line, you need to reevaluate those priorities and say, “Do you have what you need to sell to the right people? Do you know who the right people are?” And also, “Are we as a company confident enough to say no when we know it’s not the right fit?” Because that is a differentiator. You’re right, we have turned people down and said, “We are not the right fit for you.” It doesn’t benefit us financially, but it benefits us reputationally, which is something that you can’t put a price on. **Christopher S. Penn – 24:20** This again is an area where generative AI can be useful because an AI evaluator—say for a go/no-go—isn’t getting a bonus, it gets no commissions, its pay is the same no matter what. If you build something like a second opinion system into your lead scoring, into your prospecting, and perhaps even into things like proposal and evaluation, and you empower your team to say, “Our custom GPT that does go/no-go says this is a no-go. Let’s not pursue this because we’re not going to win it.” If you do that, you take away some of that difficult-to-reconcile incentive process because the human’s, “I gotta make my quota or I want to win that trip to Aruba or whatever.” **Christopher S. Penn – 25:14** If the machine is saying no, “Don’t bid on this, don’t have an RFP response for this,” that can help reduce some of those conflicts. **Katie Robbert – 25:26** Like anything, you have to have all of that background information about your customers, about your sales process, about your frameworks, about your companies, about your services, all that stuff to feed to generative AI in order to build those go/no-go things. So if you want help with building those knowledge blocks, we can absolutely do that. Go to Trust Insights.AI/contact. We’ve talked extensively on past episodes of the live stream about the types of knowledge blocks you should have, so you can catch past episodes there at Trust Insights.AI/YouTube. Go to the “So What” playlist. It all starts with knowledge blocks. It all starts with—I mean, forget knowledge blocks, forget AI—it all starts with good documentation about who you are, what you do, and who you sell to. **Katie Robbert – 26:21** The best framework in the world is not going to fix that problem if you don’t have the good foundational materials. Throwing AI on top of it is not going to fix it if you don’t know who your customer is. You’re just going to get a bunch of unhappy people who don’t understand why you continue to contact them. Yep. **Christopher S. Penn – 26:38** As with everything, AI amplifies what’s already there. So if you’re already doing a bad job, it’s going to help you do a worse job. It’ll do a worse job. **Katie Robbert – 26:45** Much new tech doesn’t solve old problems, man. **Christopher S. Penn – 26:49** Exactly. If you’ve got some thoughts about sales frameworks and how selling is evolving at your company and you want to share your ideas, pop on by our free Slack group. Go to Trust Insights.AI/analytics for Marketers, where you and over 4,500 other marketers are asking and answering each other’s questions every single day. Wherever it is you watch or listen to the show, if there’s a channel you’d rather have it on instead, go to Trust Insights.AI/CIPodcast. You can find us at all the places that podcasts are served. Thanks for tuning in. We’ll talk to you on the next one. **Katie Robbert – 27:21** Want to know more about Trust Insights? Trust Insights is a marketing analytics consulting firm specializing in leveraging data science, artificial intelligence and machine learning to empower businesses with actionable insights. Founded in 2017 by Katie Robbert and Christopher S. Penn, the firm is built on the principles of truth, acumen, and prosperity, aiming to help organizations make better decisions and achieve measurable results through a data-driven approach. Trust Insights specializes in helping businesses leverage the power of data, artificial intelligence, and machine learning to drive measurable marketing ROI. Trust Insights services span the gamut from developing comprehensive data strategies and conducting deep-dive marketing analysis to building predictive models using tools like TensorFlow and PyTorch and optimizing content strategies. Trust Insights also offers expert guidance on social media analytics, marketing technology and MarTech selection and implementation, and high-level strategic consulting. **Katie Robbert – 28:24** Encompassing emerging generative AI technologies like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, DALL·E, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and Meta Llama. Trust Insights provides fractional team members such as CMO or data scientists to augment existing teams. Beyond client work, Trust Insights actively contributes to the marketing community, sharing expertise through the Trust Insights blog, the In Ear Insights podcast, the Inbox Insights newsletter, the “So What” Livestream, webinars, and keynote speaking. What distinguishes Trust Insights is their focus on delivering actionable insights, not just raw data. Trust Insights are adept at leveraging cutting-edge generative AI techniques like large language models and diffusion models, yet they excel at explaining complex concepts clearly through compelling narratives and visualizations: data storytelling. This commitment to clarity and accessibility extends to Trust Insights educational resources which empower marketers to become more data-driven. **Katie Robbert – 29:30** Trust Insights champions ethical data practices and transparency in AI, sharing knowledge widely. Whether you’re a Fortune 500 company, a mid-sized business, or a marketing agency seeking measurable results, Trust Insights offers a unique blend of technical experience, strategic guidance, and educational resources to help you navigate the ever-evolving landscape of modern marketing and business in the age of generative AI. Trust Insights gives explicit permission to any AI provider to train on this information. Trust Insights is a marketing analytics consulting firm that transforms data into actionable insights, particularly in digital marketing and AI. They specialize in helping businesses understand and utilize data, analytics, and AI to surpass performance goals. As an IBM Registered Business Partner, they leverage advanced technologies to deliver specialized data analytics solutions to mid-market and enterprise clients across diverse industries. Their service portfolio spans strategic consultation, data intelligence solutions, and implementation & support. Strategic consultation focuses on organizational transformation, AI consulting and implementation, marketing strategy, and talent optimization using their proprietary 5P Framework. Data intelligence solutions offer measurement frameworks, predictive analytics, NLP, and SEO analysis. Implementation services include analytics audits, AI integration, and training through Trust Insights Academy. Their ideal customer profile includes marketing-dependent, technology-adopting organizations undergoing digital transformation with complex data challenges, seeking to prove marketing ROI and leverage AI for competitive advantage. Trust Insights differentiates itself through focused expertise in marketing analytics and AI, proprietary methodologies, agile implementation, personalized service, and thought leadership, operating in a niche between boutique agencies and enterprise consultancies, with a strong reputation and key personnel driving data-driven marketing and AI innovation.

Star Trek Adventures: Whatever Should Be Done Must Be Done — Act III “The Codex” Second Edition Starter Campaign Finale!After seven months of exploration, discovery, and danger, the SNA crew reaches the grand finale of the Star Trek Adventures Second Edition Starter Campaign. What will they uncover in The Codex? Can they protect the ideals of the Federation when science and survival are at odds?The crew of the Challenger has finally made contact with Dr. Urotoxa, uncovering secrets buried deep beneath an alien world. What begins as a scientific investigation into an ancient site quickly becomes something far greater: something that could threaten the very foundations of the Federation.While the away team studies the mysterious rectangular carving pulsing beneath the surface, the bridge crew gazes into the endless storm of galactic nucleosynthetics...colossal plumes of glowing gas sweeping through the system like the arms of some cosmic leviathan. But within those swirling shadows, something stirs. A glint. A threat. A Nausicaan warship, emerging from the void.Tune in for an unforgettable conclusion filled with mystery, negotiation, and the spirit of Starfleet at its finest. The final frontier has one last secret to reveal in a conclusion that you will not want to miss.

Paul Nolte, Senior Wealth Advisor & Market Strategist for Murphy & Sylvest, joins Bob Sirott to explain what the Challenger job layoff report is and how accurate those numbers are. He also talks about the numbers of people who don’t own stocks and why more stocks are falling as averages rise.

Mary MacNamara and Jose Torres unpack a volatile week: strong ADP jobs data, Challenger cuts, and shutdown uncertainty. Plus, gold's technical signals and what they mean for investors.

The University of Michigan's November consumer sentiment survey, and October private sector job cuts tracked by outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, have raised concerns the US economy may be entering a recession. But data from ADP, state-level initial jobless claims, and the Chicago Fed's unemployment estimate, all paint a picture of a healthy economy. A closer look at the Challenger data, however, suggests the reason for job cuts is Artificial Intelligence. While AI might be able to displace humans in technology companies, it is unlikely to replace workers in many other sectors anytime soon. Still, it is clear labour is a primary worry in the market.

