Podcasts about Circ

Avui a La Furgo de #CarrerMajor hem conegut dues de les grans apostes culturals que ompliran de vida l'estiu tarragoní. Des del Teatre Tarragona, hem parlat amb Mireia Aguador i Salva Miranda per descobrir una programació que combina dansa, arts escèniques, espectacles familiars i cultura a l'aire lliure, pensada per arribar a tots els públics. […] L'entrada La Furgo | Tarragona omple l'estiu de dansa, circ i espectacles familiars ha aparegut primer a BXC Ràdio Ciutat de Reus - Ràdio Online.

In this solo episode of the Live Ultralight Podcast, Tayson marks the 12th anniversary of Outdoor Vitals by detailing the brand's evolution from a college startup to a successful creator of performance-first ultralight backpacking gear. This discussion serves as a comprehensive update for the hiking community on company growth, technical product development, and the future of remote wilderness equipment. Key Topics Covered: The Transition to Performance-First Ultralight: An analysis of how the brand shifted its mission from "Opening the Outdoors" via affordable entry-level gear to developing high-performance equipment specifically for remote wilderness and high-mountain environments. Expansion of Women's Specific Gear: Details on the strategic hire of a second designer to focus on refining and expanding the women's technical apparel and gear lines. Product Innovation Pipeline: A preview of upcoming limited edition innovation drops for late fall 2026 and a development update on the highly anticipated CIRC two-person tent. Inventory & Logistics Strategy: Insights into how the company has significantly increased inventory levels to reduce stockouts on popular items like the Mountain Pursuit line and Shadowlight backpacks. Founders Day Sale Details: Information on the biggest sale this summer plus a GIVEAWAY announcement.  Episode Chapters: 0:00 – 12th Anniversary Reflection and Opening  1:11 – Company Origins: From College Idea to Direct-to-Consumer Model 3:15 – Evolving Gear Philosophy: Focusing on Backcountry Performance 5:34 – Internal Milestones: Approaching 10-Year Employee Anniversaries 6:41 – The OV 100-Mile Challenge: Impact of the DIY Backpacking Program 9:13 – Product Retrospective: Mountain Pursuit, Backpacks, and Zulu Down 12:27 – Long-Term Growth: The Power of Sticking to a Single Vision 16:52 – Design Philosophy: Why We Build for High-Mountain Wilderness 21:17 – Strategic Hires: Expanding Capabilities in the Women's Gear Category 24:03 – Content Strategy: Renewed Focus on On-Trail Video and Education 25:24 – 2026 Sneak Peek: Late-Year Releases and Innovation Drops 28:22 – Development Roadmap: CIRC 2-Person Tent Status 29:34 – Founder's Day Sale: Black Friday Savings in June Gear Mentioned in This Episode: Shadowlight Backpack: https://bit.ly/4opNN7x Carbon Evo Backpack: https://bit.ly/4xnnB1n Altura Pants: https://bit.ly/4gf6Cbw Vantage Alpine Jacket: https://outdoorvitals.com/products/vantage-alpine-down-jacket?_pos=1&_psq=vantage&_ss=e&_v=1.0&utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=link Pursuit Hoodie: https://outdoorvitals.com/products/pursuit-hybrid-fleece?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=link Zulu Down Jacket: https://outdoorvitals.com/products/zulu-down-jacket?_pos=1&_psq=zulu&_ss=e&_v=1.0&utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=link Circ 1-Person Tent: https://outdoorvitals.com/products/cirq-trekking-pole-tent?_pos=1&_psq=cirq&_ss=e&_v=1.0&utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=link  

Elle fait partie du club select des mauvaises femmes de la mythologie et de la fiction aux côtés de Médée, Circé et Lady Macbeth : la fée Morgane, antagoniste historique du soi-disant irréprochable roi Arthur, en a bavé, et il était temps de la réhabiliter. Le médiéviste franco-italien Emanuele Arioli, connu pour son travail sur Ségurant, le chevalier a dragon, consacre un codex richement illustré à la demi-sœur d'Arthur, et révélant d'autres facettes : une enfant trahie et dépossédée de son héritage, devenue femme puissante, éprise de liberté et de savoir. Par Ellen Ichters

This Day in Legal History: Kennedy Signs the Equal Pay ActOn this day in 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, the first federal statute aimed directly at sex-based wage discrimination. The law took the form of an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which meant that it slid into an existing enforcement framework run by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor — a deliberate choice that bypassed the need to build new institutional machinery and harnessed thirty years of FLSA caselaw and habits of compliance. The legal hook is the Act's “equal pay for equal work” command: employers may not pay employees of one sex less than employees of the opposite sex for jobs requiring “equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.”Four affirmative defenses are written into the text — a seniority system, a merit system, a system measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production, or “any other factor other than sex” — and that fourth catch-all has done more work in litigation than the other three combined, shaping how courts evaluate market-based, education-based, and prior-salary-based pay differentials decades later. The wage gap at the moment Kennedy signed was about 59 cents on the dollar; six decades on, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics's standard measure, it sits closer to 84 cents. That tells you something about how a clean, structurally well-designed statute can still leave a lot of the work undone, because the gap is and always was about more than identical pairs of jobs at the same employer.The Equal Pay Act is not the whole story of American workplace-equality law; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and a long line of state-law analogues do much of the modern enforcement work. But June 10, 1963 is the day Congress, with the President's signature, said for the first time that paying a woman less than a man for the same work was unlawful, full stop. Everything that has followed in this corner of the law has been built on top of that sentence.The Federal Circuit on Monday affirmed a Delaware district court judgment invalidating four Purdue Pharma patents covering an abuse-deterrent, low-toxicity version of the opioid OxyContin, in a decision the patent bar has been waiting on for months. The case is Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma LLC. The patents covered Purdue's reformulation of OxyContin to make the pills crush-resistant and to reduce a manufacturing impurity, and the asserted innovation grew, the company said, out of its discovery of the source of a particular toxic impurity that had previously eluded chemists at competing labs. Purdue's argument on appeal was, in essence, that the discovery of the impurity's source was itself nonobvious, and that the resulting patents inherited that nonobviousness. The Federal Circuit said no.The panel held that the relevant obviousness inquiry asks whether the claimed reformulation — not the discovery that motivated it — would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and that once the prior art is taken into account, the answer is yes. The practical consequence of the ruling is large. It opens the door wider for generic abuse-deterrent OxyContin alternatives and clarifies a doctrinal point pharmaceutical companies have been pressing on for years: a hard-won research insight does not, on its own, automatically save a patent from obviousness if the resulting product was within the prior art's reach. Purdue's options now are a rehearing petition at the Federal Circuit, a cert petition at the Supreme Court (which the company has already pursued in a related case last spring), or quiet acceptance. Expect a cert petition. Expect the cert petition to be denied. Watch the generic-drug filings that follow.Fed. Circ. Panel Backs Invalidation Of OxyContin PatentThe plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Virginia lawsuit over the Trump administration's $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” — a story we covered earlier htis week— went back to Judge Leonie Brinkema on Tuesday and asked for permission to conduct limited discovery into whether the Justice Department's recent representation that it would stop work on the fund is a real commitment or a litigation convenience.The plaintiffs' problem is straightforward: acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has filed papers saying the program is “not going forward,” but President Trump publicly described the fund last week as a “great idea” that many Republicans support, and the executive order that created the fund has not been formally rescinded. From a litigation-strategy standpoint, the plaintiffs do not want to walk away from a live case on the strength of a DOJ filing, accept dismissal as moot, and then find out three months later that the fund has been quietly resurrected under a different name.Judge Brinkema has a hearing scheduled for Friday, June 12, on whether to extend the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction. The Tuesday filing teed up the broader mootness fight that will dominate Friday's hearing: when does a federal agency's promise to stop doing something actually deprive a court of jurisdiction to enjoin the underlying program, and what discovery, if any, is a plaintiff entitled to before that determination is made. The doctrine here — voluntary cessation, capable of repetition yet evading review, and the heavy burden the Supreme Court has placed on the party claiming mootness — favors the plaintiffs procedurally. Whether Brinkema agrees on Friday is the question to watch.‘Anti-weaponization' fund challengers question its demise – Roll CallSCOTUSblog's John Elwood walked through a useful relist roundup on Tuesday, and the four cases sitting in the relist pile are worth flagging because each of them touches a different load-bearing wall in federal practice. The first is a prolonged-detention challenge to immigration custody under Section 1226(c). The ACLU is asking the Court to clarify that very long mandatory-detention periods trigger procedural due process review under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, picking up on the Second Circuit's willingness to do so. The second is Newberry v. Texas, a case where Texas itself has confessed error — a rare procedural posture in which the State agrees the defendant should win — and the question is what the Court does when the parties on both sides ask for the same remedy. The third is Kian v. Florida, a Sixth Amendment challenge to the use of six-person juries in serious felony cases, on the theory that the historical understanding of “jury” in the founding era assumed twelve and that the Court's mid-twentieth-century cases approving six-person juries were wrong on the originalist analysis. The fourth is Maxwell v. Thomas, a federal habeas case asking whether the First Step Act‘s halfway-house and home-confinement provisions are properly enforceable through 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions, an issue with a real circuit split. None of these have been granted yet — they are relists, which means at least one Justice is interested but the Court has not yet decided whether to hear them — but the mix is the part to watch: it tells you what the Justices are circling without committing to. Expect at least one of these to be granted before the term ends.A random assortment of relists: prolonged detention, confessions of error, small juries, and new rules on habeas | SCOTUSblog This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode, we talk about: a person who told their brother's girlfriend about his vasectomy, a teacher accidentally finds out they are old, a late night snack leading to a relationship realization, a listener encounters a wizard in the wild, and a starchy mistake comes back to bite a redditor in the worst ways imaginable. We also go over some moral conundrums in this week's circle jurdge! Palestine Children's Relief Fund Donation Link: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://tiltify.com/@judgies-pod/judgies-for-free-palestine⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Edited by: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@currentlyblinking⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/currentlyblink⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://tiktok.com/@currently.blinking⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Want fun and cool stickers and MORE? www.aurorascreaturecorner.store Judgies Merch is Available HERE! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://judgiespod.myspreadshop.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Our Patreon is officially open, if you want to see extra content go check it out! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/JudgiesPod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Send us mail! (Addressed However You'd Like) P.O. Box 58 Ottawa, IL 61350 Leave a Review! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-judgies/id1519741238⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow us on Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/judgiespod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow us on Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/judgiespod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Intro Music by: Iván ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/artist/5gB2VvyqfnOlNv37PHKRNJ?si=f6TIYrLITkG2NZXGLm_Y-Q&dl_branch=1⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Time Stamps: 0:00 Intro 9:58 Telling Brother's GF About Vasectomy 22:01 Watching Students Crack Each Other 32:31 Late Night Snack 43:32 Break 44:09 CJ: Moral Dilemmas 1:03:29 LS Sound 1:07:53 LS Story 1:18:10 Starchy Struggle 1:37:53 Outro 1:38:41 Secret Surprise Story Links: AITAH for telling my brother's girlfriend he had a vasectomy when she started planning their future family? DELETED TIFU by unknowingly telling my 14 year old students to stop f**king each other until I could watch Late night snack as I contemplate leaving my boyfriend for the 1000000th time TIFU by eating dehydrated shredded hash browns a a snack and turned my body into a potato-powered sewage cannon Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Madison Introduces the Bill of RightsOn this day in 1789, James Madison rose from his seat in New York's Federal Hall — then the temporary capital of the new federal government — and gave the speech in which he introduced a list of amendments to the Constitution that we now know as the Bill of Rights. Madison had been, until quite recently, a skeptic of attaching a bill of rights to the federal Constitution: he had argued at the Constitutional Convention and in The Federalist that the structure of enumerated and separated powers was a better protection of liberty than a “parchment barrier” of textual rights, and he worried that any enumeration would be read to imply that whatever was not enumerated was not protected. What changed his mind was politics. The Antifederalist opposition in several states had made ratification conditional on amendments protecting individual rights, and Madison — by then a member of the First Congress — concluded that introducing such amendments himself was the surest way to defuse a broader constitutional convention movement that might unravel the work of 1787. The list he proposed on June 8 was longer and somewhat different from what eventually became the Bill of Rights; the House debated it through the summer, passed seventeen amendments in August, the Senate reduced them to twelve in September, and ten of those — the ones we now call Amendments I through X — were ratified by the states on December 15, 1791. June 8 is the date a reluctant convert stood up and made the case that has carried American constitutional law ever since: the proposition that the government's structural restraint is necessary but not sufficient, and that the rights of speech, conscience, due process, and the rest deserve to be written down where everyone can read them.Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on Friday vacated four U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policies that had, since late last year, frozen work permits, green-card adjudications, naturalization, and asylum claims for nationals of roughly 39 countries on the second Trump administration's travel ban list. The case, Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-00132, was brought by a coalition of immigrant-service organizations and labor unions. Judge McConnell held that all four policies — a “Benefits Hold” freezing affirmative benefits for travel-ban country nationals, a Global Asylum Hold halting asylum processing across the board regardless of country of origin, a Comprehensive Re-Review Policy requiring USCIS to re-examine previously approved benefits, and a separate adjudicator-instruction policy treating travel-ban country origin as a negative factor — are unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. The legal hook is familiar APA territory: the agency, McConnell concluded, failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the freezes and failed to account for the substantial reliance interests of hundreds of thousands of pending applicants. What makes this ruling stand out is the remedy. Other district courts that had blocked these policies in the last six months issued preliminary injunctions limited to named plaintiffs; McConnell vacated the policies themselves, which under standard APA practice means they cease to operate nationwide. That puts USCIS in the position of either rescinding the policies, going back to the drawing board with proper rulemaking, or appealing to the First Circuit and trying to get the vacatur stayed. Expect movement on all three fronts this week.US Judge Strikes Down Trump Policies Targeting Immigrants From 39 Countries | US NewsU.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia entered a temporary restraining order on Friday blocking the Trump administration's $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” from disbursing any money while the underlying lawsuit proceeds. The fund — created by executive order earlier this year and funded out of a settlement the administration brokered in the Trump-IRS litigation we covered in early June — was meant to compensate people the administration described as victims of the Biden Justice Department's “weaponization” of federal law enforcement, with the first contemplated payments going to defendants and witnesses from the January 6 prosecutions. Plaintiffs include former DOJ attorney Andrew Floyd and other former federal prosecutors who argue, in essence, that the fund is an unauthorized expenditure of public money: Congress never appropriated it, the settlement that supposedly funds it is itself under judicial review for whether the United States was actually adverse to the President in his personal capacity, and the program's payout criteria are based on political characterizations of past prosecutions rather than any neutral standard. Judge Brinkema's order, narrowly drawn to “ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed,” set a June 12 hearing on whether the freeze should be extended into a preliminary injunction. By the end of last week the situation had escalated further: on June 5 the Justice Department told two federal judges, in writing, that it would stop work on the fund altogether and that the lawsuits challenging it are now moot. That representation will be tested at this Friday's hearing, because the plaintiffs are not satisfied with a unilateral DOJ promise and want a binding court order before they go away. Watch for what Brinkema does with that disagreement on Friday.Justice Department says it will stop work on $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” after judge's ruling | CBS NewsA divided Seventh Circuit panel on Friday upheld Indiana's law restricting who may attend an execution at the Indiana State Prison, holding that the First Amendment does not give reporters a right of access to be present at the execution itself. Judge Michael Scudder wrote the 2-1 majority. The plaintiffs — the Associated Press, the Indiana Capital Chronicle, Gannett, WISH-TV, and TEGNA, represented by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — had argued that the long line of Supreme Court cases recognizing a First Amendment right of press and public access to criminal proceedings, from Richmond Newspapers forward, extends to the carrying out of capital sentences, particularly given Indiana's recent resumption of executions after a long pause and a 2024 statute that omitted journalists from the list of permitted witnesses. The panel disagreed. The majority emphasized that Indiana's witness list — the warden, execution staff, the prison physician, a chaplain, the prisoner's spiritual adviser, up to eight family members of the victim, and up to five unspecified additional witnesses — leaves journalists free to interview those who did attend, report on every other aspect of the proceeding, and comment on the state's choice to impose or carry out the sentence, and that there is no constitutional difference between watching the execution and reporting on it secondhand. The opinion's most striking passage, candidly weighed against the press claim: allowing “uninvited strangers with no immediate connection to the underlying crime” to watch a prisoner die “risks offending the dignity of their final moments.” The dissent argued the press's structural role in informing public deliberation over the death penalty depends on first-hand observation. The split sets up a possible petition for rehearing en banc and, in the longer run, a circuit-split-ready vehicle if other circuits go the other way.7th Circ. Says Ind. Can Bar Press From Attending Executions | Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Christophe Ono-Dit-Biot "L'Odyssée de l'Odyssée : Tout ce que vous avez toujours voulu savoir sur les aventures d'Ulysse sans avoir jamais lu Homère" (Grasset)Les sirènes tentatrices, l'infâme cyclope, Circé et ses pourceaux, et bien sûr Ulysse, mari aimant et roi éclairé, qui parvient après mille détours à rentrer chez lui auprès de sa fidèle épouse pour récupérer sa terre et n'en plus bouger…Voilà ce qu'on nous a toujours raconté des aventures d'Ulysse dans L'Odyssée.Mais lit-on encore vraiment les 12 000 vers d'Homère, ou de celui qu'on appelle Homère ?Or, les lire en compagnie d'un passeur passionné comme Christophe Ono-dit-Biot, c'est découvrir, au-delà des images d'Épinal moralisatrices et simplistes, un univers beaucoup plus riche, sensuel, brutal, complexe et captivant.L'entreprise de l'auteur est directe, généreuse et efficace : raconter L'Odyssée aux adultes, en suivant l'ordre des chants, dans une succession de brefs chapitres qui nous content au plus près du texte les aventures des héros et des héroïnes, des déesses et des dieux, mais creusent aussi le sens profond que les contemporains leur donnaient et les leçons que nous pouvons en tirer aujourd'hui.Un livre romanesque en diable, à la pédagogie charmeuse et à l'érudition toujours ludique : le « gai savoir » à la portée de toutes et de tous.Musique : "Should I stay or should I go ? " Les ClashHébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