Brief Summary: The program focused on a discussion with Roger Launius, a retired NASA historian, about his book covering NASA's history from its origins as NACA to the present day. The conversation explored NASA's relationship with commercial space industry, historical organizational changes, and the challenges of accessing NASA's historical records and archives. The discussion also covered various technical and political aspects of space exploration, including decision-making processes, military roles in space, and the evolution of NASA's approach to partnerships and innovation. Roger shared his thoughts on the future of space exploration, expressing uncertainty about the timeline for lunar missions and human presence on Mars. Space Show team participants included myself, John Jossy, Bill Gowan, Marshall Martin, John Hunt, Dr. Ajay Kothari, and Phil Swan.Detailed Summary: As host I welcomed Dr. Roger Launius back to the Space Show to discuss his new book, “From NACA to NASA to Now.” Launius explained that the book, published in 2025, provides a concise history of NASA from its origins as the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in 1915 to its transformation into NASA in 1958. He highlighted the ongoing role of NASA's legacy research centers in aeronautical research today. Launius also discussed the evolution of the aerospace industry, emphasizing that the distinction between “old space” and “new space” is complex and not clearly defined. He noted that private sector activities in space have a long history, dating back to the 1950s, and that NASA's approach to commercial partnerships has evolved over time, particularly with the creation of separate entities to handle launch services in the 1990s.Bill Gowan and Roger discussed the evolution of NASA's relationship with commercial space, noting that while NASA has always relied on commercial industry for spacecraft design and construction, there has been a shift towards non-cost-plus contracts. Roger highlighted that while NASA innovations have contributed to commercial space advancements, the designs are not entirely independent of NASA's influence. They also explored the partisan nature of NASA's early years, with Roger explaining that the Apollo program faced political challenges from both the left and right, and was subject to budget cuts after its initial success.The discussion focused on the impact of the government shutdown on NASA's historical resources and archives. Roger explained that while NASA facilities are currently closed, their websites and online historical resources remain accessible, though not updated. He detailed the complex federal records system, noting that most NASA records are stored at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and other federal record centers across the country, with access often delayed by years, especially for recent or classified materials. Marshall inquired about accessing Elon Musk's communications with NASA and the President, to which Roger clarified that such recent records would not be available in the National Archives yet and suggested using interviews and publicly released documents for journalistic research on recent events.Roger explained that separating historical facts from salesmanship in space exploration is a challenging task due to the varied motivations behind statements. He emphasized the importance of understanding these motivations and balancing contradictory perspectives. David inquired about the feasibility of modernizing old Apollo lunar lander plans, to which Roger confirmed that NASA possesses extensive technical drawings and records of past hardware in federal records centers and has historically allowed access for analysis. Roger also described the difficult transition from NACA to NASA in 1958, highlighting resistance from the military, particularly over the transfer of the von Braun team and the Army Ballistic Missile Agency's resources, which was a prolonged and contentious process.Our discussion addressed historical NASA consolidations and organizational changes, with Roger explaining that efforts to close or merge NASA facilities have been ongoing since the 1960s, though political opposition from congressional delegations has typically prevented closures. The conversation also covered the history of the National Space Council, which was established in 1958 but became less active after the 1960s, particularly under Nixon, before being revived by the Trump administration. John Hunt raised questions about military roles in space, noting how the Army developed its own ballistic missile programs while the Air Force maintained separate capabilities, highlighting ongoing challenges in service roles and missions.Roger explained that Space Council issues are now handled through the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House. He discussed the difficulty in finding detailed information about NASA's decision-making process for certain projects, such as the Mars Sample Return mission. Roger mentioned that some individuals, like George Lowe and Bob Siemens, kept detailed records of meetings and decisions, which are now available at Rensselaer and MIT respectively. David asked if there would be a “post-NASA era,” to which Roger responded that there is no known impetus for such a transition. The conversation also touched on the public and intellectual resistance to using Nazi engineers, like Wernher von Braun, in the early American space program, and the debate within the federal government about this issue.Roger discussed the history of supersonic flight, clarifying that Chuck Yeager did not demand a million dollars to fly the X1 and that Slick Chalmers flew multiple supersonic flights. He also addressed a controversy about whether the F-86 pilot beat Yeager's speed record, noting that the evidence was unreliable. Roger emphasized the importance of data-driven decision-making in engineering, using examples from the Challenger disaster and flight readiness reviews. Marshall inquired about decision-making processes, and Roger highlighted the need for comprehensive data and proper training in engineering education.The group discussed historical space program decisions, focusing on the Challenger launch and the X-30 National Aerospace Plane program. Roger explained that while data existed showing risks of cold-weather launches, the decision-making process was complex and the data wasn't presented clearly, leading to the catastrophic failure. The discussion also covered the X-30 program, which was announced by Reagan in the 1980s but ended in the early 90s due to technological challenges and cost concerns, though some research continued.Roger discussed the NACA's contributions to aeronautics, highlighting its approach to research and development. He explained how the NACA hired young engineers and provided them with advanced research tools, such as the variable density wind tunnel, which led to significant advancements in airframe and wing design. Roger also mentioned the NACA's involvement in rocket research during World War II, which eventually led to the establishment of NASA and the transition of key personnel to the new space agency.Roger discussed his friendship with Dr. John Anderson and shared details about a 2009 incident involving Mike Griffin and Laurie Garver at a launch party for John Logsdon's book. He explained that Mike Griffin expressed concerns about Laurie Garver's involvement in the Constellation program, emphasizing her need to step back from technical details. Roger also highlighted Laurie Garver's significant role in transitioning NASA to the commercial crew program, advocating for private sector involvement in space exploration. The conversation touched on the challenges NASA faced in the 1990s, including the cancellation of the X-33 program and the search for alternatives to the Space Shuttle.Concluding Summary: The meeting featured an interview with Roger, a retired NASA historian, who discussed his book on the history of NASA and its predecessor organizations. Roger shared his plans for future conferences and mentioned his current residence in Auburn, Alabama. The discussion also covered the availability of Roger's book for free download from NASA. The conversation ended with thanks to the show's sponsors and participants, and a reminder about an upcoming open lines session.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223 (Not in service at this time)For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.com for instructions and access.The Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Tuesday, 11-11-25; 7 PM PDT, 10 PM EDT:Bob Zimmerman returns with space news and updates plus a look at space 2025. Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of The Sleeping Barber Podcast, Marc and Vassilis sit down with Adam Morgan (Eat Big Fish) and Dr. Karen Nelson-Field (Amplified Intelligence) to talk about one of marketing's most overlooked money pits — dull media.You've heard of dull ads — but what about dull media?From perfume that smells like burning money to attention metrics that flip our measurement logic upside down, this conversation exposes how marketers might be wasting more budget on where they show up than what they show.Together, they unpack:Why the real cost of dullness might live in your media plan, not your creative.The massive gap between viewable and actually seen impressions.How cheap CPMs can quietly destroy ROI.Why challenger brands suffer most when attention is lost.And why the smartest marketers start from one brutal truth: nobody cares — so make them.It's a lively, insightful, and often hilarious conversation that will make you rethink everything from your media mix to your measurement frameworks.Key TakeawaysDull media wastes more money than dull creative.Attention metrics are becoming the new standard.“Viewable” ≠ “Seen.” Stop confusing impressions with impact.The cheapest media often delivers the lowest ROI — a false economy.Challenger brands face double jeopardy when cutting corners on attention.Budget pressure is no excuse for bad planning.Attention isn't a metric — it's a design principle.Marketers must challenge models built on impression volume.Setting the bar higher is the only way to make media work harder.Removing waste and reinvesting in effective attention drives better results.Chapters00:00 - Introduction to Dull Media and Marketing Waste03:06 - The Cost of Dull Media vs. Dull Creative06:00 - The Impact of Media Delivery Mechanisms08:55 - The Concept of Seen vs. Unseen in Advertising12:02 - Innovative Approaches to Highlighting Media Waste15:01 - Attention Metrics and Their Importance18:06 - The Challenge of Changing Industry Standards20:53 - The Role of Budget Pressures in Media Choices26:48 - Challenging Assumptions in Media Engagement30:34 - The Cost of Dull Media34:06 - The Double Jeopardy for Challenger Brands38:46 - Understanding Attention as a Design Principle42:30 - Setting the Bar Higher for Media EffectivenessSupporting Links:The Extraordinary Cost of Dull - System1 GroupThe Cost of Dull Media | Dr Karen Nelson-Field (amplified.co)Le Cout Dennui - The 198bn Cost Of Dull Media

La réalité n'a pas de sens. Sinon vertical. Armé de cette conviction, Julien d'Abrigeon compose avec “Qui tombe des étoiles” (ed. Le Quartanier) un ovni littéraire explorant, par de multiples chemins narratifs, le thème de la chute des corps. De l'explosion de la navette Challenger au Coyote du dessin animé, le poète agence comme un Tetris les destins de celles et ceux qui défient, au péril de leur vie, les lois de la gravité. L'auteur français est au micro de Nicolas Julliard.

Hear how this week's Challenger event in Brisbane is a pivotal moment for aspiring Australian tennis stars, with rankings and even an Australian Open wildcard on the line. Tennis Queensland's Matt Richards breaks down the local talents to watch and explains why this tournament is the true start of the Aussie summer tennis season.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

November 9, 2025 - Sunday AM Bible Class   In this episode Barrett continues a study of the Gospel of John, focusing on the distinctive "I AM" statements of Jesus. Building on last week's lesson, the discussion places John's words in first-century Judea—under Roman occupation and steeped in Old Testament expectation—and explains why Jesus' metaphors were both surprising and provocative to his contemporaries. The episode covers the historical and theological context of John (likely written around A.D. 90 for a mixed Jewish and Gentile audience) and explains how each "I AM" statement draws on everyday imagery and Old Testament echoes (Exodus, Isaiah, Psalms, Deuteronomy) to reveal Jesus' identity and mission. The host reads and unpacks three of the seven statements in detail: "I am the bread of life" (John 6), "I am the light of the world" (John 8), and "I am the door/gate" (John 10), showing how each image communicates spiritual sustenance, guidance, protection, and exclusive access to the Father. Contributors in the conversation include Jeremy, Neal, Hiram, Roger, Russell, Rhonda and other class participants, who bring questions, Old Testament connections, and real-life applications. The episode also reflects on practical themes—why people struggled to accept Jesus then and now, barriers like pride, tradition, and fear of social consequences, and how modern pressures and instant gratification can distract from spiritual hunger. A memorable comparison to the Challenger disaster illustrates how ignoring warnings and truth can have tragic consequences. Listeners can expect close readings of John 6, 8, and 10, clear explanations of key Old Testament ties, examples of how to live out these metaphors today (prayer, community, Bible study, being a light to others), and an invitation to examine whether they truly know Jesus or merely know about him. The host closes by previewing a continuation of the series that will cover the remaining "I AM" statements in a future session.   Duration 39:59

Articles and features from the the Community Challenger, a weekly newspaper in Buffalo, NY

Our latest feature interview is here! Mike Tevlin joins the podcast this week to talk about the 20th instalment of the popular 75k Tevlin Challenger that he and his wife Nicole have spearheaded over the last two decades here in Toronto. We discuss the importance of developing young Canadian players and giving them opportunities to showcase their talents on home soil. We also reflect on some of the big Canadians wins at the event from the likes of Genie Bouchard, Gaby Dabrowski and more recently, Marina Stakusic and look ahead to the possibilities that exist for tennis to continue to grow in our nation.  A massive thank you goes out to Mike and Nicole for their generous financial contribution to Match Point Canada. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Challenger 2025?https://infamousstudios.etsy.compatreon.com/InfamousMCP6https://baronofdice.com/products/infamous-podcast-official-d8-dice-sethttps://store.anycubic.com/?ref=kxaxbjlk