This Day in Legal History: The National Defense Act of 1916On this day in 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the National Defense Act, the law that quietly built the legal scaffolding for how the United States deploys soldiers, both abroad and at home, for the next century-plus. The Act roughly tripled the size of the regular Army, formally created the National Guard as a federalized reserve force out of the patchwork of state militias that had existed since the founding, and established the Reserve Officers' Training Corps at colleges and universities. The legal hook is the dual-status structure that the Act created and that we still use today: the National Guard belongs simultaneously to its state and to the federal government, normally takes orders from the governor, but can be “federalized” by the President under specific statutory authorities and pulled out of state command for federal missions. That structure has driven a long line of constitutional fights about the limits of presidential authority to call up the Guard, about whether and when the Insurrection Act applies, and about how the Posse Comitatus Act constrains the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement. June 3 is not a day most people associate with American military law, but the 1916 statute is doing quiet work behind every modern headline about troops at a border, troops in a city, or troops in a hurricane.The Eleventh Circuit on Tuesday handed down a ruling that strips hip-hop group 2 Live Crew of the copyrights it thought it had successfully clawed back to five of its albums, including “As Nasty as They Wanna Be,” because one member's bankruptcy from the 1990s swept his future termination rights into the bankruptcy estate. Federal copyright law has a wonderfully democratic provision in Section 203: an author who signed away a copyright can, 35 years later, send a termination notice and take it back, regardless of what the original contract said. The catch the Eleventh Circuit identified is Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, which scoops up almost everything you own into the bankruptcy estate when you file — including, the court said, the right to send that termination notice years later, even though the right cannot be sold or contracted away in any other context. The practical consequence for 2 Live Crew is that member Mark Ross, who performed as Brother Marquis, had unwittingly transferred his future termination interests to his bankruptcy trustee when he filed Chapter 7 years earlier, so when the group's heirs and surviving members later tried to take the copyrights back from Lil' Joe Records in 2020, they were one vote short of the majority the statute requires. The case, Lil' Joe Records v. Christopher Won Jr. et al., No. 24-13978, is described in the opinion as “a question of first impression at the intersection of copyright and bankruptcy” — which is lawyer-speak for “we just made up the rule, and now it's the rule.” Expect every copyright-termination case where any author has ever filed for bankruptcy to cite this decision for the next decade.11th Circ. Reverses 2 Live Crew's Copyright Clawback Win | Law360President Trump on Tuesday quietly signed a finalized version of the AI cybersecurity executive order that he had abruptly scrapped during a planned signing ceremony on May 21, and the final version is notably narrower than the one that was on the table a month ago. The new order asks Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and other federal agencies to design a voluntary framework under which developers of so-called frontier AI models — the largest and most general-purpose systems — would share their models with the federal government for up to 30 days before public release so the government can scan for security vulnerabilities. The legal posture is worth pausing on: this is a voluntary framework, not a regulation, which means it lives in the same constitutional space as a chamber-of-commerce best-practices document rather than as a binding rule subject to APA notice and comment. That structure is partly a workaround for the fact that there is no federal statute giving any agency authority to mandate pre-release safety testing of AI models, and partly a response to industry pressure: Trump explained on May 21 that he scrapped the earlier 90-day version because he thought it could be “a blocker” to U.S. leadership in AI. Whether developers actually opt in is the open question, and the order is structured so that participation will likely depend on a mix of national-security pressure, federal procurement leverage, and quiet diplomacy with the major labs. Expect the first real fight to be over what counts as a “frontier” model, and who decides.Finalized Trump Order Seeks Early Cyber Tests Of AI Models | Law360The U.S. Senate on Tuesday confirmed Katie Lane to be a federal district judge in Montana, making her the first judicial nominee of Trump's second term to be confirmed despite a “not qualified” rating from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. The ABA's role here is informal but historically important: since 1953 the Standing Committee has rated federal judicial nominees as “well qualified,” “qualified,” or “not qualified” based on professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament, and the rating has carried real weight with senators of both parties — until it didn't. The Trump administration formally cut ties with the ABA review process during the first term, on the theory that the ABA's ratings reflected an ideological bias against conservative nominees, and the second administration has been even more open about ignoring “not qualified” ratings as a matter of policy. The legal stakes of this are modest in any individual case — a “not qualified” judge serves the same lifetime appointment with the same constitutional power as a “well qualified” one — but cumulatively the practice changes the relationship between the bar and the bench in a way that is hard to undo, and it nudges the federal judiciary in a direction that depends almost entirely on the political branches' definitions of professional fitness. Lane, who is now confirmed, will join the District of Montana, a small but busy bench. Watch this space: there are several more nominees in the pipeline with similar ratings.US Senate confirms Trump judicial nominee deemed ‘not qualified' by ABA | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Dans son nouveau livre L'Odyssée par l'Odyssée, l'auteur Christophe Ono-dit-Biot a décidé de raconter l'Odyssée de.... l'Odyssée, une lecture subjective du (très) long poème d'Homère !  Comment raconter l'Odyssée ? Ce long voyage d'Ulysse son héros, à travers les mers, l'histoire de sa femme Penelope et de son fils Télémaque. Plus de 12 000 vers et des dizaines de personnages, dieux et mortels, que l'on attribue à un certain Homère sans savoir si celui-ci a vraiment existé… Comment raconter cette épopée qui hante l'imaginaire occidental depuis l'Antiquité et la rendre accessible ?  Avec son livre, Christophe Ono-dit-Biot raconte ce qu'est ce texte comme si c'était un roman, précise l'auteur, « je veux donner l'envie au lecteur de se précipiter sur le texte homérique, même s'il est difficile à lire aujourd'hui ».  Une lecture moderne de l'Odyssée en courts chapitres Il raconte à sa façon les mots d'Homère et s'arrête pour expliciter les aventures par courts chapitres.  Cet amour pour le texte d'Homère, l'auteur le tient tout d'abord de la série animée Ulysse 31 diffusée à la télévision dans les années 80, puis des cours de grec ancien qu'il a suivis durant sa scolarité « C'est un texte qui contient de nombreuses réponses à des questions qu'on s'est posées à toute époque sur les grands thèmes : la mort, l'amour, l'inconnu mais aussi le transhumanisme, l'intelligence artificielle. C'est pour cela que ce texte traverse les siècles »    Oralité et épopées : quand les aèdes racontaient l'Odyssée Le texte fait partie des retours ou nostoi en grec. Christophe Ono-dit-Biot insiste sur l'importance de l'oralité car à l'origine, le texte est dit par les fameux aèdes, un artiste qui chante des épopées en s'accompagnant d'un instrument de musique souvent une phorminx, une sorte de lyre « C'était un peu les stand-uppers de l'époque ! Ils devaient être enthousiastes au sens étymologique du terme : c'est-à-dire presque possédés par les dieux ! »     De «nostalgie» à «xénophobie» : ces mots du quotidien hérités de l'Odyssée  Tout au long de votre livre, l'auteur souligne l'actualité de l'Odyssée mais aussi l'importance du grec dans notre vocabulaire. « Protée » qui a donné protéiforme ou encore les rituels d'hospitalité qui ont donné naissance au « philoxenia » lors de l'épisode du cyclope et son contraire « xenophobie »... « Circé » qui a donné « cirque » ou encore le mot « nostalgie » hérité des « nostoi ». Invité : Christophe Ono-dit-Biot, journaliste, écrivain français et directeur adjoint de la rédaction de l'hebdomadaire Le Point.  Auteur de « L'Odyssée de l'Odyssée”. Tout ce que vous avez toujours voulu savoir sur les aventures d'Ulysse sans avoir jamais lu Homère », aux éditions Grasset.    Programmation musicale :  Les artistes Areski Belkacem et Brigitte Fontaine avec le titre L'eternel retour.