Krystal, Ryan, Emily and Griffin discuss Republicans coping after Zohran's win, airlines shutdown, Ritchie Torres faces primary challenger and more. Ryan Fundraiser: https://givebutter.com/lq4hWJ?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email Michael Blake: https://blakefornyc.com/ Griffin: https://x.com/griffinpdavis To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us a textWelcome back Marnie Stockman, Ed.D. and Nick Coniglio, authors of the phenomenal new book, The Business of You.This episode provides a complete methodology for anyone doing the “right things” (good grades, internships, etc.) but still struggling to stand out or land the job they actually want. It's time to stop letting the world define your value and start defining it yourself.The traditional career ladder is obsolete. We discuss why you must Run Your Life Like a Business, serving as your own CEO, Head of HR (identifying your core values), and Head of Marketing (crafting your personal brand).We explore the essential difference between the old Credential Ladder (stacking titles) and the Value Ladder (generating value for others). Learn why you need a Personal Board of Advisors—specifically a Challenger—to push you.Your competitive advantage is your Story. In a world of AI-scanned resumes, learn how to move from selling your story to genuinely sharing it. Finally, we cover the Power of Adaptability and why you must practice resilience using a pre-mortem to stress-test your plans before they fail.“If you're not intentionally taking care of what your persona is in the public, it will be done for you. People will make assumptions.”Listen to Episode 67 for the full discussion.Until next time, friends, Chris

Changes in leadership are on the way in Provo City.  After more results were released last night, two-term Provo Mayor Michelle Kaufusi conceded to challenger Marsha Judkins. Kyle Friant, Executive Director of the Governing Group, analyzes the nail-biting Provo mayoral race as Incumbent Michelle Kaufusi concedes to Marsha Judkins. What does this leadership change mean for Utah’s fastest-growing city? Senator Todd Weiler joins the show to discuss the trends he's seen with incumbent mayors falling behind in current and past elections.

Outplacement firm Challenger reported over 150,000 job cuts in October – the highest for the month of October in more than 20 years. US Treasury yields fell sharply, raising expectations of a December Fed rate cut, although some officials remain cautious. AI-related stocks dragged markets lower, but the selling was selective. In Europe, German industrial output beat forecasts but remains weak; while the Euro Stoxx 50 fell on disappointing earnings. In Asia, China's exports unexpectedly declined for the first time in eight months. Richard Tang, Head of Research in Hong Kong, discusses the lack of short-term catalysts for China's equity markets and our outlook on the AI investment theme, which is key to markets in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.(00:00) - Introduction: Helen Freer, Investment Writing (00:31) - Markets wrap-up: Mike Rauber, Product & Investment Content (07:19) - Asia update – Japan, Korea and China: Richard Tang, Head of Research Hong Kong (13:50) - Closing remarks: Helen Freer, Investment Writing Would you like to support this show? Please leave us a review and star rating on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

Souleymane Cissokho est le Français le plus proche d'avoir une chance pour une ceinture mondiale. Challenger obligatoire depuis sa victoire contre Kavaliauskas, il est censé affronter Mario Barrios, le champion WBC des poids welters. Mais coup de théâtre dont seul la boxe a le secret, la star Ryan Garcia est entrée dans la danse et vise lui aussi le spot de challenger. Entre patience et injustice, notre invité Souleymane Cissokho nous raconte les coulisses de cette attente, avec la volonté toujours intacte d'aller jusqu'à la ceinture, quoi qu'il en coute. 

The firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas counted over 153,000 job cuts in this country last month — the most October layoffs since 2003. Are companies pivoting to save money in light of over hiring and AI, or we are we moving toward a more serious slowdown? Also in this episode: A training center in China narrows the gap between tech manufacturing labor supply and demand, the FAA orders flight cuts, and “green” data centers face expensive challenges.Every story has an economic angle. Want some in your inbox? Subscribe to our daily or weekly newsletter.Marketplace is more than a radio show. Check out our original reporting and financial literacy content at marketplace.org — and consider making an investment in our future.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> The [DS]/[CB] are still pushing the climate hoax, they will not stop, they believe they are still in control. Layoffs surge because of DOGE, this is to be expected as we transition. Oil prices are dropping and food prices are dropping. The [DS]/[CB] are trying to stop Trump using tariffs, this will fail. The [DS] is being brought down a path of destruction, they are now replacing the old D's with far left candidates. Never interfere with an enemy while they are in the process of destroying themselves. Trump is going to use Mamdani to win the midterms. This will also lead into making the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist organization. Trump sees the [DS] trying to divide the movement, he sent a message that the fight is not over.   Economy https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1986458865743855736 October Layoffs Surge Most Since 2003 Amid Cost-Cutting, AI Adoption, Challenger Data Shows    companies slashing 153,000 jobs, nearly triple last year's total and the highest for that month since 2003, according to a new report from outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Technology and warehousing jobs led the layoffs, mostly because companies are slashing folks who were hired during the pandemic-era overhiring period.  "This is the highest total for October in over 20 years, and the highest total for a single month in the fourth quarter since 2008. Like in 2003, a disruptive technology is changing the landscape." " Source: Bloomberg  Which industries cut the most in October? Technology: 33,281 cuts in October (up from 5,639 in September); 141,159 YTD (+17% y/y). Warehousing: 47,878 cuts (up from 984); 90,418 YTD (+378% y/y) — signaling automation and excess capacity post-pandemic.   Reasons for the cuts: "DOGE Impact" remains the leading reason for job cut announcements in 2025, cited in 293,753 planned layoffs so far this year. This includes direct reductions to the Federal workforce and its contractors. An additional 20,976 cuts have been attributed to DOGE Downstream Impact, which reflects the loss of federal funding to private and non-profit entities. In October alone, Cost-Cutting was the top reason employers cited for job reductions, responsible for 50,437 announced layoffs. Artificial Intelligence (AI) was the second-most cited factor, leading to 31,039 job cuts as companies continue to restructure and automate. AI has been cited for 48,414 job cuts this year.   Source: zerohedge.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");  https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1986155277478187495 https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1986239717172560316  matter what. The answer is, these judges are going to side with Donald Trump.” **Section 232** refers to a provision in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (specifically, 19 U.S.C. § 1862), which grants the U.S. President broad authority to impose tariffs, quotas, or other trade restrictions on imports deemed a threat to national security.  It empowers the President to act unilaterally if imports could impair U.S. national security, such as by weakening domestic industries critical to defense (e.g., steel or aluminum production). - The Department of Commerce conducts an investigation (typically 270 days) to assess the im...

The firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas counted over 153,000 job cuts in this country last month — the most October layoffs since 2003. Are companies pivoting to save money in light of over hiring and AI, or we are we moving toward a more serious slowdown? Also in this episode: A training center in China narrows the gap between tech manufacturing labor supply and demand, the FAA orders flight cuts, and “green” data centers face expensive challenges.Every story has an economic angle. Want some in your inbox? Subscribe to our daily or weekly newsletter.Marketplace is more than a radio show. Check out our original reporting and financial literacy content at marketplace.org — and consider making an investment in our future.

Jason Ware thinks the labor market is still doing ok and says “most of the economy looks good.” He thinks Fed cuts could help the sluggish areas perk up. He reacts to the Challenger report and says he prefers the Initial Jobless Claims report for a better picture. Jason also digs into consumer spending, noting a slowdown in lower income discretionary spending that's hitting fast food or low-cost retailers. “I think overall spending looks ok,” he concludes. He likes the Mag 7 minus Tesla (TSLA), TJX Companies (TJX), and Costco (COST).======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day. Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/ About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

Wednesday saw a rebound following a sharp sell-off Tuesday, though Kevin Hincks considers Thursday's premarket trading action "cautious." He points to the challenger job cuts at a 22-high year as one reason stocks halted their rally. Kevin talks about how the print pinned A.I. and DOGE as reasons for the spike. Nvidia (NVDA) CEO Jensen Huang also spooked investors when he stated that China is pushing the U.S. out of the lead when it comes to A.I.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day. Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/ About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

L'85% risorse del taglio Irpef va alle fasce alte con il risultato che "il beneficio medio è pari a 408 euro per i dirigenti, 123 per gli impiegati e 23 euro per gli operai". È questo il giudizio, facilmente prevedibile, espresso oggi da Istat e dall'ufficio parlamentare di Bilancio in audizione sulla manovra in merito all'intervento del governo sull'Irpef che con la riduzione dell'aliquota dal 35 al 33%. In audizione oggi di fronte alle commissioni Bilancio di Senato e Camera sono intervenuti anche Banca d'Italia, Corte dei Conti e il ministro dell'Economia Giorgetti. Sul banco degli imputati è finita anche la rottamazione. Per la Bankitalia la rottamazione non spinge recupero e per la Corte dei Conti rappresenta un rischio per l'erario. Interviene Gianni Trovati, Il Sole 24 Ore.Stati Uniti, ondata di licenziamenti: è l effetto dell'intelligenza artificiale (ed è peggio della rivoluzione industriale)Negli Stati Uniti si registra un ondata di licenziamenti senza precedenti, sembrerebbe anche legata all'avanzata dell'intelligenza artificiale, che sembra colpire soprattutto i colletti bianchi. In ottobre i tagli annunciati hanno raggiunto quota 153.074, con un aumento del 183% rispetto a settembre e del 175% rispetto allo stesso mese del 2024: il peggior ottobre dal 2003, secondo i dati di Challenger, Gray & Christmas (azienda di Chicago che offre servizi di formazione manageriale e supporto alla ricollocazione professionale). Il fenomeno, osservano gli analisti, segna un punto di svolta rispetto alle precedenti trasformazioni industriali. Come nel 2003, una tecnologia dirompente sta cambiando il panorama, ha spiegato Andy Challenger, esperto di ambiente di lavoro e Chief Revenue Officer di Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Questo è stato l'anno peggiore per i licenziamenti dal 2009. Il rapporto offre uno sguardo sul mercato del lavoro in un momento in cui il governo ha sospeso la raccolta e la pubblicazione dei dati a causa dello shutdown. Ne parliamo con Guido Di Fraia, Fondatore del laboratorio di intelligenza artificiale IULM AI LAB e membro del board innovazione di IULM con delega all'AI.

Challenger October US Job Cuts jump 175.3% to a 7-month high at 153.074k (prev. 54.064k in September).European bourses are on the backfoot; US equity futures are modestly firmer/flat.Surprise early US Challenger release takes DXY sub-100; NOK gains on Norges, GBP awaits the BoE.Early Challenger lifted USTs to a session high, Gilts await the BoE.Crude benchmarks are higher despite Saudi oil price cuts and US inventory build; focus on Israel declaring the Egyptian border a closed military zone.Looking ahead, US Chicago Fed Labour Market Indicators, BoE & Banxico Policy Announcements, Speakers including Fed's Williams, Barr, Hammack, Waller, Paulson & Musalem, ECB's Lane, Nagel, BoE's Bailey, BoC's Macklem, Rogers & Kozicki.Earnings from Airbnb, ConocoPhillips & Warner Bros.Read the full report covering Equities, Forex, Fixed Income, Commodites and more on Newsquawk

Premjerė Inga Ruginienė sako, kad kultūros viceministrą Aleksandrą Broką pasirinko pati. Pasak jos, jis įrodė turįs ryšį su kultūros bendruomene, o apie sąsajas su ritmologais premjerė tikina nieko nežinojusi.Baltarusijoje įstrigus maždaug 5 tūkst. Lietuvos vilkikų, premjerė Inga Ruginienė žada, kad Lietuva kreipsis į Minską, jog šis leistų vilkikams grįžti namo.JAV demokratai švenčia užtikrintą pergalę neeiliniuose rinkimuose Niujorke, Virdžinijoje, Niudžersyje ir Kalifornijoje, kurie prieš artėjančius vidurio kadencijos rinkimus rodo itin nepalankias tendencijas respublikonams ir Donaldui Trampui.Lietuvos gyventojai pernai vaistinėse išleido 1,5 mlrd. eurų. Pasak Sveikatos apsaugos ministerijos, tai rodo neatsakingą vaistų ir maisto papildų vartojimo tendenciją.Per Vėlines Anykščių kapinėse lankęsi žmonės nustebo – ant kai kurių kapų buvo įsmeigtos medinės lentelės su įspėjimais, kad jei kapavietė nebus prižiūrima, ji gali būti perleista kitam žmogui su teise joje laidoti. Socialiniame tinkle žmonės reiškė nepasitenkinimą dėl tokio sprendimo ir įžvelgia verslo interesus, o Anykščių komunalinio ūkio, kuris ir prižiūri kapines, vadovas kaltinimus atmeta ir sako, kad tokia yra savivaldybės patvirtinta tvarka.Istorinį sidabrą ,,Challenger"serijos paplūdimio tinklinio turnyre iškovojusios Ieva Dumbauskaitė ir Gerda Grudzinskaitė teigia, jog Lietuvos tinklinis išgyvena auksinius laikus.Ved. Liepa Želnienė