Dans son nouveau livre L'Odyssée par l'Odyssée, l'auteur Christophe Ono-dit-Biot a décidé de raconter l'Odyssée de.... l'Odyssée, une lecture subjective du (très) long poème d'Homère !  Comment raconter l'Odyssée ? Ce long voyage d'Ulysse son héros, à travers les mers, l'histoire de sa femme Penelope et de son fils Télémaque. Plus de 12 000 vers et des dizaines de personnages, dieux et mortels, que l'on attribue à un certain Homère sans savoir si celui-ci a vraiment existé… Comment raconter cette épopée qui hante l'imaginaire occidental depuis l'Antiquité et la rendre accessible ?  Avec son livre, Christophe Ono-dit-Biot raconte ce qu'est ce texte comme si c'était un roman, précise l'auteur, « je veux donner l'envie au lecteur de se précipiter sur le texte homérique, même s'il est difficile à lire aujourd'hui ».  Une lecture moderne de l'Odyssée en courts chapitres Il raconte à sa façon les mots d'Homère et s'arrête pour expliciter les aventures par courts chapitres.  Cet amour pour le texte d'Homère, l'auteur le tient tout d'abord de la série animée Ulysse 31 diffusée à la télévision dans les années 80, puis des cours de grec ancien qu'il a suivis durant sa scolarité « C'est un texte qui contient de nombreuses réponses à des questions qu'on s'est posées à toute époque sur les grands thèmes : la mort, l'amour, l'inconnu mais aussi le transhumanisme, l'intelligence artificielle. C'est pour cela que ce texte traverse les siècles »    Oralité et épopées : quand les aèdes racontaient l'Odyssée Le texte fait partie des retours ou nostoi en grec. Christophe Ono-dit-Biot insiste sur l'importance de l'oralité car à l'origine, le texte est dit par les fameux aèdes, un artiste qui chante des épopées en s'accompagnant d'un instrument de musique souvent une phorminx, une sorte de lyre « C'était un peu les stand-uppers de l'époque ! Ils devaient être enthousiastes au sens étymologique du terme : c'est-à-dire presque possédés par les dieux ! »     De «nostalgie» à «xénophobie» : ces mots du quotidien hérités de l'Odyssée  Tout au long de votre livre, l'auteur souligne l'actualité de l'Odyssée mais aussi l'importance du grec dans notre vocabulaire. « Protée » qui a donné protéiforme ou encore les rituels d'hospitalité qui ont donné naissance au « philoxenia » lors de l'épisode du cyclope et son contraire « xenophobie »... « Circé » qui a donné « cirque » ou encore le mot « nostalgie » hérité des « nostoi ». Invité : Christophe Ono-dit-Biot, journaliste, écrivain français et directeur adjoint de la rédaction de l'hebdomadaire Le Point.  Auteur de « L'Odyssée de l'Odyssée”. Tout ce que vous avez toujours voulu savoir sur les aventures d'Ulysse sans avoir jamais lu Homère », aux éditions Grasset.    Programmation musicale :  Les artistes Areski Belkacem et Brigitte Fontaine avec le titre L'eternel retour.