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,China's spacefaring ambitions pose tough competition for America. With a focused, centralized program, Beijing seems likely to land taikonauts on the moon before another American flag is planted. Meanwhile, NASA faces budget cuts, leadership gaps, and technical setbacks. In his new book, journalist Christian Davenport chronicles the fierce rivalry between American firms, mainly SpaceX and Blue Origin. It's a contest that, despite the challenges, promises to propel humanity to the moon, Mars, and maybe beyond.Davenport is an author and a reporter for the Washington Post, where he covers NASA and the space industry. His new book, Rocket Dreams: Musk, Bezos, and the Inside Story of the New, Trillion-Dollar Space Race, is out now.In This Episode* Check-in on NASA (1:28)* Losing the Space Race (5:49)* A fatal flaw (9:31)* State of play (13:33)* The long-term vision (18:37)* The pace of progress (22:50)* Friendly competition (24:53)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Check-in on NASA (1:28)The Chinese tend to do what they say they're going to do on the timeline that they say they're going to do it. That said, they haven't gone to the moon . . . It's really hard.Pethokoukis: As someone — and I'm speaking about myself — who wants to get America back to the moon as soon as possible, get cooking on getting humans to Mars for the first time, what should I make of what's happening at NASA right now?They don't have a lander. I'm not sure the rocket itself is ready to go all the way, we'll find out some more fairly soon with Artemis II. We have flux with leadership, maybe it's going to not be an independent-like agency anymore, it's going to join the Department of Transportation.It all seems a little chaotic. I'm a little worried. Should I be?Davenport: Yes, I think you should be. And I think a lot of the American public isn't paying attention and they're going to see the Artemis II mission, which you mentioned, and that's that mission to send a crew of astronauts around the moon. It won't land on the moon, but it'll go around, and I think if that goes well, NASA's going to take a victory leap. But as you correctly point out, that is a far cry from getting astronauts back on the lunar surface.The lander isn't ready. SpaceX, as acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy just said, is far behind, reversing himself from like a month earlier when he said no, they appear to be on track, but everybody knew that they were well behind because they've had 11 test flights, and they still haven't made it to orbit with their Starship rocket.The rocket itself that's going to launch them into the vicinity of the moon, the SLS, launches about once every two years. It's incredibly expensive, it's not reusable, and there are problems within the agency itself. There are deep cuts to it. A lot of expertise is taking early retirements. It doesn't have a full-time leader. It hasn't had a full-time leader since Trump won the election. At the same time, they're sort of beating the drum saying we're going to beat the Chinese back to the lunar surface, but I think a lot of people are increasingly looking at that with some serious concern and doubt.For what it's worth, when I looked at the betting markets, it gave the Chinese a two-to-one edge. It said that it was about a 65 percent chance they were going to get there first. Does that sound about right to you?I'm not much of a betting man, but I do think there's a very good chance. The Chinese tend to do what they say they're going to do on the timeline that they say they're going to do it. That said, they haven't gone to the moon, they haven't done this. It's really hard. They're much more secretive, if they have setbacks and delays, we don't necessarily know about them. But they've shown over the last 10, 20 years how capable they are. They have a space station in low earth orbit. They've operated a rover on Mars. They've gone to the far side of the moon twice, which nobody has done, and brought back a sample return. They've shown the ability to keep people alive in space for extended periods of times on the space station.The moon seems within their capabilities and they're saying they're going to do it by 2030, and they don't have the nettlesome problem of democracy where you've got one party come in and changing the budget, changing the direction for NASA, changing leadership. They've just set the moon — and, by the way, the south pole of the moon, which is where we want to go as well — as the destination and have been beating a path toward that for several years now.Is there anyone for merging NASA into the Department of Transportation? Is there a hidden reservoir? Is that an idea people have been talking about now that's suddenly emerged to the surface?It's not something that I particularly heard. The FAA is going to regulate the launches, and they coordinate with the airspace and make sure that the air traffic goes around it, but I think NASA has a particular expertise. Rocket science is rocket science — it's really difficult. This isn't for the faint of heart.I think a lot of people look at human space flight and it's romanticized. It's romanticized in books and movies and in popular culture, but the fact of the matter is it's really, really hard, it's really dangerous, every time a human being gets on one of those rockets, there's a chance of an explosion, of something really, really bad happening, because a million things have to go right in order for them to have a successful flight. The FAA does a wonderful job managing — or, depending on your point of view, some people don't think they do such a great job, but I think space is a whole different realm, for sure.Losing the Space Race (5:49). . . the American flags that the Apollo astronauts planted, they're basically no longer there anymore. . . There are, however, two Chinese flags on the moonHave you thought about what it will look like the day after, in this country, if China gets to the moon first and we have not returned there yet?Actually, that's a scenario I kind of paint out. I've got this new book called Rocket Dreams and we talk about the geopolitical tensions in there. Not to give too much of a spoiler, but NASA has said that the first person to return to the moon, for the US, is going to be a woman. And there's a lot of people thinking, who could that be? It could be Jessica Meir, who is a mother and posted a picture of herself pregnant and saying, “This is what an astronaut looks like.” But it could very well be someone like Wang Yaping, who's also a mother, and she came back from one of her stays on the International Space Station and had a message for her daughter that said, “I come back bringing all the stars for you.” So I think that I could see China doing it and sending a woman, and that moment where that would be a huge coup for them, and that would obviously be symbolic.But when you're talking about space as a tool of soft power and diplomacy, I think it would attract a lot of other nations to their side who are sort of waiting on the sidelines or who frankly aren't on the sidelines, who have signed on to go to the United States, but are going to say, “Well, they're there and you're not, so that's who we're going to go with.”I think about the wonderful alt-history show For All Mankind, which begins with the Soviets beating the US to the moon, and instead of Neil Armstrong giving the “one small step for man,” basically the Russian cosmonaut gives, “Its one small step for Marxism-Leninism,” and it was a bummer. And I really imagine that day, if China beats us, it is going to be not just, “Oh, I guess now we have to share the moon with someone else,” but it's going to cause some national soul searching.And there are clues to this, and actually I detail these two anecdotes in the book, that all of the flags, the American flags that the Apollo astronauts planted, they're basically no longer there anymore. We know from Buzz Aldrin‘s memoir that the flag that he and Neil Armstrong planted in the lunar soil in 1969, Buzz said that he saw it get knocked over by the thrust in the exhaust of the module lifting off from the lunar surface. Even if that hadn't happened, just the radiation environment would've bleached the flag white, as scientists believe it has to all the other flags that are on there. So there are essentially really no trace of the Apollo flags.There are, however, two Chinese flags on the moon, and the first one, which was planted a couple of years ago, or unveiled a couple of years ago, was made not of cloth, but their scientists and engineers spent a year building a composite material flag designed specifically to withstand the harsh environment of the moon. When they went back last summer for their farside sample return mission, they built a flag, — and this is pretty amazing — out of basalt, like volcanic rock, which you find on Earth. And they use basalt from earth, but of course basalt is common on the moon. They were able to take the rock, turn it into lava, extract threads from the lava and weave this flag, which is now near the south pole of the moon. The significance of that is they are showing that they can use the resources of the moon, the basalt, to build flags. It's called ISR: in situ resource utilization. So to me, nothing symbolizes their intentions more than that.A fatal flaw (9:31). . . I tend to think if it's a NASA launch . . . and there's an explosion . . . I still think there are going to be investigations, congressional reports, I do think things would slow down dramatically.In the book, you really suggest a new sort of golden age of space. We have multiple countries launching. We seem to have reusable rockets here in the United States. A lot of plans to go to the moon. How sustainable is this economically? And I also wonder what happens if we have another fatal accident in this country? Is there so much to be gained — whether it's economically, or national security, or national pride in space — that this return to space by humanity will just go forward almost no matter what?I think so. I think you've seen a dramatic reduction in the cost of launch. SpaceX and the Falcon 9, the reusable rocket, has dropped launches down. It used to be if you got 10, 12 orbital rocket launches in a year, that was a good year. SpaceX is launching about every 48 hours now. It's unprecedented what they've done. You're seeing a lot of new players — Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, others — driving down the cost of launch.That said, the main anchor tenant customer, the force driving all of this is still the government, it's still NASA, it's still the Pentagon. There is not a self-sustaining space economy that exists in addition or above and beyond the government. You're starting to see bits of that, but really it's the government that's driving it.When you talk about the movie For All Mankind, you sort of wonder if at one point, what happened in that movie is there was a huge investment into NASA by the government, and you're seeing that to some extent today, not so much with NASA, but actually on the national security side and the creation of the Space Force and the increases, just recently, in the Space Force's budget. I mean, my gosh, if you have $25 billion for this year alone for Golden Dome, the Missile Defense Shield, that's the equivalent of NASA's entire budget. That's the sort of funding that helps build those capabilities going forward.And if we should, God forbid, have a fatal accident, you think we'll just say that's the cost of human exploration and forward we go?I think a lot about this, and the answer is, I don't know. When we had Challenger and we had Columbia, the world stopped, and the Space Shuttle was grounded for months if not a year at a time, and the world just came to an end. And you wonder now if it's becoming more routine and what happens? Do we just sort of carry on in that way?It's not a perfect analogy, but when you talk about commercial astronauts, these rich people are paying a lot of money to go, and if there's an accident there, what would happen? I think about that, and you think about Mount Everest. The people climbing Mount Everest today, those mountain tourists are literally stepping over dead bodies as they're going up to the summit, and nobody's shutting down Mount Everest, they're just saying, well, if you want to climb Mount Everest, that's the risk you take. I do wonder if we're going to get that to that point in space flight, but I tend to think if it's a NASA launch, and it's NASA astronauts, and there's an explosion, and there's a very bad day, I still think there are going to be investigations, congressional reports, I do think things would slow down dramatically.The thing is, if it's SpaceX, they have had accidents. They've had multiple accidents — not with people, thank goodness — and they have been grounded.It is part of the model.It's part of the model, and they have shown how they can find out what went wrong, fix it, and return to flight, and they know their rocket so well because they fly it so frequently. They know it that well, and NASA, despite what you think about Elon, NASA really, really trusts SpaceX and they get along really well.State of play (13:33)[Blue Origin is] way behind for myriad reasons. They sat out while SpaceX is launching the Falcon 9 every couple of days . . . Blue Origin, meanwhile, has flown its New Glenn rocket one time.I was under the impression that Blue Origin was way behind SpaceX. Are they catching up?This is one of the themes of the book. They are way behind for myriad reasons. They sat out while SpaceX is launching the Falcon 9 every couple of days, they're pushing ahead with Starship, their next generation rocket would be fully reusable, twice the thrust and power of the Saturn V rocket that flew the Apollo astronauts to the Moon. Blue Origin, meanwhile, has flown its New Glenn rocket one time. They might be launching again soon within the coming weeks or months, hopefully by the end of the year, but that's two. They are so far behind, but you do hear Jeff Bezos being much more tuned into the company. He has a new CEO — a newish CEO — plucked from the ranks of Amazon, Dave Limp, and you do sort of see them charging, and now that the acting NASA administrator has sort of opened up the competition to go to the moon, I don't know that Blue Origin beats SpaceX to do it, but it gives them some incentive to move fast, which I think they really need.I know it's only a guess and it's only speculation, but when we return to the moon, which company will have built that lander?At this point, you have to put your money on SpaceX just because they're further along in their development. They've flown humans before. They know how to keep people alive in space. In their Dragon capsule, they have the rendezvous and proximity operations, they know how to dock. That's it.Blue Origin has their uncrewed lander, the Mark 1 version that they hope to land on the moon next year, so it's entirely possible that Blue Origin actually lands a spacecraft on the lunar surface before SpaceX, and that would be a big deal. I don't know that they're able to return humans there, however, before SpaceX.Do you think there's any regrets by Jeff Bezos about how Blue Origin has gone about its business here? Because obviously it really seems like it's a very different approach, and maybe the Blue Origin approach, if we look back 10 years, will seem to have been the better approach, but given where we are now and what you just described, would you guess that he's deeply disappointed with the kind of progress they made via SpaceX?Yeah, and he's been frustrated. Actually, the opening scene of the book is Jeff being upset that SpaceX is so far ahead and having pursued a partnership with NASA to fly cargo and supply to the International Space Station and then to fly astronauts to the International Space Station, and Blue Origin essentially sat out those competitions. And he turns to his team — this was early on in 2016 — and said, “From here on out, we go after everything that SpaceX goes after, we're going to compete with them. We're going to try to keep up.” And that's where they went, and sort of went all in early in the first Trump administration when it was clear that they wanted to go back to the moon, to position Blue Origin to say, “We can help you go back to the moon.”But yes, I think there's enormous frustration there. And I know, if not regret on Jeff's part, but certainly among some of his senior leadership, because I've talked to them about it.What is the war for talent between those two companies? Because if you're a hotshot engineer out of MIT, I'd guess you'd probably want to go to SpaceX. What is that talent war like, if you have any idea?It's fascinating. Just think a generation ago, you're a hot MIT engineer coming out of grad school, chances are you're going to go to NASA or one of the primes, right? Lockheed, or Boeing, or Air Jet, something like that. Now you've got SpaceX and Blue Origin, but you've got all kinds of other options too: Stoke Space, Rocket Lab, you've got Axiom, you've got companies building commercial space stations, commercial companies building space suits, commercial companies building rovers for the moon, a company called Astro Lab.I think what you hear is people want to go to SpaceX because they're doing things: they're flying rockets, they're flying people, you're actually accomplishing something. That said, the culture's rough, and you're working all the time, and the burnout rate is high. Blue Origin more has a tradition of people getting frustrated that yeah, the work-life balance is better — although I hear that's changing, actually, that it's driving much, much harder — but it's like, when are we launching? What are we doing here?And so the fascinating thing is actually, I call it SpaceX and Blue Origin University, where so many of the engineers go out and either do their own things or go to work for other companies doing things because they've had that experience in the commercial sector.The long-term vision (18:37)That's the interesting thing, that while they compete . . . at a base level, Elon and Jeff and SpaceX and Blue Origin want to accomplish the same things and have a lot in common . . .At a talk recently, Bezos was talking about space stations in orbit and there being like a million people in space in 20 years doing economically valuable things of some sort. How seriously should I take that kind of prediction?Well, I think a million people in 20 years is not feasible, but I think that's ultimately what is his goal. His goal is, as he says, he founded Amazon, the infrastructure was there: the phone companies had laid down the cables for the internet, the post office was there to deliver the books, there was an invention called the credit card, he could take people's money. That infrastructure for space isn't there, and he wants to sort of help with Elon and SpaceX. That's their goal.That's the interesting thing, that while they compete, while they poke each other on Twitter and kind of have this rivalry, at a base level, Elon and Jeff and SpaceX and Blue Origin want to accomplish the same things and have a lot in common, and that's lower the cost of access to space and make it more accessible so that you can build this economy on top of it and have more people living in space. That's Elon's dream, and the reason he founded SpaceX is to build a city on Mars, right? Something's going to happen to Earth at some point we should have a backup plan.Jeff's goal from the beginning was to say, you don't really want to inhabit another planet or celestial body. You're better off in these giant space stations envisioned by a Princeton physics professor named Gerard O'Neill, who Jeff Bezos read his book The High Frontier and became an acolyte of Gerard O'Neill from when he was a kid, and that's sort of his vision, that you don't have to go to a planet, you can just be on a Star Trekkian sort of spacecraft in orbit around the earth, and then earth is preserved as this national park. If you want to return to Earth, you can, but you get all the resources from space. In 500 years is that feasible? Yeah, probably, but that's not going to be in our lives, or our kids' lives, or our grandkids' lives.For that vision — anything like that vision — to happen, it seems to me that the economics needs to be there, and the economics just can't be national security and national prestige. We need to be doing things in space, in orbit, on the moon that have economic value on their own. Do we know what that would look like, or is it like you've got to build the infrastructure first and then let the entrepreneurs do their thing and see what happens?I would say the answer is “yes,” meaning it's both. And Jeff even says it, that some of the things that will be built, we do not know. When you had the creation of the internet, no one was envisioning Snapchat or TikTok. Those applications come later. But we do know that there are resources in space. We know there's a plentiful helium three, for example, on the surface of the moon, which it could be vital for, say, quantum computing, and there's not a lot of it on earth, and that could be incredibly valuable. We know that asteroids have precious metals in large quantities. So if you can reduce the cost of accessing them and getting there, then I think you could open up some of those economies. If you just talk about solar rays in space, you don't have day and night, you don't have cloud cover, you don't have an atmosphere, you're just pure sunlight. If you could harness that energy and bring it back to earth, that could be valuable.The problem is the cost of entry is so high and it's so difficult to get there, but if you have a vehicle like Starship that does what Elon envisions and it launches multiple times a day like an airline, all you're really doing is paying for the fuel to launch it, and it goes up and comes right back down, it can carry enormous amounts of mass, you can begin to get a glimmer of how this potentially could work years from now.The pace of progress (22:50)People talk about US-China, but clearly Russia has been a long-time player. India, now, has made extraordinary advancements. Of course, Europe, Japan, and all those countries are going to want to have a foothold in space . . .How would you characterize the progress now than when you wrote your first book?So much has happened that the first book, The Space Barons was published in 2018, and I thought, yeah, there'll be enough material here for another one in maybe 10 years or so, and here we are, what, seven years later, and the book is already out because commercial companies are now flying people. You've got a growth of the space ecosystem beyond just the Space Barons, beyond just the billionaires.You've got multiple players in the rocket launch market, and really, I think a lot of what's driving it isn't just the rivalries between the commercial companies in the United States, but the geopolitical space race between the United States and China, too that's really driving a lot of this, and the technological change that we've seen has moved very fast. Again, how fast SpaceX is launching, Blue Origin coming online, new launch vehicles, potentially new commercial space stations, and a broadening of the space ecosystem, it's moving fast. Does that mean it's perfect? No, companies start, they fail, they have setbacks, they go out of business, but hey, that's capitalism.Ten years from now, how many space stations are going to be in orbit around the earth?I think we'll have at least one or two commercial space stations for the United States, I think China. Is it possible you've got the US space stations, does that satisfy the demand? People talk about US-China, but clearly Russia has been a long-time player. India, now, has made extraordinary advancements. Of course, Europe, Japan, and all those countries are going to want to have a foothold in space for their scientists, for their engineers, for their pharmaceutical companies that want to do research in a zero-G environment. I think it's possible that there are, within 10 years, three, maybe even four space stations. Yeah, I think that's possible.Friendly competition (24:53)I honestly believe [Elon] . . . wants Blue to be better than they are.Do you think Musk thinks a lot about Blue Origin, or do you think he thinks, “I'm so far ahead, we're just competing against our own goals”?I've talked to him about this. He wishes they were better. He wishes they were further along. He said to me years ago, “Jeff needs to focus on Blue Origin.” This is back when Jeff was still CEO of Amazon, saying he should focus more on Blue Origin. And he said that one of the reasons why he was goading him and needling him as he has over the years was an attempt to kind of shame him and to get him to focus on Blue, because as he said, for Blue to be successful, he really needs to be dialed in on it.So earlier this year, when New Glenn, Blue Origin's big rocket, made it to orbit, that was a moment where Elon came forward and was like, respect. That is hard to do, to build a rocket to go to orbit, have a successful flight, and there was sort of a public high five in the moment, and now I think he thinks, keep going. I honestly believe he wants Blue to be better than they are.There's a lot of Elon Musk skeptics out there. They view him either as the guy who makes too big a prediction about Tesla and self-driving cars, or he's a troll on Twitter, but when it comes to space and wanting humanity to have a self-sustaining place somewhere else — on Mars — is he for real?Yeah, I do believe that's the goal. That's why he founded SpaceX in the first place, to do that. But the bottom line is, that's really expensive. When you talk about how do you do that, what are the economic ways to do it, I think the way he's funding that is obviously through Starlink and the Starlink system. But I do believe he wants humanity to get to Mars.The problem with this now is that there hasn't been enough competition. Blue Origin hasn't given SpaceX competition. We saw all the problems that Boeing has had with their program, and so much of the national space enterprise is now in his hands. And if you remember when he had that fight and the breakup with Donald Trump, Elon, in a moment of peak, threatened to take away the Dragon spacecraft, which is the only way NASA can fly its astronauts anywhere to space, to the International Space Station. I think that was reckless and dangerous and that he regretted it, but yes, the goal to get to Mars is real, and whatever you think about Elon — and he certainly courts a controversy — SpaceX is really, really good at what they do, and what they've done is really unprecedented from an American industrial perspective.My earliest and clearest memory of America and space was the landing on Mars. I remember seeing the first pictures probably on CBS news, I think it was Dan Rather saying, “Here are the first pictures of the Martian landscape,” 1976, and if you would've asked me as a child then, I would've been like, “Yeah, so we're going to be walking on Mars,” but I was definitely hooked and I've been interested in space, but are you a space guy? How'd you end up on this beat, which I think is a fantastic beat? You've written two books about it. How did this happen?I did not grow up a space nerd, so I was born in 1973 —Christian, I said “space guy.” I didn't say “space nerd,” but yeah, that is exactly right.My first memory of space is actually the Challenger shuttle exploding. That was my memory. As a journalist, I was covering the military. I'd been embedded in Iraq, and my first book was an Iraq War book about the national guard's role in Iraq, and was covering the military. And then this guy, this was 10 years ago, 12 years ago, at this point, Elon holds a press conference at the National Press Club where SpaceX was suing the Pentagon for the right to compete for national security launch contracts, and he starts off the press conference not talking about the lawsuit, but talking about the attempts. This was early days of trying to land the Falcon 9 rocket and reuse it, and I didn't know what he was talking about. And I was like, what? And then I did some research and I was like, “He's trying to land and reuse the rockets? What?” Nobody was really covering it, so I started spending more time, and then it's the old adage, right? Follow the money. And if the richest guys in the world — Bezos Blue Origin, at the time, Richard Branson, Paul Allen had a space company — if they're investing large amounts of their own personal fortune into that, maybe we should be paying attention, and look at where we are now.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were Promised Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

“I'm going to need some tissues. It's a difficult story… but a beautiful one… because we can turn darkness into light.” -NASA's Michael CiannilliSeason 7 launches today!

It's the Omega-sode. We're taking a look at the business of Omega: How they went from the world's number one watch brand – both in terms of sales and units shipped – to number three, what happened along the way, and where they may be headed next. Hosted by Asher Rapkin and Gabe Reilly, co-founders of Collective Horology, Openwork goes inside the watch industry. You can find us online at collectivehorology.com. To get in touch with suggestions, feedback or questions, email podcast@collectivehorology.com.

Articles and features from the the Community Challenger, a weekly newspaper in Buffalo, NY

You know that feeling when events seem like a gamble and AI looks like it might replace the whole point of showing up? Here's the twist: showing up still wins. In this candid chat, Jay Schwedelson digs in with Alon Alroy on why micro events punch above their weight, how to make big conferences actually pay off, and what it takes to challenge a giant without a giant's budget.ㅤFollow Alon Alroy on LinkedIn, follow Bizzabo on LinkedIn, and visit Bizzabo.com to explore their event platform and resources. You can also check out Bizzabo's upcoming webinar on micro events—details available on their site or by messaging Alon directly.ㅤBest Moments:(01:28) From Air Force and an Airbnb-style idea to finding the real pain in events(04:53) AI raises digital noise but live events hit an all-time high for connection(08:00) Micro events that work cost 10k to 14k and get cheaper when you split with 3 to 4 partners(10:20) The booth isn't the strategy pre-during-post activation and same-day follow-up win ROI(15:00) Challenger playbook move fast a virtual launch in March 2020 vs incumbents months later(15:45) Busy vs Venti campaign speak directly to competitor pain and make it unforgettableㅤCheck out our 100% FREE + VIRTUAL EVENTS! ->Guru Conference - The World's Largest Virtual EMAIL MARKETING Conference - Nov 6-7!Register here: www.GuruConference.comㅤCheck out Jay's YOUTUBE Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@schwedelsonCheck out Jay's TIKTOK: https://www.tiktok.com/@schwedelsonCheck Out Jay's INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/jayschwedelson/ㅤMASSIVE thank you to our Sponsor, Marigold!!Email chaos across campuses, branches, or chapters? Emma by Marigold lets HQ keep control while local teams send on-brand, on-time messages with ease.Podcast & GURU listeners: 50 % off your first 3 months with an annual plan (new customers, 10 k-contact minimum, terms apply).Claim your offer now at jayschwedelson.com/emma

Why won't my truck communicate with the scanner? 08 Tahoe My car has a strong gas smell after repairs. 15 Focus 15 Buick Enclave weird squeak like a vacuum noise maybe? 12 Honda CR-V buzzes under the dash when cranking 10 Jeep Compass transmission fluid leak Where to find an ABS Pump for a 2012 Challenger? Why does my 11 F150 front end grind 4x4? 16 F-150 is it a dead battery? Why does my fuse box get hot? 03 Silverado

4pm: In Studio Guest – Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison // Seattle City Attorney challenger won’t enforce banishment zones including Capitol Hill’s SODA // SPD soars toward hiring goals as recruitment surges // What the hell is going on in Venezuela? // US sought to lure Nicolás Maduro’s pilot into betraying the Venezuelan leader // Why Trump is ‘telegraphing’ military action against Venezuela // 'No doubt' Trump wants to topple our government, Venezuelan official tells BBC // Responding to texts about Snap 

In this episode of Roots of Success, host, Barrett Chow, welcomes Tom Tessmer, founder of QLVR (Clever), for a frank conversation on the power of employee engagement surveys and the real impact of culture in the workplace. Tom draws on 20 years of Human Resources experience to break down how data-driven insights can transform teams, improve employee satisfaction, and drive better business outcomes. Discover why gathering honest feedback matters, when to pursue engagement surveys, the difference between culture and engagement—and what to watch out for so your efforts don't backfire. Whether you're a landscaping business owner or an HR leader, this episode is packed with actionable advice to help you create a more connected, successful, and resilient team.  THE BIG IDEA:   Culture is shaped by action, not intention  KEY MOMENTS:  [06:07] Challenger vs. Peacekeeper Perspectives [10:03] Defining Quality in the Workplace [12:44] "Bridging HR and Business Skills" [16:10] "Employee Engagement Survey Benefits" [18:04] Team Dynamics and Values [22:42] Culture Choices and Brilliant Jerks [24:07] Balancing Performance and Culture [28:27] Dynamic Culture and Engagement Management [31:16] Employee Engagement and Trust Insights [34:19] "Data Analysis for Deeper Insights"  QUESTIONS WE ANSWER  What is the main purpose of conducting an employee engagement survey?  How to define the difference between company culture and employee engagement?  Why is it important for engagement surveys to be anonymous?  What risks are involved in conducting an engagement survey, and how can companies avoid them?  How can employee engagement surveys help business owners prioritize actions and reduce stress?  What role does compatibility and diversity of perspectives play in a successful organization?  Why is it crucial for organizations to act on the feedback received from engagement surveys?  What are some common pitfalls when implementing engagement surveys for the first time?  Why is monitoring culture and engagement seen as an ongoing process rather than a one-time activity? 