This Day in Legal History: The First Act of CongressOn this day in 1789, President George Washington signed the first statute ever enacted by Congress under the new Constitution — “An Act to Regulate the Time and Manner of Administering Certain Oaths,” codified at 1 Stat. 23. The substance was modest: the law prescribed the form of the oath that members of Congress, federal judges, and executive officers were to take to support the Constitution, and gave the states a window in which to swear in their own officials. But the symbolism was enormous. It was the first time the new federal government did the thing governments actually do, which is to pass a law and require people to obey it, and the choice of subject was telling.Before Congress regulated commerce, levied taxes, or built courts, it bound its own officers to the Constitution by oath. The oath clauses in Article II and Article VI have been doing quiet doctrinal work ever since: they ground the Supremacy Clause, they undergird Marbury's claim that judges are bound to follow the Constitution as supreme law, and they sit at the center of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 disqualification debate that the Supreme Court took up in Trump v. Anderson just two years ago. The Oath Act of 1789 is not the kind of statute that gets quoted on bar exams, but it is the original instance of Congress speaking in legal form, and everything the federal government has done since rests on top of it.Uber went after one of its own bellwether plaintiffs Friday in the sprawling multidistrict litigation over alleged passenger sexual assaults, asking U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros in the Northern District of California to impose sanctions on plaintiff B.L. and her counsel at Wagstaff Law Firm for what Uber called “pervasive bad faith” in discovery.The headline accusation, made by Kirkland & Ellis's Michael Vives for Uber, is that B.L.'s privilege log cites cases that don't exist — what Vives suggested may be “hallucinated case law” generated by an AI tool — and Vives floated that as an independent basis for sanctions on top of the alleged document withholding, redactions, and undisclosed witnesses Uber catalogued in its April motion.he legal vehicle here is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which gives a federal court a tiered menu of sanctions for discovery misconduct — fees and costs at the low end, adverse-inference instructions and claim preclusion at the high end — and Uber is asking the court to throw B.L.'s case out of the next bellwether wave entirely. Judge Cisneros noticed during the hearing that what struck her about the briefing was the pattern, not any single incident; she pointed to one example where the plaintiff identified a person as a “friend” and only later produced a fuller set of text messages showing the person was actually a therapist.The judge ordered the plaintiff to file a sur-reply by Thursday before ruling, which means a sanctions order is now teed up. The case sits within In re Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (MDL No. 3084) before Judge Charles R. Breyer, and any sanctions ruling will set the tone for how the rest of the bellwether pool conducts discovery. If the hallucinated-caselaw piece sticks, this also becomes one of the first real Rule 11 / Rule 37 hybrid sanctions vehicles for generative AI misuse in the MDL context — and the bar will be reading it closely.‘Pervasive Bad Faith': Uber Targets Sex Assault MDL Plaintiff | Law360The Seventh Circuit on Friday told the Northern District of Illinois that the now-standard practice of serving Chinese e-commerce defendants by email in “Schedule A” trademark cases doesn't fly under the Hague Service Convention — at least not when the convention applies, which is a question the district court has to actually answer first. The dispute came up in Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., No. 25-2205, where the hat-maker Kangol sued more than twenty Chinese vendors for trademark infringement and identified them on a sealed “Schedule A” exhibit attached to the complaint — the same procedural pattern that drives the enormous Schedule A docket in Chicago's federal court.Kangol got a default judgment after serving the defendants by email, but one defendant, Hangzhou Chuanyue, appeared and moved to vacate, arguing that the Hague Convention prohibits email service in China and that the convention applies because Hangzhou's address is discoverable. The legal hook is Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention, which permits service “by postal channels” only when the destination state has not objected — and China has affirmatively objected to Article 10(a), full stop.The Seventh Circuit, citing the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, held that whether or not email counts as a “postal channel,” Article 10(a) is unavailable in China, so email service in this case was improper if the convention applied at all. The panel — Judges Thomas Kirsch, Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, and Doris Pryor — reversed the denial of Hangzhou's motion to vacate and sent the case back for the threshold question the district court skipped: did Kangol make reasonably diligent efforts to find Hangzhou's address, which would have triggered the convention.The practical fallout will reach hundreds, possibly thousands, of pending Schedule A cases in Chicago that rely on email service as a matter of course, and plaintiff firms in this space will be scrambling to redo their service strategy.7th Circ. Revives Chinese IP Defendants' Email Service Case | Law360The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Thursday transferred Randall King's proposed class action — the vehicle for a proposed $7.25 billion Roundup settlement with Monsanto — into the Northern District of California MDL before Judge Vince Chhabria, despite vehement objections from absent class members who want the case to stay in Missouri state court.The case-within-a-case is unusual: the King action was filed and preliminarily settled in Missouri state court, then a group of objectors (represented by Keller Postman) removed it to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, and the JPML then tagged it for transfer to the consolidated Roundup MDL. The legal hook here is 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the JPML's transfer authority — paired with CAFA's removal rules, which the settling plaintiffs argue were misused because the objectors aren't “defendants” within the meaning of § 1453 and so cannot remove.The objectors counter that the $7.25 billion deal “launders a liability-management scheme through the courts” by funneling claims of Roundup cancer victims through a Missouri state-court class that an MDL judge would never approve, and they want federal-court scrutiny under Rule 23 and the standards Judge Chhabria has spent years developing in the Roundup litigation. Monsanto, for its part, is on the objectors' side of the venue question — at least tactically — telling Law360 that the case should go back to Missouri state court and it will move to oppose the transfer order.The whole fight is also tied up with the Supreme Court's pending decision in a separate Monsanto case that will determine whether the deal survives at all, because the proposed $7.25 billion is structured around what the Court does there. Whichever way this remand/transfer fight comes out, it is going to be cited in every future class-settlement-jurisdiction tug-of-war for the rest of the decade.$7.25B Roundup Deal Sent To Calif. MDL | Law360A U.S. district judge in Florida said Saturday she will take a closer look at the settlement the Trump administration has reached with itself — or more precisely, with President Trump in his personal capacity — over a long-running IRS lawsuit, scheduling further proceedings to examine whether the deal can stand.The procedural posture is what makes this one interesting: the case involves a federal agency under the President's control settling claims with the President personally, which raises immediate questions about whether anyone is actually adverse to anyone, and whether the resulting consent decree or stipulation can carry the legal weight a normal settlement does. The legal mechanism the judge appears to be invoking is the federal court's inherent supervisory authority over consent decrees and settlements involving the federal government, an authority that runs through cases like Local No. 93 v. City of Cleveland and that the Tunney Act formalizes for antitrust settlements — though here there is no Tunney Act, just the general principle that a federal court doesn't have to rubber-stamp a settlement when there are serious questions about whether the United States was actually represented in the negotiation.The hearing on the issue was set for late May in Miami, with the judge reportedly skeptical that the deal can be approved without further factual development. The political stakes are obvious, but the legal stakes are arguably bigger: if the court can refuse to approve the settlement on the ground that the executive branch was not adverse to itself in any meaningful way, it would create a precedent that constrains every future administration's ability to make its own personal litigation go away through agency action. Expect this one to generate appellate motion practice within weeks.US judge orders review of Trump's IRS lawsuit settlement | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: The Indian Removal Act of 1830On this day May 28, 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, authorizing the federal government to “negotiate” the relocation of Native American tribes east of the Mississippi to lands in what is now Oklahoma. On its face the statute framed displacement as voluntary, treaty-based, and compensated; in practice it became the legal scaffolding for the forced expulsion of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole nations, culminating in the Trail of Tears.The bill passed the House by just five votes, with Davy Crockett among its most prominent dissenters. The years that immediately followed produced the Marshall Court's foundational Indian law trilogy — Johnson v. M'Intosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and Worcester v. Georgia — the last of which Jackson famously (and probably apocryphally) refused to enforce. The doctrinal residue of the Removal era is still in force today: tribes remain “domestic dependent nations,” Congress still claims a “plenary power” over them, and the Supreme Court is still relitigating what reservation boundaries actually mean — most recently in McGirt v. Oklahoma in 2020 and Haaland v. Brackeen in 2023. The 1830 Act was not the beginning of dispossession in North America, but it was the moment Congress took ownership of the policy and dressed it in the language of statute. Whatever else May 28 marks on the calendar, in legal history it marks the day removal became American law.Dutch coatings giant AkzoNobel, the maker of Dulux paint, told Sherwin-Williams and Nippon Paint Wednesday that their €12.5 billion ($14.6 billion) joint takeover proposal is not a “superior proposal” and that the board would stay the course on its already-agreed merger with Axalta Coating Systems. The rejected offer, made at €73 per share, would have carved AkzoNobel up — Nippon taking the decorative paints business, Sherwin-Williams taking industrial coatings — and was the second pass after an earlier bid that the board had swatted away in April.AkzoNobel's reasons read like a Dutch corporate-law primer: the offer “did not come close to adequately reflecting” long-term value, the deal-certainty risk around regulatory clearances was too high, and the “interests of AkzoNobel stakeholders” were not adequately safeguarded. That last word is the legal tell. Under Dutch law, a listed company's board is not bound by anything resembling Delaware's Revlon duty to maximize shareholder value in a sale; it answers to a stakeholder model that explicitly weighs employees, creditors, suppliers, and the long-term interests of the enterprise alongside the shareholders. That gives a Dutch board far more room to reject a premium cash bid than a comparable U.S. target would have, especially with a friendly all-stock merger of equals (the Axalta deal) already on the table.The combined AkzoNobel-Axalta entity, announced last November and worth roughly $25 billion, plans to list on the NYSE with dual HQs in Amsterdam and Philadelphia and Dutch tax residency — a structure that itself preserves the Dutch governance model post-close. The CMA in the U.K. has already opened a public comment period on the Axalta deal, and antitrust review is likely the live front to watch from here.AkzoNobel Snubs €12.5B Sherwin-Williams, Nippon Paint Bid | Law360The Trump administration is preparing to halt federal immigration and customs processing at airports located in jurisdictions it deems “sanctuary cities” or “sanctuary states,”, according to a report Reuters published. The mechanism, if implemented, would have Customs and Border Protection officers stop staffing inbound international arrival processing — meaning international passengers landing at, say, San Francisco, Boston, or Seattle would be unable to clear customs at those airports and would have to be diverted. The legal architecture here is unusual because CBP staffing decisions sit at the discretionary end of federal administrative law: the agency has wide latitude to deploy officers where it wants, and there is no statutory entitlement for any particular city to host a federal port of entry.That said, a decision to use that discretion as punishment for a state or municipality's refusal to honor ICE detainers would invite a familiar set of challenges — South Dakota v. Dole-style coercion arguments dressed up as preemption, anti-commandeering claims under Murphy v. NCAA and Printz v. United States, and APA challenges under State Farm to whatever administrative record the agency assembles. Several of the targeted jurisdictions have already won injunctions in earlier rounds of sanctuary-city funding fights, including against the prior conditioning of Byrne JAG grants on detainer compliance. The political move is obvious; the legal move is less so, and the administration will need to articulate a non-pretextual reason for the staffing change if it wants to survive arbitrary-and-capricious review. Whether airlines, airport authorities, or the states themselves will have standing to sue — and what kind of irreparable harm a redirected flight inflicts — is going to be the first set of questions a court has to answer.US draws up plans to halt immigration, customs processing at ‘sanctuary city' airports | ReutersThe Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Fourth Circuit's decision reviving the National Association of Immigration Judges' First Amendment challenge to a federal rule restricting what sitting immigration judges may say publicly about the agency that employs them. The per curiam opinion's holding is narrow but striking: the Fourth Circuit, the justices said, committed an abuse of discretion by reviving the suit on a theory neither party briefed, a “drastic departure from the principle of party presentation” laid out in cases like United States v. Sineneng-Smith. The party-presentation principle is one of those background structural rules that doesn't get a lot of airtime — the basic idea is that federal courts are passive instruments that decide the cases the parties bring them, not the cases judges wish the parties had brought — but here it became outcome-determinative.Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote separately to say the Fourth Circuit was also wrong on the merits because it ignored Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, the 2012 decision holding that the Civil Service Reform Act's administrative-channeling regime is the exclusive route for covered federal employees to challenge adverse employment actions, even constitutional ones. The practical effect is that the immigration judges' union now has to litigate its First Amendment claim through the Merit Systems Protection Board and then the Federal Circuit rather than in district court, and the case bounces back to the Fourth Circuit to redo the analysis on whatever ground the parties did actually raise. The Court also denied a cross-petition from the union. The case is Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges, No. 25-767; the merits cross-petition was No. 25-1009.Justices Order Redo In Immigration Judges' Free Speech Suit | Law360A Sixth Circuit panel on Tuesday affirmed the dismissal of an attempt by Right to Life of Michigan and a group of parents to block enforcement of Proposal 3, the 2022 Michigan ballot initiative that wrote a fundamental right to reproductive freedom into Article I, Section 28 of the state constitution. The panel did not reach the merits — the case stopped at standing — and the opinion, written by Judge John K. Bush, is a clean illustration of how high the Article III standing bar is for pre-enforcement challenges of this kind. Standing requires the plaintiff to show an injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, and the parents here couldn't make the traceability link work: their theory was that the amendment might allow schools or other actors to help minors obtain contraception or abortion care without parental consent, but the complaint identified no specific enforcement action by Governor Whitmer, Attorney General Nessel, or Secretary of State Benson that was causing or threatening any such injury.The panel reiterated the Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife framework and quoted approvingly the rule that a “general allegation” that an executive officer is “generally responsible for executing” state law does not, by itself, establish standing to sue that officer. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' attempt to bootstrap standing off the AG's and governor's authority to enforce Michigan's consumer protection and civil rights statutes, calling those allegations too speculative. This is going to be the template for the next several rounds of post-Dobbs challenges to state constitutional reproductive-rights amendments: the merits questions about scope and federal preemption will keep coming, but plaintiffs are going to need a concrete enforcement target to even get a hearing.6th Circ. Rejects Mich. Reproductive Rights Challenge | Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Truman DoctrineOn May 22, 1947, President Harry S. Truman signed legislation authorizing American aid to Greece and Turkey, giving legal force to what became known as the Truman Doctrine. The law provided economic and military assistance to both countries at a moment when U.S. leaders feared that instability in the eastern Mediterranean could expand Soviet influence. Greece was in the middle of a civil war, while Turkey faced pressure over control of strategic territory and access between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Britain had previously played the leading role in supporting Greece and Turkey, but after World War II it told the United States it could no longer bear that burden.Truman responded by asking Congress to approve aid, arguing that the United States had to support “free peoples” resisting outside pressure or armed minority movements. By signing the bill, Truman transformed that broad statement of foreign policy into statutory authority backed by federal money. Legally, the act mattered because it showed how Cold War policy would often be made: the president would identify a global threat, and Congress would authorize funds and tools to respond. It also helped normalize large peacetime commitments abroad, a sharp change from earlier American reluctance to enter long-term foreign entanglements. The statute became an early foundation for the national security state that grew through later aid programs, alliances, intelligence activities, and military commitments.The Truman Doctrine also raised enduring questions about the balance of power between Congress and the president in foreign affairs. Congress approved the aid, but the broader doctrine gave presidents a flexible language for intervention that could be invoked well beyond Greece and Turkey. In that sense, May 22, 1947, was not just a date in diplomatic history; it was a legal turning point in how the United States authorized, funded, and justified its Cold War role in the world.A Ninth Circuit panel appeared uncertain about whether Jack Daniel's proved enough to win its trademark dilution-by-tarnishment claim against VIP Products over the “Bad Spaniels” dog toy. The judges focused especially on whether Jack Daniel's had shown that anything beyond the words “Jack Daniel's” was famous enough to qualify for dilution protection. Judge Andrew Hurwitz pressed Jack Daniel's counsel on whether the company could rely on the fame of its name to protect broader elements of its label and bottle design. Jack Daniel's argued that the court should consider the full context of the toy, including its bottle-like appearance and bathroom-humor references. VIP, by contrast, argued that the analysis should be limited to the famous mark itself and the allegedly diluting mark, not the entire product presentation.The case began after VIP made a dog toy parodying a Jack Daniel's bottle with poop-themed jokes, prompting years of litigation over trademark infringement, dilution, parody, and free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court previously ruled that VIP could not use the Rogers test because the toy used another company's trademark-like features to identify VIP's own product. On remand, the district court rejected Jack Daniel's infringement claim but again found dilution by tarnishment, which VIP appealed. VIP also raised a First Amendment challenge to the federal tarnishment law, though both VIP and the federal government suggested the Ninth Circuit could decide the case without reaching that constitutional issue. The Justice Department intervened to defend the law's constitutionality while also acknowledging that waiver or insufficient proof could let the panel avoid the First Amendment question.9th Circ. Questions Jack Daniel's' TM Win Over ‘Bad Spaniels' - Law360Meta has settled a closely watched lawsuit brought by Breathitt County School District in Kentucky over costs allegedly tied to youth mental health harms from social media. The case was important because it was the first school-district case against social media companies scheduled for trial on these claims. Breathitt had accused Meta, YouTube, Snap, and TikTok of designing platforms that kept young users engaged in harmful ways and contributed to anxiety, depression, self-harm, and other student mental health problems. The district sought more than $60 million, including money for a 15-year mental health program and an order requiring changes to allegedly addictive platform features. Meta's settlement follows earlier settlements by YouTube, Snap, and TikTok, meaning Breathitt's case is now fully resolved.The case was a bellwether, meaning it was chosen as a test case to help courts and parties evaluate similar lawsuits. About 1,200 school districts are pursuing related claims, and thousands of other social-media addiction lawsuits are pending in California state and federal courts. Meta said it resolved the case amicably and pointed to teen-safety tools such as Teen Accounts and parental controls. Lawyers for the school district said they remain focused on claims brought by the other districts. The settlement avoids a June 15 trial that could have shaped settlement talks and strategy across the broader litigation. Other major school systems, including Los Angeles and New York City, have filed similar lawsuits, while DeKalb County, Georgia, has claimed billions in future mental health costs.Meta settles first US case over school costs tied to youth mental health, court filing shows | ReutersOpenAI has expanded its group of outside law firms as it faces major litigation, complex business deals, and a possible future IPO. Reuters reports that the company, recently valued at $852 billion, now works with more than a dozen large U.S. law firms. OpenAI, CEO Sam Altman, and lawyers from Wachtell Lipton and Morrison & Foerster recently defeated Elon Musk's lawsuit claiming that OpenAI had departed from its original nonprofit mission. That ruling removed one potential obstacle to a possible IPO, which sources have said could happen as soon as September. Wachtell has also handled major OpenAI transactions since ChatGPT launched, including large fundraising deals involving Microsoft, Nvidia, and other investors.Wachtell is a central player for OpenAI in both deal work and litigation. The firm is defending OpenAI in a lawsuit from Musk's xAI alleging that OpenAI and Apple monopolized markets involving smartphones and generative AI chatbots. In a separate xAI trade secrets case, OpenAI hired Munger, Tolles & Olson. Latham & Watkins has worked on OpenAI deals, including a $4 billion credit line, and is also helping defend the company in copyright lawsuits brought by authors, comedians, and news organizations. OpenAI is arguing in those copyright cases that using material to train AI systems is protected by fair use. Wilson Sonsini is defending OpenAI in a case claiming ChatGPT engaged in unauthorized practice of law, an allegation OpenAI rejects by arguing that ChatGPT is not a lawyer and does not practice law.OpenAI grows stable of law firms for high-stakes lawsuits, deals | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Plessy v. FergusonOn May 18, 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Plessy v. Ferguson, a case that became one of the most infamous constitutional decisions in American history. The dispute arose from a Louisiana law requiring separate railroad cars for Black and white passengers. Homer Plessy, who was of mixed race, deliberately sat in a whites-only rail car to challenge the law. After he was arrested, Plessy argued that the statute violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and held that racial segregation did not violate the Constitution as long as the separate facilities were considered equal. This became known as the “separate but equal” doctrine.In practice, the doctrine gave legal cover to segregation across the South and helped support the broader Jim Crow system. The Court treated segregation as a matter of public policy rather than as a badge of racial inferiority imposed by law. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote the majority opinion, reasoning that enforced separation did not necessarily imply inequality. Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented, warning that the Constitution should be color-blind and that the ruling would become as harmful as the Court's decision in Dred Scott. His dissent later became one of the most important statements in American civil-rights law. For nearly six decades, Plessy allowed governments to maintain racially separate schools, transportation, and public facilities.The decision was finally undermined in 1954, when the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education and rejected segregation in public education. Plessy remains a stark example of how constitutional interpretation can either protect civil rights or help entrench systems of inequality.A proposed class action filed in Washington federal court accuses Amazon of keeping money it allegedly collected from customers through prices inflated by now-invalidated Trump administration tariffs. The plaintiffs say Amazon could seek refunds from the federal government after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the tariffs, but has refused to do so because it wants to stay in President Trump's good graces. The lawsuit claims Amazon passed tariff costs on to shoppers, then failed to commit to returning that money even though other retailers have allegedly pursued refunds. The customers point to Amazon's abandoned plan to show tariff-related price increases on product pages as evidence that the company can identify both the tariff amounts and the consumers who paid them. They also claim Amazon backed away from that plan after criticism from the Trump administration and a call involving Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.The complaint alleges violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The plaintiffs say Amazon misled consumers by suggesting tariffs were not increasing prices, while allegedly raising prices on certain low-cost goods after the tariffs took effect. They also argue Amazon failed to tell customers it would not seek tariff refunds even if the tariffs were later found unlawful. The proposed class would include Amazon customers who paid tariff-related surcharges from February 4, 2025, through February 20, 2026. The suit estimates the class could include tens of millions of buyers and seeks to recover money the plaintiffs say belongs to consumers. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other major companies, including Nike, Sony, Nintendo, Costco, Temu, and FedEx.Amazon Skipped Tariff Refunds To Appease Trump, Suit Says - Law360The Federal Circuit held its biennial judicial conference in Washington, D.C., bringing together its active judges, agency leaders, district judges who have recently sat by designation, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Solicitor General D. John Sauer. Chief Judge Kimberly Ann Moore opened the event with lighter moments, including praise for Senior Judge Raymond C. Clevenger and the debut of an AI-generated Federal Circuit theme song meant to make the court feel more accessible. The conference did not address the ongoing suspension of Judge Pauline Newman, although she attended the event while continuing to challenge the suspension at the Supreme Court. Judge Moore said the court issued 630 opinions in 2025, its highest total in a decade, and noted an effort to use fewer one-line Rule 36 affirmances. Still, court leaders and practitioners criticized Rule 36 decisions, especially because they give lower courts and litigants little explanation.The judges also discussed en banc arguments, emphasizing that lawyers must stay focused because full-court arguments leave little time for extended exchanges with any one judge. A major theme was the renewed use of district judges sitting by designation, with 23 visiting judges helping decide nearly 200 cases since February 2024. Visiting district judges said the experience gave them a new appreciation for appellate work, the quality of Federal Circuit advocacy, and the process of narrowing trial records into appealable issues. Federal Circuit judges also described sitting on other courts, including in criminal sentencing matters, which several said gave them a deeper appreciation for the workload and human stakes faced by district judges. The judges offered practical advice to lawyers, urging them to narrow issues, address weaknesses directly, provide full context for citations, and make appropriate concessions. USPTO Director John Squires also appeared and defended his approach to discretionary denials of inter partes review petitions, saying he is returning the process to what Congress intended under the America Invents Act.Fed. Circ. Drops A Theme Song, Talks Guest Judges - Law360President Donald Trump has dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department, a move linked to discussions about creating a $1.8 billion compensation fund for people who claim they were unfairly investigated by prior administrations. The court filing did not describe any settlement, but Trump's lawyers said the case was still early enough that he could dismiss it without court permission or IRS approval.The dismissal was filed “with prejudice,” meaning Trump cannot bring the same claim again. Trump and his sons filed the lawsuit in January, accusing the IRS of failing to protect confidential tax information after his tax records were leaked. A former IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, was sentenced to prison for leaking Trump's tax information as well as records belonging to many others. Trump brought the case as a private citizen, not in his official role as president. The federal judge overseeing the case had already questioned whether a sitting president could properly seek personal monetary damages from an agency inside the executive branch.The dismissal follows settlements in lawsuits brought by Trump allies, including Michael Flynn and Carter Page. Shortly after Trump's filing, House Democrats submitted a brief accusing him of self-dealing and arguing that any attempt to use the court process to support a settlement should be closely reviewed.Trump drops lawsuit against IRS amid talks of establishing a $1.8 billion fund for allies | CNN Politics This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

coucou c'est descriptionou , ta description préférée ....ou pasallez un boulot :là où on retrouve tout galaxie pophttps://linktr.ee/galaxiepopmerci à Nostalichou , Circé, shaokun kun,ak dallas (hé un nouveau chroniqueur) Roland avec un seul L et surtout la divine sistizzzzzzet louloute et son zèbre psychopattes le lien recommandé par Circé :https://genstarwars.fr/generations-star-wars-et-sf-2026-15-000-fois-merci/ credit music :Stuff-farewellalbum complet ici :https://stuffteam.bandcamp.com/album/farewell la série reco de la semaine : evilhttps://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_(s%C3%A9rie_t%C3%A9l%C3%A9vis%C3%A9e)

Entre ! Geek est un podcast de la galaxie savoureuse Galaxie Pop, rejoignez nous sur discordVous pouvez retrouver toutes nos productions sur notre linktree !Envie de nous laisser un petit message audio sur cette épisode : vous pouvez le faire à cette adresse ou directement pour le démontage de rotule sur le répondeur d'Entre ! Geek Aujourd'hui un épisode sans parole, enfin sans CausmicBeast ... histoire de faire le point...On regarde en arrière et on met des extraits sonores et musicaux en rapport avec la dernière année d'Entre ! Geek (d'où le titre de cet épisode

avec Circé Chelmi des Podcats Hyperdrive et Zone 52 Céline du Podcast Geek squadronhttps://geeksquadron.lepodcast.fr/ et Circé notre grande préteresse de la SF et tout ce beau monde à :https://genstarwars.fr/retrouvez le court métrage star tour last launchhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F1e9Em6YZY avec abdu qui a insufflé ce clip !!!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HvaFhUcm-4

WTiN speaks to Teresa Krug, chief product officer at US-based textile-to-textile recycling innovator, Circ.WTiN speaks to the leaders in textile manufacturing about the trends and advancements shaping the textile industry.In this episode, we are joined by Teresa Krug, chief product officer at Circ. Circ is a US-based textile-to-textile recycling innovator working towards building circular future for fashion. Krug speaks about Circ's advancements in mechanical recycling and how Circ unites brands with global suppliers to accelerate the adoption of textile-to-textile recycled materials. She also touches upon the challenges Circ is working to overcome in this space, and how she fosters a culture of continuous innovation and learning.Additionally, we touch upon the potential in cross industry collaboration when it comes to building a circular economy.You can learn more at circ.earth.

Le lien entre travail de nuit et cancer du sein est aujourd'hui sérieusement étudié… mais il reste complexe, nuancé, et parfois contre-intuitif.Tout part d'un constat biologique simple : notre corps fonctionne selon une horloge interne, appelée rythme circadien. Or, travailler la nuit perturbe profondément ce rythme. En particulier, l'exposition à la lumière nocturne diminue la production de mélatonine, une hormone du sommeil qui joue aussi un rôle protecteur contre certains cancers. C'est dans ce contexte qu'intervient la célèbre “Nurses' Health Study”, l'une des plus grandes études épidémiologiques jamais menées. Elle a suivi des dizaines de milliers d'infirmières pendant plusieurs décennies. Les résultats sont nuancés. Dans la première cohorte, les femmes ayant travaillé de nuit pendant plus de 30 ans ne présentaient pas d'augmentation significative du risque de cancer du sein. Mais dans une cohorte plus récente, appelée Nurses' Health Study II, une autre réalité apparaît : les femmes ayant travaillé de nuit pendant plus de 20 ans — surtout lorsqu'elles avaient commencé jeunes — présentaient un risque accru, parfois multiplié par deux. Comment expliquer cette différence ? Probablement par l'âge d'exposition. Le travail de nuit semble plus délétère lorsqu'il intervient tôt dans la vie, à un moment où les tissus mammaires sont plus sensibles aux perturbations hormonales.Au-delà de cette étude, l'ensemble des données scientifiques reste contrasté. Certaines recherches montrent une augmentation du risque, notamment chez les femmes ayant travaillé de nuit pendant de longues périodes ou à forte intensité. D'autres, au contraire, ne trouvent pas d'association claire. En résumé, le lien existe probablement… mais il est modéré, et dépend de nombreux facteurs : durée, fréquence, âge, hygiène de vie.Face à ces incertitudes, les autorités sanitaires ont pris une position prudente mais importante. En 2007, le Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (CIRC), dépendant de l'OMS, a classé le travail de nuit perturbant les rythmes biologiques comme « probablement cancérogène pour l'homme » (groupe 2A). Ce classement signifie qu'il existe des indices sérieux, sans preuve définitive.Alors, faut-il s'inquiéter ? Pas nécessairement. Le risque, s'il existe, reste relativement faible à l'échelle individuelle. Mais il devient significatif à l'échelle de populations entières, notamment chez les professions très exposées comme les infirmières.En conclusion, le travail de nuit n'est pas anodin. Il ne provoque pas directement un cancer, mais il pourrait, dans certaines conditions, augmenter légèrement le risque. C'est un bon exemple de ces facteurs invisibles qui, à long terme, influencent silencieusement notre santé. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Invitée: Circé Fuch, députée au Grand Conseil et conseillère communale de Bex. Manifestations: La coopérative brassicole de la Mine fête ses 10 ans cette année 2026  et Le comptoir du chablais à suivre du  21 au 23 août 2026.  Dicodeurs et dicodeuses: Marie Riley, Frédéric Gérard, Eric Constantin, Forma et Lord Betterave. Accompagné·e·s en musique par Sandrine Viglino. Réalisation: Jean-Pascal Mages.

Invitée: Circé Fuch, députée au Grand Conseil et conseillère communale de Bex. Manifestations: La coopérative brassicole de la Mine fête ses 10 ans cette année 2026  et Le comptoir du chablais à suivre du  21 au 23 août 2026.  Dicodeurs et dicodeuses: Marie Riley, Frédéric Gérard, Eric Constantin, Forma et Lord Betterave. Accompagné·e·s en musique par Sandrine Viglino. Réalisation: Jean-Pascal Mages.

Invitée: Circé Fuch, députée au Grand Conseil et conseillère communale de Bex. Manifestations: La coopérative brassicole de la Mine fête ses 10 ans cette année 2026  et Le comptoir du chablais à suivre du  21 au 23 août 2026.  Dicodeurs et dicodeuses: Marie Riley, Frédéric Gérard, Eric Constantin, Forma et Lord Betterave. Accompagné·e·s en musique par Sandrine Viglino. Réalisation: Jean-Pascal Mages.

Invitée: Circé Fuch, députée au Grand Conseil et conseillère communale de Bex. Manifestations: La coopérative brassicole de la Mine fête ses 10 ans cette année 2026  et Le comptoir du chablais à suivre du  21 au 23 août 2026.  Dicodeurs et dicodeuses: Marie Riley, Frédéric Gérard, Eric Constantin, Forma et Lord Betterave. Accompagné·e·s en musique par Sandrine Viglino. Réalisation: Jean-Pascal Mages.

Sara Silva passa pel Bacstage de Flaixbac per presentar "Prisionia", el nou espectacle del Circo de los Horrores, que es pot veure al Port Vell de Barcelona fins al 26 d'abril.

Invitée: Circé Fuch, députée au Grand Conseil et conseillère communale de Bex. Manifestations: La coopérative brassicole de la Mine fête ses 10 ans cette année 2026  et Le comptoir du chablais à suivre du  21 au 23 août 2026.  Dicodeurs et dicodeuses: Marie Riley, Frédéric Gérard, Eric Constantin, Forma et Lord Betterave. Accompagné·e·s en musique par Sandrine Viglino. Réalisation: Jean-Pascal Mages.

crédit musique tous droits réservés :dans le clip le chanteur ne se montre pas dans le beau rôlehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkUAm9GaMt8Gérard Blanc - Une autre histoire (Clip officiel) 2 eme au top 50 en 1987il nous a quitté en 2009 (17 ans avant la naissance de Nécrolland le nécrochroniqueur de la gazette de galaxie pop tous les dimanches)https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9rard_Blanc merci à marty et Gladou de leur confiance et amitié voilà c'était descriptionou ...oui votre amie la description de l'épisodepromis ! je ferais des efforts .mais bon quand on a pas des champions comme AK Dallas ,Circé ou encore Cosmique bestialc'est pas de la tartemerci à galaxie pop de nous permettre d'apporter un peu de lecture aux descriptionistas et descriptionistos .bon je te laisse je file à la piscine pour y faire des bulles avec mes pets .ben si j'suis comme ça . votre devouée descriptionou