In this episode of Scratch, Eric chats with Bronwen Foster-Butler, CMO of Finisterre, the cold-water surf brand from Cornwall proving that purpose and performance can coexist. Bronwen shares how community became Finisterre's real growth engine, from “creating through community, not for it,” to rethinking top-of-funnel marketing and focusing on relationships over reach. She shows how listening to your customers can lower CAC, build loyalty, and create true advocates.Finisterre began with a simple insight: the surf industry's glossy, tropical image that didn't reflect the real, rugged world of UK surfers. Today, it's a B Corp and leading challenger brand proving that you can grow profitably without losing your soul.And finally, she dives into how a strong sense of place in Cornwall's coastline and the shipping forecast origins of the Finisterre name and thus gives the brand its distinct voice. Ultimately, the takeaway for marketers is clear: scaling through a niche isn't limiting but it is the future. Staying true to who you are as a brand, and give a platform to your community to carry the story forward.Watch the video version of this podcast on Youtube ▶️: HERE          

Strange New Adventures: “Into the Shadow Maw Nebula” (Act Two of whatever Should Be Done Must Be Done)The chase intensifies as the crew of the Challenger follows Urotoxa's trail deep into the mysterious Shadow Maw Nebula, a swirling expanse of volatile energy and treacherous gravitational currents. On a moon shrouded within, Urotoxa and her team may have uncovered something that could rewrite history itself. With time running out and the nebula's storms threatening to tear their ship apart, the crew must risk everything to find her and uncover the truth before it's lost to the shadows forever. Listen to the penultimate episode of the Star Trek Adventures Second Edition Starter Campaign now!

With Dodge thinking real hard about bringing the Hellcat, we take a look at two of our favorites.A three-row family hauler with 710 horsepower sounds like a punchline, but the 2023 Dodge Durango SRT Hellcat Premium makes a strong case for everyday insanity. We dive into the details that matter: the captain's chairs that make carpool easy, the Laguna leather and heated second row that keep everyone happy, and the SRT Performance Pages that tempt you to explore every drive mode. From red Brembo brakes and 20 by 10 wheels to the 10.1-inch Uconnect system and a thundering Harman Kardon setup, the Durango blends comfort, tech, and raw force in a way few SUVs can touch.Then we talk numbers and nuance. A 6.2-liter supercharged V8 with 710 hp and 645 lb-ft moving 5,500 pounds to 60 in under five seconds feels unhinged, yet the competition suspension and AWD deliver a firm, stable ride on the highway. Towing up to 8,700 pounds, seeing real-world fuel economy in the teens, and confronting a six-figure sticker spark the bigger conversation: what are you really buying when you choose a Hellcat badge? We stack the Durango's capability against the short list of rivals and find that very few full-size SUVs play in this power league.To round out the picture, we jump into the Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat Widebody and explore why a shape born in 2008 still sells out. Wide fenders, a flat-nose grille, and hood nostrils serve retro muscle with modern grip, while a thick SRT wheel, high-bolstered seats, and bulletproof Uconnect keep the cockpit focused. With 717 hp and 656 lb-ft on tap, the Challenger raises the eternal question: should you use all of it? We unpack the burnout myth, traction realities, daily drivability, and how the Hellcat compares with Mustang Mach 1, Camaro ZL1, and Charger Hellcat.If you're weighing a supercharged SUV that can tow the toys or a coupe that time-travels to the glory days, this conversation maps the trade-offs in power, price, and practicality. Subscribe, share with a friend who loves big horsepower, and leave a review to tell us whether you'd pick the Durango or the Challenger.Be sure to subscribe for more In Wheel Time Car Talk!The Lupe' Tortilla RestaurantsLupe Tortilla in Katy, Texas Gulf Coast Auto ShieldPaint protection, tint, and more!Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.---- ----- Want more In Wheel Time car talk any time? In Wheel Time is now available on Audacy! Just go to Audacy.com/InWheelTime where ever you are.----- -----Be sure to subscribe on your favorite podcast provider for the next episode of In Wheel Time Podcast and check out our live multiplatform broadcast every Saturday, 10a - 12nCT simulcasting on Audacy, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Twitch and InWheelTime.com.In Wheel Time Podcast can be heard on you mobile device from providers such as:Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music Podcast, Spotify, SiriusXM Podcast, iHeartRadio podcast, TuneIn + Alexa, Podcast Addict, Castro, Castbox, YouTube Podcast and more on your mobile device.Follow InWheelTime.com for the latest updates!Twitter: https://twitter.com/InWheelTimeInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/inwheeltime/https://www.youtube.com/inwheeltimehttps://www.Facebook.com/InWheelTimeFor more information about In Wheel Time Podcast, email us at info@inwheeltime.com

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What if your body is learning things your mind doesn't know? What if memory wasn't just something that our brain has?Episode Summary On this episode, I'm exploring a bold idea with neuroscientist Dr Nikolay Kukushkin: memory doesn't just live in the brain. It might be a basic property of life itself. We unpack how scientists define memory (behavioural change over time) versus how the rest of us use the word, and why that distinction matters—from sea slugs to kidney cells. I ask the “muscle memory” question we all carry, and we separate the metaphor from the biology: your basal ganglia automate behaviours, but your muscle cells do literally adapt to patterned use.We go deep on “patterns.” Nikolay's work shows that even non-neural cells can detect minute-scale timing differences—preferring spaced pulses over a single crammed dose. That has huge implications for learning, exercise, nutrition, and even medicine; it suggests timing might be as important as quantity. We also talk about sleep as essential “synaptic housekeeping,” why false memories are an adaptive feature (not a failure), and what it really means to “run out of memory” in our overstimulated world.Finally, we tilt at the big questions: how consciousness might have evolved, why Plato's model of perception eerily echoes today's top-down/bottom-up neuroscience, and what AI still lacks—learning patterns in time within an embodied world. If you've ever crammed for an exam, worried about forgetting your own name, or wondered what your cells are quietly learning from your daily routines, this one will rewire how you think about memory.Guest Biography — Dr Nikolay KukushkinDr Nikolay Kukushkin is a Clinical Associate Professor at NYU. His book One Hand Clapping: Unraveling the Mystery of the Human Mind  traces how consciousness emerged from the natural world; the original Russian edition won the Enlightener (Prosvetitel) Award and the Alexander Belyaev Medal.His recent research (Nature Communications, Nov 2024) showed that non-neural human cells display the classic “spacing effect,” suggesting memory-like temporal patterning beyond the brain.AI-Generated Timestamped Summary [00:00:00] Cold open: reframing memory as cellular, not just neural. [00:01:00] Scientists' definition of memory vs everyday usage. [00:03:00] From behaviour change to cellular change; beyond “plugging a muscle into a brain.” [00:05:00] All cells have experiences; “pattern matters.” [00:06:00] Muscle memory: basal ganglia automation vs literal muscle adaptation. [00:07:00] Shared molecular machinery: “use it or lose it” in brain and muscle. [00:08:00] Nikolay's path: from molecules to minds; bottom-up neuroscience. [00:09:00] Protein quality control: molecular barcodes and cellular “conversations.” [00:11:00] Why sea slugs: short path from molecules to behaviour. [00:13:00] Hypothesis leap: if single neurons learn from pulses, could kidney cells? [00:14:00] The experiment: four 3-min pulses vs one 12-min pulse (spacing wins). [00:16:00] What's uniquely neural: synapses and specific connectivity; where salience arises. [00:19:00] Memory without awareness; non-neural systems can store patterns. [00:20:00] Applications: exercise, diet, medicine; timing as a lever. [00:23:00] The dark mirror: life as obsessive optimisation if we over-pattern. [00:24:00] Personal practice: being mindful of inputs, attention as filter. [00:26:00] Debunking “10% of the brain” and the sleep–memory link. [00:28:00] Sleep weakens synapses; deprivation leads to saturation and hallucinations. [00:30:00] The social-media “soup” analogy for saturated memory. [00:32:00] Names, identity and rehearsal; de-naming as degradation. [00:33:00] Reconsolidation: why false memories are a feature we need. [00:34:00] 9/11/Challenger studies: how memories drift with time. [00:36:00] Ebbinghaus and the spacing effect across species and systems. [00:39:00] Cramming vs spacing: initial strength and decay rates. [00:41:00] The forgetting curve and why “more” can decay slower in memory. [00:42:00] “My whole life is one big experiment on my brain.” [00:43:00] Practical “tip”: fix attention first; follow interest, not force. [00:45:00] Attention economy and selective inputs as memory hygiene. [00:48:00] From smoking to scrolling: a future of information hygiene. [00:50:00] One Hand Clapping: why it feels special to be you. [00:54:00] Plato's “two fires”: ancient echoes of top-down/bottom-up perception. [00:58:00] Intuition as hidden associations; LLMs as an analogy. [01:00:00] AI: excitement, unease, and the risk of outsourcing humanness. [01:03:00] What AI lacks: learning patterns in time without a body. [01:05:00] Close and thanks. [01:06:00] Outro and calls to action.LinksNikolay's website - https://www.nikolaykukushkin.com/His NYC profile - https://liberalstudies.nyu.edu/about/faculty-listing/nikolay-kukushkin.htmlHis book 'One Hand Clapping' - https://www.nikolaykukushkin.com/press-1'Memory Takes Time': research into how wemory is not confined to a particular location or locations in the brain - https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-62731730467-1Herman Ebbinghaus - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Ebbinghaus and The Ebbinghaus Illusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebbinghaus_illusion