This Day in Legal History: United States v. CruikshankOn March 27, 1876, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Cruikshank, a ruling that exposed the Court's deep reluctance to enforce the promises of Reconstruction. The case arose from the Colfax Massacre, where dozens of Black citizens were murdered by white supremacists attempting to overturn a contested election. Federal prosecutors secured convictions under the Enforcement Act, aiming to protect Black citizens' constitutional rights in the face of organized racial violence. The Supreme Court, however, dismantled those convictions with striking indifference to the underlying atrocities.The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment constrained only state action, not the conduct of private individuals, effectively shielding perpetrators of racial terror from federal accountability. It further ruled that rights such as assembly and bearing arms were not protected from state interference through the Constitution at that time. This narrow interpretation gutted federal enforcement power at precisely the moment it was most needed. The decision ignored the reality that state authorities in the South were often unwilling—or actively refusing—to protect Black citizens.Critically, the Court's reasoning elevated formal legal distinctions over the lived experience of widespread, systematic violence. By insisting on a rigid state-action requirement, the justices created a legal loophole large enough to permit organized terror campaigns to flourish unchecked. The ruling signaled to white supremacist groups that federal intervention would be weak or nonexistent. In doing so, it contributed directly to the collapse of Reconstruction-era protections and the rise of Jim Crow.The long-term consequences were profound, as Cruikshank became a cornerstone for limiting civil rights enforcement for decades. It delayed meaningful federal protection of individual rights until well into the twentieth century. Modern constitutional law has largely rejected its reasoning through incorporation doctrine, yet its impact remains a stark reminder of how judicial decisions can entrench injustice.A federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from labeling Anthropica national security supply chain risk, finding the move was likely unconstitutional retaliation. The dispute arose after Anthropic pushed back during contract negotiations with the government, arguing it should be allowed to limit how its AI system Claude is used, particularly for mass domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons. Shortly after the company made its position public, the administration directed agencies to stop using its tools and moved to formally designate it as a security risk.Judge Rita F. Lin concluded that Anthropic is likely to succeed on its claims, emphasizing that the government appeared to be punishing the company for publicly criticizing its contracting stance. She found that the measures were not closely tied to genuine national security concerns and instead resembled retaliation for protected speech. The court stressed that while the government is free to choose its vendors, it cannot take additional punitive steps that violate constitutional protections.The ruling also found that the designation was likely unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and potentially violated due process because Anthropic had no opportunity to respond. The judge noted that branding a company as a national security threat for expressing disagreement raises serious constitutional concerns. The injunction blocks enforcement of the directive and prevents further action against the company while the case proceeds.The decision highlights broader tensions between government control over AI use and private companies' efforts to impose ethical limits. It also underscores concerns that government retaliation could chill public debate about AI safety. The administration must now report back to the court on its compliance with the order.Anthropic Blocks Pentagon's ‘Orwellian' Security Risk Label - Law360US judge blocks Pentagon's Anthropic blacklisting for now | ReutersA lawyer for Elon Musk has asked a federal judge to review a jury verdict that found him liable for defrauding Twitter investors during his acquisition of the platform, now known as X. The request focuses in part on the jury's use of the number “$4.20” on the verdict form, which Musk's attorney argued was an intentional joke that showed bias and suggested the jury was trying to “send a message” rather than decide the case impartially.Musk's legal team claims this, along with other alleged trial issues, undermines the integrity of the verdict and warrants further judicial review by Judge Charles Breyer. The verdict, issued on March 20, found Musk liable for certain public statements he made about the prevalence of bots on the platform during the acquisition process, which investors argued harmed the company's stock price. Potential damages in the case could reach as high as $2.5 billion.Attorneys for the investors strongly rejected Musk's arguments, calling them baseless and accusing him of attacking the jury instead of accepting responsibility. They emphasized that the verdict followed substantial evidence presented at trial.The dispute stems from claims that Musk publicly criticized Twitter to renegotiate or exit the deal, ultimately affecting shareholders who sold at lower prices. While the jury found him liable for some statements, it did not conclude that he engaged in a broader scheme to defraud.Musk urges judge to review Twitter verdict, accuses jury of ‘mocking' him | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived part of an ERISA class action against Wells Fargo and Ocwen Financial Corp., overturning a lower court decision that had dismissed the case before trial. The lawsuit was brought by trustees of a union pension fund, who claim the companies mishandled subprime mortgages tied to the fund's investments in mortgage-backed securities.The appellate court found that the trial judge made a key mistake in concluding that none of the underlying mortgages qualified as ERISA plan assets. While the court agreed that some mortgage-backed securities—specifically those structured as notes—are not plan assets, it ruled differently for securities issued as trust certificates. In those instances, the underlying mortgages can count as plan assets because the investment structure gives the pension fund an equity-like interest in the trust.This distinction matters because ERISA fiduciary duties apply only to plan assets. By recognizing that certain underlying mortgages fall within that definition, the court reopened the possibility that the companies could be held liable for breaching fiduciary duties. The pension fund alleges that the defendants mishandled loans during the 2007–2009 financial crisis, including pushing borrowers into foreclosure, which harmed the fund's investments.The court declined to decide whether Ocwen acted as an ERISA fiduciary, noting that the lower court had not addressed that issue. As a result, the case will return to the trial court for further proceedings on the revived claims.​​2nd Circ. Reopens Mortgage-Backed Securities ERISA Suit - Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Poll TaxOn March 19, 1962, Congress approved a constitutional amendment to abolish the poll tax in federal elections, a practice that had long been used to suppress voter participation. The poll tax required citizens to pay a fee before casting a ballot, which disproportionately affected low-income individuals, especially African Americans in the South. By removing this financial barrier, Congress took a clear step toward expanding access to the democratic process. The amendment was later ratified as the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, cementing the principle that voting should not depend on one's ability to pay. This change reflected the growing influence of the civil rights movement, which pushed lawmakers to confront systemic inequality in voting laws. It also signaled a broader shift toward recognizing voting as a fundamental right rather than a conditional privilege.The legal reasoning behind abolishing the poll tax focused on fairness and equal protection, emphasizing that economic status should not determine political participation. Courts and lawmakers increasingly viewed such barriers as incompatible with democratic ideals. This moment in legal history continues to shape debates about what constitutes an undue burden on voters.Today, discussions around the SAVE Act, which proposes strict voter identification requirements, have raised similar questions about access and eligibility. Supporters argue that identification rules protect election integrity, despite there being no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Critics warn that they may disproportionately affect certain groups, including those with limited access to documentation. The comparison to the poll tax debate lies in how both policies raise concerns about whether procedural requirements might exclude eligible voters. While the mechanisms differ—one being a direct financial cost and the other an administrative requirement—the underlying legal tension remains similar. Lawmakers and courts must again weigh the balance between safeguarding elections and ensuring that access to voting remains broad and equitable.The Third Circuit heard arguments in a high-stakes appeal involving a $1.6 billion False Claims Act (FCA) verdict against Johnson & Johnson and broader challenges to the law's constitutionality. The FCA is a federal law that allows the government to pursue individuals or companies that defraud federal programs. It also lets private whistleblowers file lawsuits on the government's behalf and share in any financial recovery.Judges appeared reluctant to dismantle the FCA's whistleblower, or qui tam, mechanism, though they engaged seriously with arguments questioning its validity. Much of the discussion focused on whether private individuals wield too much power by bringing fraud claims on behalf of the government. An attorney for business groups argued that this structure improperly grants executive authority to non-government actors, while judges pushed back by pointing to the long historical use of such actions.A central issue in the case was “materiality,” meaning whether the alleged misconduct actually influenced the government's decision to pay claims. J&J argued there was no proof that its actions affected payment decisions, but the judges suggested that such determinations are typically left to juries. They also questioned whether J&J had properly preserved certain legal arguments for appeal. The Department of Justice disputed J&J's interpretation of its position, emphasizing that the evidence could still support liability under the FCA.The panel also examined the role of evidence and jury instructions, particularly how jurors were told to evaluate whether improper marketing led to false claims. J&J criticized the “substantial factor” standard used at trial, arguing it was unclear and insufficient. In response, the whistleblowers' counsel maintained that J&J was seeking a stricter standard than the law requires. Judges appeared to wrestle with whether the instructions properly guided the jury without overcomplicating the burden of proof.Overall, the arguments revealed judicial skepticism toward sweeping constitutional attacks on the FCA, alongside concern about how the specific trial was conducted. The case highlights ongoing legal debates over the balance between encouraging whistleblowers and ensuring fair limits on liability.Key Details As 3rd Circ. Ponders FCA's Fate, $1.6B J&J Fine - Law360Music company BMG has sued AI firm Anthropic, alleging it used copyrighted song lyrics from artists like Bruno Mars, the Rolling Stones, and Ariana Grande to train its Claude chatbot without permission. The lawsuit claims this involved copying hundreds of protected works, possibly sourced from unauthorized platforms, and seeks significant damages under U.S. copyright law.The case is part of a broader wave of lawsuits against AI companies over training data practices, including a similar ongoing suit by other music publishers and a prior $1.5 billion settlement Anthropic reached with authors. While BMG argues this use is unlawful infringement, AI companies like Anthropic maintain that training models on such material qualifies as fair use because it transforms the content.BMG sues Anthropic for using Bruno Mars, Rolling Stones lyrics in AI training | ReutersA Second Circuit judge sharply questioned OpenAI's position in a copyright dispute with Raw Story, expressing frustration that the company's lawyer could not explain whether its AI system copied articles or removed copyright management information (CMI). The judge suggested that this lack of clarity weakened OpenAI's argument, especially at an early stage without full discovery.OpenAI argued the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to show concrete harm or properly allege infringement, emphasizing that removing CMI alone does not violate a protected property right. The company also claimed the complaint relied too heavily on speculation rather than specific facts about how its systems operate. However, the judges appeared skeptical, noting that factual questions about copying and CMI removal might need further development.Raw Story countered that copying articles without CMI is itself a recognized legal injury and fits within longstanding copyright protections. The publishers also argued that OpenAI knowingly removed identifying information in a way that could enable infringement, which is prohibited under the DMCA. The panel ultimately took the case under advisement, leaving unresolved key questions about how copyright law applies to AI systems.2nd Circ. Judge Unimpressed By OpenAI's IP Suit Stance - Law360An immigration judge has ended the asylum claims of five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his family after their detention during a large immigration operation in Minnesota. Liam and his father were taken into custody in January and held for about 10 days in a Texas facility before being released. Public attention grew after a widely shared image showed the child standing outside his home while federal agents were nearby.The ruling was issued by U.S. Immigration Judge John Burns, and the family's attorney has said they will appeal the decision, a process that could take a long time. Community members, including Liam's school district, expressed sadness and concern over the outcome while acknowledging that the legal process is ongoing.The case is tied to “Operation Metro Surge,” a large-scale enforcement effort that brought thousands of immigration agents to Minnesota. The operation led to widespread detentions and significant backlash, especially after two U.S. citizens were fatally shot during related protests or observations. The federal government later ended the operation, but local communities continue to deal with its emotional and economic effects.Advocates and officials have emphasized the broader human impact of the raid, particularly on children and families whose lives were disrupted. Liam's case has become a focal point in discussions about immigration enforcement and its consequences.Judge ends asylum claim of Minnesotan boy detained by ICE, report says | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

La canal central de Cambra d'Ase brillarà aquest vespre amb la llum de les torxes. Seran una trentena de professionals dels CRS rescats de muntanya, la gendarmeria d'alta muntanya, pisters i guies, que faran baixar les flames per aquesta pendent, creant un espectacle de llum que serà visible des del Pla de Cambra. L'estació ofereix avui un forfait de 5€ per pujar a partir de les 17h i anar a l'après-ski o esquiar una estona abans de veure aquesta baixada, que serà a les 19h. En acabat, el públic podrà agafar també una torxa i baixar esquiant fins a Eina o a Sant Pere dels Forcats. Galdric Bes, director de restauració de les estacions Trio Pyrénées

grâce aux mycéliades festival dans toute la France qui vient de se terminerhttps://myceliades.com/(pensez à regarder l'année prochaine les évènements )Circé et Dany ont pu assister avec plaisir à quelques jours du départ de Sophie Adenot pour 8 mois dans l'ISShttps://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Adenotà une projection du film Apollo 13https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13et assister à une passionnante interaction du public nombreux et divers (on les entend peu mais nos sœurs étaient fort présentes)avec le spationaute Jean François Clervoyhttps://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Clervoy

This Day in Legal History: Powell v. AlabamaOn February 16, 1932, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Powell v. Alabama, a case that would become a cornerstone of modern criminal procedure. The appeal arose from the notorious Scottsboro Boys prosecutions in Alabama, where nine young Black men were accused of raping two white women aboard a train. The trials moved with alarming speed, and the defendants were sentenced to death after proceedings that offered little meaningful access to legal counsel. In some instances, lawyers were appointed on the day of trial, leaving virtually no time to prepare a defense.The case forced the Court to confront whether such rushed representation satisfied the requirements of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. When the decision was issued later that year, the Court held that in capital cases, state courts must provide defendants with effective assistance of counsel. The justices emphasized that the right to be heard would mean little without the guiding hand of an attorney. The ruling did not yet create a broad right to counsel in all felony cases, but it marked a significant expansion of constitutional protections in state criminal proceedings.Powell signaled that fundamental fairness in state trials was subject to federal constitutional scrutiny. It also laid important groundwork for later decisions that would extend the right to counsel beyond capital cases. The case remains a defining example of how procedural safeguards can shape the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived part of Google's challenge to a Wildseed Mobile LLC patent covering the creation and transmission of “hot links” through text messages. A three-judge panel vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that had upheld one remaining claim of the patent, while invalidating the others. The appellate court found that the board failed to properly analyze Google's argument that the claim was invalid in light of prior art.The disputed claim involved generating a hot link using either an SMS message or an instant message. Although Google addressed both aspects in its petition, the board focused only on the SMS portion and did not meaningfully address the instant messaging limitation. The Federal Circuit said the board neither evaluated whether prior art covered the instant messaging element nor explained why it declined to do so. Because of that omission, the panel sent the case back to the board for further review.Wildseed had accused Google of infringing the patent based on how advertisements function on YouTube. The lawsuit was initially filed in Texas in 2022 but later moved to federal court in California, where proceedings were paused pending the outcome of the PTAB review. In 2024, the board had already invalidated claims in two related Wildseed patents involving video ads and smartphone notifications.Google's Hot Link Patent Claim Challenge Revived At Fed. Circ. - Law360Federal prosecutors have unveiled additional details in a criminal case accusing Cleveland Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz of participating in a pitch-fixing scheme tied to sports betting. A superseding indictment filed in New York alleges that Clase exchanged coded text messages with associates and bettors before games to signal when he would throw specific pitches. The messages reportedly used poultry-themed language such as “rooster” and “chicken” to disguise the scheme. In one example, an associate allegedly texted Clase about throwing a “rock at the first rooster,” to which Clase responded affirmatively.Prosecutors claim that bettors used this advance information to place successful proposition bets on pitch speed, winning hundreds of thousands of dollars. According to the indictment, bettors earned at least $400,000 on wagers involving Clase and about $60,000 on wagers involving Ortiz. The players allegedly agreed to accept bribes of at least $12,000 each. Authorities also allege that some coordination occurred in person, including meetings at Clase's home, and that payments were routed through intermediaries.The updated indictment adds Robinson Vasquez Germosen, who prosecutors say acted as a middleman and later lied to FBI agents about his knowledge of the scheme. He is charged with making false statements. Clase and Ortiz previously pleaded not guilty, and their attorneys maintain that the allegations are unproven and will be challenged at trial.MLB Pitcher Sent ‘Coded' Texts For Rigged Pitches, Feds Say - Law360 UKA long-running dispute over ownership of a goldendoodle named Tucker has concluded with a private sealed-bid auction ordered by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The case, Callahan v. Nelson, involved former partners Karen Callahan and Joseph Nelson, who had jointly acquired the dog while dating but could not agree on ownership after their 2022 breakup. Because the couple was never married, they could not rely on Delaware's family law statute that allows courts to consider a pet's well-being when dividing marital property.After conflicting rulings in lower courts, the matter reached the state's premier business court, where Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David applied a property “partition” remedy. Rather than ordering shared custody or considering the dog's best interests, the court required a single blind bidding process between the parties. The higher bidder would keep Tucker, and the other would receive the payment. The exact amount of the winning bid was not disclosed. Nelson ultimately submitted the top bid and retained the dog.The court explained that, absent statutory authority to weigh the animal's welfare, traditional property principles favored an auction as the cleanest solution. A neutral attorney oversaw the process and noted that the dog's value was subjective and personal, not easily tied to market measures. Callahan's attorney said she was disappointed but would not seek to block the result, adding that the case sets helpful precedent for resolving similar pet ownership disputes.A key legal element in the case is the use of partition, an equitable remedy typically applied when co-owners of property cannot agree on how to divide it. Instead of physically splitting the property or forcing continued joint ownership, the court may order a sale and distribute the proceeds.Ex-Boyfriend Wins Tucker the Goldendoodle in Sealed Bid Auction This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Entre ! Geek est un podcast de la galaxie savoureuse Galaxie Pop, rejoignez nous sur discord https://discord.gg/9VbAgcT2TwVous pouvez retrouver toutes nos productions à cette adresse https://linktr.ee/galaxiepop !Envie de nous laisser un petit mot audio sur cette épisode : vous pouvez le faire à cette adresse ou directement pour le démontage de rotule sur le propre répondeur d'Entre ! Geek Sans raison, j'ai eu envie de vous lire cette petite nouvelle de Roger Zelazny (oui y a pas que Richard Matheson dans la vie... wink wink wink).... d'ailleurs si vous aimez Richard Matheson (mais pas que !) vous pouvez aller écouter Pop Dimension, voyage dans la Quatrième galaxie Au programme de cette nouvelle de 1963...Les affres de la solitude de la Fée Circé, sur sa petite planète... elle aime les hommes... seulement, elle a un petit ... problème.Un jour, un homme arrive qui résiste à son petit ... problèmeComme pour "La sangsue Mécanique", cette nouvelle n'a connue qu'une seule et unique publication Musique d'introduction : Jessy Mach Ulysses-and-the-curse-of-the-godsMusique de conclusion : The Toxic Avenger 'Bad Girls Need Love Too"

Dive into the high-stakes evolution of quantum computing in this episode of the Cubit Value Podcast, where hosts break down the seismic shift from Google's Sycamore era to the powerhouse 105-qubit Willow processor. Recorded in early 2026, the discussion offers a masterclass in modernizing quantum workflows, covering everything from the necessity of Python 3.11 to the precision of new gate calibrations and the introduction of Quantum Echoes for advanced system verification. Whether you're navigating the "great divorce" of Circ and Qualtran or looking to harness bit-mask key conditions for real-time error decoding, this episode serves as an essential roadmap for engineers ready to transition from mere discovery to large-scale quantum engineering. Want to hear more? Send a message to Qubit Value

This week's Immigration Lawyers Toolbox® Podcast with John Q. Khosravi, Esq. covers the latest immigration law updates, USCIS trends, and practice tips. Recorded live every Monday, this series keeps attorneys sharp and informed. Timestamps: 00:00 – Opening 03:39 – Government Shutdown Update 04:17 – USCIS Adds $1,000 Parole Fee for DACA 05:01 – 9th Cir. Pushback on “Imperial Judiciary” Criticism 05:45 – Ninth Circuit Upholds Injunction Protecting Counsel for Unaccompanied Minors 06:25 – U.S. Revokes Visas Over Charlie Kirk-Linked Event07:53 – Supreme Court Declines Challenge to H-4 EAD Program (Spouses of H-1B Holders) 08:27 – No New AAO Decisions 09:19 – USCIS Policy Manual Update: Marriage Cases 12:52 – H-1B Site Update 13:27 – 3rd Cir.: No Duty to Warn Clients of Criminal Liability 14:07 – Outro 15:00 – Closing Show Notes: New Parole Fee 9th Circ. Flouting 'Imperial Judiciary' Warning, Judges Assert Ninth Circuit rejects government's latest attempt to overturn the preliminary injunction (PI) keeping legal representation for unaccompanied children in place!  U.S. revokes visas for 6 foreigners over Charlie Kirk-related speech The Supreme Court just declined to hear the challenge to the H-4 EAD program, thereby letting stand the D.C. Circuit's ruling that protects work authorization for certain spouses of H-1B visa holders USCIS policy manual update on Marriage Reminder about foreign divorces  USCIS H-1B website updated with $100k fee info 3rd Circ. Says No Duty To Inform Criminal Clients Of Liability Spotify | iTunes | YouTube Music | YouTube   Follow eimmigration by Cerenade: Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Start your Business Immigration Practice! (US LAWYERS ONLY - SCREENING REQUIRED): E-2 Course EB-1A Course Get the Toolbox Magazine!  Join our community (Lawyers Only) Get Started in Immigration Law! The Marriage/Family-Based Green Card course is for you Our Website: ImmigrationLawyersToolbox.com Not legal advice. Consult with an Attorney. Attorney Advertisement. #podcaster #Lawyer #ImmigrationLawyer #Interview #Immigration #ImmigrationAttorney #USImmigration #ImmigrationLaw #ImmigrationLawyersToolbox

This month on Episode 77 of Discover CircRes, host Cindy St. Hilaire highlights articles featured in the September 26th and October 10th issues of Circulation Research. This Episode also features a discussion with Dr Camilla Wenceslau and Dr Laena Pernomian about their study, Single-Short Partial Reprogramming of the Endothelial Cells Decreases Blood Pressure Via Attenuation of EndMT in Hypertensive Mice. Article highlights: Brito-Estrada, et al. DWORF Gene Therapy Attenuates Heart Failure Yamaguchi, et al. Calcium Oscillation Within Renin Cell Clusters Parthiban, et al. Macrophage CCL24 Promotes Fibrosis Gonzales, et al. Circ-cdr1as in Cardiac Repair

Seven countries that are members of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) submitted data on 77,688 container inspections in 2024 in line with MSC.1/ Circ.1649. The intent of this IMO Circular is to encourage governments to identify misdeclarations and poor packing practices to “justify and effect safety improvements without an actual incident happening”. Since adoption of this iteration of guidance on inspections from IMO, reports have increased by more than 50% from approximately 51,000 in 2022 to 77,700 in 2024. Less positively, the number of IMO member states reporting has not increased. 

Benvingudes i benvinguts al tretzé episodi de la novena temporada de Tots al Blitz! El primer programa en català dedicat a l’NFL. L’NFL és una competició privilegiada, on cada cap de setmana podem veure atletes molt complets fent un desplegament físic i tècnic que costa molt de trobar en qualsevol altre esport. Bàsicament perquè aquí el contacte és extrem però també necessites ser molt fi tècnicament si vols arribar lluny. Un joc on es reparteixen hòsties com pans però sempre va de menys d’un centímetre no és una cosa fàcil. I per això mateix també és un esport on els errors són molt importants. Cada setmana veiem cagades de l’alçada del campanar de Sau: Drops, flags fora de temps, peus que van a parar fora del camp quan no toca…però el d’aquesta setmana dels Cardinals és un recordatori de com d’important són els detalls a l’NFL. Arizona estava a punt de guanyar el partit amb tranquil·litat i dues cagades grans com l’ego de Manel Vidal. Vols la nostra samarreta? Aquí: https://nfl-en-catala.aixeta.cat/ca/campaigns#LDFNNH Apunta't al pick'em d'NFL en català: https://fantasy.espn.com/games/nfl-pigskin-pickem-2025/group?id=2f576645-7bd5-4980-b626-bd3b96da84ae&joining=true Recordeu que trobareu el programa a totes les plataformes de podcàsting habituals, i que ens podeu seguir a les xarxes socials a: Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/nflencatala.bsky.social Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nfl_encatala/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@nfl_encatala YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@nfl_encatala Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/catalunyaradio I també el feed de programes: https://t.co/ZGvItz3DQn I no oblideu subscriure-us al nostre canal de Youtube per estar al dia de totes les novetats!

Most higher ed campaigns play it safe—and end up milk toast. In this episode of Talking Tactics, Safaniya Stevenson sits down with Baldwin&'s Ashley Yetman and Emily Watson to unpack why bold ideas beget bold design. Partnering with the North Carolina School Board Association on a hearts & minds campaign, they leaned into disarming nostalgic illustrations and creator collaborations to humanize messaging. They reveal how taking creative risks can unite communities, energize audiences, and spark real impact in education marketing.Guest Names:Ashley Yetman, Co-CEO, Director of Brand Strategy, Baldwin&Emily Watson, Group Creative Director, Baldwin&Guest Socials: Ashley Yetman - https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashley-yetman-a39a0b14/Emily Watson - https://www.linkedin.com/in/emily-watson-b9383312/Guest Bios:Ashley Yetman - As 1/3 of the kick-ass, co-CEO team, Ashley Yetman has been growing and leading the brand strategy practice at Baldwin& since 2016 — after years in the Bay Area, working on global brands like Apple, Audi, AAA and Callaway Golf. Since joining B&, she's tackled all things brand and strategy for brands across all industries; from established companies like Radio Flyer, Krispy Kreme, Gaia Herbs, Lansinoh, and KIOTI tractors, to start-up brands like Circ, Pivotal, Shibumi Shade, and Ithaca Hummus. Ashley has dedicated her career to helping companies extricate and articulate their inherent goodness, so they can live into their most real-est selves. ‘Cause she believes that being yourself (brand-self or human-self) is the best sales tool you can ever uncover. When she's not geeking out here at B&, she's either shredding mountains, at home in Durham putting up with her goofy-but-adorable sheepadoodle, or loving/negotiating every moment with her husband and two boys.Emily Watson - Emily Watson is Group Creative Director at Baldwin&, where she has led creative for Gaia Herbs, KIOTI Tractor, Long John Silver's, NCSBA, and Zulily. Since joining in 2019, she has played an integral role in growing the agency. She helped launch Take Your Seat, helping to increase Black representation in corporate boardrooms, and The Lieutenant Governor's Fund for the Fabulous, which won Gold at the Shorty Impact Awards and the Grand Award the ANA Awards. She previously did more creative stuff at MullenLowe and GSD&M, working on brands like BMW, Trésemme, Food Lion, and NC Lottery. She has many interests outside of work but is trying to keep this bio to an appropriate length and so will not bore you with stories about hiking and little kids and hound dogs. - - - -Connect With Our Host:Safaniya Stevensonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/safaniyastevenson/ About The Enrollify Podcast Network:Talking Tactics is a part of the Enrollify Podcast Network. If you like this podcast, chances are you'll like other Enrollify shows too! Enrollify is made possible by Element451 — The AI Workforce Platform for Higher Ed. Learn more at element451.com. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Climate Week NYC kicked off just days after New York Fashion Week wrapped. In today's special Climate Week NYC episode of the All Things Sustainable podcast, we're exploring the intersection of sustainability and fashion in an interview with Peter Majeranowski, CEO and Co-Founder of circular fashion startup Circ.   Circ's investors include big brands like Patagonia and the parent company of Zara, as well as Breakthrough Energy Ventures, the investment firm founded by Bill Gates. Circ was also a finalist for the Earthshot Prize, which each year awards £1 million to five winners for their environmental solutions.  The apparel sector is a significant source of global emissions, and Peter explains how Circ promotes circularity by recycling clothing. He says that a lot of the technical challenges around recycling have been solved, and unlocking financing is the challenge that keeps him awake at night.   “For the bankers to get involved, they want to see long-term commitments from the brands, and that's a muscle that just does not exist in this industry,” he says. “That's the biggest challenge.”  Listen to our coverage from Climate Week NYC here: Kicking off Climate Week NYC in a fragmented global landscape | S&P Global  We'll be back with podcast interviews from Climate Week NYC throughout the week — including our coverage from The Nest Climate Campus, where the All Things Sustainable podcast is an official media partner. You can register free to attend here.     And you can learn more about the event S&P Global is hosting at Climate Week NYC here: Climate Week NYC | S&P Global  Learn more about S&P Global Sustainable1's physical climate risk dataset here.   This piece was published by S&P Global Sustainable1 and not by S&P Global Ratings, which is a separately managed division of S&P Global.    Copyright ©2025 by S&P Global      DISCLAIMER     By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk. 

Un grup de persones de la Vall de Camprodon, a les quals s'hi han sumat gent i entitats de tot el país i de la Catalunya Nord, alertades per les informacions respecte al projecte de reformulació de Vallter que podria afectar àmpliament el Circ de Morens i d'Ull de Ter i la Vall de Carlat, hem estat analitzant la situació i la proposta que hi ha sobre la taula i hem decidit mobilitzar-se.Parlem amb Claudi Guisset, president de l'associació mediambiental Charles Flahaut i exconservador de la Reserva Natural de Pi

Bonjour à tous et bienvenue dans Callisto, le Podcast qui vous fait voyager à travers les récits mythiques et les légendes !Au milieu des eaux bleues et enchantées de la mer Égée, sur l'île mystérieuse d'Eéa, réside la puissante Circé. Dans la mythologie grecque, elle est la fille du resplendissant Hélios, le dieu du soleil et de la douce Persé, une nymphe venue de l'océan. Circé est une puissante et dangereuse magicienne, qui use d'incantations et de filtres pour métamorphoser les êtres humains en animaux…Bonne écoute !

In this episode of Impact at Scale, Zal Dastur speaks with Luke Henning, Chief Business Officer and Co-Founder of Circ, a company on a mission to eliminate textile waste through cutting-edge recycling technologies.Luke shares Circ's journey from bio-based chemicals to becoming a global leader in textile-to-textile recycling, the brutal challenges of scaling hard tech, and the role of brands, consumers, and regulation in reshaping the fashion industry.

Unsere beiden heutigen Gäste sind Gründer, Produktstrategen und leidenschaftliche Technologen, mit einem klaren Ziel: die Kundenkommunikation mit Hilfe von Künstlicher Intelligenz grundlegend neu zu denken. Der eine studierte an der WHU, an der University of Texas und in Shanghai, gründete bereits ein eigenes Start-up im Creator-Tech-Bereich und arbeitete bei Roland Berger, Infosys und Enpal. Was ihn auszeichnet: ein tiefes Verständnis für digitale Geschäftsmodelle und der Wille, komplexe Technologien so zu gestalten, dass sie echten Mehrwert schaffen. Der andere absolvierte seinen Bachelor in Computer Science an der Stanford University und startete dort auch einen Master, den er zur Hälfte abschloss, um sich ganz dem Unternehmertum zu widmen. Nach Stationen bei N26, BCG Digital Ventures, Circ und zuletzt als Software Engineer und Product Manager bei Pitch ist er heute Co-Founder und CTO von telli. Seine Schwerpunkte: künstliche Intelligenz, Human-Computer-Interaction und der Brückenschlag zwischen Technologie und Nutzererlebnis. Mit ihrem gemeinsamen Unternehmen telli entwickeln sie eine KI-gestützte Lösung, die es Unternehmen ermöglicht, ihre gesamte Kundenkommunikation über ein intelligentes System zu führen: automatisiert, empathisch und effizient. Ihr Ziel ist es, das Kundenerlebnis neu zu definieren und Menschen in Unternehmen zu entlasten, indem repetitive Kommunikationsaufgaben künftig von einer digitalen Instanz übernommen werden können. Seit über acht Jahren beschäftigen wir uns in diesem Podcast mit der Frage, wie Arbeit den Menschen stärkt, statt ihn zu schwächen. In fast 500 Gesprächen mit über 600 Menschen haben wir darüber gesprochen, was sich für sie geändert hat und was sich noch ändern muss. Was passiert mit Kundenbeziehungen, wenn Künstliche Intelligenz zum ersten Ansprechpartner wird? Wie gelingt es, technologische Effizienz mit menschlicher Empathie zu verbinden und ist das überhaupt möglich? Und was heißt „New Work“ in einer Zukunft, in der Kommunikation zunehmend automatisiert, aber dennoch bedeutungsvoll bleiben soll? Fest steht: Für die Lösung unserer aktuellen Herausforderungen brauchen wir neue Impulse. Und darum suchen wir weiter nach Methoden, Vorbildern, Erfahrungen, Tools und Ideen, die uns dem Kern von New Work näherbringen. Darüber hinaus beschäftigt uns von Anfang an die Frage, ob wirklich alle Menschen das finden und leben können, was sie im Innersten wirklich, wirklich wollen. Ihr seid bei On the Way to New Work, heute mit Finn zur Mühlen und Seb Hapte-Selassie von telli. [Hier](https://linktr.ee/onthewaytonewwork) findet ihr alle Links zum Podcast und unseren aktuellen Werbepartnern

If you're looking for content surrounding Rugby's European Champions Cup Final, then you should probably go elsewhere as there was just SO MUCH sport to get across this weekend that we couldn't find a spot anywhere.However, Johnny and Gav did find a gap to catch up with gentleman broadcaster Mark 'Pougy' Pougatch ahead of the release of his new podcast 'How It All Played Out', which is available from Tuesday 27th May on Global Player.You can hear The Kickabout live on Radio X from 11am every Saturday. Get in touch on kickabout@radiox.co.uk

Listener feedback on sports “disqualification,” big digoxin news, Brugada syndrome, another positive finerenone study, and unblinded transcatheter trials are discussed by John Mandrola, MD, in this week's podcast. This podcast is intended for healthcare professionals only. To read a partial transcript or to comment, visit: https://www.medscape.com/twic I Listener Feedback JACC EP Paper https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacep.2025.03.013 II Digoxin News DIGIT HF Baseline Characteristics paper https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.3679 DIGIT HF Rationale paper https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6607489/ Dig trial https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199702203360801 DECISION trial https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ejhf.3428 Ziff et al BMJ meta-analysis https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4451 III Brugada Syndrome Gomes et al https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euaf091 IV Another Finerenone Substudy Published FINEARTS-HF trial substudy, Bhatt, A et al https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2025.05.006 FINEARTS HF Main paper https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2407107 TOPCAT https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1313731 TOPCAT regional variation Circ paper https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.114.013255 V Another Opinion on Unblinded Transcatheter Intervention Trials Kaul https://eurointervention.pcronline.com/article/unblinded-trials-of-transcatheter-interventions-with-subjective-endpoints-what-are-the-implications You may also like: The Bob Harrington Show with the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine, Robert A. Harrington, MD. https://www.medscape.com/author/bob-harrington Questions or feedback, please contact news@medscape.net

Host Philip Berman talks to Maxine Bedat, Executive Director at New Standard Institute, the official sponsor of the Fashion Environmental Accountability Act, a new bill introduced into the California State Assembly at the start of February 2025 which, if enacted, would become the first law in the country to require brands to engage in “environmental due diligence” concerning their products and supply chains.   This Californian Bill is essentially the same as the 'New York Fashion Act' which was introduced into the New York State legislature in 2022 - though it's not yet law - and which is also backed by Maxine, The New Standard Institute and a broad coalition of industry folk including influential names such as, Rothys, Everlane, Reformation, Eileen Fisher, Patagoina, ThredUp, Circ, Vestiaire Collective, Stella McCartney, Ganni, Faherty, Cotopaxi, NRDC, Sierra Club, Canopy, Trove, EVRNU, American Academy of Pediatrics. Full list at thefashionact.org Maxine talks about both bills, their purpose, what stage they have reached in the legislative process. what it's like trying to push through groundbreaking legislation in two states on opposite sides of the US, simultaneously, whether her work has become harder with President Trump in the White House, and how she manages to build broad support with politicians of all persuasions. Subscribe to Ecotextile Talks podcasts on Apple, Spotify and Amazon Music or have a look around our complete podcast archive here.    

Our story so far.. episode 92 looked at a study showing lower survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients treated with mechanical compression devices. Episode 93 discussed an implementation study of implementing LUCAS devices in a system with high quality pit crew CPR also showing lower survival, despite spending lots of time in training on how to optimally apply the LUCAS to avoid prolonged compression interruptions and movement. Now we're diving into the literature around AutoPulse, the load-distributing band device. We'll cover two randomized controlled trials and one well-done observational study comparing AutoPulse to manual CPR. Don't worry, LUCAS studies will be in the next episode.Citations1. Hallstrom A, Rea TD, Sayre MR, Christenson J, Anton AR, Mosesso VN, Van Ottingham L, Olsufka M, Pennington S, White LJ, et al.: Manual Chest Compression vs Use of an Automated Chest Compression Device During Resuscitation Following Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2006;June 14;295(22).2. Ong MEH, Ornato JP, Edwards DP, Dhindsa HS, Best AM, Ines CS, Hickey S, Clark B, Williams DC, Powell RG, et al.: Use of an Automated, Load-Distributing Band Chest Compression Device for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation. JAMA. 2006;June 14;295(22).3. Wik L, Olsen J-A, Persse D, Sterz F, Lozano M, Brouwer MA, Westfall M, Souders CM, Malzer R, Van Grunsven PM, et al.: Manual vs. integrated automatic load-distributing band CPR with equal survival after out of hospital cardiac arrest. The randomized CIRC trial. Resuscitation. 2014;June;85(6):741–8.

In this episode of Keeping Abreast, I sit down with Dr. Sharon Stills to uncover the hidden factors that impact healing—from oral health and scars to the lymphatic system and emotional well-being. We also dive into the dangers of hormonal birth control, the rise of metabolic syndrome, and why early cancer detection and lifestyle changes are critical for lasting wellness. We discuss how healing isn't about symptoms—it's about understanding the body as a whole!In This Episode, You will Learn:

We know the literature on mechanical CPR devices on mortality in out of hospital cardiac arrest (we DO know this literature, right?), but what about in-hospital arrest? Dr. Jarvis reviews a recent paper that uses the AHA Get With The Guidelines - Resuscitation registry to assess the association between MCDs and mortality. Citations1. Crowley C, Salciccioli J, Wang W, Tamura T, Kim EY, Moskowitz A: The association between mechanical CPR and outcomes from in-hospital cardiac arrest: An observational cohort study. Resuscitation. 2024;May 1;198.2. Rubertsson S, Lindgren E, Smekal D, Östlund O, Silfverstolpe J, Lichtveld RA, Boomars R, Ahlstedt B, Skoog G, Kastberg R, et al.: Mechanical Chest Compressions and Simultaneous Defibrillation vs Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: The LINC Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2014;January 1;311(1):53–613. Hardig BM, Lindgren E, Östlund O, Herlitz J, Karlsten R, Rubertsson S: Outcome among VF/VT patients in the LINC (LUCAS IN cardiac arrest) trial—A randomised, controlled trial. Resuscitation. 2017;June;115:155–62.4.  Perkins GD, Lall R, Quinn T, Deakin CD, Cooke MW, Horton J, Lamb SE, Slowther A-M, Woollard M, Carson A, et al.: Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2015;385(9972):947–55.5.  Wik L, Olsen J-A, Persse D, Sterz F, Lozano M, Brouwer MA, Westfall M, Souders CM, Malzer R, Van Grunsven PM, et al.: Manual vs. integrated automatic load-distributing band CPR with equal survival after out of hospital cardiac arrest. The randomized CIRC trial. Resuscitation. 2014;June;85(6):741–8.6. Bonnes JL, Brouwer MA, Navarese EP, Verhaert DVM, Verheugt FWA, Smeets JLRM, Boer M-J de: Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Versus CPR Including a Mechanical Chest Compression Device in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis From Randomized and Observational Studies. Ann Emerg Med Annals of emergency medicine. 2016;67(3):349-360.e3.7. Gonzales L, Oyler BK, Hayes JL, Escott ME, Cabanas JG, Hinchey PR, Brown LH: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes with “pit crew” resuscitation and scripted initiation of mechanical CPR. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2019;May;37(5):913–20.8. Koster RW, Beenen LF, Van Der Boom EB, Spijkerboer AM, Tepaske R, Van Der Wal AC, Beesems SG, Tijssen JG: Safety of mechanical chest compression devices AutoPulse and LUCAS in cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial for non-inferiority. European Heart Journal. 2017;October 21;38(40):3006–13.9. Primi R, Bendotti S, Currao A, Sechi GM, Marconi G, Pamploni G, Panni G, Sgotti D, Zorzi E, Cazzaniga M, et al.: Use of Mechanical Chest Compression for Resuscitation in Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest—Device Matters: A Propensity-Score-Based Match Analysis. JCM. 2023;June 30;12(13):4429.10. Youngquist ST, Ockerse P, Hartsell S, Stratford C, Taillac P: Mechanical chest compression devices are associated with poor neurological survival in a statewide registry: A propensity score analysis. Resuscitation. 2016;September;106:102–7.11.  S, Sulzgruber P, Datler P, Keferböck M, Poppe M, Lobmeyr E, Van Tulder R, Zajicek A, Buchinger A, Polz K, et al.: Mechanical chest compression does not seem to improve outcome after out-of hospital cardiac arrest. A single center observational trial. Resuscitation. 2015;November;96:220–5. 12. Morgan S, Gray JJ, Sams W, Uhl K, Gundrum M, McMullan J: LUCAS Device Use Associated with Prolonged Pauses during Application and Long Chest Compression Intervals. Prehospital Emergency Care. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2023.2183294 (Epub ahead of print).13.  Levy M, Yost D, Walker RG, Scheunemann E, Mendive SR: A quality improvement initiative to optimize use of a mechanical chest compression device within a high-performance CPR approach to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2015;July;92:32–7.14.  Li H, Wang D, Yu Y, Zhao X, Jing X: Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016;December;24(1):10.15.  Sheraton M, Columbus J, Surani S, Chopra R, Kashyap R: Effectiveness of Mechanical Chest Compression Devices over Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. WestJEM. 2021;July 19;22(4):810–9.16.  Wang PL, Brooks SC: Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest. Cochrane Database Syst Rev The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;20;8:CD007260.17.  Zhu N, Chen Q, Jiang Z, Liao F, Kou B, Tang H, Zhou M: A meta-analysis of the resuscitative effects of mechanical and manual chest compression in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. Crit Care. 2019;December;23(1):100.

PREVIEW: MUSK: Colleague Jim McTague reports that Elon Musk and his million-dollar checks are coming to the tidy and comfortable Lancaster City next week to promote free speech and the Republican ticket, and there is already much excitement as if the circus is en route. More tonight. 1945 Lancaster City, PA