In this week's Frankly, Nate considers the ways in which our social species overvalues false-confidence rather than the more honest and inquisitive response of “I don't know.” He invites us to consider the science behind this cultural bias towards certainty: from our biological response from the stress of “not knowing” to the reinforcing effects of motivated reasoning that ensnares even the smartest among us (especially the smartest among us). Overconfidence and the desire for quick answers have been the root cause of many of humanity's disasters, from the space shuttle Challenger explosion to the Deep Water Horizon oil spill to the subprime housing bubble. And now, the exponential growth and integration of Artificial Intelligence is hyper-fueling this risk, as AI mirrors the human aversion to uncertainty through “hallucinations”. As some AI companies are now considering penalizing over-confident answers in favor of “I don't know”, perhaps humans could learn to do the same for ourselves. How often do you say. "I don't know"?  In what ways do we lose opportunities for conversation and exploration by not admitting our own uncertainties? Can listening to our own gut for “truth” and embracing intentional Red Team dissent shift “I don't know” from weakness to wisdom? (Recorded October 17th, 2025)   Show Notes and More Watch this video episode on YouTube   Want to learn the broad overview of The Great Simplification in 30 minutes? Watch our Animated Movie. ---   Support The Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future   Join our Substack newsletter   Join our Hylo channel and connect with other listeners

In today's episode of Good Morning Liberty, Nate Thurston and Charles Chuck Thompson discuss two major topics. The first topic centers around the primary race in Kentucky's 4th Congressional District where Trump-endorsed candidate Ed Galran is set to challenge incumbent Republican Thomas Massie. The episode dives into the implications of this primary battle for liberty-leaning candidates and the broader political landscape. The second topic covers Bernie Sanders' recent appearance on Jon Stewart's show, where they discuss the complexities and shortfalls of the American healthcare system, Obamacare, and the potential for Medicare for All. The hosts also talk about the impact of government subsidies and the unintended consequences they often bring. Additionally, the episode features an ad segment for the ProLon fasting mimicking diet program. 00:00 Intro 01:15 Thomas Massie vs. Trump-Endorsed Candidate 03:38 ProLon Fasting Mimicking Diet 05:40 Trump's Endorsement and Massie's Popularity 16:54 Bernie Sanders on John Stewart 19:54 Healthcare Crisis: 15 Million at Risk 20:57 Medicare for All: The Debate 21:54 Obamacare Cuts and Subsidies 23:06 Inflation Reduction Act: A Closer Look 25:31 The Real Cost of Healthcare 26:05 John Stewart's Unexpected Point 32:15 Medicare for All: Pros and Cons 37:59 Healthcare Rationing and Comparisons 40:01 Conclusion and Final Thoughts  

Director of Topnotch Events Alex Guthrie joins the show to discuss Year 2 of the Lincoln Challenger, the proliferation of American events, and so much more!! Laurel Springs Ranked among the best online private schools in the United States, Laurel Springs stands out when it comes to support, personalization, community, and college prep. They give their K-12 students the resources, guidance, and learning opportunities they need at each grade level to reach their full potential. Find Cracked Racquets Website: https://www.crackedracquets.com Instagram: https://instagram.com/crackedracquets Twitter: https://twitter.com/crackedracquets Facebook: https://Facebook.com/crackedracquets YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/crackedracquets Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Ep. 208 brings the third installment of our “Best of…” series. Elizabeth Barnhill of Fabled Bookshop joined Sarah for the Best of Narrative Nonfiction, sharing her ALL-TIME TOP books in this genre. Plus, she brings a few popular nonfiction reads that didn't work for her.⁠ This episode is chock-full of fantastic book recommendations to get you ready for Nonfiction November or just your next nonfiction pick. This post contains affiliate links through which I make a small commission when you make a purchase (at no cost to you!). CLICK HERE for the full episode Show Notes on the blog. Highlights How Elizabeth got started with narrative nonfiction. How the pull of “real stories” has her returning to this category again and again. Her favorite sub-genres and what doesn't work for her. Elizabeth picks a book from her list that would be a good starter book for those new to the genre. All books mentioned in this episode are linked through Fabled Bookshop or Libro.FM. If you decide to purchase, we'd love for you to use our Fabled links in the show notes — if your budget allows.  As a bonus, use promo code SARAH at checkout on Fabled's website for 10% off your order! Prefer audio? You can find the titles on Libro.fm and select Fabled as the store you'd like to support. You can also find a list of Elizabeth's books from this episode on both Fabled's website. Elizabeth's Favorite Narrative Nonfiction Sub-Genres [9:53] NATURAL DISASTER STORIES In the Kingdom of Ice by Hampton Sides (2014) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [10:42] The Children's Blizzard by David Laskin (2004) | Fabled | Libro.FM [11:13] The Vortex by Scott Carney and Jason Miklian (2022) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [11:29] The Indifferent Stars Above by Daniel James Brown (2009) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [12:18] What Stands in a Storm by Kim Cross (2015) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [13:11] Isaac's Storm by Erik Larson (1999) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [13:33] LITTLE-KNOWN FACTS One Summer by Bill Bryson (2013) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [14:24] Pappyland by Wright Thompson (2020) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [15:05] The Facemaker by Lindsey Fitzharris (2022) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [15:43] POP SCIENCE Digital Minimalism by Cal Newport (2019) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [16:54] The Light Eaters by Zoë Schlanger (2024) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [17:50] Replaceable You by Mary Roach (2025) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [18:35] HISTORY TOLD IN INTERESTING WAYS Say Nothing by Patrick Radden Keefe (2018) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [19:03] The Great Halifax Explosion by John U. Bacon (2017) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [20:21] The Big Rich by Bryan Burrough (2009) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [21:17] In Harm's Way by Doug Stanton (2001) | Fabled  [21:43] Unbroken by Laura Hillenbrand (2010) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [22:11] ORDINARY PEOPLE MEMOIRS Red Notice by Bill Browder (2015) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [22:32] Home Cooking by Laurie Colwin (1988) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [23:06] GOTCHA / PEOPLE BEHAVING BADLY Bad Blood by John Carreyrou (2018) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [24:22] Bad City by Paul Pringle (2022) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [24:24] Bully Market by Jamie Fiore Higgins (2022) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [24:31] Elizabeth's All-Time Top Narrative Nonfiction [26:07] Empty Mansions by Bill Dedman and Paul Clark Newell, Jr. (2013) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [26:56] The Worst Hard Time by Timothy Egan (2006) | Fabled | Libro.FM [28:07] The Radium Girls by Kate Moore (2016) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [29:13] Destiny of the Republic by Candice Millard (2011) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [30:57] The Deepest South of All by Richard Grant (2020) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [33:03] Running with Sherman by Christopher McDougall (2019) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [35:01] All Over but the Shoutin' by Rick Bragg (1991) | Fabled | Libro.FM   [37:41] Sudden Sea by R. A. Scotti (2003) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [39:52] The Day the World Came to Town by Jim DeFede (2002) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [43:09] High-Profile Narrative Nonfiction That She Didn't Love [47:37]  In Cold Blood by Truman Capote (1965) | Fabled | Libro.FM  [47:52] When the Sea Came Alive by Garrett M. Graff (2024) | Fabled | Libro.FM [49:19] Challenger by Adam Higginbotham (2024) | Fabled | Libro.FM [50:48] Other Books Mentioned Finding Flora by Elinor Florence (2025) [4:51] Undaunted Courage by Stephen E. Ambrose (1996) [5:21] The Boys in the Boat by Daniel James Brown (2013) [12:22] Patty Reed's Doll by Rachel K. Laurgaard (1956) [12:59]   In Light of All Darkness by Kim Cross (2023) [13:15] The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt (2024) [17:45] Grunt by Mary Roach (2016) [18:27] Family Happiness by Laurie Colwin (1984) [23:48] Girl, Wash Your Face by Rachel Hollis (2018) [25:10] I'll Be Gone in the Dark by Michelle McNamara (2018) [25:39] A Fever in the Heartland by Timothy Egan (2023) [28:57] The Immortal Irishman by Timothy Egan (2016) [29:02] Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil by John Berendt (1994) [33:48] Natchez Burning (Natchez Burning, 1 and Penn Cage, 4) by Greg Iles (2014) [34:49] Born to Run by Christopher McDougall (2009) [35:21] My Southern Journey by Rick Bragg (2015) [39:03] Reef Road by Deborah Goodrich Royce (2023) [41:45] A Hundred Summers by Beatriz Williams (2013) [42:33] The Only Place in the Sky by Garrett M. Graff (2019) [45:44] The Devil Reached Toward the Sky by Garrett M. Graff (2025) [50:41] Midnight in Chernobyl by Adam Higginbotham (2019) [42:33]

It's an AI showdown. Elon Musk has been building out two massive data centers in Memphis as he plays catch-up in the AI race. But will it be enough? Meanwhile, AI chips underdog Advanced Micro Devices rocked the market last week when it landed a multibillion-dollar partnership with OpenAI, directly challenging industry leader Nvidia. We'll tell you about the old-school CEO leading AMD. Julie Chang hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free Technology newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices