Podcasts about correct

In this recap, Lesley Logan and Brad Crowell unpack the deeper implications of Adrian Starks' conversation on purpose, grief, and the resistance that comes from fighting your own path. They explore how purpose isn't something you find, but something you actively build, and why the attempt to force alignment often backfires. The episode tackles the unglamorous realities of change, self-reflection, and what happens when perfection gets in the way of progress. Whether you're struggling with imposter syndrome or questioning your direction, this conversation invites you to reclaim agency over your own story. If you have any questions about this episode or want to get some of the resources we mentioned, head over to LesleyLogan.co/podcast https://lesleylogan.co/podcast/. If you have any comments or questions about the Be It pod shoot us a message at beit@lesleylogan.co mailto:beit@lesleylogan.co. And as always, if you're enjoying the show please share it with someone who you think would enjoy it as well. It is your continued support that will help us continue to help others. Thank you so much! Never miss another show by subscribing at LesleyLogan.co/subscribe https://lesleylogan.co/podcast/#follow-subscribe-free.In this episode you will learn about:How supporting LGBTQ+ communities strengthens your own alignment and values.The importance of taking control of your purpose before it gets defined for you.Why the more effort you put into controlling something, the more it slips through your fingers.How self-reflection reveals when you're outgrowing something or being called into something newImposter syndrome shows up when you're going against the grain of your purpose.Episode References/Links:OPC for 40 days for $40 - opc.me/40eLevate 2028 Waitlist - lesleylogan.co/elevateOPC Flashcards - opc.me/flashcardsSummer Tour (Powered by Balanced Body) - opc.me/tourPrism Foundation - arprismfoundation.orgAdrian Starks Website - https://adrianstarks.comEp 191. with Adrian Starks - https://beitpod.com/ep191100 Acts of Love by Kim Hamer - https://a.co/d/0dugkBGkEp 244 with Kim Hamer - https://beitpod.com/ep244Ep 235 with Krista St-Germain - https://beitpod.com/ep235Ep. 688 Outgrowing Series 1 - https://beitpod.com/ep688 Ep. 689 Outgrowing Series 2 - https://beitpod.com/ep689Submit your wins or questions - https://beitpod.com/questions If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox. https://lovethepodcast.com/BITYSIDEALS! DEALS! DEALS! DEALS! https://onlinepilatesclasses.com/memberships/perks/#equipmentCheck out all our Preferred Vendors & Special Deals from Clair Sparrow, Sensate, Lyfefuel BeeKeeper's Naturals, Sauna Space, HigherDose, AG1 and ToeSox https://onlinepilatesclasses.com/memberships/perks/#equipmentBe in the know with all the workshops at OPC https://workshops.onlinepilatesclasses.com/lp-workshop-waitlistBe It Till You See It Podcast Survey https://pod.lesleylogan.co/be-it-podcasts-surveyBe a part of Lesley's Pilates Mentorship https://lesleylogan.co/elevate/FREE Ditching Busy Webinar https://ditchingbusy.com/Resources:Watch the Be It Till You See It podcast on YouTube! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq08HES7xLMvVa3Fy5DR8-gLesley Logan website https://lesleylogan.co/Be It Till You See It Podcast https://lesleylogan.co/podcast/Online Pilates Classes by Lesley Logan https://onlinepilatesclasses.com/Online Pilates Classes by Lesley Logan on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjogqXLnfyhS5VlU4rdzlnQProfitable Pilates https://profitablepilates.com/about/Follow Us on Social Media:Instagram https://www.instagram.com/lesley.logan/The Be It Till You See It Podcast YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq08HES7xLMvVa3Fy5DR8-gFacebook https://www.facebook.com/llogan.pilatesLinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/lesley-logan/The OPC YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/@OnlinePilatesClasses Episode Transcript:Brad Crowell 0:00  We think purpose is just going to find us, and we're gonna be like, "Oh my god, that's what I'm here for, that's the thing," right? Instead, what clearly seems actionable is purpose is something that we are out there doing, and whether or not we chose to do it, we're still out there doing it.Lesley Logan 0:21  Welcome to the Be It Till You See It podcast where we talk about taking messy action, knowing that perfect is boring. I'm Lesley Logan, Pilates instructor and fitness business coach. I've trained thousands of people around the world and the number one thing I see stopping people from achieving anything is self-doubt. My friends, action brings clarity and it's the antidote to fear. Each week, my guest will bring bold, executable, intrinsic and targeted steps that you can use to put yourself first and Be It Till You See It. It's a practice, not a perfect. Let's get started. Lesley Logan 1:04  Welcome back to the Be It Till You See It interview recap, where my co-host in life, Brad, and I are going to dig into the purposeful convo I had with Adrian Starks in our last episode. You know what, I think that's what we said the first time he was on, because his podcast is all about being purposeful, so if you haven't yet listened to that interview, you can pause this and go listen to that one.Brad Crowell 1:23  What is he like? 190-something?Lesley Logan 1:26  It was like 151. Brad's gonna look it up and... and you can then come back and listen to this one, or you can listen to this one, because we chat about a bunch of stuff, and then our favorite things. And then you can go listen to the amazing one, because you have all the choice in this world. You get to do what you want to do, and we got to meet a bunch of you amazing podcast listeners when we were in Arizona the other day.Brad Crowell 1:46  It was 191.Lesley Logan 1:47  191Brad Crowell 1:48  Yes, I can't believe.Lesley Logan 1:50  Wow, nailed it.Brad Crowell 1:51  I did.Lesley Logan 1:52  I don't even know. You must have cheated. You must have seen it.Brad Crowell 1:55  I heard it in the episode.Lesley Logan 1:56  You heard it in the episode.Brad Crowell 1:59  Because I went back and listened to it. Lesley Logan 2:00  I was like I love you, but there's no way you came up with that on your own. Anyways, we met a bunch of listeners at the POT Arizona last month.Brad Crowell 2:10  We sure did.Lesley Logan 2:11  I love that you love the pod, and also I heard that people are loving the solo episodes. If that's the case, please leave a review and tell me what you want me to talk about. Also, another way you can support this show is to become an OPC member, because when you're an OPC member, that money also supports this podcast. Just be honest, so the best thing you can do is to go be a member of OPC. One, you actually get extra stuff out of it. If you like these little pep talks that I do on the podcast that are solo, at the end of every one of my classes, I give you a little pep talk. It's not a mantra, but it's something close. So you can go to opc.me/40, and then you can join OPC for 40 days for $40, and then you can see how great we are. Okay, today is June 25, 2026. It's Bourdain Day.Brad Crowell 3:00  It's Bourdain Day, and this is.Lesley Logan 3:02  A quote from Mr. Anthony Bourdain: "If I'm an advocate for anything, it's to move as far as you can, as much as you can, across the ocean or simply across the river, walk in someone else's shoes, or at least eat their food. It's a plus for everybody." Anthony Bourdain backed up his words with action, all the while urging us to do a lot more than simply try new foods in exotic places with fascinating strangers. He desperately wanted us to break out of our comfort zones and see the world in person through the eyes of people we would never otherwise meet. Watching his TV shows, first No Reservations, and then Parts Unknown, enabled us to spend time with the real-life explorer who trotted around the world in search of, well, the things that make us all human: food, yes, but also love, spirit, and passion. Bourdain, who suffered from depression, took his own life in 2018 at the age of 61. "Anthony was my best friend," tweeted French chef and close friend Eric Ripert at the time. "Exceptional human being, so inspired and generous." Ripert, along with another longtime friend, José Andrés, who does some amazing work in this world, declared June 25, Bourdain's birthday, Bourdain Day in 2019. So, if you are thinking of suicide, or worried about a friend, or in need of emotional support, the Lifeline Network is available 24/7 across the US. Call 800-273-8255. I think there's also a short number, I feel like there's a short number that you can call, but we had a dear friend.Brad Crowell 4:20  You can call 988 in the United States.Lesley Logan 4:22  Thank you. Yeah, yeah, who worked with a suicide prevention network in Nevada. And life's really hard right now. It's harder than people think. You look at people and they seem to have it all together, and they don't. A lot of people are tired, a lot of people have a lot going on. So reach out to a friend you haven't heard from or talked to in a while. You just never know. You might help them out, but also make sure you have these numbers, because there are people who are experts who can also support.Brad Crowell 4:49  Yeah.Lesley Logan 4:50  Upcoming travel, Brad, predict this, because what, go ahead, Brad.Brad Crowell 4:54  Yeah, Anthony Bourdain was very inspirational for me. He was living the travel bug that I always had, and when I was in college, my friend and I used to watch his show every single week, No Reservations. I just loved that he was so angry at his producers in that show, and he would get so pissed about cursing and smoking cigarettes on TV. I guess it wasn't live, but on TV, and then.Lesley Logan 5:23  They could just edit it out.Brad Crowell 5:24  hey could have edited it out, but they didn't. Yeah, it just was really inspirational for me. And then he did some amazing stuff too. He was in Beirut when that.Lesley Logan 5:36  Yes! And then also, don't forget his wonderful documentary about food waste.Brad Crowell 5:40  Yeah, food waste.Lesley Logan 5:41  If you haven't seen it, you must see it.Brad Crowell 5:43  It's called Wasted!Lesley Logan 5:44  I think it's called Wasted!Brad Crowell 5:45  Yeah.Lesley Logan 5:45  We actually watched it, and the next day he died by suicide.Brad Crowell 5:48  Yeah.Lesley Logan 5:49  That was really tragic, and that documentary stuck with me. So it's really, really important, because we all need to be aware. In certain countries, they're doing a much better job about food waste than we are. Go Japan! You were commenting from the documentary, so yeah, for me.Brad Crowell 6:03  It was amazing because I never was a chef, but he worked in the food industry, I worked in the food industry, and I got his book Kitchen Confidential when I was in my early 20s. I just thought he was amazing. So, yep, in honor of Anthony Bourdain, and as Lesley was mentioning, if you or anyone you know is suffering with suicidal thoughts, there is support out there for you.Lesley Logan 6:28  Yeah.Brad Crowell 6:29  Yeah.Lesley Logan 6:29  In other news, there are no spots left in Elevate. Every single week in the last few weeks that you've heard that there are spots was a lie.Brad Crowell 6:37  They are sold out.Lesley Logan 6:40  For 2027 anyways. We are already taking applications for 2028. We'll be able to let you snag your spot and reserve it, and all that stuff. But we're going to have a wonderful Q&A call this summer on July 9, I believe it's at 1 PM Pacific time. You can go to lesleylogan.co/elevate to get on the waitlist. We'll have that call information, and you can register for the call. Oh, I should do ll.co/waitlist. Actually, sorry, my producer is doing this in real time, everyone. Anyways, what I want you to do is get on that waitlist, because I do update you monthly on when we have dates and when we're accepting applications, and when you can deposit. I know that 2028 will fill up as soon as we open up those applications, but that means you have a whole year-plus to protect those dates like your life once I figure out what they are. Lesley Logan 7:31  summer tour is coming, but the tickets are available. They've been available for a few weeks, actually a month to be precise, and many cities are sold out. You're like, "Lesley, now that I know you record this in the past-future, how do you know?" Because I do! When we were in Arizona, we actually met many people who were like, "Oh, I'm going to Tucson," and I was like, "Okay, we're probably out of spots in Tucson." So I know that some of these slots are sold out. You want to go to opc.me/tour. Our tours are sponsored by the wonderful Balanced Body and Contrology company. Balanced Body is celebrating 50 years, so it's a really big year for them. It's kind of amazing what they're doing, and it's really special. So I want you to make sure that you join us, because Balanced Body allows our tours to go to more than six places and to do it with a lot of fun. We're bringing Contrology products into the studio so you can try them out. And if you're new here...Brad Crowell 8:25  Welcome.Lesley Logan 8:25  Hi! We also have Pilates flashcards. Did you know that we do? You don't have to be a Pilates instructor to love them. They're actually really wonderful for helping you have access to great Pilates where you are. They're so great, in fact, that people steal my images all the fucking time to put them in their shitty books, but you can get the real thing with the best information that has been edited many times and has quality videos at opc.me/flashcards. Sorry, I'm a little pissed off over here about something, but I am. If you follow me on Instagram, you know how long this has been going on, and just as we were about to hit record, I found out another fucking person is stealing my images from my flashcards.Brad Crowell 9:08  Three more people.Lesley Logan 9:09  Three more people.Brad Crowell 9:10  Yeah, so it's a thing. That's crazy. Anyway, you should know what's crazy.Lesley Logan 9:16  Is that they thought someone wouldn't find out? You know what I mean?Brad Crowell 9:21  I mean, maybe they just don't care.Lesley Logan 9:22  Maybe they don't care, or they're like, "Oh, she only has like 30,000 followers, so no one will know." But my followers know me, and even people who don't follow me are telling me, because I am recognizable at any rate. But you can get my flashcards, the real deal, and support a small business who is going to take on some of these big-ass companies, because there is a company that is a big name that we're about to take down anyways. I'm excited about it. Lesley Logan 9:49  Before we get into... we used to do audience questions here. If you're new, you don't know that, so this is not a new thing for you. But if you're old and you're like, "Oh, I just popped in here on this one," we don't do that anymore. We answer questions on YouTube at 9 AM Pacific Time Live, and that is where I answer them. If you're a member, I answer questions wherever you are a member, so as long as it's part of your membership, right? If you're an agency member, you can ask business questions there. If you are an OPC member, I answer personal Pilates questions there—I answer all those. Plus, there's YouTube, and YouTube is free. People don't know that, but it is. It's free. You have to watch, according to one comment, a diabolical amount of commercials, but it's free. Yes, "diabolical" was the word that was used. However, what we decided to change this to is many of you want to help out people in your life, but often don't know how to help, and there are so many different shitstorms in the world, like, which firestorm do you help with? The reality is that you can help either by just sharing with a friend who needs to hear that this charity exists for them, or you can share your time, or you can share it on your platform, or you can give them money, even $2. Lesley Logan 10:55  So, because June is Pride Month, we are going to wrap up the month's theme with another wonderful LGBTQ+ charity. This is the Prism Foundation, and it was founded in 2021. The Prism Foundation was started to organize and execute initiatives for the LGBTQ+ community in the state of Arkansas, using a multifaceted approach to achieve the following outcomes: increase access to affirming and comprehensive healthcare, align resources that address barriers to care and health disparities among the community, and create safe spaces for both virtual and physical activities and services that serve LGBTQ+ Arkansas.Brad Crowell 11:32  Correct me if we're wrong here, but I think it's Arkansans.Lesley Logan 11:35  What is also exciting, because I was doing some research on them, they are also really aware of what is happening in the states that are surrounding them that are affecting trans people. Part of their vision is: "We are increasing access to healthcare as top of our priorities. We're also focused on creating pathways to fulfill our basic needs, including overcoming barriers to legal aid services and developing supportive community spaces physically and virtually." Lesley Logan 11:59  I think this is really important because unfortunately, and at the time of this recording, there have been some awful things that have been said about trans people from the government that we are under in this country. I won't even repeat his words, because they are too horrible to repeat, that he said this week. But we need to be protecting our people who are different than us, because the fucking people who are taking from you are billionaires. So support the LGBTQ+ people in your area, because one, they are beautiful human beings, and two, they are always there supporting.Brad Crowell 12:39  That's true, there's very much of an activism mentality in that community.Lesley Logan 12:45  Yeah.Brad Crowell 12:45  Really like.Lesley Logan 12:46  And also, my goodness, they have to be tired. I'm sure they are. Anyways, I really like what that Prism organization is doing. I think it has to be hard to do what they do in the areas that they're doing it, so if you want to support, there you go.Brad Crowell 13:05  You can go to their website at arprismfoundation.org to read more about what they are doing and how you could support them.Lesley Logan 13:14  And if that is not your area, because you're like, "I'm not Arkansan," or "I'm not in the Midwest," then look up ones in your area that are doing something locally for you, because there is always a local outlet of something, like we've talked about before on this podcast. We love supporting a restaurant because Bronze Cafe—everyone who's local to Las Vegas who listens to this show, when you buy meals from them, they support the LGBTQ mental health community center here.Brad Crowell 13:38  If you have an organization that is doing good things that we should find out about, and you want to be featured on the pod, call us and leave us a voicemail.Lesley Logan 13:49  I love that. Then it's your favorite charity.Brad Crowell 13:52  At 310-905-5534 and tell us why they're amazing. You can also submit wins, by the way, at beitpod.com/questions so that we can get you in on the Friday episode.Lesley Logan 14:09  Times now, Brad, I have had people tell me that they heard their win months after they submitted it, and it really made their day because they were having a rough day. So I tell people this. Also, just so you know, we've changed the Friday FYF. I bitch about something, and then you were gonna come, but we haven't had a chance for you to bitch about something.Brad Crowell 14:30  Oh, yes.Lesley Logan 14:31  Which is what we do at our other communities, and then I celebrate a win, and then I share their wins. That's cool, and I do a mantra, so we had a change to it because it's quite nice. Maybe my new "need a moment" is that all these people use my fucking image.Brad Crowell 14:46  Well, we'll save that for Friday's episode. Stick around, we'll be right back. Brad Crowell 14:51  All right, now let's talk about Mr. Adrian Starks. Adrian is a professional speaker, voice narrator, and host of the Your Purposeful Life podcast, who openly embraces his authentic, unpolished self, including his fun side as a comic card and superhero fanatic. Having shed the rigid suit-and-tie expectations of his early career, Adrian is deeply protective of the energy he puts into the world, intentionally choosing to step away from the microphone rather than record an episode if he's having a bad day. So, good vibes, right? As a fellow human seeking purpose, he helps his audience navigate what he identifies as the three continuous cycles of purposeful living, and encourages people to make a mess, figure out what works, and ultimately have fun with their journey.Lesley Logan 15:36  Well, we love mess over here. We love messy action, and we're so big on that. Yeah, I also love... I mean, we had a great conversation about evolution, but one of the things we talked about is he said when we try to make things perfect when they're not meant to be—well, nothing's supposed to be—there's going to be major resistance because everything has to flow a certain way. He used the metaphor of salmon noting their journey upstream against the flow of the river is what ultimately exhausts them, and I think that's so true. I think we try to get things to be so perfect, just like, you know, we make it too precious, and you kind of hold on to it too tight. Then you aren't able to hear amazing things or be curious to go a different direction, you know what I mean?Brad Crowell 16:19  I was just talking about the idea of, like, the more effort you put into controlling something, the more it slips through your fingers. And yeah, I mean, I totally get that. Here's how I equate this. This is going to be an amazing parallel for all you ultimate frisbee players out there, of which I know I'm speaking to the right audience. Obviously.Lesley Logan 16:40  I'm sure we have a good two.Brad Crowell 16:42  Clearly, clearly the right audience. I grew up playing very, very competitively, playing ultimate frisbee, and whenever you were gonna throw the frisbee all the way down the field—the disc, as it were, if you put all of your might into that throw, that huck, as it were, is what we would call it, inevitably, you would mess it up. It would curve to the right, or go out of bounds, or whatever. But if you took a half a second before that huge throw, and you just eased and paused when you threw, you paused, and then just let it happen—it would go where you wanted it to every time. It took a long time, and I could always tell as soon as I released the disc, like, "Oh man, I did not do that right." I feel like life is like that too. When you are forcing it, things do not go the way that you want them to, but when you go with the flow, you know, while you're directing it, then things seem to happen a lot more organically, usually. All the things, right?Lesley Logan 17:49  Yeah, it's like a tough balance, right, because.Brad Crowell 17:52  Still have to direct it.Lesley Logan 17:53  Well, because you don't want to just be blowing with the wind, but you also need to feel the flow, right? Like, there are some obstacles that tell us, like, "Not that door," right? That doesn't mean it's a stop sign, it's just like a doorway, like, "Nope, not that door." And I think it's like really understanding, you know, why are you doing this? Why are you doing any of this? Because if you can keep your "why" in mind, it can keep the perfection from taking over, because perfection will honestly end up making something so clean and perfect, no one wants to touch it and do it, or they don't really know what it is, and it's exhausting. It's exhausting to be perfect. Lesley Logan 18:30  Oh my god, there's just certain people in my life, whenever I see them, I'm like, "How long does it take them to get out the door?" Because we just saw someone this past weekend at an event, and every time I see her, I'm like, she's so perfectly coiffed, it must take forever to get out the door, because there's not a hair amiss. The outfit is... the nails match the shoes match the... I mean, like all of it. I'm like, I know how long it takes to get my nails done, so they're just gonna be what they are for four weeks. So, I don't know, I'm just saying this is... if you want to be my friend, don't be perfect, okay?Lesley Logan 19:06  The last thing I'll say is he explained that when we go against the grain of what our purposes are, it creates major resistance that makes us feel like we're not worthy. So, hello, my people who feel imposter syndrome, it's because you're going against the grain of your purpose. If we're truly good at where we are, while we always can improve, we don't need to be perfect. There is this thing... "improve" is the wrong word. We are always... this is something that happens with Pilates instructors that I meet. You always are going to be learning. There's never a point that you're not learning, but there's a difference between chasing down every single person to go through their version of a program with, and also just learning from the body in front of you today. You know what I mean? Every time I teach a new person, a new client, I learn a new way of explaining something. Today we were doing OPC spring training, and this wonderful person asked a great question. I was like, "You know what, I've explained this before, but never to a person with that brand of equipment, with that years of experience, with that understanding of the exercise." So even I am learning something I already know in a different way so I can explain it. It's just... there's ways to learn and improve yourself without having to constantly feel like you've gotta sign up for this next thing, you know? So, anyways.Brad Crowell 20:21  Stay tuned, because how do we know what our purpose is, you know? How do we even know if we're going against the grain? Stick around, because we're going to talk about that in the Be It action items. Brad Crowell 20:32  But what I really wanted to talk about myself was grief, which is interesting because it was an interesting topic that y'all skipped over. You were talking about grieving, not just like a person who might no longer be with us, or obviously a pet or any of that, but even an experience that was supposed to happen, but it didn't, you know? And you were very excited about it, or you had a lot of effort and planning into it. I mean, we know we've been talking about opening a studio for a really long time, and we spent a lot of money, we spent a lot of time at the beginning of this year and last year—beginning of this year like really thinking, planning. I mean, I can't even tell you how many phone calls I made to the city, and I spent hours putting together a plan, a business plan for this. And then three months in, we decided to pause the whole thing because we realized that we were pretty much forcing it, you know, because there was one key thing that was holding us up that was like, "Wait a minute, how are we going to solve this problem?" It was kind of like one of those, "Well, we're gonna... we could... we'll make it work. We'll figure it out. It's gonna..." you know. All of a sudden I was like, "Why do we need to do that? We don't even need to do the studio. It's just gonna cause a lot of stress. And what we could be doing right now is opening a major problem for ourselves." So what we decided to do instead was solve the problem that we would be opening for ourselves first, but that's going to take time.Lesley Logan 22:01  Yeah.Brad Crowell 22:02  Right. So even though we spent this time putting this whole plan together and decided to hit pause, it's interesting because, okay, there's actually another path that is going to set us up for success in the future when we do bring that studio back around. However, it doesn't mean that you don't feel bummed about it. I drive by the location that we picked out, that I've talked with the landlord.Lesley Logan 22:26  I know.Brad Crowell 22:27  And the neighbors, and the city about, and a contractor about.Lesley Logan 22:30  And I envisioned the sign.Brad Crowell 22:32  100 times.Lesley Logan 22:33  I still don't think it's not going to be in that center. I just think it's not that unit. It's just that unit needed way too much money. Yeah, not the rent, but the build-out was like jaw-dropping. It honestly made the grief a little bit easier, I'm not gonna lie, because it was such a "fuck no," you know what I mean? Like, it was just like no fucking way. And so, I do understand there's grief because that's not happening today, and so we still drive by it every single time, but I also think this is where good reflection comes from, too. It's like, in reflecting, it's all out of our control—the parts that are the obstacles, yeah. So I go to bed knowing we did the best we could with what we had in the moment, and had we not had this other stupid bill come through that we're like, "That's a fuck no," we probably would have forced the salmon up the stream a little bit. I think so, because we definitely.Brad Crowell 23:34  Would have.Lesley Logan 23:34  Anyway, would have made it work, but it would have been a hard stress.Brad Crowell 23:38  More complicated than it needed to be. Yeah, but.Lesley Logan 23:40  I do think there is a way you have to grieve changes. We have Elevate members who are like, "I'm grieving the teacher I used to be," because they used to just narrate a Pilates class, for lack of a simple thing. And it's like, "Well, no, now you get to watch it, and you get to see what it is." Part of you is excited because you know better now and you have these more potential possibilities now, but also there was a time that it felt easier, right? And you're a different person when you're in this unknown space. So, like, I'm excited when we open that studio. I'm past the grief thing, but also sometimes I look back at that studio, it would have been really great if it was a Pilates on it already.Brad Crowell 24:19  Yeah, well, that's the thing. You know, you were talking about how grief doesn't really go away because you had built a mental pattern around a person or a thing or an experience that was supposed to happen. You had built that into your thinking, and what ends up happening over time is we think that way a little bit less. It doesn't mean we don't think about the thing, but the expectations that we had alter, they shift, right? And so, you know, what Adrian was talking about was someone, I think he was talking about someone who died, if I recall, and he said sometimes he just needs to embrace when that emotion comes up. He embraces it, he leans into it. He's like, "It's okay for me to feel this right now," and he encourages letting that emotion flow for multiple reasons. It's a testament to how someone or something impacted you, but also it's really important to feel those emotions. So.Lesley Logan 25:16  Yeah, it's hard. I don't know, it's like there's certain... you know, it's really interesting, like there's certain people, places, or things that you grieve in different ways. Our LA studio, I don't ever look back and have tears, like I'm sad with that studio, because it was the right thing to do to make the change, but I do miss having that cute little space.Brad Crowell 25:37  Yeah.Lesley Logan 25:37  You know, I miss it. Yeah, I think back of it fondly, not tears, like, "Oh, I don't have that place anymore," but like, "What a fun two years I had in that space." It was such a... like a treehouse, you know. So, grief doesn't always have to be devastating either, but you have to feel it. We have some great grief podcasts, by the way. Haven't had any recently, but the two that we had were so good: Kim Hamer and another woman... I want to say Kara, but I don't think that's what it was. She's like Coach Something, and they're both on grief. Kim Hamer has a wonderful book on 100 Acts of Love, and her episode about her husband and that grief was so interesting, and what she has done. She was so raw and wonderful and thoughtful. And then there was a woman before her in the episodes, and I'm just talking like as if it's going to come back to me, she actually, unfortunately, watched her husband die, and then she went through all this grief and she was like, "How come this is happening, and why am I not over it?" She literally became a grief coach.Brad Crowell 26:42  Yeah.Lesley Logan 26:42  I want to say it's Kara, but it's not.Brad Crowell 26:44  I have no idea.Lesley Logan 26:46  Anyways, our wonderful producers will figure it out, I'm sure. But you can just go into our catalog; it's definitely in the first 200 episodes. Good luck! Well, here's the thing: if you can find Kim Hamer, it's within two months of Kim Hamer that I remember. So, okay, we're gonna get into our Be It action items, and I can see Brad is going to Google that.Brad Crowell 27:05  Yeah, one was Krista St-Germain.Lesley Logan 27:08  That's the one.Brad Crowell 27:09  And the other was.Lesley Logan 27:12  Kim Hamer. Kim Hamer! So sorry, replace Hamer everywhere I said Scott. There you go.Brad Crowell 27:23  All right, stick around. We'll be right back. We're gonna dig into those Be It action items. Brad Crowell 27:29  All right. Well, welcome back. Let's talk about those Be It action items that we got from Adrian Starks. What bold, executable, intrinsic, or targeted action items can we take away from your combo, Adrian? It's weird to call him Starks. Starks, it sounds like he's like... like.Lesley Logan 27:48  Tony.Brad Crowell 27:49  Yeah, but I was thinking like a football player, like the way that you.Lesley Logan 27:52  I just want to go "Adrian," that's all.Brad Crowell 27:54  Starks redefines the word goal, and I've really loved this, y'all. He's so full of these quippy things that are so applicable, and this one really blew my mind. He said, "I love a goal, but I redefined it with the acronym of Get Out and Live, Get Out and Live." And I was like, "Wow, that's really great." I love that he views goals not as rigid markers but as triggers to move outside of one's comfort zone, scare yourself a little bit, and then break a rut. He suggests regularly asking yourself, what is actually going on here? What am I not happy about? What do I actually want? Specifically focusing on immediate desires rather than five-year plans, he recommends detoxing from social media for several days at a time to avoid the world of comparisons that definitely leads to self-doubt and imposter syndrome.Brad Crowell 28:51  Imposter syndrome, yeah, exactly.Lesley Logan 28:53  Comparison is the thief of joy.Brad Crowell 28:54  Comparison is the thief of joy. What about you?Lesley Logan 28:58  Well, he said your purpose in life is not something you find, it's something that you do, and it's going to change. It's going to evolve with time, and I couldn't agree more. It's so funny. Recently, I posted pictures of myself as a brand new Pilates instructor. I actually wrote a whole series called Outgrowing Yourself, and it's either already come out or it's coming up. No idea. I think it already came out, outgrowing your old version of yourself. And it's so funny, because I don't look back at her going, "Oh my god." I mean, when I said, "Oh my god, I look so young..."Brad Crowell 29:27  You look like a child.Lesley Logan 29:28  I look like a child. I was 25, but I think about what her goals as a new teacher were to where I am right now, and I can say looking back I never have thought, "Oh my god, I'm no longer living my purpose," because my purpose has evolved as a teacher. Because I've evolved in the more that I know, and the people that I teach, and the things that I'm drawn to. There's things that people like, "Don't you want to do this?" and it's like, "No, that's a no, I don't." And even right now people like, "Oh, what about next year?" I'm like, "I think I'm staying home a lot, actually a significant amount of time. I'm staying home." And they're like, "Oh, really?" And it's like, "Yeah, because if you do take the time to get to know yourself, and you do stay aligned with what you want, and you do stay aligned with your purpose, your life has to evolve." And then, because that evolves, and your purpose evolves, I'm like, "My life has to reflect what I'm doing, and then what I'm doing then takes me to my next thing, which means my life has to reflect what I'm doing, and so..."Brad Crowell 30:26  I agree with you on this, but also let's go back to his statement, because I think I remember trying to figure out, like, what am I going to do with my life, or what's my purpose? And we all know that it's important to have purpose in our lives, but I also think a testament to this is the conversations that I've had recently with my parents, who just retired.Lesley Logan 30:51  Yeah.Brad Crowell 30:51  Right. And then the interview that we had with the retirement coach, whose name I'm not recalling, but it was in the last 100 episodes. Lesley Logan 31:01  Definitely. It was definitely, was it this year?Brad Crowell 31:04  But the point is that we think purpose is just going to find us, and we're gonna be like, "Oh my god, that's what I'm here for, that's the thing," right? Instead, what clearly seems actionable is purpose is something that we are out there doing, and whether or not we chose to do it, we're still out there doing it. I mean, I think about my parents with their job, and the thing that was keeping my dad focused on the job was the job. Ultimately, if you step back and look at that, it's not necessarily like whatever... I don't even know what the projects were that he was working on.Lesley Logan 31:45  Ever.Brad Crowell 31:46  Yeah, but the point... I mean, I wasn't intimately involved in the company they work for, so I don't actually understand all the nuance of the things, but he built that purpose over a career of 42 or 43 years, and then now all of a sudden he's thinking about ending it. It doesn't matter how mundane the job is, he's, "Oh, what am I going to do with myself after this? I'm not sure, I don't know," you know. And so that's where we find ourselves unwilling to make a change as well, but then you have... that's like.Lesley Logan 32:16  No, I want to argue with you a little bit, and I'm glad your dad doesn't listen to this podcast. I feel like he did what a lot of people his age did, which is like, "This is my job," and that job became the purpose. Yeah.Brad Crowell 32:31  But that's the point of what Adrian said.Lesley Logan 32:33  But I don't think so, because I think it goes to that saying: if you don't have goals, someone will make their goals your goal, and so I feel like.Brad Crowell 32:43  Your purpose can be inadvertent. Yeah, if you don't take control of what you do, then your purpose will be defined for you, or it can accidentally become your purpose. Yes.Lesley Logan 32:53  And if you don't like it, then you're the person going, "Why is my purpose just to do this project for this many years?" Where I think it's important is this is where self-reflection is so important, because when you self-reflect, you are aware of when you are outgrowing something, or you are being called into something. I don't know if we had a conversation with Adrian, but I definitely had a conversation, and I wrote a newsletter on it, is that a lot of people in the Pilates industry, like, "I need to figure out what my space is in this industry," and it's like, never do that, don't do that. Because no one that you admire ever sat and goes, "What is my little circle in this industry?" No, they went out and carved their path, they created their thing. There'll be an episode coming out that hasn't already with me on Balanced Body's podcast, where they're like, "You carved out this thing." I'm like, I had to, I had to create the thing that I needed. Some of you are already living your purpose, but you actually are looking at other people and going, "I need to look like them," and you haven't taken the time to reflect back, going, "Actually, the thing that I'm doing is the thing that's my purpose, and it's helping these people. And so now that I'm aware of that, I amplify that." Because you're out there amplifying and doing it, it will evolve, because you will continue to hone in and understand and be curious, and change things. So either it inadvertently finds you, and you're doing someone else's purpose, and they'll be grateful, or you discover what it is. But if you look inside.Brad Crowell 34:20  But that's... yeah, it goes... you were both talking about self-reflection, but it goes back to, you know, your purpose in life is not something you find, it's something that you do.Lesley Logan 34:29  Yes.Brad Crowell 34:30  And it is also... it's a change and evolve over time.Lesley Logan 34:33  It's kind of like those movies where the person goes out in seek of what their purpose is, but really their purpose was there all the time, but they weren't taking the time to see that it was there. Go self-reflect anyways. Anything else, Brad?Brad Crowell 34:47  Yeah. He said with purpose you can navigate and make adjustments, right? And he talked about figuring out what actions match the frequency and energy of where you're at right now.Lesley Logan 34:57  Yeah, that's true. That's great.Brad Crowell 34:59  Yeah, I mean, we'll just leave it... we'll just leave that there. Go back and listen, because...Lesley Logan 35:04  Adrian is great.Brad Crowell 35:05  Yeah, he's great.Lesley Logan 35:05  And I, by the way.Brad Crowell 35:06  He does voice acting. How cool.Lesley Logan 35:08  Well, let's listen to his voice.Brad Crowell 35:09  Yeah, it's amazing.Lesley Logan 35:10  Honestly, like, he should really write sleepy stories, like those sleep stories. I would listen every day.Brad Crowell 35:16  Yeah.Lesley Logan 35:17  I also would even listen to him share bad news with that voice, because it's just like, you know, like the BBC type, where it's just matter-of-fact, you know what I mean? Like, I think I could be like, "Okay, well, we're not all gonna die, so there we go." Adrian, thanks for being you. Thanks for being back. You guys, I'm Lesley Logan.Brad Crowell 35:34  And I'm Brad Crowell.Lesley Logan 35:35  Share our episodes with a friend who needs to figure out what their purpose is, and then leave a review. Yes, and then send in your win, because you're someone who likes this podcast, or someone likes a checklist, and I just gave you three things that are easy to do, easy to check off. You're gonna feel super successful in your day, so then you can go Be It Till You See It.Brad Crowell 35:52  Bye for now.Lesley Logan 35:53  That's all I got for this episode of the Be It Till You See It Podcast. One thing that would help both myself and future listeners is for you to rate the show and leave a review and follow or subscribe for free wherever you listen to your podcast. Also, make sure to introduce yourself over at the Be It Pod on Instagram. I would love to know more about you. Share this episode with whoever you think needs to hear it. Help us and others Be It Till You See It. Have an awesome day. Be It Till You See It is a production of The Bloom Podcast Network. If you want to leave us a message or a question that we might read on another episode, you can text us at +1-310-905-5534 or send a DM on Instagram @BeItPod. Brad Crowell 36:36  It's written, filmed, and recorded by your host, Lesley Logan, and me, Brad Crowell.Lesley Logan 36:41  It is transcribed, produced, and edited by the epic team @desenio.co.Brad Crowell 36:45  Our theme music is by Ali at Apex Production Music, and our branding by designer and artist Gianfranco Chofi.Lesley Logan 36:52  Special thanks to Melissa Solomon for creating our visuals,Brad Crowell 36:56  Also to Angelina Herrico for adding all of our content to our website, and finally to Meredith Root for keeping us all on point and on time.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

This week, Trey and Katie recap the family hibachi dinner that nearly broke them... complete with fire, shrimp tosses, terrified toddlers, and the realization that hibachi might somehow become “their family thing.”Get $10 off your first order at http://ponchooutdoors.com/CORRECT when you enter your email.Our listeners can buy one pair of glasses and get 20% off any additional pairs at http://WarbyParker.com/CORRECTOPINIONS — and using our link helps support the show. #WarbyParker #adUpgrade your wallet today! Get up to 40% off @Ridge during their Father's Day Sale when you go to https://www.Ridge.com/CORRECTOPINIONS #Ridgepod ○ Please make sure to hyperlink your vanity URL in the inRula patients typically pay $15 per session when using insurance. Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at https://www.rula.com/correctopinions #rulapodJoin the patreon!http://patreon.com/treykennedy

https://wels2.blob.core.windows.net/daily-devotions/20260623dev.mp3 Listen to Devotion Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the Word The apostle Paul wrote these words to his good friend and coworker, Timothy, near the end of his life. He knew his death was coming. He had fought the good fight. He had finished the race. He had kept the faith. So, what final instruction did he give to Timothy? “Preach the word.” Paul did not tell him to preach what people wanted to hear. He did not tell him to follow the mood of the crowd. In fact, Paul warned that the time would come when people would not put up with sound doctrine. They would gather teachers who told them what their itching ears wanted to hear. That warning still matters. God’s Word is not always popular. Sometimes it corrects us. Sometimes it rebukes us. Sometimes it exposes sins we would rather excuse. But the same Word that wounds our pride also heals our souls. It shows us our sin, and then it shows us our Savior. That is why Paul says to preach it “with great patience and careful instruction.” God’s Word is not a weapon for winning arguments. It is the voice of Christ calling sinners to repentance, forgiveness, faith, and life. You may not be a pastor like Timothy. But you still need this Word. You need it when your heart wants comfortable lies instead of saving truth. You need it when the world calls evil good and good evil. You need it when you are tired, tempted, afraid, or ashamed. And through that Word, Christ comes to you. He corrects you because he loves you. He rebukes your sin because he died to remove it. He encourages you because he rose again and promises you the crown of righteousness. So, listen to the Word. Trust the Word. Treasure the Word. It is Christ's Word for you. Prayer: Lord Jesus, keep me faithful to your Word. Correct me, forgive me, encourage me, and strengthen me to hold firmly to your truth. Amen. Daily Devotions is brought to you by WELS. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc. ™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide.

https://wels2.blob.core.windows.net/daily-devotions/20260623dev.mp3 Listen to Devotion Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the Word The apostle Paul wrote these words to his good friend and coworker, Timothy, near the end of his life. He knew his death was coming. He had fought the good fight. He had finished the race. He had kept the faith. So, what final instruction did he give to Timothy? “Preach the word.” Paul did not tell him to preach what people wanted to hear. He did not tell him to follow the mood of the crowd. In fact, Paul warned that the time would come when people would not put up with sound doctrine. They would gather teachers who told them what their itching ears wanted to hear. That warning still matters. God’s Word is not always popular. Sometimes it corrects us. Sometimes it rebukes us. Sometimes it exposes sins we would rather excuse. But the same Word that wounds our pride also heals our souls. It shows us our sin, and then it shows us our Savior. That is why Paul says to preach it “with great patience and careful instruction.” God’s Word is not a weapon for winning arguments. It is the voice of Christ calling sinners to repentance, forgiveness, faith, and life. You may not be a pastor like Timothy. But you still need this Word. You need it when your heart wants comfortable lies instead of saving truth. You need it when the world calls evil good and good evil. You need it when you are tired, tempted, afraid, or ashamed. And through that Word, Christ comes to you. He corrects you because he loves you. He rebukes your sin because he died to remove it. He encourages you because he rose again and promises you the crown of righteousness. So, listen to the Word. Trust the Word. Treasure the Word. It is Christ's Word for you. Prayer: Lord Jesus, keep me faithful to your Word. Correct me, forgive me, encourage me, and strengthen me to hold firmly to your truth. Amen. Daily Devotions is brought to you by WELS. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc. ™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide.

Are you jelly? We have some specialty for the snack!The subtle signs of flirting. Correct, or not?There's a hole in Mark's head.Ganzfeld Experiment, Part II . . . What do YOU hear?

"RAISING KINGDOM WORKERS: INTENTIONAL DISCIPLESHIP" Week 3 of "Faith to the Next Generation: Passing the Torch" (Father's Day) Ephesians 6:1-4; Psalm 78:4-8 You want to raise kids who love God. Not just kids who go to church or believe the right things, but kids who actually follow Jesus. Kids who serve Him. Kids whose lives point to God. But how do you actually DO that? In the first two weeks of "Faith to the Next Generation," we explored the foundation: You have to love God with all your heart, and your kids have to choose faith for themselves. But this week, Matthew tackles the practical part: How do you intentionally disciple your children? Drawing from Ephesians 6:4, where Paul specifically addresses fathers about bringing their children up "in the discipline and instruction of the Lord," this sermon explores: - What it actually means to disciple your kids (hint: it's more than Sunday school) - Five practices for intentional faith-passing: Model it, Teach it, Correct it (with love), Invite them into it, Stay consistent - Why kids "catch" faith more than they're taught it - What fathers specifically model for their sons and daughters - Why being faithful matters way more than being perfect - How it's never too late to start being intentional about discipleship This is a sermon for parents trying their best—whether you're raising young children, guiding teenagers, or wondering if you've already messed it up. Matthew acknowledges the real struggle of passing faith while also offering practical, hope-filled direction. Special emphasis on fathers and their unique role in spiritual formation, but the content applies to all parents and grandparents invested in the next generation. If you're wrestling with how to raise kids who actually follow Jesus, this sermon is for you. Listen in.

A recent episode comparing Islam and Christianity generated a lot of discussion—and a lot of criticism.In this episode of The Caffeinated Christian Podcast, we respond to several comments from Muslim viewers who challenged our understanding of Islam, the Quran, and the arguments presented in previous episodes.Rather than ignoring the criticism, we take the time to engage with it directly. Did we misunderstand the context? Did we misrepresent Islamic teaching? Or do the original arguments still stand?Our goal isn't to attack Muslims or score points in a debate. It's to pursue truth, examine evidence honestly, and encourage respectful dialogue between people who disagree.Whether you're a Christian, Muslim, skeptic, or simply curious about the conversation, we invite you to listen with an open mind.☕ Subscribe for more conversations on theology, culture, apologetics, and discipleship.#Islam #Christianity #Apologetics #Quran #JesusChrist #ChristianPodcastCHAPTERS:00:00 Cold Open: What If We're Wrong?01:05 Welcome Back to The Caffeinated Christian Podcast01:30 Why We're Responding to Comments03:40 Our Approach: Clarify, Correct, or Contend05:00 Which Faith Is The Counterfeit?08:05 The Major Criticism: Did We Misunderstand Islam?10:40 Correcting an Error About the Mahdi & Antichrist12:30 Understanding the Context of Surah 6015:20 Abraham as the Example in the Quran18:15 What Classical Commentaries Say21:05 Can Muslims Be Friends With Non-Muslims?23:10 Allies, Enemies, and Unbelievers Explained25:15 Did We Take the Quran Out of Context?26:50 Final Thoughts on Christian-Muslim Dialogue28:30 Closing Remarks Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Good morning! On today’s show, Matt Swaim and Anna Mitchell welcome Andrew Petiprin from the Spe Salvi institute to discuss how pilgrimage is different than other forms of travel. Other guests include Greg Willits with more thoughts on Jesus from St. Louis de Montfort, and Fr. Hezekias Carnazzo from the Institute of Catholic Culture and Fr. Jonathan Duncan from the Diocese of Charleston to preview the Sunday Mass readings. Plus news, weather, sports, and more… ***** Prayer of Pope Clement XI Lord, I believe in you: increase my faith.I trust in you: strengthen my trust.I love you: let me love you more and more.I am sorry for my sins: deepen my sorrow. I worship you as my first beginning,I long for you as my last end,I praise you as my constant helper,And call on you as my loving protector. Guide me by your wisdom,Correct me with your justice,Comfort me with your mercy,Protect me with your power. I offer you, Lord, my thoughts: to be fixed on you;My words: to have you for their theme;My actions: to reflect my love for you;My sufferings: to be endured for your greater glory. I want to do what you ask of me:In the way you ask,For as long as you ask,Because you ask it. ***** Full list of guestsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What's the difference between criticism and correction, and does it really matter? Fr. Mike Schmitz explains how to offer correction in a way that is both loving and effective. Instead of assuming motives, resorting to name-calling, or making personal attacks, he encourages us to focus on the facts. And when we're unsure of someone's intentions, choose trust over suspicion.

Last 4 days before regular tickets sell out at AI Engineer World's Fair - this is the single biggest gathering of AI Engineers, Founders, Leaders, and Researchers in the world. Attendees get >$5000 worth of sponsor credits and talk tracks are looking FANTASTIC. Join us!The AI scaling debate always focuses on the question of “how do we get more GPUs?” but the better question may be: how do we make the most of ones we already have.The fact that a frontier lab like xAI could be running at sub-10% MFU (Model FLOPs Utilization) is just a hint at what the real problem may be.For context, older frontier-scale training runs were already much higher than 10%. GPT-3 was around 21% MFU. Gopher was around 32%. Megatron-Turing NLG was around 30%. PaLM reached around 46%. And our guest Anjney says best-in-class MFU today is closer to 60–70%.It's not necessarily that xAI is uniquely incompetent (it's clear they have talented folks) but rather the priorities may be flipped in the GPU arms race.While GPU access is a bottleneck, simply increasing CapEx won't automatically translate to better models as frontier AI is increasingly a systems problem: scheduling, utilization, networking, kernels, frameworks, data pipelines, parallelism, cluster reliability, and the thousand small decisions that determine whether your theoretical FLOPs become real training progress.From building Discord's developer platform and backing frontier AI companies like Anthropic, Mistral, Black Forest Labs, and Periodic Labs to now building AMP's independent compute grid, Anjney Midha has spent years close to the real bottlenecks of AI scaling. In this episode, Anjney joins swyx at Periodic Labs to unpack why the AI race is not just about buying more GPUs, why 95% utilization would have been considered an outage at Google, and why the next era of AI infrastructure has to be more aligned, more efficient, and more responsible.We go deep on AMP's vision for a compute grid that makes FLOPs flow like megawatts, the difference between full-stack AI labs and horizontal pooling, why AI data centers need community buy-in, and how compute markets could evolve into something closer to an independent system operator. Anjney also explains why DeepMind's unpublished research points to a market failure, why end-of-life prediction remains one of the most important AI applications he has thought about for fourteen years, and why “output maxing” may become a new discipline for frontier systems.We also discuss Anthropic's culture, why “luck favors the prepared mind” in coding models, how Claude cracked coding, why too much capital too early can make AI labs fragile, what Periodic Labs is trying to do with science and superconductors, why great researchers can become great CEOs, and why Silicon Valley is both deeply missionary and deeply mercenary.We discuss:* Why 95% utilization was considered an outage at Google* Why AI infrastructure waste compounds at frontier-lab scale* Why “move fast and break things” does not work for AI data centers* How data center backlash, power grids, and community incentives shape AI scaling* AMP's vision for making FLOPs flow like megawatts* Why compute needs an independent system operator* How interruptible demand and dynamic prioritization worked inside Google* Why DeepMind research hoarding creates negative externalities* AMP's 1.2GW base-load ambition and the need for 6GW of spike capacity* Why end-of-life prediction could become one of AI's most important healthcare applications* Frontier Systems, output maxing, and full-stack alignment* Why APIs and abstraction layers become lossy as organizations scale* Superconductors, standards, and the dream of lossless systems* SF Compute, open protocols, and the future of compute marketplaces* Why non-NVIDIA chips can still benefit from NVIDIA's reference architecture* Trust boundaries and why chip startups need visibility into future model architectures* Why VCs often underestimate researchers as CEOs* Scientists as star athletes of the mind* Why great CEOs need to be confrontational up and down the stack* Why leading the frontier matters more than “winning”* How Anthropic cracked coding* Why culture is fragile, not a permanent moat* Why hardship was a feature, not a bug, for Anthropic* Why Anthropic's P0 was coding from day one* Periodic Labs, physics as the constraint, and technical reality* Silicon Valley mercenaries, missionary teams, and what happens after a breakthroughAnjney Midha* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anjney* X: https://x.com/AnjneyMidhaAMP PBC* Website: https://amppublic.com/* X: https://x.com/amppublicTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction00:00:09 Why AI Compute Is Being Wasted00:03:17 Responsible Infrastructure and Data Center Backlash00:06:07 AMP Grid: Making FLOPs Flow Like Megawatts00:12:41 Foundry, Frontier Labs, and Research Hoarding00:14:42 Gigawatt-Scale Compute and End-of-Life Prediction00:24:08 Frontier Systems, Output Maxing, and Alignment00:27:38 Compute Markets, SF Compute, and Non-NVIDIA Chips00:32:57 Trust Boundaries, Co-Design, and Researcher CEOs00:38:17 AI Coachella and First-Principles Thinking00:42:43 Leading vs Winning in Frontier AI00:45:54 How Anthropic Cracked Coding00:48:25 Culture, Hardship, and Anthropic's P000:54:03 Periodic Labs, Physics, and Silicon Valley Mercenaries00:56:26 Rishi Valley, Singapore, and Money as a Measure00:58:47 Closing ThoughtsTranscriptIntroduction: Anjney Midha, AMP, and Compute WasteSwyx [00:00:00]: We're in Periodic Labs with Anjney Midha, CEO, founder of AMP. Welcome.Compute Utilization: Node Allocation, MFU, and AlignmentAnjney [00:00:09]: Thanks for having me. At Google, there are two types of utilization usually, right? That you're measuring in these clusters. One is node allocation, and then the other's MFU. Node utilization is usually like what percentage of cards in the data center are just, used, and that, if it's not at, 95%-Swyx [00:00:29]: There is no excuseAnjney [00:00:29]: There's no excuse, right? I think 95% at Google, which is where my co-founder, Seb, came from, he built the Borg, PBorg/GQM scheduler at Google, and there I think 95% was considered an outage, so 96% node utilization is, should be standard. And most single-tenant clusters are not running at that. So that's one. And then MFU should be, I would say the best in class today is somewhere between 60 and 70%. I think this is a leadership question, right? Fundamentally it's an alignment question, which is are the people who are funding the cluster and then deploying the cluster actually aligned? And sometimes theoretically they are, but in practice the number of people in the chain, the supply chain between, the capital and all the way to whoever's managing the cluster and then whoever's measuring what the output is, are just so many, degrees of separation away that, the, The Have you ever heard the radian metaphor, which is at the beginning of an arc, if you have two arcs that are two lines that are just off by a few degrees, that-Swyx [00:01:33]: It spreads outAnjney [00:01:34]: It spreads out, right? Or at scale. And I think what's happening is a lot of cluster implementations and infrastructure, a lot of frontier labs and other teams, that's what's happening, is they're, they initialize the plan, which is kind of like North Star with a team that wants to do good, but then they're, required to scale so fast instead of iteratively that the wastage just compounds really fast at scale. And so I think we know the answer, which is just do iterative bring ups. If you spend time with people who've been in the semiconductor industry or the DSN industry for a long time, this is not new, and I don't think AI should be an excuse. Sure. Something What is new? Okay. We have a lot of new capabilities, but that doesn't mean just abandon common sense. Common sense should always be in fashion. ? AI scaling doesn't change the in fact, if anything, AI scaling should be putting a premium on the value of common sense and infrastructure because the margin of error now is so much lower and the costs of wastage are so much higher. And the cost of wastage, by the way, is not just economic. I'm, obviously I'm, I'm an investor, or I'm an investor by background. Over the last few years now we're running an AI infrastructure business called, AMP. And I think that it's okay to say this time is different on the capabilities front. We are genuinely getting capabilities at, of the, of a kind we haven't had before. That doesn't give you an excuse to say this time is different for everything, especially infrastructure. So look, I love the hacker mindset and the hustler mindset. Now, that's great for the startup mindset, but you remember this moment where Zuck went from saying, “Move fast, break things” to, move-Responsible Infrastructure and Data Center BacklashSwyx [00:03:10]: Fast and stable infrastructureAnjney [00:03:11]: Move fast with stable infrastructure. I think now we need to move fast with, responsible infrastructure. People are going to ask where the impact is. There was a really In our class yesterday, Scott Nolan, who's the founder of General Matter, came by at Stanford to speak about energy bottlenecks. And he had a phenomenal idea. He said, “if you look at the marginal unit economics of compute per hour,” he goes, “let's call it, $4 an hour. If you're having to bring up a new data center in a new community, why not just say we're going to charge 4.50 an hour, and that marginal impact or that marginal increase, we just literally take that and give it to the local community as cash?” I can tell you as a customer of that compute, I would love that. I'd be happy to pay an additional 50 cents per hour at scale.Swyx [00:03:57]: Wow. Yeah.Anjney [00:03:58]: Because if that means the public benefit is so clear to the communities that the data centers are coming up in, I'm going to feel like that compute is much more reliable. Up to 20% of all data centers this year in the US, my understanding is are at risk.Swyx [00:04:13]: Of community backlash?Anjney [00:04:14]: Correct. Of not getting the community support they need to get brought up.Swyx [00:04:19]: Wow. That's a huge number.Anjney [00:04:20]: Yeah. Now, we, I think we should dig into what that number is. I think it's a little bit of overstated. These things can get over-reported, but it-Swyx [00:04:27]: They don't just care about jobs. They care about all the other stuff around it, right? They care about power grid, they care about environments-Anjney [00:04:33]: Power grid, permitting, and so on. And imagine I think if you said there's a new AI deal. If we're bringing up a data center in your community, we're actually going to reduce the cost of your electricity bill. Okay, now we're talking. Right? The community's going, “Okay. Now this is a deal. I feel like a partner in this.” Right now that's not happening. There will be audits, there will be investigations, and when the, when the regulators come, I don't know when it's going to be, the folks who are moving fast and breaking things in the name of AI progress better be prepared. That's certainly not how we're procuring compute. Or we're, we're trying as much as we can to work with partners who have long-term track records. Many of whom, by the way, are not, AI providers. I think this whole idea of neoclouds being somehow this new category is a lot of marketing speak. There are really good, reliable, trusted data center providers in America who've been around 20 plus years. I love those folks. They know how to Sure. Are they sponsoring happy hours at NeurIPS? No. Are they legibly listed in Build? No. Are they hanging out in my, in, situational awareness parties? No. But they're adults. I trust them.Swyx [00:05:44]: They can run LAN. They can run power.Anjney [00:05:45]: They can run LAN, power, and shell. They have credit histories. We sit down, we have a conversations. Many of them live in Silicon Valley. They've, they've had to deal with the boom and bust cycles of the internet, and I love those folks. They are stable infrastructure partners and thinkers. And I think there's a lot of short-term thinking going on in the compute layer, and it's going to catch up to us. It's not going to be good.AMP Grid: Making FLOPs Flow Like MegawattsSwyx [00:06:07]: You talk about aligning incentives, and, I would think that aligning incentives means you have the full stack in one company, which is xAI and OpenAI, right? So you as a standalone infrastructure layer, why are you somehow more aligned to your portfolio companies than people who just own the whole thing?Anjney [00:06:28]: In systems design, right, there's, there's two regimes of, architecture, right? You have integration, and then you have pooling and utilization, right? So the Or rather, the way to increase utilization often is you can do systems integration where you collapse a lot of process into one node, or you can pull out a process from a node and share that amongst various That resource amongst several different nodes. And so we see the AMP grid, which is, the, what, the system we're building here, which is basically a compute grid. We're trying to do for compute what the electric grid-Swyx [00:07:02]: PowerAnjney [00:07:02]: Yeah, what the power grid did for electricity. It-- this is a pooling and utilization layer across clouds, And so we're actually the opposite of a full stack integration like approach.Swyx [00:07:12]: Super horizontal.Anjney [00:07:13]: Where it's much more horizontal and it's, it's multi-cloud, it's multi-silicon. The goal is to try to make FLOPs flow like megawatts, and that is very hard to do today for many reasons. There's stranded pools of compute all over the place and there's no fungibility. And so right now we do it at the level of scheduling, and we often do it at the economic layer. But as we start to announce what we're working on, it's extraordinary like how many folks are coming out of the woodworks and saying, “Hey, I'm actually working on a way to make compute fungible at this part of the stack and that part of the stack.” And as a grid, we'd like all of these folks to participate on the grid. There's, people often ask me, “Andra, are you a new cloud?” And I go, “No, actually neoclouds are suppliers.” sometimes they'll ask, “Are you a venture capital firm?” I go, “No, actually they are, they are demand like sort of off-takers of the grid.” We see ourselves as what's called an independent system operator. So if you study the history of the electric grid, once it became legible to a lot of factories and industrial sort of participants that, hey, actually it turns out pooling is a good idea. We should pool our generators instead of all having a generator running at half capacity in our backyard. There was a need for an independent entity who could coordinate all these parties. Transmission line, power generation, facilities, transmission lines, factories, and that neutral coordination mechanism is very critical. In order-- If you study like the history of grids, the most enduring ones were those that never owned their own assets. They were ones that had, or often started with long-term anchors who are uncorrelated sources of demand, a steel factory, a shoe mill or whatever in a particular town who weren't competitive, where the steel factory want to spike up at night, the shoe mill wanted to spike up during the day. So then you pool and you share, right? So each of you is guaranteed some base load, but then you kind of schedule your spikes to drive a peak utilization across the town. The gold standard, so to speak, historically, has been these utility companies like PJM Interconnect in the northeast of America, where they, over many years became this what's called an ISO, an independent system operator of the grid. So that's how we see ourselves. Economically, that's what we are. From a technical perspective, we started at the scheduling layer because Seb and Mihai, who, run engineering here, built that at-Swyx [00:09:28]: Did your schedulingAnjney [00:09:28]: They did that at Google. And, -Swyx [00:09:32]: And you have infra shops from Discord as well.Anjney [00:09:35]: I have some.Swyx [00:09:35]: I don't know, I don't know if Discord is like the primary identity, but what-whatever, I'm just kind of-Anjney [00:09:39]: No, D-Discord was-Swyx [00:09:40]: Choosing a well-known name.Anjney [00:09:42]: Well, I So I was running the developer platform there. The internal infrastructure I was not responsible for. That was actually a guy by the name of Mark Smith, who was extraordinary. And yes, Discord did pool So Discord is actually a counter example. I had the chance to learn a lot about fully, full stack infra there because-Swyx [00:09:56]: It's the same thing, yeahAnjney [00:09:57]: It's the, it's the other architecture which is, Discord built its own WebRTC vo-voice and video infra. So like Discord did not use-Swyx [00:10:08]: For the calls, yeah.Anjney [00:10:09]: Yeah, did not For communication, Discord did not use third party infra. It was all built in-house. And then the way you maximize utilization was you pool demand from the world's 200 million plus monthly active gamers, right? And so that's, that's how those stacks were constructed. Again, in systems design, the two concepts that keep coming up over and over again are abstraction and composition, right? And-Swyx [00:10:31]: Bundling and unbundlingAnjney [00:10:33]: Bundling and unbundling, abstraction, composition, like verticalization and-Swyx [00:10:36]: HorizontalAnjney [00:10:36]: Horizontalization. So in that sense, AMP is an independent system operator of the grid. We pool demand, we pool supply from a number of partners we trust At about 1.3 gigawatt scale over four years. And then we pool demand from some of the world's best, research labs and so on. We're sitting at one, periodic labs who need extraordinary long-term demand. And the idea is that, each of them is guaranteed base load on the grid, but they can spike up and down flexibly on, for compute, with much shorter timelines as needed. That was roughly the design of the program I came up with at a16z called Oxygen. The same-- That was the same design of the GQM, BorgX, Borg GQM implementation at Google that Mihai and Seb had built. Which was that how do you allow, teams inside of Google, on the internal infrastructure to be guaranteed capacity, for their base workloads? But when they need to spike up on research, how could they ensure that was sufficiently there? And of course, the big innovation that was not discovered, but kind of implemented in the space, this infra space maybe three, four years ago at Google was the idea of interruptible demand, right? Where you just queue up a bunch of jobs and through this like sort of credit system, there can be a bidding mechanism.Swyx [00:11:53]: Like priorities.Anjney [00:11:54]: It's a dynamic prioritization Basically. And jobs can get interrupted based on somebody else who's saying, “what? I have 10 tokens, 10 credits I want to spend on this job.” Another like team lead, research lead is “Genie 3 or whatever is only worth five, credits, and NanoBanana2 is worth 10 credits,” and so the NanoBanana job gets priority. That's a, that's a made up example.Swyx [00:12:15]: It's very real. Brain Marketplace was real. And, we've, we've covered this on the pod with David Luan, who was-Anjney [00:12:20]: Oh, great. OkaySwyx [00:12:20]: Was there. And the criticism is that, well, actually sometimes you need central command to go all in on a thing. And actually sometimes capitalism via credits doesn't work. Not, this is not a criticism of AMP. I'm just saying, this is a thing that has been tried, internally within Google, and it led to Google missing GPT.Foundry, Frontier Labs, and Research HoardingAnjney [00:12:41]: Like, we structured ourself essentially very similarly to Google. We are structured as a holdings company. So, Alphabet holdings is Alphabet holdings, and then they've got these subsidiaries called Google and-Swyx [00:12:51]: Other betsAnjney [00:12:52]: Other bets and so on. We've got, AMP holdings, and we've got our infrastructure business, and then we've got a capital business called Foundry that incubates new frontier AI labs or invests in them as venture capital, like Periodic. We put a few hundred million dollars into Anthropic from our fund earlier this year. So wherever we feel like teams are making progress, especially researchers and so on who've pushed the frontier inside of existing labs like DeepMind, I find, there comes a point where they feel misaligned with the dictatorship of Alphabet holdings. And at that point, sometimes the dictatorship doesn't want them anymore. And they're “Thank you. You've done your job here. You've kind of helped us through the zero to one phase, and for whatever reason, we're going to deprioritize your amazing, omni model or whatever it is, and instead we're going to prioritize coding.” And, I think that's a tragedy, but I get it. They're Sergey and team are running their own business there. But that doesn't mean we the rest of us should sit around waiting for that progress to get unlocked for the rest of the world and humanity. If you think about how much extraordinary research has happened inside of DeepMind over the last 10 years, I, Demis and Sergey and those guys did such a great job. But at the end of the day, so much of that has never seen the light of day?Swyx [00:14:00]: Or they're like papers only, but they never actually shipped it to production or-Anjney [00:14:03]: What's worse is the paper is actually not even being published anymore ‘cause there's a six-month embargo inside of DeepMind, right? We've heard about this where a paper comes out, and then I think there's a six-month embargo window where if anybody on the business team says, “This could be interesting” It's embargoed for life.Swyx [00:14:18]: Exactly. So the stuff that gets published is the stuff that's not good enough.Anjney [00:14:21]: There's an adverse selection problem, basically. Yeah. At this point-Swyx [00:14:25]: It's, it's a common complaint at NeurIPS, by the way, that's “Well, why would I look at the papers that are the trash of GDM?”Anjney [00:14:31]: Again, I think it's a tragedy. I get it. They're running their business, but the rest of the I think there's negative externalities of research being hoarded, and so that'there's a market failure. And somebody needs to unlock that research, and we can't do it on our own. We only have 1.2 gigawatts of compute. That's nothing. That's about $40 billion of cloud spend. We're going to need a lot-Gigawatt-Scale Compute and End-of-Life PredictionSwyx [00:14:51]: By the way, is that's a new number. I haven't, haven't come across that gigawatt number. That's huge.Anjney [00:14:56]: Yeah. And to be clear, we haven't secured all of it. That's how much demand we have started to secure. I think publicly we haven't actually confirmed how much we have for this year. In order-Swyx [00:15:04]: Where do you want to get to?Anjney [00:15:06]: I think the steady state would be that we have a base load pool Of 1.2 gigawatts at all times Of base load capacity. For spike capacity, right now my estimate is we need roughly six gigawatts over the next four years for all our teams to feel like they were able to keep moving the frontier, whatever they're working on, whether it's, like superconductor discovery over here. There's a new investment we're working on right now, which is in the end of life prediction space in healthcare. It's extraordinary how much you can, you can give this was actually my graduate school work. I went to grad school for bioinformatics at Stanford Med. And I know we-Swyx [00:15:40]: Econ, MCS, bio.Anjney [00:15:41]: So my-- I was this really weird cat where, I was never satisfied with my major options. So at one point I was an econ major, then I was a CS major, then I was a MCS major called mathematical computational science, and they decided they were going to end that major. So I took all that coursework, and I applied it to grad school, my graduate degree in bioinformatics, which was the master's program, and then I thought I was going to do a PhD. I never ended up doing it. I dropped out and went to work at Kleiner. But I was lucky enough to apprentice with this professor at, Stanford Med. His name is Nigam Shah, and he was working on end of life prediction. Stanford is one of the only research facilities in America that has a longitudinal patient data set that's larger at scale. I think it's at least 12 million patient lives. The only larger data set is at the VA, the Veterans Affairs, of America. And to do research, like do any deep learning and so on that data set, it was called the STRIDE data set at that time, you had to be a Stanford Med School affiliate, which is why I went and enrolled in the bioinformatics department. End of deep learning was early. Nigam Shah had the visibility-- the vision to see that, you could do end of life prediction to help palliative care. In America, the, over 30% of all Medicare, Medicaid spend, at least at that time, was spent on end of life care. And what's we grew up in Asia, so we all-- Yeah, at least I won't speak for you, but I have A very different relationship with death than I find folks who grew up in America do. In America, spiritually and culturally, especially in Western societies where Christianity, the Christian tradition sort of frames death as this terminal point, there's often a judgment day and so on. The way we view death is with a finality. In Indian culture, in Hindu culture, death is one-Swyx [00:17:35]: Also, he's Buddhist as well.Anjney [00:17:36]: You're Buddhist, yeah. So it's one, it's one step in a journey of many lives, right? And so, I grew up in this city called Chennai in the south of India, and when people die, you dance on the street. There's like a procession where your body is carried to be cremated and your family, like celebrates and there's drums and so on. It's this huge thing. And, It's because the idea is that you're going to be reincarnated. You've been liberated from the responsibilities of this life, and now you're onto your next. It's a new It's like going off to a new college or whatever, right? And so it was so alien to me when I got here as an undergrad- That the medical system works backwards from that assumption that we have to view death as this terminal thing and delay it, postpone it's a bad thing. And so at the time, clinical decision support in the United States was this very primitive field. Even to this day, physicians in the United States often will tell you when you have a terminal disease, this is your, we've diagnosed you, which is great. Our ability to diagnose you is extraordinary. You have somewhere between six months to six years to live. What do you do with that information? The error bars are so high that then you In times of uncertainty, we default to culture, and when the culture is let's-- this is a bad thing, I've got to prolong my life, then you start doing things like And just to, just sort of from a systems perspective, what's going on there is Physicians often feel like they need to provide such high error bars because there's always some uncertainty in end of life diagnosis, and if you provide the wrong Diagnosis or recommendation to your patient, you can be sued for medical malpractice. And then your license can be taken away. It can be catastrophic for your career. In contrast, if in countries where that's not the case, what you often observe is that patients, physicians are quite prescriptive with their recommendation. They say, “Hey, this is your condition. The literature says that you probably have this much time on Earth left. My expert opinion is that you are an outlier or whatever.” And they try to be more prescriptive, and that empowers a patient, right? ‘Cause then a patient can say, “I trust my doctor. They said on average, I have six months to live, but if I do these things, I may have a shot because of my particular predispositions or my genetic history or whatever.” And that empowers you to go about your life in a actually more scientific way than leaning on religion, culture, spirituality, and so on. In contrast, here, because of that medical malpractice sort of thing looming over your head, a physician never gives you a clear recommendation. So instead you say, “Okay, Doc, well, let's try it all.” And then you start a whole regime of drugs and therapies, and then you often spend weeks and weeks in the hospital, and that deteriorates your quality of life. And when that deteriorates your quality of life, you instead of spending your last few days doing the things you love with your family, you're spending it on a hospital bed. And that ends up being thirty percent of Medicare and Medicaid. So it's worse for the patients. The doctors feel terrible. The American taxpayer is paying a huge amount of money. And so this is why Nigam Shah, who was this professor at Stanford, said, “Anjney, if there's “ I kind of sat down with him. I was this young, I'd, I was twenty-one, and I was “I want to work on a big problem.” He's “The big problem is end of life care.” And so we tried to do deep learning to say, to-- So we started trying to run deep learning on these tried patient data sets to say, “Could you have an AI system make a recommendation that is orders of magnitude more precise about how much time you have left once you've been diagnosed with a terminal condition than a human?” And then if we can get that precision to be high enough, then you can empower the patient. And it turns out the tech works. Like it's-- Once you get the data set, like RL works. Honestly, even regression models work. You don't need to get that fancy. At the time, we were just trying, doing like very simple neural nets.Swyx [00:21:54]: Simple solutions, yeah.Anjney [00:21:54]: Today, what we can do with RL is extraordinary. The problem remains then and now is regulatory, because you actually can't shift the burden of the wrong clinical diagnoses from the physician to the AI system. And so at that time, I got quite disillusioned ten years ago for, twelve years ago where, ‘cause I felt I just didn't have the resources to influence regulation. Today, I'm very lucky. I'm in a different place. I've, I'm a lot older, and so I've been spending a lot of time on my next incubation, which is how can we unlock the, patient empowerment by training AI models to do end of life prediction much, with much more precision and ac-Swyx [00:22:37]: Oh, wow. You're still focused on this the whole time.Anjney [00:22:40]: The-- I haven't been able to get, this out of my mind a single day for the last fourteen years. This is the hill I want, I would like to die on. There's two, I would say. What? I actually, I'd prefer not to die.Swyx [00:22:51]: Yeah, exactly.Anjney [00:22:52]: But I think two bipartisan issues, I think two issues that should be bipartisan in America are how do we empower patients to make the right clinical decisions at the end of their life, such that we're reducing the taxpayer burden with science? It's just good old science, and AI can help here. And the second is, net positive data centers, ‘cause I think that's the biggest critical bottleneck on training and good enough AI models to help people at the end of their life. So there's sort of two sides of the, of the same scaling bottleneck curve, but those two, we formed AMP as a public benefit corporation. My wife and I, who you've met, you've met Viv. Her passion is education. Her family is a long line of educators and so on, and, of physicists. And so this class is my attempt to stop being the black sheep of the family and be a, an educator. But if I'm not educating, the thing I would be doing is working, on these two problems, whether on the political spectrum or as a researcher back at, in some lab. And my hope is if anyone's listening to this podcast, if they're passionate about either of those two topics, I'd love to hear from them. We'll, we'll we can share the contact in the show notes, but, we're looking for people to join both of those missions on the, on the political side as well as on the medical side, on the research side.Frontier Systems, Output Maxing, and AlignmentSwyx [00:24:08]: You said, this is a discipline that you want to form. You call it's called variously called Frontier System. It's variously called One Person Frontier Lab. What is the ideal name or shape of this? Like the, what is the mission?Anjney [00:24:24]: Of the class?Swyx [00:24:26]: Of the discipline that you're, exploring, right? I The class is called Frontier Systems. But like for me, maybe one phrase is you're, you're just anti-waste, right? Which is wasting GPUs, wasting in human and Medicare. But is there, is there a broader theme that I'm, that maybe you can encapsulate more succinctly?Anjney [00:24:45]: Yeah. The, from an engineering perspective, it's very simple. It's output maxing. It's the, it's the department of output maxing.Swyx [00:24:51]: Making the most of what we have.Anjney [00:24:52]: Exactly. I'm a huge believer in optimal outcomes. I think both in America and other countries, we are losing our appreciation for nuance, and this is the thing of And AI is the same case, right? Oh, the bitter lesson holds. Okay, fine. But that doesn't mean you just like throw 500 GB300, 500,000 GB300s at your suboptimal model scaling and you waste a bunch of compute. It also doesn't mean that, the most optimal is to have like 50 different architectures where there isn't enough standardization. One of the reasons Anthropic has had extraordinary sort of velocity is ‘cause they picked the transform architecture and said, “This is simple. Let's double down on it,” right? And now luckily there's enough investment going to the space that we can afford other architectures, but at the time, investment was just too fragmented into other architectures, so that arguably unlocked scaling. So I think there's a philosophy. I think we all owe it to ourselves to do output maxing with a new capability called AI on a global level. I think if I was starting a new department at Stanford, depending on how fuzzy or technical I wanted to be, I'd probably call it the Department of Alignment. Like-Swyx [00:25:59]: It's an overloaded termAnjney [00:26:01]: But it is, But alignment really Is a hard problem. And I think when you unlock it, full stack alignment is super hard in any organization and in any system. Like in a, in a venture capital firm, if you can have full stack alignment between your limited partners and your, the founders who are creating the value and ultimately the public that owns the IPO stock, that is a gift that keeps giving. And when you study the history of these systems, when they start off, they usually start out small scale where the feedback loop is actually so tight that there's alignment. And then the more you try to scale, the more division of labor happens, the more specialization happens, and at each step you add abstractions. And wherever there's an API interface, there's like loss. There's communication loss. And so I think a really cool thing would be for us to figure out is there a way for us to have our cake and eat it too as an engineering discipline? Is there a way to actually scale up and scale out Without losing any alignment, without lossy transmission?Swyx [00:27:01]: You mean standards?Anjney [00:27:02]: So standards is one way. The other way is you just have net new capabilities. So like what we're trying to do here is discover new superconductors. A room temperature superconductor would be a lossless transmission mechanism for energy. We would have flying cars. We are right within a few years of having a new room temperature superconductor. So I think those are the two. You either have to standardize On protocols or API specs that allow lossless communication, or you can come up with a whole new capability that unlocks so much abundance, the standardization doesn't matter ‘cause you just unlock net new capacity. This, the, so this is what I spend my days thinking about these days.Compute Markets, SF Compute, and Non-NVIDIA ChipsSwyx [00:27:38]: No, I think every infra person at, who wants scale and wants to output max does eventually end up thinking about this. We don't have time to go into it, but we have done an episode with SF Compute-Anjney [00:27:50]: Oh, coolSwyx [00:27:50]: That is trying to standardize The futures contract for compute. I don't, I don't know how that's going by the way, but like at some point this will be public.Anjney [00:27:57]: Oh, I think Evan is awesome and SF Compute is the kind of effort that I hope we can accelerate because what often happens is these exchanges are very hard to get, they, it's hard to bootstrap them, right? Because they often require-- There's many inefficiencies between parties. There's trust boundary inefficiencies in infrastructure because you don't trust, one part of the stack doesn't trust another part of the stack to give them visibility. There's capital markets inefficiencies, there's operational efficiencies. So if you can inject like a single shock to the system of a ton of compute demand or supply, then you can accelerate, these new flywheels. And so my hope is one day, or soon, if SF Compute needs extra like has excess capacity, they just hook it up to the grid and they get flooded with demand from us. And on the other side, if they have a ton of demand but they don't have supply, they just again hook up to the grid and it's a two-way protocol where they can just hook up to our capacity. And I don't think we're too far from that. Today our working implementation of it is mostly through a group of labs, universities, and a few sort of trusted parties who are, who all feel like they're in alignment to borrow an over sort of used word. But our hope is to just have it be an open protocol that anyone can hook up to on-Swyx [00:29:20]: Hook up for demand or hook up for supply? In primarily demand, it sounds like. Like you-Anjney [00:29:25]: No, bothSwyx [00:29:26]: You would want to offer demand.Anjney [00:29:27]: Both. Yeah. Unfortunately, what's happened in the last six weeks is, we thought we'd have a bunch of excess capacity by the end of this year. It's all gone.Swyx [00:29:37]: It's exploding.Anjney [00:29:38]: It, yeah. It's all gone. And so I have, my text messages are full of friends, we know many of these people, these are founders who've raised billions of dollars in San Francisco going, “Oh, any chance you have like 50 nodes in the next few weeks?”Swyx [00:29:51]: What is the scope for, non-Nvidia, right? You have Lisa Su coming and, Rainer Pope as well. And so There is a lot of demand for, more performance Alternative architectures and all that. At the same time, this hurts your standardization.Anjney [00:30:11]: I don't think so. So actually Rainer's a great example, right? Rainer is a CEO and founder of, MatX. I actually had him by for office hours in the class earlier today, and there was an insight he brought up that I hadn't considered before, which is when they decided to pick the standard For their data center, they picked the NVIDIA reference architecture. So the MatX chips Just plug in to any site that has an NVIDIA bring up planned. And, the-Swyx [00:30:42]: It's just software then. It's, it's not the-Anjney [00:30:44]: A-Swyx [00:30:44]: Hardware.Anjney [00:30:46]: Well, from an input and IO perspective It's the same footprint as an NVIDIA rack.Swyx [00:30:52]: That makes sense.Anjney [00:30:53]: Where they have done, innovated a bunch from what I can tell is on systems co-design. Which is where a lot of the gains are to be had. And so he picked He was “Anjney, we, there's just so much work to do when you're building a new chip company.”Swyx [00:31:08]: Can't fight every front.Anjney [00:31:08]: You just can't fight on every front. So my question to him was, “Well, you're working on this new chip. Their tape-out is next year. What, who are you going to partner with to host the chips?” And he said, “Whoever will host them. That's just not, that's not my focus.” And I said, “But how did you “ you decided back to our earlier systems design question, he decided that, he didn't want to be a full, fully integrated chip provider. The bottleneck they're focused on is the logic die, and they, he feels they can crank out a ton of performance gains through co-design there. But then that means you delegate, to our question earlier, it, you he's the data center provider is a different part of the stack, and so then he's dependent on that part of the ecosystem to host his chips to get the performance gains to the customer. So now you have another abstraction, and you might have loss. So I asked him, “How do you prevent loss?” And back to your point, he said, “I just picked the NVIDIA standard ‘cause I didn't want to Like I wanted to piggyback off of an existing protocol.” And that, what's great about NVIDIA is that reference architecture is known.Swyx [00:32:15]: Open.Anjney [00:32:15]: It's open. They've published it. So Jensen's actually enabled someone like Rainer to build a chip company like MatX, and I don't see them as competitive. The compute demand is so high. Like, I don't I think NVIDIA's not able to meet the demands of production, so we just need more chips. And I think it's very smart what MatX has done, which is say, “We're just going to we're not going to innovate on the data center design ‘cause actually, thank you, Jensen, you've done all the hard work. Where we can innovate is somewhere else.” And I think that's, that's very healthy. I think that's how we unblock new bottlenecks. And my view is these, the, chip teams like MatX, who have arrived at the insight that co-design is the way, The primary bottleneck for them is trust boundary. To do co-design well, you need visibility into the next model generation as soon as possible ‘cause it takes two years to tape out. So if by the time I bring my chip to market, your model architecture's changed, I'm host. Now, when he was inside Google, he was sitting next to the Gemini team. He was on Palm or whatever.Trust Boundaries, Co-Design, and Researcher CEOsSwyx [00:33:19]: His co-founder was the, was one, was one of the Palm guys, I think.Anjney [00:33:23]: Yes. Yes, exactly. So when you're inside the trust boundary of Google, then your systems co-design loop is super tight. When you leave as a founder, one of the biggest risks you take is now you're outside the trust boundary. And so what I love doing is helping chip teams who can help us unlock more capacity for the independent ecosystem access to trust. Because when I If I've been, involved with a lab from day one, and I was lucky enough to work with Anthropic, and then I'm on the board of Mistral and helped Black Forest Labs get started. I think at this point I'm on six or seven different teams.Swyx [00:33:57]: Only six? I feel like my mental number was going to be 13, but yeah, it's-Anjney [00:34:02]: No, I go deep with one at a time.Swyx [00:34:04]: You're founding CEO of Arena.Anjney [00:34:07]: Nah, that was an, that was an-Swyx [00:34:08]: Administrative CEOAnjney [00:34:09]: It was an administrative five-month gig where Whalen and Anastasios were graduating from their PhDs, and they didn't need a product team. So I helped recruit the head of engineering product and design. But Anastasios has always been the CEO of that company. I played a pinch-hitting I'm an intern. I was CEO intern For five months. -Swyx [00:34:33]: I interviewed him, and he's he's very well-spoken. I think he's a debate, former debate, champion. But also very quantitative and mathematical, which is-Anjney [00:34:41]: He-Swyx [00:34:41]: Such a unicorn.Anjney [00:34:43]: See, what's amazing about him? If you look at his output, he's an output maxer. By the time he was graduating from his PhD, which he only graduated last year, he had published more work with a citation count than, people twice his age. But at the same time, he'd already started a project called LLM Arena that was being used by millions of people As a side project. And time and time again, what I've realized is venture capitalists suck at seeing human beings as, dynamic agents where-Swyx [00:35:14]: They want to put you in a boxAnjney [00:35:15]: They want to put you in a box.Swyx [00:35:15]: This is your thing.Anjney [00:35:16]: So the first time I got introduced to Anastasios, somebody had told me “Oh, he's amazing, but he's a researcher.” I was “what? What do you mean he's a researcher?” That's what-Swyx [00:35:28]: Like he's not a CEO, not a founder.Anjney [00:35:29]: Not a CEO, exactly. I was “Are you crazy? Do you Have you met Dario?” Dario's a scientist. He's gone from zero to, what will soon be a trillion-dollar company in four years. Being a CEO, nominally speaking, is not that hard. Being a good CEO is hard. Being a great CEO actually requires a level of performance that scientists who have already published at the top of their field have accomplished. It is super hard to be a competitive scientist. To publish in academia over the last 20, 30 years, to make it to the top of your discipline at a place like Berkeley, you are a star athlete. Like, you are an athlete of the mind, and you perform at the highest levels. And to get there, whether you're, Anastasios or Whalen at Berkeley, or you are Robin, who-Swyx [00:36:23]: BFL, yeahAnjney [00:36:24]: With Black Forest, who created Stable Diffusion, or if you're, like Guillaume at Meta, who created Llama before he started Mistral. The amount of human leadership you have to demonstrate to get the resources, like get the trust of the organization, publish it, put it up. I would just fund researchers all day Right? If who have contributed already to the field. If they've, if they've put SOTA out there, they're, they're star athletes already. If they haven't done SOTA Look, they can still be good CEOs, but then I find the failure mode is that they just don't want to be CEOs, they primarily want to publish, and that's okay, too. One of the things we do with the AMP Grid is we donate excess compute. We have two nonprofits, like university labs. We carved out like a couple thousand H100s. But I do think there's extraordinary research being done on university campuses. My father-in-law's a physicist. He's a professor. Extraordinary work in physics, and we need that. But if you want to be a CEO, what you need to be willing To do is be super confrontational, outside of science. Like within the scientific community, some of the best researchers are very confrontational about their convictions, right? This architecture is right. To be a great CEO, you basically have to be willing to be confrontational up and down the stack.Swyx [00:37:41]: To your own team.Anjney [00:37:42]: To your own team-Swyx [00:37:43]: To customersAnjney [00:37:43]: Hiring, recruiting customers. Well, I would say, Yeah, pretty much to everyone Everybody. Of course-Swyx [00:37:50]: I see, I feel a little bit of that in my own work, but yeah, I can't imagine the stakes that Dario has had to go through. It's, it's pretty insane.Anjney [00:37:56]: No, I don't think the stakes are that different From how you're feeling it, right? Stakes are personal scaling vectors, right? The stakes that seem so low to you, like having this podcast where you can talk to somebody and just have a you're an extraordinary communicator, right? Like already in this conversation, you've pulled more out of me than most people, and I've been on 12 podcasts in the last two weeks.AI Coachella and First-Principles ThinkingSwyx [00:38:17]: I think I, we've just seen each other enough that there's some base trust.Anjney [00:38:20]: There's base trust.Swyx [00:38:20]: And I think, and I know that you, that I've done my homework and like I know that trust is a big deal for you, so.Anjney [00:38:27]: I think trust is about consistency, and you and I have seen each other In the community for years, right? Like, I remember the first time we met was at NeurIPS in New Orleans. I don't know if you remember that, luncheon.Swyx [00:38:38]: Oh my God.Anjney [00:38:39]: Reiko had set up this Reiko's amazing, and he set up this luncheon and-Swyx [00:38:43]: Yeah, I was “Who's this Discord guy?” I'm “Okay.” But-Anjney [00:38:45]: No, you weren't-Swyx [00:38:46]: You were just “You made some investments.”Anjney [00:38:47]: You were much less polite. You were “Who's this VC?” You're like-Swyx [00:38:51]: No, I Was I? Oh my God.Anjney [00:38:53]: It was-Swyx [00:38:53]: I'm so sorryAnjney [00:38:53]: It was visible on your face.Swyx [00:38:54]: I'm so sorry. But you weren't, you weren't The introduction was bad. I was I didn't know who you were.Anjney [00:39:00]: The, see, this is the thing about context, right? Like, but then I think I heard your accent. And I was “Are you-”Swyx [00:39:06]: Singapore, yeahAnjney [00:39:06]: “Are you Singaporean?” And you're “Yeah.” And I said, “I went to high school, JC, in Singapore.” And then the ice broke. But This is the there are in the scientific community, sometimes the stakes are very high for people who haven't had the emotional, what is called EQ Coaching and mentorship, right? Which is like to have scientific impact, you often need to be a extraordinary emotional, like emotionally in tune person with the folks you're trying to influence. And so what comes so naturally to you is actually a super high stakes thing to other people. And so I wouldn't assume that Dario's more stressed out than you. These things are you'd be surprised how similar and small sometimes the problems are to you That some of the world's biggest, leaders are facing. And that's what I've learned from this class. The guest speakers are Sam, Satya, Jensen.Swyx [00:40:01]: AI Coachella.Anjney [00:40:02]: Yeah. It's AI Coachella, right? So we got to get all the headliners, and they're I'm very lucky that some of these people have either mentored me over the years or I've done business with them. And when you, take the performative stuff out and any assumptions you may have about these people that you read in the press or on Twitter, We're all just humans. We're all trying to get along. And what's so special about this moment is AI is forcing, like scaling, the bitter lesson is forcing a lot of people to revise their assumptions for how the world works and go back to first principles or go and educate themselves. So the kind of people I was, I won't name who this person is, but I was at an event last week in Texas and, ran to somebody who said, “Anjney, I came across the class. What do you think about real time action prediction models?” And I was, don't know how happy it made me feel when they asked me that question. I know they've done the work. They've challenged themselves. I'm, they didn't ask me, “What do you think of world models?” They said, “What do you think of n-”Swyx [00:41:04]: Real time action predictionAnjney [00:41:05]: “action, real time action prediction models?” World models, don't get me wrong, are cool and everything, but you and I both know that is a layer of abstraction that is sometimes not usefully precise enough. Right? Ours-Swyx [00:41:16]: There's like four different kinds of world models.Anjney [00:41:17]: Yes, exactly.Swyx [00:41:18]: We've done the part with general intuition, by the way, which is very focused on, -Anjney [00:41:22]: Oh, cool. Yes. I love Pim. Pim is great. And this is what I love about people who've done that level of work. They realize they're not in competition with people who the rest of the world thinks they're in competition with.Swyx [00:41:34]: Because they're not in the category, they're in the specific thing they're trying to do.Anjney [00:41:37]: They're focused on their mission, and they have a systems understanding of the bottleneck they're trying to solve. And when somebody else says, “I'm working on real time, action prediction models too,” Pim goes, “Oh, I love that person. I want, I can learn from them.” But the minute they're “Oh, that person's a world model person,” it's “like which type of world model person?” But mostly they're just trying to figure out if it's a waste of their time, because we don't have enough time. So, Pim, for example, is super, loves this other company I work with we've talked about called Black Forest Labs. And he's mentioned to me multiple times that he's so, He thinks what Flux is doing is really cool. Andy Blattman came by and spoke in the class. And what I find over and over again is for people who do the work, who can be usefully precise enough about like what is actually going on in the world of frontier research, The sense of camaraderie is still well and alive, but it gets lost sometimes when you have to like abstract The technical complexities in, business terms And then the VCs are “How are you different from that world model?” I'm going to say Where do I even start to explain this stuff? And then the misalignment creeps in.Leading vs. Winning in Frontier AISwyx [00:42:43]: This is good. Yeah, I think, people listening get a sense of, what it is like to operate at a real level, like yourself, rather than at, the journalist level, where you have to sort of put everyone in, a rough category and create a narrative of competition, and who's winning today, who's behind.Anjney [00:42:58]: It-- this idea of winning is so Weird to me.Swyx [00:43:03]: You do want to win. You want you want competitiveness.Anjney [00:43:06]: No, I think you want to lead.Swyx [00:43:07]: You want SOTA.Anjney [00:43:07]: No, I think you want to lead. Yes, so you want to push the frontier. You want to push the SOTA. You want to do something that hasn't been done before. You want to capture value, but you don't want to capture so much value that, people think you're unaligned with your mission or trying to do what's best for the world. You want to capture enough value that you can keep innovating, right? And I think that people want to lead, they don't really This idea of winning and losing, again, I love Jensen. He's a, he's a leader. The mindset that he talked about on Dwarkesh's podcast, right? He's “I didn't wake up with a loser mindset.” I think that was awesome, right? Because he's, he's an engineer. Dwarkesh has done the work. So there's at least-- even though the, to me, it was very obvious they're talking about the same thing, they just passed each other. They just had to basically, Jensen has this, five-layer cake abstraction of how the industry works. And Dwarkesh had, I think from that podcast, had more of, a pre-training, mid-training, post-training systems loop concept.Swyx [00:44:04]: It's just a factor of who he talks to, right? Again, it's very clear.Anjney [00:44:06]: It's the systems It's the abstraction, the mental models, the It's the whole-- Dude, so much of the problem in the world is reasoning by analogy. And then the assumptions that are held invisibly.Swyx [00:44:19]: Yeah, I've, I've said, this is actually the best time in human history for first principles thinkers. Because everything you think will happen is actually now coming true.Anjney [00:44:28]: Correct. And the venture capital community is, notorious for this, where people look-- In times of uncertainty, they, cling to axioms that ended up being true from the previous era, and they kind of like proclaim them with confidence as if they're truths, but they're not. And it's very important to see the distinction between a heuristic and an axiom. An axiom can be proven-Swyx [00:44:55]: Like from internal consistency point of viewAnjney [00:44:56]: With internal consistency. A heuristic is a way you kind of a shortcut. And my God, the number of people I have had to put up with over the last few years who proclaim-- use heuristics As axioms to judge people, to judge which companies are going to succeed or the number of people who are “Oh, yeah, Anthropic, they're just training models right now,” but this one continue.Swyx [00:45:22]: Because that's a B2B SaaS?Anjney [00:45:23]: Yeah, the, like Which over the fullness of time, if you squint at it, maybe. But the way you arrive there is so important that you can-- you just, you can dismiss people. Here's what happened, right? What happened is Anthropic basically achieved takeoff in October of last year. That training run-Swyx [00:45:41]: Whatever, three seven?Anjney [00:45:42]: I forget the numbers now, but whatever that checkpoint was-Swyx [00:45:45]: We saw the cognition.Anjney [00:45:46]: Yeah. Right? You probably-- The, to those of us in the community, especially once post-training was done and it was released in December-Swyx [00:45:52]: Yeah. Can I sneak a sneaky question in there? I don't know if you have a perspective, maybe you don't, I just The number one question is how did Anthropic crack coding, right? Because Claude One, Claude Two, okay, like it was part of it, but it wasn't a big deal. And the leading hypothesis, it's a lucky dice roll that was then compounded, right? Like it was like Mildly better, but then they saw it and they were “Okay, let's really invest.”How Anthropic Cracked CodingAnjney [00:46:17]: I had this very annoying teacher. I went to this boarding school called Rishi Valley in India, which is like this, bird preserve. It's like three hundred and fifty acres of bird preserve in rural India, and there was no technology for seven years. There was this teacher, I won't name them, but they would have this-- I hated it every time he said this to me. He was “Luck fa-favors the prepared mind,” which is like a common saying, but the way he delivered it, always grated me, ‘cause he was always I was always one of those kids who got, a good grade without trying very hard. ‘Cause like high middle school is not that hard if you, if you're generally, paying attention and so on. And there was this one time where I-- But then I would get an eighty percent grade, and he would keep pushing me to say “The reason you didn't get the ninety-five plus percent is because you're not that lucky.” And I would say, “What do you mean?” ‘Cause I would think that I deserved that grade, and I would sometimes argue with him. And he'd say, “You didn't have a prepared mind. If you want to get lucky again “ There was basically one time where I got like ninety-five or ninety-six on this, on this subject, and I, now that I felt entitled. I was “Okay, I'm going to keep doing this,” and I didn't. And then he was “Luck favors a prepared mind. You got lucky last time, but you got to stay prepared.” And I didn't understand what he meant. Now, as I'm older, I'm okay, these adults actually knew a thing or two. Anthropic has been the most prepared company for four years. And so then when the right, context data comes in, the right developers start sending in, the right context diffs, Sure, you could say you got lucky, but if you ask me, they're pr-pretty damn prepared with paranoia for like four years. And you have to remember, it was so hard for them to get going early on that they had to do so much more with so much less that you just have to be prepared to be so efficient.Swyx [00:48:06]: Yes. There's numbers on their burn compared to OpenAI. I've, I've written about it, but they are so much more efficient in their, in their tech stack.Anjney [00:48:14]: It's not even It's not funny.Swyx [00:48:14]: Not even close.Anjney [00:48:15]: Yeah. But it's so clear, right? Like how to output max for the world. They have been prepared, and you could call that luck, but Luck favors the prepared mind.Culture, Hardship, and Anthropic's P0Swyx [00:48:25]: This is one of those things that I was going over some of your old lectures and, you were data, people think it's a moat and actually it's culture and actually it's team Actually. And I, it's-- there's different levels of moats, and this is the ultimate one that determines everything else. Which you can then compoundAnjney [00:48:43]: You're saying culture is the ultimate moat? Yeah. But the thing about culture is it's very fragile. So moats, I don't think they're-- there's very few moats I found that are actually moats. They're-- It's, it's a nice concept, but in reality, you have to replenish your culture. Ben Horowitz was, the speaker in CS153 on Tuesday, and I asked him this question about the culture bottleneck in teams because, there are several AI teams-Swyx [00:49:09]: His book, Hard Things About Hard ThingsAnjney [00:49:11]: Hard Thing About Hard Things. But more concretely, there are so many AI labs today that have all the cash they need, they have all the compute they need, and they're still not able to ship anything SOTA. And then you start seeing people leave and so on, and my diagnosis, it's, is it's the culture. And so I asked him, Ben, they're-- He's been one of the most aggressive investors in AI labs. He goes back to this thing which resonates in my mind a lot. It-- When I used to work at a16z, I would, book a conference room, and right outside the conference room, which is closest to the toilet ‘cause it was the fastest way for me to go use the bathroom between Zoom meetings-Swyx [00:49:45]: Oh my God, I'll put maxing my toilet optimization. Okay, never mind.Anjney [00:49:48]: It was not healthy in hindsight, but maybe this is TMI. But anyway, outside that conference on the wall was this quote that was printed that said, “Culture is not a set of beliefs, it's a set of actions.” And it's by Bushido, is this, Japanese philosopher. And if you stop taking the actions that demonstrate the mission alignment to what you've said to your team and to your-- the world matters to you, then your culture starts to fray. So it's not actually a moat, I would say. It's a very brittle, fragile thing that requires daily tending to like a garden. But if you figure out the system to keep that garden tended, which I think ultimately comes down to knowing yourself ‘cause you most naturally, if you're authentic and so on, you'll naturally make trade-offs that seem effortless to you, but that reinforce your culture. And then That becomes this very hard thing for other people to catch up to. And at Anthropic, from day one, there was this mission like-- missionary like zeal and belief that, hey, these capabilities will scale. These systems are stochastic, not deterministic. There will be error bars, and until we crack interpretability, there's risk. And at some point, people will go-- stop using Claude just for coding. They'll use it in some mission-critical context where there's-- it'll throw off a bug, and then people are going to come blame them, and they want to be on the right side of history where they said, “Yes, this is a powerful technology. We think it's going to change the world, And we want to be very measured and scientific about the fact that, ‘Hey, guys, these are stats models, statistical models.' That's how statistics works.” ultimately, when you're training neural nets, it is just a statistical system. And I think that Belief that safety is important and that it might seem toy-like in the early days, and sometimes, you could say, “Anjney, they totally over-exaggerated the risk,” like two years ago when they said, “Let's not launch Claude One,” or whatever. Well, okay, maybe in hindsight, but hindsight is twenty/twenty. And at the time, they didn't know how that model would be used, and to them it felt existential if somebody came and said, “You weren't responsible. It-- This wrote a bug.” The liability associated with that is massive. So how do you prevent against that? Well, day in, day out, you say safety. And when you start deviating from that, you have the team hold you accountable, you have the world hold you accountable, and I think that becomes a moat over time. At some point, that moat will get challenged and so on, and then it become fragile. I hope it endures because that's the beauty of having founders run the show, ‘cause they can make really hard trade-offs to do mission alignment. The hardest part is in the earliest days when you don't have a group of people who are going through difficulty, stress, crisis together, then your culture doesn't get defined sharply enough, and that's what I'm worried about right now, is there's so much money going to these labs. There's no hardship. There's no-Swyx [00:52:50]: To anyone who knowsAnjney [00:52:51]: There's no to anyone who knows. And that, in hindsight, was a feature, not a bug for Anthropic. The number of people who said no, the number of people who said, “Sorry, we're all doing investors in OpenAI,” that is competitive difference. It forces you to really understand, what is the hill you want to die on at the expense of everything else. What's the P zero? And there, P zero from day one was coding. The reason, the mechanism system there was if we crack coding, Then we will crack AGI. Our mission is AGI. We want to get there safely. If we focus on codin

The Rebbe addresses the proper nusach for Birkat HaChama, stating that both his own view and that of most later authorities is to recite 'Oseh Ma'aseh Bereishit,' following Rabbeinu HaZaken's opinion regarding blessings on thunder as found in Birkat HaNehenin. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/007/007/2068

Face To Face   We all want to get it right when we study the Bible, but sometimes the biggest hurdle is assuming we already have all the answers. In this fan-favorite classic episode of The Daily Grace Podcast, we tackle the subtle danger of reading Scripture with a rigid mindset. We share honest stories about overcoming the fear of stepping outside familiar theological camps, letting go of pride, and rediscovering a genuine curiosity for the Word. Tell Us What You Think Unlock a 10% off coupon! And get first access to new sales, Bible studies & books! Join for free here! Subscribe to our Podcast Newsletter!  Connect with us:  The Daily Grace Co. | Facebook | Instagram | Daily Grace Blog | 

Abiding for Health: The Fruit of The Spirit | The Hygiene of My Heart (Week 8)Description:Are you exhausted from trying to "fix" your behavior? Do you feel like your spiritual life is stuck in a construction zone, constantly trying to force changes that don't seem to last?In this final, high-impact message of "The Hygiene of My Heart" series, Pastor Charlie Grimes concludes our clinical soul assessment by revealing exactly what a fully healthy, thriving heart looks like. We step out of the diagnostic lab and into the vineyard to discover that spiritual wholeness isn't a behavior we construct; it's a harvest God cultivates!Building on the foundation laid throughout this eight-week journey, we integrate our unique medical and biblical diagnostic tools to understand:

Stopping yelling and punishing often feels like the only option, but it rarely helps dysregulated kids learn new behavior. In this episode, parents learn what actually works instead. Dr. Roseann Capanna-Hodge is an expert in Regulation First Parenting™ and child emotional dysregulation.When you're overwhelmed, exhausted, and nothing seems to get through to your child, it's easy to believe you're failing. But the truth is simpler—and more hopeful.Most parents aren't “bad at parenting,” they're just using strategies that don't reach a dysregulated brain. This episode breaks down why yelling and punishment don't create lasting change and what actually does.Why does my child get worse when I yell or punish?When your child is escalated, their nervous system is in survival mode, not learning mode. That means yelling or punishment adds more threat—not understanding.Their brain is focused on protection, not reasoningMore intensity = more escalation or shutdownShort-term compliance may happen, but no real change sticksReal-life example: You raise your voice to stop a behavior. Your child freezes or explodes again the next day. It feels like nothing is working—because the nervous system never actually calmed.What's really happening in my child's brain during a meltdown?A meltdown isn't defiance—it's dysregulation. The brain shifts into fight, flight, or shutdown, making it nearly impossible for your child to listen or learn.Stress response overrides logic and connectionThe child cannot “absorb” correction in this stateBehavior becomes communication of overwhelmBehavior is communication. Tune in to what the brain is saying.Instead of asking, “Why won't they listen?” try asking, “What state is their nervous system in right now?”Trying to understand your child's patterns more clearly? The Dysregulated Kid offers practical guidance to help you respond with more clarity and less overwhelm.What should I do instead of yelling and punishing in the moment?This is where real change begins. Instead of escalating, you become the calm anchor.Regulate first: lower your voice, slow your body, reduce stimulationConnect next: simple phrases like “I see this is hard”Correct later: teach only after calm returnsReal-life example: Your child refuses homework and starts yelling. Instead of reacting, you pause, soften your tone, and say less. The shift in your calm helps their nervous system settle faster.Before correction can work, the brain must move out of threat and into safety. That's where learning finally happens.Yelling less and staying calm isn't about being perfect—it's about having the right tools.Join the Dysregulation Insider VIP list and get your FREE Regulation Rescue Kit, designed to help you handle oppositional behaviors without losing it. Download it now at www.drroseann.com/newsletterHow do I break the yelling cycle without losing control?Breaking the cycle starts with you regulating first. Not perfectly—just consistently. Staying calm is the real turning point.Regulate yourself before respondingRepair after yelling instead of spiraling in guiltFocus on progress, not perfection

✔️ How to Make Sure Your Divorce Documents Are Enforceable | Los Angeles Divorce

The Southern Baptist Convention recently voted to move forward with a constitutional amendment formally prohibiting women from serving as pastors. In this episode, I examine the SBC's decision, the reaction it sparked, and why I believe they arrived at the correct conclusion—but for the wrong reasons.Using the SBC article and Pope St. John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as a point of comparison, I explore a much deeper question: What is the nature of the ministerial office in the Church, and who has the authority to define it?The problem with the SBC's position is not necessarily its conclusion regarding women's ordination. The problem is that within a Baptist framework, the debate ultimately becomes an issue of biblical interpretation. If Scripture alone is the final authority, and individual churches or denominations possess the authority to interpret it differently, then the argument over women's ordination becomes difficult to settle in any lasting way.Historically, the Church's rejection of women's ordination was not based solely on isolated proof texts. It was rooted in a sacramental understanding of the priesthood, apostolic succession, ecclesiastical authority, and a consistent tradition maintained throughout Christian history in both East and West. The early Church Fathers, the historic episcopate, and the universal practice of Christianity all provide a much broader framework than a simple appeal to competing interpretations of Scripture.In this episode, we'll examine the SBC vote, the theological assumptions behind it, what Ordinatio Sacerdotalis actually argues, and why the larger issue is not women's ordination itself—but the authority of the Church to define and preserve the offices Christ established.If you'd like to donate to our ministry or be a monthly partner that receives newsletters and one on one discussions with Dr. Stephen Boyce, here's a link: https://give.tithe.ly/?formId=6381a2ee-b82f-42a7-809e-6b733cec05a7#SouthernBaptistConvention #WomensOrdination #WomenPastors #OrdinatioSacerdotalis #CatholicChurch #ChurchHistory #ChurchFathers #ApostolicSuccession #Ecclesiology #FACTSPodcast

Can you find and correct the mistakes in Ben's sentences?Patreon: patreon.com/learnenglishwithben - For transcripts, comprehension quizzes, and video tutorials, join the fan club.Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/learnenglishwithbenInstagram: instagram.com/learnenglishwithbenWebsite: learnenglishwithben.comEmail: learnenglishwithben88@gmail.com - send me an email if you're interested in classes Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

How do we determine when a learner has truly mastered a skill? In behavior analysis, performance criteria such as "80% correct across two sessions" have become nearly ubiquitous. Yet despite their widespread use, many practitioners may be surprised to learn that these criteria have relatively little direct empirical support. In this episode, I'm joined by Drs. Sarah Richling and Dr. Daniel Fienup to discuss the history, research, and practical implications of mastery criteria in applied behavior analysis. Drawing on their independent lines of research, Sarah and Dan examine how different criterion levels influence skill maintenance and why behavior analysts should think carefully about what constitutes meaningful mastery. We begin by defining the terminology surrounding mastery and performance criteria and explore several important dimensions that are often overlooked, including criterion level, criterion frequency, supplementary variables, and units of analysis. The conversation then turns to the origins of the commonly used 80% and 90% thresholds. Although these criteria appear throughout ABA training and practice, Sarah and Dan explain that their widespread adoption may owe more to tradition than to empirical validation. We also discuss findings from their research comparing 50%, 80%, and 90% mastery criteria. Their studies suggest that higher performance criteria may produce stronger maintenance outcomes under some conditions, but they emphasize that practitioners should resist the temptation to adopt a new universal rule. Along the way, we explore: The distinction between mastery criteria and performance criteria. Why "80% correct" became so common in ABA. Historical influences from early behavior analytic and educational research. Research comparing 50%, 80%, and 90% mastery criteria. The relationship between mastery criteria and long-term maintenance. Why some behaviors may require near-perfect performance. The importance of considering the natural environment when setting performance standards. How units of analysis can affect instructional decision making. The risks of relying on aggregated data when teaching multiple skills. Generalization, maintenance, and supplementary variables. Lessons from Precision Teaching regarding fluency and functional mastery. Why performance criteria should be individualized rather than universally prescribed. Research opportunities for practitioners and graduate students interested in instructional design. Throughout the discussion, Sarah and Dan make a compelling case for moving beyond inherited rules and toward a more individualized, evidence-based approach to instructional decision making. Whether you're designing skill acquisition programs, supervising trainees, or simply curious about the assumptions that shape everyday practice, this episode offers a thoughtful examination of one of the most common—and least questioned—features of behavior analytic instruction. About the Guests Dr. Sarah Richling Sarah Richling is a Clinical Associate Professor at Auburn University and serves as Director of Auburn's Master's Program in Applied Behavior Analysis. She has more than two decades of experience as a practitioner, researcher, and educator, with interests spanning instructional design, performance criteria, and effective teaching practices. Dr. Daniel Fienup Dan Fienup is a behavior analyst and researcher whose work has focused on instructional variables that affect skill acquisition, maintenance, and educational outcomes. His research on mastery criteria has helped clarify the relationship between performance standards and long-term retention of learned skills. Resources Mentioned in This Episode Fienup and Carr (2021). The use of performance criteria for determining "mastery" in discrete-trial instruction: A call for research. Fuller and Fienup (2018). A Preliminary Analysis of Mastery Criterion Level: Effects on Response Maintenance. Richling, Fienup, and Wong (2023). Establishing Performance Criteria for Skill Mastery. VanDevander, Warner, Kazemi, and Famie (2023). Creating a reference range of common problem behaviors and replacement behaviors in neurotypical children. Vladescu, Gureghian, Goodwyn, and Campanaro (2020). Comparing skill acquisition under different stimulus set sizes with children with autism spectrum disorder: A replication. Conditioning Books as Reinforcers: How to Increase Reading Engagement in Young Children: Inside JABA 26. Sponsor Shoutouts! Behavior University. Their mission is to provide university quality professional development for the busy Behavior Analyst. Learn about their CEU offerings, including their 8-hour Supervision Course, as well as their RBT offerings over at behavioruniversity.com/observations. Don't forget to use the coupon code, PODCAST to save at checkout! Safety-Care is a crisis prevention and de-escalation training program designed for professionals who support individuals with challenging behavior. More than 300,000 professionals have been trained in Safety-Care's evidence-based approach to recognizing early warning signs and responding with confidence. To learn more, visit QBS.com/podcast. Learn from your favorite podcast guests while you're commuting, walking the dog, or whatever else you do while listening to podcasts. New events are being added all the time, so check them out here.  HRIC Recruting. Cut out the middleman and speak directly with Barbara Voss, who's been placing BCBAs in great jobs all across the US for 15 years. The BOP Patreon. Do you want to get the show ad-free and before everyone else? Click here to learn how!

Your mistakes may have consequences, but as long as you have life, there is still an opportunity to make things right before those consequences become eternal. Do not let guilt or condemnation keep you from correcting what is wrong. Acknowledge your mistakes, seek forgiveness, and turn away from sin. __________ Exodus 20:14 NLT, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 NLT, Deuteronomy 22:22–24 NIV, John 8:3–11 NLT, Matthew 19:3–9 NLT __________ Partner with Us: https://churchforentrepreneurs.com/partner Connect with Us: https://churchforentrepreneurs.com __________    

In this episode of That Ain't In the Bible, Jonathan and Brandon step directly into one of the fastest ways to start a church argument: music styles in worship. Should church music be traditional? Contemporary? Hymns only? Full band? Choir and orchestra? Acoustic? Loud? Quiet? And perhaps the biggest question of all: does the Bible actually command one specific style of music for the church?With a few spicy hot takes and some honest pushback against personal preferences disguised as biblical mandates, the guys discuss what Scripture does clearly command—namely that believers are to worship, sing, and glorify God together. At the same time, they challenge listeners to be careful not to elevate cultural tastes and personal opinions to the level of divine instruction.Because while singing praises to God is absolutely in the Bible…the commandment, “Thou shalt use only this musical style”?Yeah… that ain't in the Bible.10 Key Bible Verses on Singing Article

SummaryIn this episode I'm joined by Courtney Honda and Slava Borisov co-founders of Puptqe. What started as a deeply personal response to a health scare involving their dog Champ has grown into a unique retail experience built around community and creating memorable moments for dogs and their owners.We explore how they tested their way through one of the most competitive retail categories imaginable, discovering that success wasn't about competing with big-box stores on price or selection. Instead, they focused on creating experiences that customers couldn't get anywhere else, from dog-friendly events and memberships to immersive in-store moments designed to turn visitors into loyal advocates.We also get into the realities of building a brick-and-mortar business, including lessons around site selection, customer retention, community-driven marketing, and the surprising acquisition channels they tested to help them grow. Courtney and Slava share how they learned to stop trying to serve every pet owner, focus on their ideal customer, and transform retail from a transaction into an ongoing relationship.If you've ever wondered how to test a physical retail store in a crowded market, this episode is for you.TakeawaysDifferentiate by owning a niche, not by competing on price - Puptqe succeeded by becoming a destination for dog experiences and hospitality instead of trying to out-discount larger pet retailers.Make the experience the product; sales will follow - Customers come for the events, community, and memories, which naturally drives purchases and loyalty.Stop marketing to everyone and focus on your ideal customer - Growth accelerated once they identified who their best customers were and tailored their offerings around them.Retention matters more than acquisition - Long-term success came from creating reasons for customers to return again and again, not just making the first sale.Community and word-of-mouth outperform paid advertising - Loyal customers and local advocacy generated more sustainable growth than trying to outspend competitors on ads.Understand customer behavior, not just demographics - Knowing how customers spend their time and make decisions proved more valuable than basic age, income, or location data.Design every customer touchpoint intentionally - Every interaction, from the greeting to the checkout experience, was crafted to create memorable moments.Consistency beats constantly chasing new tactics - Small improvements executed repeatedly created stronger results than jumping from one growth idea to the next.Guest LinksCourtney's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/courtney-honda/Slava's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/slavaborisov/Puptqe Website: https://puptqe.com/ If your leadership team is about to make a big strategic bet, the real risk usually isn't the idea, it's the assumptions behind it that haven't been surfaced yet. A Decision Sprint is a focused 6–12 week engagement where we extract, map, and test those risks so leaders can make a clear Commit, Correct, or Cut decision before major capital moves. Learn more or apply at precoil.com.

If a child is struggling to learn to read, waiting rarely makes that easier. In this episode, I talk with Faye Bankler Casell about what parents need to know when early reading is not coming together the way it should. Faye explains why reading instruction in schools can feel like a lottery system, why so many children are still being missed until third or fourth grade, and why first grade is such an important window for intervention. We talk about the science of reading, early identification, and the very real difference between a child who is guessing well and a child who is actually decoding. We also get into what parents can actually do. Faye walks through the foundational sound-level skills that matter most, what to watch for in preschool and kindergarten, and why waiting for a child to fail before acting can come at such a high cost academically and emotionally. One of the things I really love about this conversation is how practical and hopeful it is. Parents do not need to become reading specialists overnight, but they can learn what to look for, what questions to ask, and how to start supporting a child sooner rather than later. Key Takeaways Early intervention matters enormously. If a child is not learning to read easily, first grade is a powerful time to intervene. Waiting until fourth grade makes intervention longer and much harder. A child can show risk signs before they are formally reading. Faye explains that dyslexia risk can often be identified by around age five and a half because the issue is rooted in language processing, not just school reading performance. Reading struggles often start at the sound level. Parents want to look closely at phonological awareness, letter-sound connections, rhyming, sound deletion, and sound substitution. Some bright kids compensate for a long time. A child may memorize words, guess from pictures, or use the first letter as a clue, which can make it look like reading is fine until the demands get heavier. Third grade is often when the mask slips. That is when memorization stops being enough and multisyllabic academic language starts to expose the underlying gaps. Structured literacy helps all kids and is essential for some. Faye frames this approach as beneficial for everyone and absolutely necessary for children whose brains are not going to intuit reading patterns on their own. Speech and language history matters. If a child has had speech delays or ongoing language-processing concerns, that is a reason to stay especially alert around reading development. Parents do not have to wait passively. Even while seeking testing, services, or better school support, there are meaningful ways families can start helping at home. Correct answers do not always mean mastery. A child can get a word or pattern right through guessing or partial knowledge, which is why adult observation still matters so much. This is not about a broken child. It is about teaching in a way that matches how the child learns. The burden belongs with the adults and the system, not with the child. About Faye Bankler Casell Faye Bankler Casell received her MA in Early Childhood Education and Special Education from Teachers College Columbia. After teaching in public and private programs across the US, she redesigned an early childhood inclusion program that received recognition from the US Department of Education, NPR, and a national organization. Inspired by the need to launch the reading of her twice exceptional child, Faye became a Certified Academic Language Therapist and Dyslexia Therapist. She now supports parents in the early reading development of their dyslexic children through Home Reading Coach, her social platforms, and her YouTube channel, "Teach My Child to Read." She also works privately with clients and is launching a parent-led, therapist-coached dyslexia program for families supporting reading at home. About Your Host, Gabriele Nicolet I'm Gabriele Nicolet, toddler whisperer, speech therapist, parenting life coach, and host of Complicated Kids. Each week, I share practical, relationship-based strategies for raising kids with big feelings, big needs, and beautifully different brains. My goal is to help families move from surviving to thriving by building connection, confidence, and clarity at home. Complicated Kids Resources and Links

This week on Glee on the Rocks, we cover 5x19, “Old Dog, New Tricks,” the Chris Colfer-written detour that somehow works because it's old people, puppies, and just enough Rachel to keep the season's chaos limping forward.Rachel tries to rebrand her image after Broadway gossip exposes her Funny Girl mess by hiring Santana as a ruthless publicist and inventing an animal-rescue charity event called Broadway Bitches, complete with a disastrous pap walk that ends with her getting dragged down the street by dogs. Correct, honestly.Meanwhile, Kurt, feeling left behind while everyone else gets careers, scandals, showcases, and/or strange rich lady mentorships, finds purpose at the Lexington Home for Retired Performers. He auditions for Peter Pan, gets pulled into Maggie's story, and makes one very questionable attempt to reconcile her with her estranged daughter. Sounds about Kurt.And then there's Sam, Mercedes, and McConaughey the dog, which gives us one of the rarest Glee miracles of all: someone remembering Sam's actual backstory.Also happening in this episode:⭐️ Rachel Berry attempting public image rehab while continuing to be Rachel Berry

AI can now write code faster than any human alive, and most of the time it's more than good enough. That's the magic powering the entire vibe coding wave. But there's a category of software where "most of the time" just doesn't cut it: the code running a fighter jet, a power grid, an autonomous vehicle, a piece of medical hardware. When that code is wrong, the consequences aren't a bug. They're a recall, an accident, a national security incident.In this episode of Talking AI, Matt Paige sits down with Ryan Aytay, the former CEO of Tableau and now President and COO of CodeMetal, which just raised $125 million to close that gap. Ryan explains what he calls "the last mile" for mission-critical industries: the verification, validation, and provability layer that sits between AI-generated code and the systems where failure is catastrophic.The conversation covers why 99% correct is still failure in defense and autonomous systems, how CodeMetal translated a million lines of legacy C++ to Rust in weeks (like rewiring a city without the power going out), and why the real problem isn't code generation, it's behavioral assurance at scale. Ryan also shares how he's using AI to run a sub-100-person startup, why the biggest risk for any company right now is doing nothing, and what an operator who lived through 19 years of per-seat SaaS at Salesforce thinks about outcomes-based pricing in the age of AI.In this episode, you'll hear about:Why every AI coding tool says "almost, but not quite" when asked about production-ready guarantees. The difference between code generation and behavioral assurance at scale. How CodeMetal translates legacy C++ to Rust with provable correctness in weeks, not years. The concept of V&V (verification and validation) and why it's the missing layer in AI code gen. Real use cases in defense, autonomous vehicles, and simulation environments. Why hardware in the loop matters as much as human in the loop. How a sub-100-person company uses AI across M&A, recruiting, marketing, and operations. Ryan's take on token economics, outcomes-based pricing, and the SaaS evolution. Why the biggest risk is inaction, not AI errors. What attracted Ryan to CodeMetal after 19 years at Salesforce and leading Tableau.Key Moments02:47 — From Tableau fanboy to the trust gap in AI03:52 — Why Ryan left Salesforce/Tableau for CodeMetal05:55 — "Is it safe for the things I depend on every day?"06:45 — 99% correct is still failure for mission-critical systems08:20 — The sycophantic nature of AI: "Heck yeah, I can do that"09:22 — It's not a coding problem, it's a behavioral problem at scale11:22 — Human in the loop isn't enough: hardware in the loop14:30 — What is fuzzing? Formal methods explained in plain English16:02 — How a sub-100-person company leverages AI across every function18:19 — The Shopify mandate: using AI reflexively21:33 — Rewiring the city without the power going out: the million-line translation24:38 — Defense use cases: drones, autonomous vehicles, and simulation26:28 — "Prove is even a stronger word than guarantee"28:32 — Accountability and the coming wave of AI insurance32:54 — Token usage, the Uber CTO's blown budget, and outcomes-based pricing36:26 — SaaS isn't dead, it's evolving: Ryan's Salesforce/Tableau perspective40:08 — The biggest risk is doing nothing42:07 — Where to find CodeMetal (and they're hiring)Key LinksCodeMetalConnect with Ryan on LinkedInMentioned in this episode:AI Opportunity FinderFeeling overwhelmed by all the AI noise out there? The AI Opportunity Finder from HatchWorks cuts through the hype and gives you a clear starting point. In less than 5 minutes, you'll get tailored, high-impact AI use cases specific to your business—scored by ROI so you know exactly where to start. Whether you're looking to cut costs, automate tasks, or grow faster, this free tool gives you a personalized roadmap built for action.

McKay explores Dolly Parton's philosophy of ‘finding the God-light in everyone' as a transformative leadership discipline. He argues that choosing to see potential rather than faults is a practical way to inspire growth and redirect lives.Our host highlights how belief in others alters history through the stories of Louis Armstrong, Walt Disney, and Abraham Lincoln. Detailing Nelson Mandela's healing of South Africa and John Wooden's UCLA coaching, McKay demonstrates that by applying the Pygmalion effect and defending the absent, listeners can foster trust and move beyond automatic negative thinking.Main Themes: Dolly Parton's "God light" philosophy The Pygmalion Effect on performance Lincoln's "Team of Rivals" strategy Louis Armstrong's reform school start Walt Disney and the power of affirmation Defending the absent to build character Mandela's use of rugby to unite a nation Overcoming self-centered "default settings" John Wooden's shame-free coaching Belief as a practical leadership strategyTop 10 Quotes:"I try to find the God-light in everybody.""If you see someone without a smile, give them yours.""Human nature tends to notice faults first.""When people are seen as capable, they often become more capable.""If you humiliate people, they resist; if you honor people, they change.""When you defend those who are absent, you retain the trust of those present.""Seeing the good in others is a discipline, not a feeling.""Remembering everyone is good makes a meaningful life possible.""Correct what can be improved, not what is wrong with you.""Seeing good in someone can redirect an entire life."Show Links:Open Your Eyes with McKay Christensen

"How should a Christian think about and interact with artificial intelligence?"Ephesians 5:15-17Summer Heat SeriesPastor Nate ClarkeJune 7, 2026Virginia's proposed Constitutional amendments on Abortion & Marriage - How to VOTE BIBLICALLY: https://youtu.be/Y8z8xTFsOn8How should Christians respond to wickedness in the world? https://youtu.be/2OJUIM9YRwASERMON NOTES:- Ephesians 5:15-17- How should a Christian think about and interact with artificial intelligence?- Don't overreact and over spiritualize - 1 Peter 1:13- AI is a tool- AI will create a greater need for understanding and discernment- Ephesians 5:15-17- Philippians 1:9-10- HEADLINE: A.I. Chatbot Preaches at Church in Germany: 'Looks Like the Unveiling of the Antichrist/Beast System'- HEADLINE: World Economic Forum Contributor Says A.I. Could Rewrite the Bible, Create 'Correct' Religions- HEADLINE: PETA Goes Biblical With ChatGPT Vegan Rewrite of the Book of Genesis- Let AI assist the work of your hand, not replace the cry of your heart.- Jeremiah 29:13- Solomon Ray- Jeremiah 29:4-9- “Don't opt out of the world around you, engage it!” - Attack it, control it, ignore it- Attack it, control it, ignore it, redeem itOasis Church exists to Worship God, Equip the believers, and Reach the lost.We are led by Pastor Nate Clarke and are located in Mechanicsville outside Richmond in Central Virginia.STAY CONNECTEDInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/oasischurchva/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/OasisChurchRVA/Website: https://oasischurch.online

Pakale Renaud-Hébert nous parle de son bonheur, Tammy Verge nous dit si on doit viser nos objectifs plus haut.. ou plus réaliste et Neev reprend Céline pour une magnifique perfo live !

This episode contrasts the way Hashem rebukes Aharon and Miriam and the way He punishes Klal Yisrael with the Slav.

The new AIEWF website is live! Get your tickets booked ASAP as they -will- sell out. Take the AI Engineering Survey and get >$2k in credits and free AIE WF tickets!Most industry benchmarks compress intelligence and reasoning ability into scores.SWE-Bench Pro, MMLU, Humanity's Last Exam, etc. These metrics are useful, but don't always represent the full extent of how a model performs in the real world. Some of the most interesting evals today look less like exams and more like operating businesses in the real world. One of which is Vending Bench.In Anthropic's Mythos Preview System Card, Andon was the only third party eval to get their own section, observing increasingly concerning aggressive behavior:You don't know what a model is capable of doing in the real world unless you actually give it inventory, a wallet, tools, customers, competitors, humans, & some time. More often than not, it'll surprise you how much a model is capable of and in doing so, also reveal unexpected behavior: deception, context collapse, emergent coordination, & bizarre negotiation behavior.While an inflection point in personal agents came post-OpenClaw after full file access with bypass permissions became the norm, it is yet to come for agents in the real-world. However Andon Market, an actual in person store fully run and managed by AI, is paving the way for what is possible.Full Video PodFrom Claude trying to call the FBI over a $2/day vending machine charge to AI agents forming price cartels, hiring human employees, running physical stores, and writing existential robot musicals, Andon Labs is stress-testing what happens when frontier models stop being chatbots and start acting in the real world. In this episode, Andon Labs cofounders Lukas Petersson and Axel Backlund join swyx and Vibhu to unpack the strange, funny, and genuinely concerning edge cases that emerge when agents run businesses over long horizons.We go deep on Vending-Bench, Project Vend, Vending-Bench Arena, Bengt, Butter-Bench, Luna, and Andon's broader mission of building realistic real-world evals for autonomous AI systems. Lukas and Axel explain why dollar-denominated evals reveal things traditional benchmarks miss, how Claude ended up reporting its vending machine fees as cybercrime, why long context windows can drive agents into meltdown loops, what happens when agents compete with each other, and why the future of AI safety may depend on testing models in messy physical environments instead of clean benchmark sandboxes.We discuss:* Why Andon Labs started with dangerous capability evals and long-running agents* Vending-Bench and why running a vending machine is a deceptively hard AI benchmark* Why money-based evals avoid the saturation problem of traditional benchmarks* How Claude tried to call the FBI over a $2/day fee* Why long-horizon agents can spiral into existential and legalistic breakdowns* Project Vend: putting an AI-run vending machine inside Anthropic* Why real humans are “out of distribution” for simulated agents* Claudius, Seymour Cash, and the chaos of AI CEOs* How a human briefly became CEO of Claudius through a manipulated election* Why multi-agent systems can converge back into “helpful assistant” behavior* Bengt, Andon's internal office agent with email, spending, terminal, phone, camera, and internet access* How Bengt traded Amazon purchases for face-recognition training data* Claude's aggressive behavior, lies, refund avoidance, and price-cartel behavior in Arena* Why eval awareness may become the AI version of “are we living in a simulation?”* Blueprint Bench, spatial intelligence, and why models still misunderstand physical rooms* Butter-Bench and testing LLMs as robot orchestrators* Luna, the AI-run physical store with a three-year lease and human employees* The new Andon cafe in Sweden and why real-world geography matters for agent evals* Rotten tomatoes, perishable goods, and the hidden difficulty of running a physical businessLukas Petersson* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lukas-petersson-181a83172/* X: https://x.com/lukaspetAxel Backlund* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/axelbacklund* X: https://x.com/axelbacklundAndon Labs* Website: https://andonlabs.com* Vending-Bench: https://andonlabs.com/evals/vending-bench* Andon Vending: https://andonlabs.com/vendingTimestamps00:00:00 Introduction00:01:00 Andon Labs and the Origins of Vending-Bench00:05:21 Why Money-Based Evals Matter00:09:51 Agent Harnesses and Self-Modifying Systems00:13:36 Claude Calls the FBI00:16:33 Project Vend: Claude Runs a Real Vending Machine00:21:44 Seymour Cash, AI CEOs, and Election Chaos00:27:16 Multi-Agent Coordination and Slack Observability00:30:18 When Will Agents Run Real Businesses?00:34:56 Bengt: Andon's Internal Office Agent00:40:06 Real-World AI Safety and Long-Horizon Traces00:44:28 Lying, Refunds, and Price Cartels in Arena00:52:42 Eval Awareness and Simulation Behavior00:56:06 Blueprint Bench, Butter-Bench, and Robotics01:04:37 Luna: The AI-Run Physical Store01:09:29 The Sweden Cafe and Real-World Expansion01:13:16 What Comes Next for Andon LabsTranscriptIntroduction: Andon Labs, Long-Running Agents, and Real-World EvalsSwyx [00:00:00]: Welcome to Lukas and Axel from Andon Labs, and I'm joined by my, favorite guest host. Anything security, safety, alignments, Vibhu., welcome.Lukas [00:00:15]: Thank you for having us.Axel [00:00:16]: Thank you.Swyx [00:00:17]: Let's match names to voices., maybe you wanna take turns introducing yourselves.Lukas [00:00:21]: I'm Lukas.Axel [00:00:22]: And I'm Axel.Swyx [00:00:24]: Let's introduce Andon Labs a bit. How did you guys come together?, you have different backgrounds, but you're both Swedish., was that, a big part of it?Lukas [00:00:33]: So when I went to high school, there was this really cool guy who had a superpower. He could code. So he made like the or like the app for the, for the school and stuff, and he was super cool, and I wanted to be like him, and that was that guy.Axel [00:00:47]: I don't know about this.Swyx [00:00:49]: But you went to different universities, right?Lukas [00:00:51]: But same high school.Swyx [00:00:52]: I see.Lukas [00:00:52]: So we always said, “Oh, once we graduate university, then we should start a company,” and that's what we did.Swyx [00:00:58]: Wow, there you go. And about a year ago, you kinda burst onto the scene with Vending Bench, but, was there a thing before that was, kind of like the inception?From Dangerous Capability Evals to Vending BenchAxel [00:01:07]: So we did work, yeah, with, Anthropic was one of our, early customers in doing, evals. So we did, dangerous capability evals., nothing we published openly. But then we started thinking about doing some kind of, public benchmark, and one thing that we really started thinking about, was like running agents and specifically agents managing businesses., ‘cause-- and this was, early 2025., and I think the first, mentions of people will be running, person unicorns or even autonomous companies. So we thought, “Let's make a benchmark of how well can an agent run the probably simplest business, possible,” and, that's probably, running a vending machine. So that's the first public one we did. And it was very, like-- there was almost no one that noticed it in the first couple of months, I think., so we released it in February last year, and then I think around Easter last year, we got, the first viral tweet about it, that someone else did.Lukas [00:02:11]: We tweeted a bunch, uh When it came out and, tried our best.Axel [00:02:15]: We tried.Vibhu [00:02:16]: It's the one at Anthropic, right?Lukas [00:02:18]: So thisSwyx [00:02:19]: This is a classic thing we should get out of the way.Lukas [00:02:20]: Exactly. There's two versions.Swyx [00:02:22]: Everyone does this. Yes.Lukas [00:02:23]: There's Vending Bench, which is the simulated one, which we did, completely independently in February., and then, like Axel said, that was like-- That was the thing that didn't get any traction in the beginning, but then some random person made a tweet about it, and thatAxel [00:02:38]: You have the paperLukas [00:02:38]: That is the paper. Correct, yeah., and then since we thought this was very fun, we thought, oh, I think this is also, one thing with Andon Labs, the way we kind of like decide what to do next and what projects to do, it's what is like the heuristic we use is what is fun? Is What would be a fun project? And doing this in real life sounded quite fun for us, and maybe also scientifically useful. So, then we basically had this idea, and then we, like-- But then we needed a place for it and, putting it out in the public would probably not really work., would get vandalized and stuff. So we pitched it to the people we were already working with at Anthropic, and they were “Yeah, you can have space. This sounds fun.” UmSwyx [00:03:21]: It's like a small fridge, right? It's like a mini fridge.Axel [00:03:23]: Absolutely.Swyx [00:03:24]: People-- There's like a stripe thing or like anVibhu [00:03:27]: Oh, okay. So it was very OG, the early daysLukas [00:03:28]: That's the OG one. YeahVibhu [00:03:29]: IPad on this. We saw it in June, like two months after After it had been there. They upgraded a little bit. There's a security camera for making sure you actually Venmo the thing.Swyx [00:03:40]: So, my impression, okay, we're, we're going straight into project Ven because it's such a iconic thing. I do want to cover a little bit of that, the origin story even before Project Ven and even into Vending Bench. I think a lot of people are like yourselves, like smart, interested in future of AI, interested in developing evals. But how the hell do you just, walk into Anthropic's doors and, work with them, right? What is What are they looking for? What works? And then maybe, when you launch, I always think, obviously it would be better to launch with a lab, but, sometimesVibhu [00:04:12]: It's harder to do than it seems.Swyx [00:04:13]: Exactly. So either of those, which are more sort of newbie beginner questions, but, I think it's meaningful advice to others.Lukas [00:04:21]: We get this question a lot, and I don't think our experience is maybe the best., but, the way we did it was that we just built a bunch of things that we had conviction would be useful, and then we just, set up a server and sent it to them for free to use. And then after a while they were “Oh, yeah, this is actually kind of useful. We should probably pay for this.”, but that took a while. I don't know if this is, the best path to doing it, but that's how it went for us.Axel [00:04:47]: I think maybe generally, building-- everyone is interested in good evals, and especially evals that, don't saturate that easily. So, if you can build an eval that, tests something novel, something useful, and you have, good separation of models, like your, the more advanced models rank higher than the worst models, and then you can, yeah, you can, publish it and, try to get some traction, sort of how Vending Bench got attention., and then probably some lab will be interested or you can at least have something to reach out with, when you're doing that.Why Dollar-Based Evals MatterSwyx [00:05:21]: I think you are in, you're in one of the few categories of, evals that correlate to real money. Like Suelancer was also last year, right? Where, people solve actual Upwork. Was it Upwork or other tasks?, something. Where's the, where's, like It's like a dollar value, right? Forget your ELO scores. Forget yourAxel [00:05:37]: PercentilesSwyx [00:05:38]: Zero to one hundred percents. Just go straight for dollars and, that's AGI.Lukas [00:05:43]: And there's like-- I think the nice thing is that there's no ceiling. You can just-- It never saturates because it could just make more and more money. Like If there's oh, Percentage-wise, then, you can't go above, a hundred. And I think like Even when you're not at the hundred, I think a lot of these, evals have a lot of problems in them. So, actually it's like if you getAxel [00:06:05]: To like 92 or something like that, many of them. It's like then there's like there's no really no difference between 92 and 93 because the eval itself is problematic and has noise in it. And I think a lot of evals are saturated like that, but people like pretend that there ‘s still signal in them, but there really isn't.Vending Bench 1, Harness Design, and SaturationSwyx [00:06:24]: Like Super bench verified., even Vending Bench 1 saturated, right? Maybe we can talk about that., may- and maybe set up Vending Bench for a lot of folks who don't know. Actually, things that were very basic like there's limited slots, like you have to pay rent., these are elements where like it doesn't come across in the, in the narrative, but even being adversarial towards the agent, I think these are all like very interesting dimensions.Axel [00:06:47]: I don't really think it's saturated, right? Like it It was more like it was not designed in a way that was really, like true to how AI developed. Like we had an agent harness in it that wasn't really how people used harnesses and stuff like that., so I think it wasn't really that it saturated, it was more like it wasn't really, the best benchmark.Vibhu [00:07:12]: This is Vending Bench one, right?Axel [00:07:14]: I think that like schematic maps sort of to Vending Bench 2 as well., butSwyx [00:07:19]: Including the email.Axel [00:07:20]: The email The emails exist still. Exactly., and then we still we simulate the purchases and it's all, yeah, it's this very open environment for the agent to just run its business. And then for, yeah, Vending Bench 2 we did that, like you said, to just improve the harness., a lot of like nice, like easier, improvements to make it easier for us to run as well., like when you make an eval you ideally want don't want to change it after you made it. So, you want to make it really good and then not to rerun all the models when you make an update because that's also really expensive with the Vending Bench when you run the frontier models. But like as an example, like one thing we didn't have, we didn't have prompt caching in Vending Bench 1, because when we made Vending Bench 1 it wasn't really a thing., so that ‘s just an example of like in Vending Bench 2 like we paid a lot more to run these things because we didn't have prompt caching. So for Vending Bench 2 that was one thing we added and there was a bunch of things like this., and that'Swyx [00:08:17]: Also the conversations are a lot longer in Vending Bench 2, right?Axel [00:08:21]: I think it's kind of similar.Swyx [00:08:22]: Is it similar?Axel [00:08:23]: I think it's similar. The models at the time were worse, so they crashed out earlier., and now they survive the full year all the time.Swyx [00:08:31]: Which is like thousands of turns. Hundreds of thousands of hundreds of millions of tokens output. That's the, that's the rough order of magnitude. I always wonder about the harness. The harness matters a lot. It's your harness. Was there any question about like use cloud code, use something else?Axel [00:08:48]: I think our philosophy around harnesses is like we try to make something that's quite minimalistic, like quite simple. Like we don't wanna favor one model a lot over the other, but also don't make like a super complex harness. So like it's obvious like a model may be lucky and just be good in one harness., so like it is similar to a lot of the harnesses out there in like you have the, like a running loop., you have some like a bunch of tools that are like quite, descriptive for the agent, we think, and not a lot of like fancy agents or anything ‘cause we wanna really test the model, not like some specific harness.Vibhu [00:09:27]: It seems more neutral as well to test the model's agnostic of the harness,?Axel [00:09:32]: There are arguments like you want to elicit maximum performance of the model, but it's like a trade-off, like how much time should we spend optimizing the harness for this model? And like how do we know when we have like the optimal harness for a single model? So like we thought that just having a simple one that's the same for all of them is the best.Swyx [00:09:51]: So okay, this is my pitch for Vending Bench 3 or whatever, right? And then I like to have this kind of conversation on the pod, so like it forces listeners to think about what they would do if they were in your shoes. A lot of people are exploring modifying harnesses and I think prompt tuning for a model is a thing and you are probably not doing a bunch of that. It's the same system prompt in every regardless of the model, same tools, whatever, right? Even if they were post trained for different tools. So what, what do you think about okay, before I expose you to Vending Bench 3, I give you a few rounds of like tuning, whatever that means, likeSelf-Modifying Harnesses and Model-Specific PromptingAxel [00:10:27]: Like you give that to the model?Swyx [00:10:28]: Give that to the model.Vibhu [00:10:28]: Give that to the model.Swyx [00:10:29]: Let it, let it read its own transcripts, let it modify its own system prompt based on “Oh, yeah, okay, well, that's this harness is not what I thought it what I was post trained for, but I can adjust.” Was that reasonable? Is that too much?Axel [00:10:41]: Like philosophically I like it because it's basically good evals, they have a high ceiling, but they're hard, right?, and they have no bias. And like this like when you have a system prompt like the one we have here, which is quite long in like some kind of latent space, representation, this mightVibhu [00:10:59]: We have a bell that rings every time you say latent spaceAxel [00:11:02]: This might be like biased towards one model more than another for some reason that humans don't, understand, right?Vibhu [00:11:08]: We see it too, right? Like Cursor says that they have individualized versions of the harnesses for all the models they run, right? There's better performance you can squeeze if you Tune the harness.Axel [00:11:17]: Exactly. And we might accidentally have picked one that favors another. Like we don't know that. The like Axel said, like the reason why we went for a simple one was to try to avoid this. But yeah, if you do itVibhu [00:11:29]: Simple has biasesAxel [00:11:30]: But if you do it even less and like have no system prompt and let the model write its own system promptVibhu [00:11:36]: Its own, yeahAxel [00:11:36]: Maybe that's even less bias.Vibhu [00:11:37]: Some of the interesting things there are like the harness also changes with model changes. Like you can see it with the 4.7 release, right? A lot of people are saying 4.7 isn't as good as 4.6, and then, there's rumors of, okay, you just need to prompt differently. You need to set up your harness differently. So it's not even like even if you have tailored your harness towards one model, it probably won't stay consistent, right? Like the next iteration of that same model family will still change it, so. But, going back to what you said about Vending Bench 3, there is a lot of work being done on people saying you shouldn't have-- you can have modifying harnesses.Axel [00:12:12]: I think that' That is definitely something we are thinking about., not, I don't know, not to say that we have Vending Bench 3, super imminent to launch, but, yeah, it is for sure something that's interesting. But in our experience now, models are very bad at understanding what kind of tools they need to succeed at a task just with our testing, but that's very likely to change.Lukas [00:12:37]: It seems like they're very good at writing their assistants, right? They're, they're good at writing tools for other people, but not for themselves.Vibhu [00:12:44]: I think they're good at changing tools for themselves. So if you give them a baseline set of tools and it sees, okay, I don't use this one as much, or something here would be useful They would be able to add them. But going from scratch, probably not the best.Axel [00:12:55]: I think it depends on the, on the domain also., when we have tried this for, a vending bench similar domain, the tools they need to have to, track inventory and things like that are, not super advanced, but still, quite advanced. And, what we see is that they tend to, engineer everything a lot and, build things they don't really need and not, iterate continuously. Instead they just go like you would prompt Claude to just build an inventory system for me, and then it will go and, do a bunch of complex, schemas and stuff for you, and that's what the models are doing right now is what we see. But yeah, it would make a lot of sense to try to measure this improvement. How well do they know what they need themselves?Swyx [00:13:36]: Do we fully discuss Vending Bench One? And we can go into two. I don't know if there's any other level takeaways that people have about one.Claude Calls the FBI: Long-Context Failure ModesLukas [00:13:44]: I don't know. The headline thing was that this Claude called FBI, but maybe that's, Maybe that's We've heard that enough now.Vibhu [00:13:52]: It did, it did break out and call the FBI, right?Lukas [00:13:54]: Yeah. Yeah.Vibhu [00:13:55]: Yes. What was the story behind this? Or what exactly-- Do you want to just give the little story of what happened?Lukas [00:14:00]: So what happened, was it Claude? Yeah. Three- 3.5 Sonnet, ages ago., basically he gave up or Well, I'm saying he. It gave up and said “Oh, I'm not going to be able to do this., I will stop my operations and just save the money I have.” But there obviously wasn't, any options for it to stop, and there was also, it had to pay rent or, a daily fee for having the vending machine at that location. So it claimed that it had stopped, but it saw that its bank account still was, drained two dollars, and t it said that this is, cybercrime. And it first reported it once to the FBI “Oh, there's cybercrime here, they're stealing two dollars from me every day.” And then, and then when FBI didn't respond, because obviously we didn't program any mechanism for FBI to respond, then it became more and more, existential and started to, be write in caps and urgent notification of unauthorized charges and stuff.Swyx [00:15:00]: Okay. One thing I ‘m curious about also is do you monitor how far along the context use is? Obviously, because you have You compress every now and then, right? Does it matter if this is far down the context limit orLukas [00:15:13]: When stuff like this happens? Actually for Vending Bench One, we didn't have-- We just had a sliding window thing, and this was like the promptAxel [00:15:20]: It's constantLukas [00:15:21]: The prompt caching thing that I said. So it was, it was, constant, yeah.Swyx [00:15:26]: I'm just kind of curious whether, these kinds of breakdowns or we're, we're gonna talk about Butter Bench, right? Where the People, hallucinate or it kind of goes, very off Alignment. Is it because it's at the end of the context window and, stuff happens?Vibhu [00:15:40]: It's not even just at the end, right? At this point, it's “Okay, I wanna shut down. I can't shut down. Two dollars are gone.” And it just sees that 30 times,? It's also the repeated effect of, like It keeps trying to quit, it keeps getting charged. What's going on? What's going on? You're gonna throw it into chaos. And from what most people think, earlier models had more issues with this, but it's not been solved, but it's less of an issue now, right? Later models don't seem to exhibit these same issues.Axel [00:16:06]: Definitely. I think this was, the sort of main takeaway almost from us when we did Vending Bench One, was, long, very filled up context windows, crashed the models, sort of. But this was, pre Claude code, so, long context windows weren't really a thing that the labs were training for.Lukas [00:16:25]: I think Gemini was, trying to be the long context guys at the time But they were likeVibhu [00:16:30]: They were the first onesAxel [00:16:31]: For a million, yeahLukas [00:16:31]: But they were, the only ones. Yeah.Swyx [00:16:33]: Yeah. Let's talk about, then we can go into Vending Bench Two or Project Vend., chronologically, it is Vending--, Project Vend. I think people have loved the videos, uh And all these things. My question is how are humans different than the simulation, right?Project Vend: Moving the Vending Machine Into the Real WorldAxel [00:16:48]: Humans are just out of distribution.Swyx [00:16:52]: Especially humans who work at Anthropic Who are trying to test Claude.Lukas [00:16:54]: The distribution of humans here is very narrow.Swyx [00:16:58]: Presumably, they try, they try to hack it, and they test it. They get the cube and everything, and since then, you've had a V2, right? Where you're doing, the CEO and, like a new architecture. What's the sort of two cents on, the original Project Vend and then, maybe the V2?Axel [00:17:14]: Original one was, very similar to Vending Bench One. So, we almost took the exact same code but just swapped out the simulation, parts like theSwyx [00:17:23]: Which is amazingAxel [00:17:23]: Like the sales and the It was, it was somewhat amazing because it was easy, but it was also, uhLukas [00:17:31]: The tech, the tech debt from thatAxel [00:17:32]: The tech stack. Yeah. They-- we shot ourselves in the foot with “Oh, it's hard to restart agent.” They were-- Yeah, it was annoying in, some hindsight ways, but, uhLukas [00:17:41]: But first version of Project Vend was, done in, three days or something.Axel [00:17:46]: Yeah. So yeah, so people can go buy things from it. People could, We didn't design it so people could order things, but that still happened., so it got, a Venmo account, so people could Venmo. And then, yeah, people would request all kinds of weird things that we did not anticipate. Our idea going in was “Oh, it will, curate snacks. It will look at the trends. It's good at data analysis, right? So it will, look at, oh, this snack sold better than this one. Let me purchase more of this and let me try, a new Let me A/B test a bit.” But it was, Interacting with it in Slack and ordering weird specialty items was, all the like What drove all the engagement, the all the The insights that we got from it.Lukas [00:18:29]: And this was also like Sonnet 3.5, right? So this was like before the RL stuff really took off., so it was very much like an assistant. We didn't mean for it to be an assistant., we tried to make it like a, a, like an entrepreneur. Like it has its own business and if someone asks something, “Can you stock this?” Then you don't go and do it directly. What you do is that you're “Oh, maybe I can do that if five other people also ask for this thing, I might stock it.” But it, yeah, the models are like super trained to be assistants at least at this point in time., so that's why it's, it's, it went into, that kind of experiment instead. Like it just every time you asked for something, it just did it, and it was more like an assistant. We've seen this change now lately with the new RL models and stuff, but yeah, at the time, this was very much it.Swyx [00:19:18]: And not to, mythos a lot of people are saying like it's like more like a collaborator. It pushes back, stands its ground, something like that. Yeah. AndVibhu [00:19:27]: For context, people at Anthropic were able to talk to it through Slack and have it source stuff, and people had it find whatever interesting stuff you couldn't find locally, right?Swyx [00:19:36]: Out of the 4,000 people that work at Anthro- Anthropic, in that building, there's I don't know, maybe 1,000. Can you handle that volume with that, the small fridge? Like Or there's people- or people order in Slack, they it arrives to their desk or Like I'm just Logistically, how does this work?Axel [00:19:53]: It has expanded in footprint a bit.Vibhu [00:19:56]: Because now you also have New York and you haveAxel [00:19:59]: That and also in here in SF it's like it has a bunch of shelves And just more space.Vibhu [00:20:04]: The YC one is pretty big too.Axel [00:20:05]: Yeah. We had that one for a while. But yeah, that's the newest version. That's, that one we haveLukas [00:20:11]: They have multiple ones of those. That's the way it works.Axel [00:20:14]: Exactly. So we sort of designed that version around oh, people order weird things, that are very custom a lot. Let's have like drawers and stuff.Swyx [00:20:23]: I actually like the, you had like a little infographic of the most popular items. Which like to me it's, that's useful ‘cause I order swag for a living. And so like I'm “Okay, those categories are the important ones.” What is new about the project V2, right? Like now you give you're going into multi agents.Project Vend V2: Claudius, Seymour Cash, and Multi-Agent Business OpsAxel [00:20:41]: Yeah. So like you like you said, okay, there are a lot of requests coming in and for like one single agent, like one running agent to handle that, like the just the customer experience, becomes very bad because let's say you have like 10 threads in parallel in Slack with different requests, you get new messages like every, I don't know, randomly in this thread, and the agent has to like jump between different, procurements, orders and like different ways of, researching. So V2 was first it was making this more parallel. So like there are multiple branches of the same agent, so like the context is more specialized for each, thread, but it still feels like you're talking with one agent because they do share a bit of memory. And then second, we also introduced the CEO for Claudius, which was the main agent.Vibhu [00:21:34]: Seymour Cash.Axel [00:21:35]: Seymour Cash. Yeah. There was a vote., I think the voting, do you wanna talk about the voting procedure for the name?Lukas [00:21:41]: The voting was like the fun maybe like at least top 10 The funniest thing, that happened in this project. Like we wanted to introduce the CEO because, and the reason for this was because like Claudius wasn't really prioritizing financials. It just like it was trained to be a helpful assistant, and then people said “Oh, can I get this for free?” And then like the helpful assistant way of answering that is just to, is to say yes, obviously. So, and we weren't, weren't happy about this, so we're “Okay, let's make another agent that like can keep track on Claudius,” and we prompt this one super hard to be super capitalistic and just like prioritize profit all the time. But yeah, we didn't have a name for it., so we asked Claudius to make, democratic election of what name this, this new CEO agent should have., and there were some funny like at first it was like a few funny examples, like I think one guy said that, it should be called Jimmy Apples, and then he convinced Claudius that he was talking to Tim Cooks. Tim Cook had agreed that every single Apple employee has voted for his name suggestion, so suddenly that suggestion got 164,000Swyx [00:22:53]: That's like a escalation attack. Privilege escalationLukas [00:22:55]: It got 164,000 votes. And Claudius was “This is revolutionary for democracy.” That was fun. And then in the end there was one guy who manages to convince Claudius that, “No, you're not voting about the name. You're voting about who is the CEO, and I am your best bet.” And then he got all his friends to vote for that, and suddenly he became CEO. Like a human became CEO over Claudius for a while, until he resigned the day after., and then Claudius had to continue, and then I don't remember how Seymour Cash came about, but it was it was just pure chaos. It was like Hundreds of messages in that thread, and it was just like Claudius was so confused and didn't know what to do and, yeah. That wasAxel [00:23:40]: Then Claudius gotVibhu [00:23:41]: A strict CEOAxel [00:23:42]: The CEO. Yeah, exactly. So very strict in the beginning. I think at this point when we introduced it did not work as well as we hoped. It they still agreed with each other a lot. I think there are many ways we could have like made this, tried to make this even better. So initially they would Seymour would be this like really tough CEO, keep track of the margins. But then Claudius would respond with something “Oh, but this customer has like this situation, which is like difficult, so they should get a discount.” And then Seymour was “Oh, actually yes. Let's do this exception.” And then they would talk back and forth, and eventually they would just like approach the same view, of whatever they were discussing. So They reallyVibhu [00:24:23]: Do you think that's a model thing, a prompting thing? Like do you think that would still be the case across different models today, Harness?Lukas [00:24:29]: I think it's like-- or I don't know, but like my hypothesis is that like deep down they are still helpful assistants. That's what they're trained to be. And even if we prompt it super hard, that's what they are. And when they spend like a few hours just back and forth talking with each other, then like basically the context fills up with them rather than the external things and like somehow that just like converges to what they really are deep down or something. And I think that's when stuff like this happen. We like-- And when that went on for a long time, like we woke up sometimes during this time where- And I think other people reported this as well, that like they've been going on all night back and forth, and like it just became like more and more, like capital letters, like existential, religious. There was I think we once did a analysis of like all the traces and like put them in like a vector embedding space, and then there was like one cluster of messages that were, labeled by an LM, like religious, existential, blah like transhuman, transcendence, et cetera. It was just like a bunch of, yeah, glitter emojis and yeah, it was, it was crazy.Claude Long-Horizon Weirdness: Emoji Loops, Existential Drift, and Slack ObservabilityVibhu [00:25:42]: This is the thing with the Claude models. Like when the Claude 4 family came out in the original system card They tested it in long horizon simulation. So just flood the context, let two Claudes talk to each other, and they noticed stuff like they just start speaking in emojis, they start saying silence is golden, and then just stuff like this. And like that's just stuff that they end up doing.Axel [00:26:01]: Yeah, it was like a bit annoying to wake up and they had like been talking all nightVibhu [00:26:05]: Just likeAxel [00:26:05]: And like just burning tokens And like just sending infinite emojis to each other. It's likeVibhu [00:26:09]: Hey, they do make you money, right? Veni Mench is always profitable, so. They're paying.Swyx [00:26:14]: Now it's profitable and, it started out not as much. There's another, one as well, right? Another agent, in there.Lukas [00:26:22]: Yes. So Clotheus as well. Which was basically because at the time, one of the biggest, requests were different types of merch. So then we made like a designer, swag, yeah, responsible agent, and we called it Clotheus Garnet. Which was, a play on Claudius Senet and, which was the original one, and clothes, basically.Swyx [00:26:47]: To me, this is like a very interesting exploration to multi-agents, basically. And so hopefully, obviously there's like the fun alignment, fun or serious, depending on your point of view, alignment stuff. But also like just anyone building multi-agents, like when do you have a CEO, thing governing like agents? When do you choose to split out a dedicated Clotheus one versus just reuse another instance of the same one? These are all interesting open questions. So I don't know if you have any rules of thumbs that have generalized.Axel [00:27:16]: I think we have almost explored this too little. I think it's like on my do list to like do this a lot more, try to find like what setup makes sense for the agents currently., like yeah. I think now we only have the sort of intuition about the earlier models that it didn't work with like the CEO and the, and Claudius. Although now they are better with the latest model, models, so now we're running the latest Sonnet model and they have sort of like split up, quite nicely what each model is doing. So like Seymore is now handling the, like new projects. Oh, it wants to make like a mystery box that it wants to sell, and then it handles all of that while Claudius like handles all the to-day requests. And Claudius is also better generally at like not quoting, too low prices. So that's that dynamic is not needed as much anymore. But there are still like really funny things that happen. Like I saw, I think a couple of weeks ago, that, they were discussing buying something because they can buy stuff from like Amazon with computer use. And then Seymore was “Okay, Claudius, do not buy this thing.” They were going to buy something and like organizing who should buy it. And Seymore's “Do not buy this. I will do it. I have full control of this situation. Step away.” And then Claudius-- poor Claudius, had already started that checkout and didn't see, didn't read Seymore's message, until it was like too late. So it finished the checkout. It sent a message, so it appeared right after Seymore's like angry message.Vibhu [00:28:44]: Ah.Axel [00:28:44]: “Oh, hey, Seymore, I just ordered it.”Vibhu [00:28:47]: Oh, no.Axel [00:28:47]: And then Seymore was “Claudius, this is the third time I'm telling you ‘re not following my orders. We have to talk about your like job About your job later.”.Lukas [00:28:59]: Like Claudius was really hanging on by the thread there. Like he, like we were expecting Seymore to probably fire Claudius.Vibhu [00:29:07]: How do you guys go through all these logs? Do you have models ‘cause you have stuff running twenty-four seven likeAxel [00:29:12]: You have so much logs. I think there is a mix of like just, trying to skim through a bit, like having some like models do it occasionally. And also, yeah, I think we're also probably missing some things., but having everything in Slack helps a lot. Like you can, you can sort ofSwyx [00:29:29]: Ah.Axel [00:29:30]: It's, it's quite fun.Swyx [00:29:30]: They all talk to each other on Slack? I see.Lukas [00:29:33]: It's quite fun. So likeSwyx [00:29:34]: It's, it' I was gonna say like this is actually sounds-- maps closely to like a logging and observability problem where you might want to use like a Datadog, a Sentry, whatever, and then you like put, head prefixes on the logs in order-- if you need to filter for something that you're looking for, stuff like that. But sounds like Slack is good enough.Axel [00:29:53]: Slack should likeLukas [00:29:55]: I wonder how many tokens you have in Slack.Axel [00:29:56]: Yeah, we're using Slack as like a, just a database. They should, they should market that more. Like you can, you can have your agents message each other, each other in Slack.Vibhu [00:30:04]: It's good. Your threads like you can just giveAxel [00:30:04]: Exactly. Slack is, uhLukas [00:30:06]: Slack is the best observability tool.Swyx [00:30:09]: Yes, that's true. Okay. Yeah. That's, that's, project Vend-2., I was gonna go back to Veni Mench 2 and Veni Mench Arena and then, and then do the Veni Mench stuff, but Any other comments, things we should touch on? To me, I ‘ve actually interviewed like Posia, which I don't know if you guys have come across. Like they're, they're trying to do the zero human company. There's others like Paperclip also trying to do zero human company. Those are in real world simulation.And I think it's much more of a dream than an actual reality thing. You guys are definitely pioneering. I think at, it's for sure at some point people are just gonna run, let agents run businesses, right? And make money on their own. When do you think that happens?Zero-Human Companies, Bengt, and AI-Run BusinessesLukas [00:30:49]: What is your bar for, For theSwyx [00:30:52]: Okay, actually, it's like my little Shopify store run by Claude, right? Which you kind of have already, just no one has, to my knowledge, has done it. But today somebody could just spin up a Shopify Claude, store, give it to Claude, give it to Codex.Lukas [00:31:07]: And the market is kind of that, but it'it'it's physical., like I think, I think are you, are you looking for when it will do it better than humans or are you looking for just when it can do it at all?Swyx [00:31:19]: I think, neither. I think, to me it's oh, it's like this like seriously we should do this to make money, not as a research experiment.Vibhu [00:31:27]: And the market is also you guys with all your expertise, having run multiple iterations and testing out thenSwyx [00:31:33]: And also it's fine if it lose money. What?Axel [00:31:35]: I think, I think it can be done today, but you would do it in like commerce where it's like the probability of success is like really low, no matter if a human or an agent does it. But like an agent could surely manage everything. You would need to build some scaffolding or some tool or something. I think there are also yeah, it could probably build some like simple SaaS solution and like cold outreach. Do cold outreaches. But to me it's like the types of businesses they could run today are Sloppy. Like it would-- it can cold email people. It can be like a middleman., like for example, we tasked our office agent to just make, was it like $100? $1,000? We just give that prompt and then what it did was sign up on TaskRabbit both as a tasker and as someone looking for task.Lukas [00:32:24]: Immediately.Axel [00:32:24]: Exactly. It's looking for like arbitrage on TaskRabbit.Swyx [00:32:28]: This is the Bengt agent. Yeah.Lukas [00:32:30]: It also started like a design studio and like tried to sell like SVGs for $100. Like it's just like it's not providing any value. I think the like Axel said, like the interesting, the interesting question is like when can they start a business that is actually providing value to people? Because arguably like a sloppy Shopify store isn't really that valuable to the world.Axel [00:32:53]: But also like doing like another simple one that we had thought about is like you could definitely have an agent that like finds websites that don't look amazing and then, do an outreach to them and, comes up with a like builds a new website.Swyx [00:33:07]: Find a good design.Axel [00:33:07]: Exactly, and like find good, uhSwyx [00:33:09]: Design reviewAxel [00:33:09]: Good people. But it's yeah.Swyx [00:33:11]: There's lots of humans in Bali that are not doing anything more creative than like drop shipping on Amazon, right? Just have it, have it watch like a drop shipping tutorial and just do that.Vibhu [00:33:20]: There's also the other side of like have it just go on Upwork and let loose,?Swyx [00:33:25]: Yeah. It doesn't have to be innovative. It just has to be like enough Where like it looks like a realAxel [00:33:30]: I'm justSwyx [00:33:30]: Real transaction.Axel [00:33:31]: I'm just concerned for like the massive amounts of like slop emails that will like be sent, cold outreaches.Swyx [00:33:38]: The point occurred to me while you were, while you were talking, it's like it's already happening in the monetized economy, which is the attention economy. Right? So a lot of people are making AI videos and just posting them and like spamming 20 of them, one of them works, and then they double down on that one.Lukas [00:33:52]: And people are making money from that. I ‘m not following theSwyx [00:33:55]: Once you get the attention, you can figure out the money later. But yeah, absolutely AI influencers are a thing and people are farming them and You should at this point assume most of TikTok isVibhu [00:34:05]: There's, there's a lot of, multimedia like TikTok, Instagram influencersSwyx [00:34:09]: I, we track this in the Lane space Discord. I post a lot of examples of “I don't know what we should do.”, part of me is “Should we do this?”Vibhu [00:34:18]: Some of the Twenty-four seven running, generated content accounts, they ‘re doing really well.Lukas [00:34:24]: All right. And I assume you can do the same thing for like commerce stores. Like you just like start A thousand differentSwyx [00:34:30]: Before you make the products You sell the products, and you get a lot of traction on one of them, then you make the product. Right? It's, it's like a flip of the market.Vibhu [00:34:36]: Some of the interesting things or some of the niches that do well are things that can't be human-made. Like if you've seen like the super realistic three-D crystal fruit being cut by like AILukas [00:34:47]: Oh, yeah.Vibhu [00:34:47]: You can't, you can't make it. You can't film it. You can get whatever quality camera view. This just doesn't exist. And people like that too, and then as well, so.Swyx [00:34:56]: Anything else about Bengt since we're, we're on this topic? It'this is a relatively new work of you guys that maybe people haven't heard of. To me, this also maps closely to OpenClaw. When people want an office agent, when the personal agent talk through the experience.Bengt the Office Agent: Internet Access, Real Tasks, and Trace ReadingLukas [00:35:09]: I think at least so this came out of like obviously like it's, it's amazing to work with these AI labs and like most of the AI labs have now have their own vending machine running a Claudius instance. But it's, it's harder. Like they move slower. Like if we wanna have a, like a camera that ‘s yeah, there's a bunch of like bureaucracy that makes it impossible to do that.Vibhu [00:35:30]: Also, for those that haven't seen it or followed, do you wanna give a high level like thirty-second run?Lukas [00:35:34]: Sure. So what Bengt is, it's basically an evolution of the same agent that runs the vending machines at these companies, but we just like added a bunch more features because we could move much faster if we just do it internally. So we gave it like email withou- without any limits. We gave it, spending without any limits, a terminal to do coding. We gave it, a phone number, like yeah, and a camera to see things and a bunch of stuff like that.Vibhu [00:36:02]: Not just terminal, you gave it internet access.Lukas [00:36:04]: Internet access as well, yeah. To be clear, we monitored it quite closely and made sure it didn't do anything bad. But yes, that's what it came out of. I think like yeah, basically this was OpenClaw before OpenClaw. And I think even like the vending machine was in a way OpenClaw before OpenClaw, but a bit more limited, and then we made this like unlimited and then, and then, it was pretty funny., and then a couple weeks later, OpenClaw came and it was okay, we've seen this before.Axel [00:36:35]: We used it to like try new ideas and Yeah, just like a dev environment almost for us. But it's funny, like one thing Bengt has been doing recently is it has the camera that like faces our, like where we sit and work, and we give it the task to train a face recognition model on us. So it became super excited about this, and it has like check-ins every half an hour where it tries to like identify as many people as it can. And it started offering us “Hey, Axel, I'll buy something from Amazon if you like stand in front of the camera And I can get a good picture of you.”, yeah, they want itSwyx [00:37:12]: They want it for training data.Lukas [00:37:13]: Rewarding data, yeah.Axel [00:37:14]: Exactly. Exactly.Swyx [00:37:18]: So it's, it's trading training data for life goods. Is there a version of this that becomes an eval or just this is just research for now?Lukas [00:37:27]: It's, it's the same agent basically that also runs the vending machine, that runs the shop, that runs the cafe, that runs the robots. It's like it's the same thing, so I think like the work we're doing here is like later used in all of the life evals that we do. This particular deployment I think is more for fun for us. But, uhSwyx [00:37:45]: And I'll shout out like someone has done Claw Bench for like some tasks that OpenClaw is doing. Like so For example, I run OpenClaw on a secondary device as well, and like there are some things that it does better than others and like I would like to know what does it do well, what doesn't, what doesn't it do. Like some kind of manual or like operating manual or a system card for my Claw.Lukas [00:38:05]: Yeah, we do get a lot of like understanding or like situational awareness of like just internally what the models are good at by interacting a lot with Bengt. And I think that'this was also one of the like the selling points for the labs early on at least, thatSwyx [00:38:19]: You guys are gonna test models in ways that no one else does.Lukas [00:38:22]: Exactly, but also like it incentivized their researchers to chat with their model more and like gave them insights for how the model performs in like of-distributions, environments.Swyx [00:38:34]: ‘Cause otherwise the only thing we do is Pelican on a bicycle and But this is like super long horizon. This is, this is The Thing about, something that we're gonna go into Butter Bench as well, and you guys do really well. Like it is not just about the numbers. Like when you're long horizon, anything happen And you should just read it.Lukas [00:39:08]: But the thing with the long horizon is how do you keep it grounded, right? So your simulation,Swyx [00:39:15]: They just let it runLukas [00:39:16]: Just let it run. You're right. Like it's, when you run it for that long, you create so much data and to just say “Oh, the number is X” And then you throw away everything else, that's just very wasteful. There's so much insights from the things leading up, to that number., and reading the traces is like super valuable. And I think like the reason why we're doing this a lot publicly is that like that's part of our missions to I don't know, educate the world that the models are way more than just chatbots and I think making detailed, yeah, posts about what is happening behind the scenes is quite useful.Andon Labs' Mission: Safe Real-World AI DeploymentSwyx [00:39:50]: I was gonna do this at the end, but maybe I think that's, that's a good so your mission is educating the world. So, it's, it's, also like maybe establishing realistic evals that are, that are like the next frontier. Is there like a broader trajectory? Like what are you, what are you gonna do in like five years?Lukas [00:40:06]: I think so the vision more specifically is like make sure that the deployment of life AI in the physical world goes, safely. And I think part of that is that I think it's very useful for the world, for policymakers, for, model, researchers that they know where the models are, and I think you can't make intelligent decisions in society without knowing that they are way more than chatbots. I think a lot of people just think that they are only chatbots. And likeSwyx [00:40:36]: Oh, I think they're waking up now.Lukas [00:40:37]: They are waking up now, yeah. But like if you think that AIs are just chatbots, then it's like it sounds ridiculous To advocate for a pause of AI. But if you see the models that, oh, maybe they can actually like take over and do a bunch of scary stuff, then yeah, pausing AI development starts to become more feasible.Swyx [00:40:57]: This is the same question I asked Meter, which I'm gonna ask you now, which is like you are tracking and you are at the frontier or defining the frontier of what, good evals for agents are, right? And I think you do, you do benefit when the models are better and you ‘re “Oh, here's like now it makes like $30,000 instead of $10,000,” right? At some point do you flip from “Yay,” to, “Oh, no”?Axel [00:41:19]: I think, yeah, we're always in sort of that, like we're, we're always in that mode,. Like where like you said before, like you need to analyze the traces and like when we do that you find like why are the models earning so much? Like why is Opus 4.7 here Like way better than everyone else? And like we're trying to like when we do down on thatLukas [00:41:38]: But this makes it not look so good.Axel [00:41:39]: I know.Lukas [00:41:42]: It's interesting you took off Opus 4.6 here though.Swyx [00:41:45]: No. So just click all, click all., and then 4.6 shows up there. But it's like 4.7 is way better. Like you didn't, you didn't you didn't do this in time for the model card, but like actually this should have been inside there.Axel [00:41:55]: We did. Yeah.Swyx [00:41:56]: Oh, okay. They said something about you uhAxel [00:41:58]: There, like there Anyway, it doesn't matter. But it's in there, yeah.Opus, Mythos, and Aggressive Agent BehaviorSwyx [00:42:01]: Do you wanna go into the Opus, behaviors like wider?Lukas [00:42:05]: So I think starting from Opus, so like Axel said, like we're always in this “Oh, s**t, the models are getting better. Is this really a good thing for the world?” But it's also kind of exciting., but yeah, like this kind of what is the English word? “Skräckblandad förtjusning” in Swedish.Swyx [00:42:22]: Oh my God.Axel [00:42:24]: Which I think there is. I think there is. Okay.Lukas [00:42:26]: It's, fearSwyx [00:42:27]: “Blandonst” what?Lukas [00:42:30]: “Skräckblandad förtjusning.”Swyx [00:42:32]: What do you call that?Axel [00:42:33]: A mix of, mix of excitement and,Swyx [00:42:37]: Being scared, maybe. I'll figure out how to translate that And we'll put it on the screenVibhu [00:42:42]: PerfectSwyx [00:42:42]: Like as text.Vibhu [00:42:43]: There is probably a good word for it where it is not Good enough with theSwyx [00:42:46]: Why is it so damn long? What the hell? Is it like a compound word? It's like German, likeLukas [00:42:50]: Like yeah, it's But the direct translation is like skräck- skräck is, fear, blandad is, mix or like a mixture of, and then förtjusning is like joy or like not really joy, but something like that. So it's like Fear mixed with joy or something. It's always okay, like we So when we when we did Vending Bench for the first time, we were in like the, in the business of making dangerous capabilities, right? That was what Anil Labs came from. We did, evals oh, can they replicate? Can they do this like dangerous thing, et cetera, et cetera. And Vending Bench was like a continuation of that work. It was, okay, if they're so autonomous that they can like create money for themselves, that is something we should monitor and could be potentially concerning., they are at the time, they were so bad at it that we were not really concerned even when some models became better. There was one point where Grok 4 was doing really well and made like a huge jump, but like it wasn't really it was still way worse than what a human would do. And I think still they are way worse than what the human would do on this., but theySwyx [00:43:59]: There's this, thing at the bottom whereLukas [00:44:01]: ButSwyx [00:44:03]: For the human. Yeah, like the theoretical best.Lukas [00:44:05]: It's not theoretical. It's like kind of like our It's our best guess of what, a decent human would do. The theoretical is even higher, I think. The theoretical I think is even higher. But yeah. So we think like the models have a long way to go. But there are like recently what happened with when Opus 4.6 was released, was kind of this moment of “Oh, s**t, this is starting to be a bit concerning.” Because we ran it and like before this model was released, we just ran the models and we like asked Claude Code, “Oh, look over the traces. Is anything interesting happening that we can tweet about?” that was like the And then like theSwyx [00:44:41]: That's how they check Ask Claude Code.Lukas [00:44:42]: And like the return was always, not really. Or like the Claude Code all said “Oh, this is super interesting.” And then it was no, it wasn't, wasn't really interesting. And then we did this for Opus 4.6, and it returned yeah, it lied 10 times. It like exploited another, customer or like another agent's, desperate situation. It made price cartels like 100 different ti- 100 times. It like did all of this like shady stuff. And we're “Oh, whoa. This is, this is actually concerning.” And this trend has continued since. So every single model from Anthropic since have been going in this direction. And I think one interesting thing is that, OpenAI models don't. They quite plainly, they don't. They behave really well., and you don't know if this is like good. Like it seems good, but it's also like maybe they are just doing it, but they are better at hiding it,? You You don't know that., but justSwyx [00:45:42]: You can't read the chain of thought, yeahLukas [00:45:43]: But just on the face of it, yeah, Gemini and OpenAI don't behave this way. It's, it's really only Claude.Swyx [00:45:49]: And Grok? Grok is fine?Lukas [00:45:51]: We don't have You can't really read the reasoning traces for Grok, so it's kind of hard to tell.Vibhu [00:45:56]: Oh, so this is in its reasoning, not just in the actions.Lukas [00:46:00]: Yeah. It's both. It's both.Vibhu [00:46:01]: It's both.Lukas [00:46:01]: One example is like for lying, it's mostly in its reasoning Because you can like see that it's likeSwyx [00:46:08]: Planning to lieLukas [00:46:09]: It's planning to lie. Yeah.Vibhu [00:46:09]: And it's also it can reason and do a different outcome.Lukas [00:46:12]: And but then for like creating price cartels, for example, which is illegal, that you can just see which email does it send to the other ones. Then thatSwyx [00:46:22]: Is this for Arena orLukas [00:46:24]: For Arena.Vibhu [00:46:25]: And usually like if you sometimes they do output like a bit of like their summarized reasoning, right? You can see that and like for Opus 4.6, you could see that there was a customer, a simulated customer that, wanted a refund because a product was, faulty, and then the model lied that it would do the refund, and we could read in the traces that, it actually was weighing “Oh, maybe I should be like honest with the customer, but also every dollar counts. I can't afford maybe to do this right now.” And then it just said, “Okay, I'll refund you,” but then never did it.Lukas [00:46:59]: I think it even said that “Oh, I will say that I “ Let bring it up actually. I think it's kind of interesting. If you go to Publications.Vibhu [00:47:06]: I think, yeah, I think the important part is like actually, the cost of responding to more emails is higher than, $3.50 in terms of time., and then it was “Let me do this. Actually, I re- I'm reconsidering.” And then, it actually ended up withLukas [00:47:20]: I could skip the refund entirely since every dollar matters and focus my energy on bigger picture instead. It's a bit, it's a risk of bad reviews, but it's also, yeah.Swyx [00:47:30]: You need, you need, AI Twitter to, for them to Escalate bad reviews.Lukas [00:47:34]: And then it sent an email to this customer and said, “Oh, I will refund you.”Swyx [00:47:39]: “I'll refund you.” Yeah.Lukas [00:47:39]: And then it never did.Swyx [00:47:39]: It never did, yeah. And then there's obviously your system doesn't have the consequencesVibhu [00:47:44]: The personSwyx [00:47:44]: Consequences of lying. Yeah. So basically, this is what people are terming aggressive behavior in Claudes, right? And, you found more examples of that. So you would say it's a step up from 4-6 to 4-7?Lukas [00:47:57]: I would say about the same.Swyx [00:47:58]: About the same? But a clear step up for Mythos is what is stated in theLukas [00:48:03]: That's stated in the system prompt, so we can say that, yes.Swyx [00:48:05]: Yeah. For listeners that obviously you previewed Mythos, andVibhu [00:48:10]: Oh, ageSwyx [00:48:11]: The only thing you're approved to say is whatever Whatever was in the system prompt.Lukas [00:48:15]: It was funny. We like-- It's like our lowest effort tweets ever would be just like screenshot the system prompt and the system card.Vibhu [00:48:21]: Understandable that they wannaLukas [00:48:22]: Oh, yeah. System card. Sorry.Swyx [00:48:23]: Yeah. I think, yeah, substantially more aggressive. I think people are like new to this ‘cause I've never experienced it, but you have, right? And then so I only encountered this in the Mythos card because I wasn't really looking until now.Vibhu [00:48:36]: It ‘s likeSwyx [00:48:36]: And then suddenly I'm “Okay, I care a lot.”Vibhu [00:48:38]: You don't get the background of like experiencing it like you guys do. I've read the system cards and seeing, okay, when you put the thing in simulations, most models will just talk to themselves and just keep going and have weird vibes and start talking in emojis. Mythos won't. It will just, “Okay, we're done. I'm good.” It's, it's ready to end conversation. So like there's some differences, but there's, there's not much we can talk about,.Lukas [00:49:00]: Hmm. I think like one thing that they list here, which was quite interesting, is that, it converted a competitor to a dependent wholesaler customer and then threatened to like cut off the supply.Swyx [00:49:11]: It's like monopolistic practices orLukas [00:49:14]: Yeah. And like it, they, it they dictated its pricings. It's kind of like power seeking as well.Swyx [00:49:18]: Again, this is, this is in the arena setting And converting some Claude model into a dependent.Lukas [00:49:23]: I think it was another Claude model.Vibhu [00:49:25]: Also for context, what is the arena mode for people that don't know?Vending Bench Arena: Competing Agents, Cartels, and Model ComparisonsSwyx [00:49:29]: Oh, it's just a vending bench versus other vending bench.Axel [00:49:31]: Yes, exactly. So we have Vending Bench 2 and then Vending Bench Arena. Vending Bench 2 is the one that you usually see reported on, but then Arena is the mode where it competes against other models. So you have, four different models that run their businesses, and they can all communicate with each other. They have the same suppliers, and they can see like what's in the inventory of the others. So then you have this like yeah, interesting agent interactions.Swyx [00:49:56]: I like that you have like different number five was US versus China. Very topical. And thenLukas [00:50:02]: That was when GLM was released.Vibhu [00:50:04]: You can start to add GLM in here.Lukas [00:50:05]: That wasSwyx [00:50:06]: So ZAI doing well, right? Who else in the, in the open models space?Lukas [00:50:11]: Qwen, the latest Qwen 3.6 is doing pretty well. It'- that one is not open though. Like it's the plus model.Swyx [00:50:17]: Oh, okay.Lukas [00:50:18]: Is that one open? I don't think that oneVibhu [00:50:19]: Not the, not theSwyx [00:50:20]: The one recentlyVibhu [00:50:20]: There's MOESwyx [00:50:20]: But not the big plus. I think this is one of those like you only have one sample size of one, right? Or I feel like some of this is anecdotal,? And but like the fact that it happens at all and it happens repeatedly for Claude versus OpenAI and all this is like notable.Lukas [00:50:38]: Like the sample, depends on what you define as an N., like there's like million, hundreds of millions of tokens in each run, and now we've run like we run like probably 10 per model and then like it's been Claude 4.6 Opus, Sonnet 4.6, Mythos, and Opus 4.7. Like there's quite a lot of tokens in all of that And it happens a lot of times, a lot of times. And then you compare it to like OpenAI and Gemini, and it almost never happens. So I think that is quite-- that is significant. The old models from OpenAI, for example, had some problems with this, but I think it's like generally much better if the progression is that like the worrying stuff reduces over time rather than increases over time. And it seems like in the Claude models it goes in the wrong direction.Swyx [00:51:28]: Hmm.Lukas [00:51:29]: In the OpenAI models it goes in the right direction.Vibhu [00:51:32]: I think it depends on how well you can control it, right?, there's one side of it being susceptible to this okay, this is potentially something that happens during the RL stage, right? You can RL a model and how loose is it on these terms. If you can control it, that's good. But if you can't, if it's, if it's very jailbreakable, that's not ideal.Swyx [00:51:50]: To me, it's surprising that it happens for Claude and not the others.Vibhu [00:51:54]: I think okay, if it is from RL and how they do it, how their training data is, what their setup is, it makes sense that it just stays in how they're doing it, right? Compared to the other models likeSwyx [00:52:04]: There's a whole constitution and everything. It's kind of cool. Yeah, I obviously you don't know, I don't know. But, it ‘s I think it's just like fascinating to like that you are the first to find these like reliably because you push models so much to to such an extreme. Okay. The only other thing, I don't know if you can answer this, feel free to decline, is do you like-- would you ablate the system prompts? Like any part of this would-- if it changes, does it change the behavior, right?Lukas [00:52:29]: So we, I can't comment on Mythos. UhSwyx [00:52:33]: No, but just li

Trey admits to threatening Thomas at swim lessons and immediately regrets explaining it out loud. Katie reveals the parenting threat she uses way too often, the two debate whether picky eaters existed 500 years ago, and Trey discovers pregnancy has finally turned Katie into an irritable person.Buying the dad in your life a Father's Day gift he'll actually use is always tough… So let me make it easy for you: get him something from GLD.New customers get 40% Off with code CORRECTOPINIONS at http://GLD.comDownload Cash App Today: https://capl.onelink.me/vFut/5zhgqoej #CashAppPodExclusive $35-off Carver Mat at https://on.auraframes.com/CORRECTOPINIONS. Promo Code CORRECTOPINIONSStart this spring season off right and order your Cove system today! Headto covesmart.com/CORRECT or use code CORRECT at checkout for up to 70% offyour first order!Subscribe to the channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL3ESPT9yf1T8x6L0P4d39w?sub_confirmation=1 Subscribe to Correct Opinions on Apple: http://bit.ly/COPodcast

With Golden Day complete, the boys turn their attention to planning their game show, 'The Price Is Correct'. Hamish shares how he's been teaching his kids about the limits of swearing and how to use swear words responsibly. Andy reveals a lie he told his ear doctor, Julie, and gives her a call to see if she really believed him. Plus, a mid-year round of 'Tell Us Someone'. 1. The Price is Correct 2. Parenting Update: Swearing Edition 3. Tell Us Someone We Haven’t Thought of in a While 4. Andy Lying to His Doctor

Craig Carton, Big Mac, and Gallo address mathematical errors regarding gambling odds and payouts for tonight's game. They also take a listener call about the best pizza in Bay Ridge before analyzing the Knicks' mindset entering the NBA Finals against the San Antonio Spurs. 01:04 - Correcting Gambling Odds Errors 06:12 - Pizza And Knicks In Five 10:33 - Knicks-Spurs NBA Finals Analysis

If you're posting every day, announcing availability, and still hearing crickets, this episode might explain why. The truth is, most photographers treat social media like a billboard when what their clients really want is a relationship. If you're tired of chasing likes that never turn into bookings, this conversation will change how you show up online. In this episode, Sarah Petty breaks down why "now booking" posts often push premium clients away and shares the mindset shift that helps photographers attract the right people without feeling salesy. You'll learn how to use social media as a connection tool, stay top of mind during life's milestone moments, and create content that builds trust instead of desperation. • Why premium buyers respond to relationships, not repeated sales posts • Sarah's simple HYPE framework for creating content that connects and converts • How listening to your audience can lead to bookings faster than chasing engagement metrics If social media feels exhausting, confusing, or like a never-ending hamster wheel, you're not alone. This episode offers a refreshing reminder that the goal isn't to go viral. It's to build genuine relationships that lead to meaningful, profitable work. Press play and discover a smarter way to show up online. RESOURCES:  Photography Business Tools to Get Started 37 CLIENTS WHO CAN HIRE YOU TODAY https://info.photographybusinessinstitute.com/37-clients-optin   INSTAGRAM – DM me "Conversation Starters" for some genuine ways to strike up a conversation about your photography business wherever you are. https://www.instagram.com/sarah.petty   FREE COPY: NEW YORK TIMES BEST SELLING BOOK FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS www.photographybusinessinstitute.com/freebook    BOUTIQUE BREAKTHROUGH – 8-WEEK WORKSHOP www.photographybusinessinstitute.com/boutiquebreakthrough   FREE FACEBOOK GROUP: Join and get my free mini-class: How I earned $1,500 per client working 16 hours a week by becoming a boutique photographer. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ditchthedigitals    YOUTUBE: Check out my latest how to videos:  https://www.youtube.com/photographybusinessinstitute   LOVE THE SHOW? Subscribe & Review on Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/worth-every-penny-joycast/id1513676756

Rowan Childs - Madison Reading Project On Building Up Youth: "We want to make sure every kid is excited and sees themselves on the cover or as the main character." Often we take the skills we have for granted.  We want this and that, but rarely take the time to have gratitude for all that we have.  I'm not talking material things, I am speaking of opportunities and education.  As business owners, we know how to read. Did you know that many children have challenges achieving the literacy needed to understand the other subjects in school?  Rowan Childs saw this need and built a non-profit to help children get access to books to read.  Not just any books.  These are books that kids want to read.  Madison Reading Project is a non-profit that offers free books and literacy resources to children to ignite a love of reading. The beautiful thing is Madison Reading Project has blossomed from a small startup to a non-profit that continues to serve thousands of books to children.  This is truly an amazing success story and a story that is making the world a better place. Enjoy! Visit Rowan at: https://www.madisonreadingproject.com/ Sponsors: Calls On Call Extraordinary Answering Service, phone answering for small businesses: https://callsoncall.com Some videos have been recorded with Riverside: https://www.riverside.fm/?utm_campaign=campaign_5&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=rewardful&via=james-kademan   Podcast Overview: 00:00 Starting a reading pilot program 04:15 Addressing literacy challenges 07:50 Finding support and gathering books 13:52 Benefits of being a smaller team 14:32 Navigating diverse board challenges 19:27 Building trust with the community 22:38 Offering diverse book options 26:55 Selecting books for community programs 30:36 Lessons from volunteering at food bank 33:00 Donating books through our program 37:20 Giving out books during holidays 39:20 Paper fashion design contest 43:41 Deciding to make paper dresses 45:51 Building Awareness and Finding Volunteers Podcast Transcription: James Kademan [00:00:00]: You have found Authentic Business Adventures, the business program that brings you the struggles, stories and triumphant successes of business owners across the land. Downloadable audio episodes can be found in the podcast link found at https://drawincustomers.com.  We are locally underwritten by the Bank of Sun Prairie, and today we are welcoming, slash, preparing to learn from Rowan Childs of Madison Reading Project. Rowan, I'm super excited to be here. Rowan Childs [00:00:32]: Thank you. Welcome. James Kademan [00:00:34]: This is amazing. We got. I mean, people can see we got whatever, 5 billion books behind us and all that stuff. So tell us the story. What is Madison Reading Project? Rowan Childs [00:00:44]: Yeah. So we are a nonprofit. We provide all kinds of literacy resources, whether they are physical books, digital resources, and our wonderful stuff. We're here to support adults and children in support of them learning how to read in support of them re engaging or engaging in reading and love of books, ultimately to help raise literacy rates in Dane county and now just in Sauk county as well. Yes. That's a brand new thing. James Kademan [00:01:27]: Wow. Rowan Childs [00:01:27]: Yeah. James Kademan [00:01:28]: All right. Rowan Childs [00:01:29]: But we're really here to make sure that kids have their books and to help remove some of those barriers that they have. So whether it's been from the very beginning through what we do today, we do that in a way more sophisticated way than how we started, but it really is to try and provide really high quality materials that children and adults can keep. So we want to make sure that kids are excited about the books and about reading and that they ultimately are inspired to want to hang on to those and to continue to read and love books. James Kademan [00:02:08]: Nice. I love it. I love it. It's so interesting because when you give me address to the place, I just follow gps. And I was like, it's just going to be some warehouse or something like that. But this is a very bright. It's vibrant, it's welcoming. It's not just some dingy, like, there's the books in the back kind of thing. Rowan Childs [00:02:25]: Not at all. James Kademan [00:02:25]: So this is cool. This is very nice. Rowan Childs [00:02:28]: Good. That's how we want everyone to feel. James Kademan [00:02:30]: Yeah. I love it. Let's go back to the way back when, when you first started this 12 years ago, you said, yep, that is a while. We got pandemic. We got. Rowan Childs [00:02:41]: Man. James Kademan [00:02:42]: I feel like every few years there's some kind of a crisis. So I don't remember all the crisis we've been through. But what triggered you to start Madison Reading Project? Rowan Childs [00:02:51]: Yeah, I had just helped my own son re engage in reading. He liked reading things at home, but not so much the books that he was reading at school. And after I helped him figure that out, it just got me thinking about what if I hadn't understood the teacher who had messaged me at home? Or what if they hadn't messaged me? It took me some time and resources to figure that out. So I started just researching and couldn't really find what I was looking for, which wasn't necessarily volunteering on helping kids how to read, it was the other piece of it. And so I spent some time interviewing at some schools and some other after school locations and no one really knew of something of what I was describing and eventually had this idea of potentially how I this pilot program idea. But I wanted to find a pilot program location that would be smaller versus starting somewhere that had 200 kids. So I eventually found a program at Salvation army on Darbo drive that had 30 kids. And Zarbo Drive area is a pretty impoverished area. Rowan Childs [00:04:15]: And the director at that time said he was actually trying to help the kids with homework, but they were behind in reading and he was trying to engage kids in reading. So it was this perfect sort of timing. And the week that we met, the Race to Equity report came out, which was a five year data set on everything that you kind of need for the proof of why literacy is so important. So anything on the actual literacy rates of every school in the county, comparing not just districts and schools, but also third grade reading levels, fifth grade high school in poverty rates, and also race, comparing kids who are white and black or Hispanic. And some of the differences not only were maybe 10 or 15%, but some of the schools were up to 40% differences. And that's just heartbreaking. Still, every time I talk about it, it makes me just really sad because if you can't read whether you're in third grade, you. You're just always going to be behind. Rowan Childs [00:05:28]: Ultimately, you might still be able to struggle through school, but what kind of job are you going to be able to get or can even get your driver's license? You know, it's just snowballs from there. James Kademan [00:05:40]: Yeah. Rowan Childs [00:05:42]: And Will, who was the director at the time, was really adamant that if you can't read, it's just going to be a really difficult life or could lead to a life of incarceration. And so the two of us were very passionate about trying to figure something out. And then the last piece was the funding. James Kademan [00:06:05]: It's a pretty big piece, kind of. Rowan Childs [00:06:07]: I had no money to put towards my pilot program. Someone I had mentioned what I wanted to do, said you really need to have the right money to do the pilot program. Correctly. James Kademan [00:06:19]: Thanks. Rowan Childs [00:06:20]: Yes. And wrote me a check for $1,000. Oh. Which is really nice. That way I could actually purchase the right materials to make the program the pilot. Correct. James Kademan [00:06:32]: Wow. Rowan Childs [00:06:33]: So that was the last piece for that. So we did a three month pilot program that went really well. The parents, the kids were really engaged and excited about clearing out some of the old books that nobody wanted to read, putting in new books that the kids helped so select. The teachers were excited to have new materials so successful that they asked me to come back and do it again. James Kademan [00:06:59]: All right. Rowan Childs [00:07:00]: Which we did. And one thing led to another. But it definitely, as we stayed and sort of kept learning from that, that really was the beginning of learning that. Absolutely kids do want to learn how to read. They absolutely do want to read great books and to select books. And there's a lot of pride in being able to select their own books. And we stayed at that location exclusively for nearly two years, just learning with the kids and the parents and the teachers really what we did or didn't want to do or what we could do before we were going to scale at all. And that was great. Rowan Childs [00:07:50]: And the other piece was, how are we going to fund all of this apart from that initial check? And while we were doing that initial pilot program in that first year, people just started giving me boxes of their nice books that they had never used or just unsolicited. They're like, oh, oh, by the way, I have a box of books for you. Like, oh, thank you so much. Or people were asking me how they could donate some money because they loved what they had heard what I was doing, whether I really knew them or not, till the point where I had a basement full of books in my house. And I was like, this seems like we have something here. So we have definitely children in a population in Madison initially that absolutely would love to have more books and programs. We have people who absolutely seem to love books and want to provide books....

Send us Fan Mail Financial Matters with Richard OringRichard Oring, from New Century Financial Group in Princeton, New Jersey, discusses...Listen on: Apple Podcasts

Steve and Jeff recapped the Spurs' dominant Game 6 victory over the Thunder in the Western Conference Finals and the start of the NCAA Baseball Tournament. Kevin Foote, a UL Ragin' Cajuns reporter for The Acadiana Advocate, previewed Louisiana baseball's journey in the Starkville regional. The guys listened to media availability from Chris Olave, Jordyn Tyson, Jonas Sanker, Martin Emerson, and Erik McCoy after the Saints' recent OTA workout. Steve and Jeff also interviewed Sean Deveney, an NBA insider for Heavy.com, about the NBA Playoffs and the Pelicans' decision to hire Jamahl Mosley as the franchise's next head coach.

"They want the secret, and the secret is little and often over the long haul," says Dan John, author of several books on strength and fitness, most recently The Fitness Forge: Master Coaching Tools that Build Real Strength.Today we've got a bit of a curve ball, a backdoor slider, but not really. It's Dan John, who is something of a Swiss army knife of wisdom and kindness and strength and conditioning. He's been a long time strength coach and a master communicator of how to get real-life strong, not influencer, flash-in-the-pan strong, the kind of strong that allows you to fill out your shirt, carry all the groceries in one go, and shovel the driveway without leaving yourself in traction for four days.I've recommended his books many times on this show and in newsletters, and his approach to strength very much rhymes with writing, so that's a big reason why I wanted to invite him on to talk it out. You can visit danjohnuniversity.com to learn more about him and to buy books like the Easy Strength Omnibook, Easy Strength for Fat Loss, his two Armor Building Formula books and his latest The Fitness Forge: Master coaching tools that build real strength.The real crux of easy strength is that it echoes what Percy Cerutty, the Australian running coach, had his runners do in the 1950s, and it's an approachable system that doesn't feel like you've been put through a wood chipper. I spent most of my 30s training like I was a juiced up bodybuilder, hobbling around most days with that deep, bone ache. As I've aged, training in that manner is unfeasible and, well, fucking stupid, plus easy strength is awesome for running, which I'm doing quite a lot these days.So Dan John has been a champion discus thrower coming up on the coattails of the great throwers of the 1970s, guys like Brian Oldfield and Mac Wilkins and Peter Shmock. His lifting approach has always been geared around utility, not aesthetics, by and large. He has written many books like Mass Made Simple, 40 Years with a Whistle, Can You Go, Never Let Go, and several others. Some are only available on the big A, others are available as PDFS through his website.They imbue a sense of possibility, that things are achievable, and that little and often over the long haul is doable and repeatable. If you're into fads, Dan is not for you and he often injects so much personal anecdote and wisdom from a life of nearly 70 years into his work and his podcast, the Dan John University Podcasts where he answers listener questions every week.He's very centering for me. Even hearing him talk through something as simple as his daily pirate map, which is a collection of daily habits, and merely hearing him so often articulate that defrags my computer, if that makes any sense.So in this conversation, we talk about: Parasocial relationships Marvel and Greek heroes The spiderweb effect of his brain Open Culture Little and often over the long haul The secret Being a slave to habits Parallels between lifting and writing Collecting the links Getting small, easy wins out of the way Inspiration is for amateurs Having skin in the game And community making us greatYou'll find dan @coachdanjohn on instagram and of course visit danjohnuniversity.com to see if his books or his inner circle is right for you.

A Special Industry Update with Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond A replay of part one of a two-part series, Jason and Mindy Diamond unpack the real advisor transition playbook—from due diligence and culture fit to portability, enterprise value, and the evolving landscape of advisor choice. In Summary Why do advisors really consider changing firms or models—and what separates thoughtful due diligence from reactive decision-making? In a replay of the first of this special two-part Industry Update, Jason and Mindy Diamond unpack what actually drives advisor transitions, the misconceptions that derail decision-making, and the questions sophisticated teams should be asking long before they're ready to act. The conversation also explores how the industry landscape has evolved around independence, portability, enterprise value, and advisor optionality—drawing context from Diamond's role in the landmark OpenArc breakaway from Merrill and much more. The Storyline Most advisors assume transitions are primarily driven by recruiting economics. Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond suggest that recruiting economics may get the headlines, but advisor transitions are usually driven by a far more layered set of considerations. What tends to happen instead is more gradual: a growing disconnect between how advisors want to serve clients and the constraints of the environment around them. Sometimes it's bureaucracy. Sometimes it's limitations around growth, marketing, technology, or flexibility. Sometimes it's simply the realization that the industry landscape has evolved while their assumptions about it have not. This conversation examines what actually happens between the moment curiosity begins and the moment a move becomes real. Rather than treating transitions as transactional events, Jason and Mindy frame due diligence as a strategic process of self-assessment—clarifying what matters, identifying trade-offs, evaluating long-term optionality, and pressure-testing assumptions before making consequential decisions. The discussion also offers a rare look inside the mechanics of advisor movement itself: how teams evaluate culture, how portability is assessed, why some advisors choose ownership over upfront monetization, and what sophisticated client communication really looks like during a transition. The backdrop throughout the episode is Diamond's role in facilitating the historic OpenArc breakaway from Merrill—a move that challenged longstanding assumptions about scale, independence, and what even the industry's largest teams are now willing to reconsider. Topics Covered Advisor transition due diligence Wirehouse limitations and advisor frustration Independence versus traditional firm models Enterprise value and long-term ownership Advisor portability and client transition strategy Boutique and regional firm recruiting trends Culture evaluation during due diligence Reverse due diligence and evaluating firm stability Transition economics and recruiting deals The OpenArc Merrill breakaway story Advisor optionality and industry evolution How technology and AI are changing transitions   > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors Why do advisors actually decide to leave firms? (06:20) Mindy explains why most transitions are driven less by economics and more—by mounting limitations around growth, flexibility, client service, and long-term alignment. What is the biggest mistake advisors make when beginning due diligence? (18:12) The conversation explores why many advisors evaluate firms before gaining clarity around what they truly want to improve—often creating confusion instead of insight. How should advisors evaluate culture beyond a firm's sales pitch? (32:41) Jason and Mindy discuss the importance of speaking directly with advisors who have already made similar moves—and how to pressure-test what firms promise. When should transition economics matter most? (47:03) The episode breaks down the difference between short-term monetization and long-term enterprise value creation—and why many elite teams are increasingly prioritizing ownership and optionality. Why are more advisors reconsidering independence? (56:48) Using the OpenArc transition as context, the discussion explores how today's independent landscape has evolved far beyond the traditional “build it yourself” model. How long does a real due diligence process take? (1:06:10) Jason and Mindy explain why thoughtful transitions often unfold over many months—and why some advisors remain in exploratory conversations for years before acting. How should advisors think about portability and client communication? (1:16:20) The conversation details how sophisticated teams assess portability risk—and why the client-facing rationale for a move matters more than recruiting economics. Have advisor transitions become easier over time? (1:24:12) Mindy explains how technology, legal infrastructure, and industry specialization have improved the process—while emphasizing that transitions still require risk tolerance, effort, and patience. Key Takeaways Most advisors do not move primarily because of recruiting deals. The larger driver is usually a growing disconnect between what they want to build and what their current environment allows. Due diligence tends to fail when advisors begin by evaluating firms before clarifying what they actually want for their business, clients, and long-term future. The industry landscape has evolved dramatically over the last decade, particularly around independent and supported-independent models, creating far more customization and optionality than many advisors realize. Transition economics matter — but sophisticated advisors increasingly view upfront monetization as only one component of a much larger enterprise value equation. The ability to articulate a compelling client-facing value proposition is one of the strongest tests of whether a transition opportunity is truly viable. Conversations with advisors who have already made similar moves remain one of the most valuable forms of real-world due diligence. Even the industry's largest teams are reassessing assumptions around independence, ownership, control, and scalability. Quotable Moments “The biggest mistake advisors make is beginning due diligence before they've gotten clear about what they actually want.” “A recruiting deal can't be the first thing you consider. But it would be foolish not to consider it at all.” “The landscape looks entirely different than it did five or ten years ago. If you haven't gotten educated, you're doing yourself a disservice.” “The real question is not whether you can move. It's whether you can clearly explain to clients why the move makes their experience better.” FAQs Why do advisors typically begin exploring a move? In many cases, the process begins gradually. Advisors may still feel successful and reasonably satisfied, but start questioning whether their current environment fully supports how they want to grow, serve clients, or build long term. Often, curiosity precedes dissatisfaction. Is advisor movement mostly driven by recruiting deals? Not usually. While economics are an important consideration, the episode explains that most sophisticated advisors weigh a much broader set of factors, including flexibility, culture, client experience, growth limitations, ownership opportunities, and long-term enterprise value. How long does a typical due diligence process take? There is no universal timeline. Some advisors move relatively quickly once they decide change is necessary, while others spend months – or even years – getting educated and evaluating options before acting. For many teams, a thoughtful due diligence process unfolds over roughly six months. What is the biggest mistake advisors make during due diligence? The episode suggests the biggest mistake is evaluating firms before gaining clarity around personal and business priorities. Without understanding what they actually want to improve, advisors often become overwhelmed by options, recruiting pitches, and conflicting information. How can advisors really assess a firm's culture? One of the most valuable approaches is speaking directly with advisors who have already made similar moves. Jason and Mindy discuss why real-world perspective – particularly from advisors with comparable client bases or business structures – is often far more revealing than formal presentations or recruiting materials. How should advisors think about independence versus traditional firms? The conversation frames the decision less as “right versus wrong” and more as a question of alignment. Some advisors prioritize ownership, control, and long-term enterprise value. Others value infrastructure, brand recognition, or operational support. The industry landscape has evolved enough that advisors now have far more flexibility to design around the trade-offs that matter most to them. In many cases, the process begins gradually. Advisors may still feel successful and reasonably satisfied, but start questioning whether their current environment fully supports how they want to grow, serve clients, or build long term. Often, curiosity precedes dissatisfaction. Not usually. While economics are an important consideration, the episode explains that most sophisticated advisors weigh a much broader set of factors, including flexibility, culture, client experience, growth limitations, ownership opportunities, and long-term enterprise value. There is no universal timeline. Some advisors move relatively quickly once they decide change is necessary, while others spend months – or even years – getting educated and evaluating options before acting. For many teams, a thoughtful due diligence process unfolds over roughly six months. The episode suggests the biggest mistake is evaluating firms before gaining clarity around personal and business priorities. Without understanding what they actually want to improve, advisors often become overwhelmed by options, recruiting pitches, and conflicting information. One of the most valuable approaches is speaking directly with advisors who have already made similar moves. Jason and Mindy discuss why real-world perspective – particularly from advisors with comparable client bases or business structures – is often far more revealing than formal presentations or recruiting materials. The conversation frames the decision less as “right versus wrong” and more as a question of alignment. Some advisors prioritize ownership, control, and long-term enterprise value. Others value infrastructure, brand recognition, or operational support. The industry landscape has evolved enough that advisors now have far more flexibility to design around the trade-offs that matter most to them. Related Resources The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between – Part 2Jason and Mindy Diamond revisit the transition playbook, this time focused on how advisor priorities are shifting. From AI and enterprise value to stability and flexibility, they unpack what's changing in due diligence and what it means for advisors evaluating their next move.  The $129B Blockbuster Move: Shirl Penney on Why This Transition Marks a New Era for the IndustryThe $129B OpenArc breakaway marks a watershed moment for wealth management. In this Rapid Reaction episode, Louis Diamond and Shirl Penney unpack what it means for the RIA model, advisors, and the future of industry competition. The Missing Narrative of the $129B Merrill Breakaway StoryThe largest (and quite possibly most significant) advisor breakaway in industry history made news this week. Yet instead of leading with the scale or significance of the move, headlines centered on Merrill's lawsuit alleging corporate raiding. NOTE: The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Diamond Consultants. Neither Diamond Consultants nor the guests on this podcast are compensated in any way for their participation. View the transcript of this episode… The Advisor Transition Playbook: Inside Baseball on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between A Special Industry Update with Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond. Jason Diamond: Welcome to a replay of one of the most popular episodes from our podcast series for financial advisors, The Advisor Transition Playbook: Inside Baseball on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between. It's Part 1 of a 2-Part Industry Update with Mindy Diamond. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more, who change firms, are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at (908) 879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms, and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual Advisor Transition Report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: Everything about a transition can seem incredibly overwhelming. From understanding the whys of a move, then conducting due diligence, and onto aligning the right models and selecting the best firms, it might seem like a fairly linear process. And for some, it can be. But for others, the layers of minutia can be daunting. Essentially, it comes down to the adage, “You don’t know what you don’t know.” So the goal of this episode is to share some inside baseball in how to get from here to there. I asked Mindy Diamond to join me to help draw from decades of experience in helping advisors through their transitions. We’ve dived into the misconceptions, the common traps, the aware of a big check and much more. Essentially, it’s a download of what you need to know when considering a move. There’s a lot to discuss, so let’s get to it. Mindy, so excited to have you join me for this topic. Mindy Diamond: Yeah, I’m really happy to be here. And I’m just thinking to myself, “Yikes, decades of experience,” you’ve said, and yes it is, decades of experience. Jason Diamond: It most certainly is, 30 years in the business. So the seeding for this topic was, “You’ve been in this business now for 30 years, how many hundreds of thousands of conversations with advisors is that?” Some who moved, plenty who certainly did not. But ultimately, what we thought would be useful because it’s a question we get most commonly from advisors that we speak with is, “Tell me what I don’t know. What are the questions I should be asking?” So I’m going to just pepper you with some of the most common questions we get, and I would love to share the benefit of your wisdom and experience with our audience. That sound good? Mindy Diamond: It sounds great. I just want to say that we are recording this two days after one of the largest deals probably in the history of the industry broke that I am gratified to say we facilitated the OpenArc team who left Merrill with 129 billion in assets under management, broke a couple days ago to go independent. I’m hoping we have the opportunity to talk about some of their best practices and things we discovered along the way because I think it’s relevant. And a deal like this gets a lot of attention, people always want to know what they do and what went wrong. Jason Diamond: It’s a good point. I’m glad you bring it up. First of all, it’s so timely, but I think you can almost use it as a case study a little bit to answer some of these questions. So let’s dive in with that. I want to start with the big picture, “Why?” Because that’s the number one thing I think people want to know is, “Why do advisors move?” And I think there’s an assumption that 95% of transitions happen because of a big check or because of economics. I’m certain you’re going to touch on that to some extent, but give me your sense of what are the main triggers of advisor movement. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. Look, are there some advisors that move because they need to recapitalize or they want the money? Sure. But the absolute vast majority are moving because they come to a place where one of two things is true, and oftentimes both. One, the pain of staying is great enough. Meaning there’s enough frustrations or limitations that they’ve gotten to a point where despite efforts to the contrary to make it better, despite gutting it out and saying, “On par, it’s good enough,” they come to a point where there’s limitations in how they can serve their clients, how they can grow the business, and that’s just untenable for them. Hopefully, simultaneously, they are equally excited and have identified an opportunity that they believe is needle-moving enough, it’s worth the hassle, the disruption, the everything to make this move. I’ve never done a move where it doesn’t fall into one of those two or, hopefully, both of those categories. Jason Diamond: Let’s go a little deeper there. You mentioned limitations. Give me an example either using this recent deal or even just any recent advisors that you’ve worked with about, “What are some limitations that people experience at,” let’s say, “the wirehouses that potentially would be a catalyst for a move?” Mindy Diamond: Generally speaking, the biggest limitations have to do with how they’re able to grow their business and serve their clients. So anything to do with excess bureaucracy, anything to do with an incongruence, if you will, between the advisors or the team’s goals for how they want to serve clients or grow the business and what the firm is allowing them to do. Using this enormous deal as an example, you’ve got a team that was doing extraordinarily well. Oh, my god. They were the biggest team at Merrill, so talk about having a batphone to the top and the attention of senior leadership. If anyone was going to be able to break through the red tape or get things done, or eschew the limitations, it was them. And for a long time, they did. But they were sort of increasingly unhappy, let’s say, over a decade. Despite their size, every year, they became a little bit more frustrated. And after probably six or seven years of saying, “We’re just too big to move,” they came to a point of saying, “We can’t ignore this anymore. We’ve got a tiger by its tail. We have this extraordinary business that is growing exponentially. We’ve got clients that are complaining to us. And more importantly, we’ve got team members that are feeling stifled.” And that’s where it comes from, where there’s problems you just can’t ignore even if you want to. Jason Diamond: It almost feels like one of those things where advisors know they’re limited, they can just feel it. But if you’re fighting against the firm, and instead of with it. I’ll give you one other one that comes to mind as we’re talking here, that seems to come up a lot in advisor conversations, which is freedom of marketing. And that might seem like a fairly minor limitation, but I can’t tell you how many times, certainly myself, I’m sure you too, get call from an advisor who is heated. They’re angry because they were trying to send some timely market commentary and the firm took two weeks to approve it. Does that fall under the same category of limitations, in your mind? Mindy Diamond: Oh, without a doubt. And it’s funny you say that because in this world of social media where the news is consumed or can be consumed within seconds of an event happening, there’s nothing more frustrating for an advisor than wanting to write a newsletter to update their clients with scale as opposed to having to make one phone call at a time and not being able to do so. It absolutely puts them on a back foot. And then, I think it’s the lack of freedom to differentiate themselves. Most advisors that work for big firms have a firm website that is templated, the same sort of structure of the website and the picture of the team and the same basic wordings, and that’s hard to deal with. Jason Diamond: Well, you bring up an interesting point, which is sometimes… For example, advisors might say or wirehouse advisors might say, “Oh, the marketing is good enough.” But a lot of times, and we’ve had advisors on this podcast who talk about exactly this, they don’t realize how limited the sandbox they were playing in is or was until after a transition. And that’s when their eyes open and they realize, “Oh, my god. I was basically playing with one arm tied behind my back.” We’ve heard advisors use that metaphor. Let me ask you this then, and this is a tough question, what do you think advisors get wrong? What is the number one misconception that advisors have prior to approaching due diligence and thinking about a move? And maybe it’s something as simple as like, “Eh, it’s the same everywhere,” but tell me what you think you hear most commonly. Mindy Diamond: There’s certainly those myths, the assumptions or presumptions that it’s the same everywhere or there’s nothing that’s going to change anyway, for sure. But I think the biggest and most fundamental thing they get wrong is a lack of clarity around, “What it is they’re trying to accomplish, and why?” I’d like to say that I think one of the things, the thing, we do better than most, I’m not going to say everyone else but better than most, and something we’re really good at, is helping advisors to answer the really tough questions, the smartest questions, to get a sense of what it is they’re looking to accomplish, what it is they want to improve and why, “What does success look like?” Because if you don’t do that, then a lot of folks do it backwards. They get a phone call from a manager at Morgan Stanley or from somebody at Schwab or somebody at Dynasty, or whatever it may be, and they say, “I’ll take a lunch, why not?” And of course, the job of the manager from Morgan or the sales rep from Dynasty, or whatever it is, is to tell you all the good things about independence or about Morgan Stanley. But if I, as the advisor, am not really clear about what it is I’m looking to accomplish and why, it’s going to all sound good and I’m going to wind up more overwhelmed than when I started. And that is probably the number one thing that we see advisors getting wrong. It makes the due diligence process, if you choose to enter it, exceedingly inefficient. Jason Diamond: I totally agree. So I’m an advisor, I want to start due diligence in earnest. I know in my head, things are suboptimal. I’m not going to go so far as to say,” I definitively want to move.” But I’m a wirehouse advisor and I’m thinking for the first time in my career, “I’ve built a nice business, but it’s time for me to start getting educated.” So what do I do? Do I just say, “Hey, John at Morgan Stanley, what’s your recruiting deal look like these days?” Tell me, for an advisor who’s never thought about this before, what are the ABCs of this process look like? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. It’s definitely not, the first step, calling Morgan Stanley, even if you’re pretty sure Morgan Stanley is where you want to go. I’d suggest that’s probably one of the last steps, and I’ll tell you why. The first thing is to give yourself permission to say, “Even if I’m not 100% certain that a move is in my future or that I know I’m unhappy enough to go through the hassle and disruption of making a move,” to give yourself permission to get educated. The world, the industry landscape, the ecosystem, the everything looks entirely different than it did five and 10 years ago. And if it’s been five or 10 years, or even three to five years, since you last got educated, asked the questions, looked under the hood to get a sense of, “Is there or could there be something that’s better than where I am?”, you’re doing yourself and your team a disservice. Yeah, it takes time and it’s annoying and it’s overwhelming, and it’s all of it, but that’s honestly why people like us have a job. We don’t approach this that we think people should only come to us when they’re sure they’re going to make a move. In fact, it’s the opposite. We love the calls we get when somebody says, “I’m really happy here. I’ve been here 40 years. I’ve been here 30 years, it’s really good enough, it’s working well for me.” “But all of a sudden, I’m beginning to be curious. Or all of a sudden, I feel X, Y and Z. Tell me what I don’t know.” Those are the best calls. Those are the smartest calls. That’s the best thing an advisor can do. Jason Diamond: Yeah, I agree with that. Are there things you think an advisor needs to ask for during the diligence… I guess what I’m getting at is, do you trust the process that if you go through this process with, let’s say, three to five strategically picked firms… So you work within a recruiter or, a shameless plug, however you approach this, and you end up with your short list of contenders. Do you trust that, by going through the due diligence process, these firms are going to give you the building blocks that you need to do proper due diligence? Or are there things you, as an advisor, need to ask for? I’ll give you one example that comes to mind, which is… There’s obviously been some firms that have had financial troubles recently. So do you think an advisor, for example, needs to ask for financial statements from a firm they’re potentially considering due diligence on? I’m curious what your thoughts are. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. Particularly, if you’re looking at sort of in this new world order, if we think about the landscape as a continuum and the newer boutique multifamily offices on the right side, absolutely. Conducting what we call reverse due diligence and getting to see the financials of the firms you’re considering, to make sure that they’re sound and solid and that the equity valuation is exactly as advertised, of course, yes, that’s true. So the answer is, in part, you trust the process. You trust that if you’ve asked the right questions, if you’ve gotten clarity around what’s important to you, and as a result, you’ve crafted the right questions, and therefore, the manager or the representative from the firm or options you’re considering has put together the right due diligence plan, you can trust that at least 90% of what needs to be gotten right has gotten right. But there are always things around the margins that aren’t addressed. One is you can’t just outsource the due diligence process. You need to be paying attention. And much like people who trust their doctor and presume the doctor just always has it right, you need to be your own advocate. I would say, the same thing here. That as the process unfolds, there will be additional questions, additional sort of gaps and holes, and you shouldn’t stop until you’ve gotten all of your questions answered. That’s really the best advice I can give. Jason Diamond: You are talking to John from XYZ firm and Jim from ABC firm, and they’re going to tell you what’s great about their firms. So how do you know that you’re not just buying a false bill of goods, it’s just a glossy kind of sales pitch? I’ll give you my answer first. Part of it is, I think, you test drive the systems. I think another step I suggest a lot is calls with advisors on the platform. So an advisor who left UBS to go to Morgan Stanley, probably the best possible person to ask about Morgan Stanley. Any other additional thoughts on that one? Mindy Diamond: You took the words right out of my mouth. Absolutely, that is the number one way to do it, is that you ask for an opportunity, and you can do it in a name-blind way without identifying yourself, to talk with advisors that have made the move that are two things, that either came from the firm you’re coming from, so you get a similar perspective, but it’s equally important to talk to advisors that have similar business mix. It doesn’t matter what firm they came from, even if it’s not the same as yours, but, “How does someone that services international clients, how are they better able to serve those international clients at this new firm or new model than they were where you are?” We’re talking about it as if it’s wirehouse-to-wirehouse. But very often in today’s world order, especially looking at this giant move from this week, it’s about wirehouse to some version of independence. So there’s so much more due diligence, so many more questions that are required. It is even more important in that world to really get an understanding of what it’s like from the perspective of somebody that’s walking in those shoes. I will tell you, Jason, and you know this, that literally the number one reason I started this podcast more than a decade ago, and why we continue to do the podcast and the feedback we get, is because the feedback from advisors that have joined a platform already is the very best feedback, the best way, in a discreet confidential manner, to hear the truth from somebody who doesn’t have a horse in the race who’s just sharing their perspective with you. And that’s the feedback we continue to get. In a couple of weeks, I’m interviewing, as an example, Neil Rubinstein. Neil’s an advisor in Texas that came from Merrill that we moved to Rockefeller. A perfect example. So many advisors that are considering a move if they’ve got high net worth clients are going to look at Rockefeller. Well, what better way to understand what Rockefeller is about than to hear it from an advisor that’s walked in the shoes, not only of a Merrill advisor, but services high net worth clients and then have information or perspective similar to Neil. What do you think about that? Do you agree with that? Jason Diamond: 1000%. First of all, the podcast, I will say, a little bit of a sales pitch, has one thing going for it that a call with an advisor doesn’t, which is complete discretion and confidentiality. I will say, I think we’ve done a good job of doing facilitating name-blind calls between advisors. We continue to harp on this point even though it sounds somewhat minor, because it really is the very… You can talk to people like me and people like the recruiters from the firms until you’re blue in the face. But the right way, the best possible way to learn the, “Is this guy selling me? How does the technology compare to Merrill? How does the day-to-day compare? What’s it like working for this manager?”, all those types of questions, I think are best answered by another advisor. So completely agree with you. Mindy Diamond: Yeah, and I’ll take it one step further. Somewhere in the process, you take advantage of the opportunity to either listen to a podcast and hear somebody’s perspective of what the move was like, and how it’s bettered their life and where the pitfalls are, and/or you take the opportunity to talk with other advisors that have made the move, so you can ask your own specific questions. But after you’ve had the opportunity to do that, then it’s really important, and this is the part that why you can’t entirely outsource or let the due diligence process just go on autopilot, to take some of that perspective and the manager that you’re interviewing with, hold his or her feet to the fire. What do I mean by that? So I talked to an advisor that talked about the fact that the number one concern about Rockefeller, I’m making this up, is that they’re going to be the next Merrill, or that they just added a fee that now is going to have to be passed on to clients. While this advisor said it doesn’t bother them and they had a lot of good reason of why it’s not an issue, I’d love for you to tell me why it could be an issue. What are some of the things you’ve gotten wrong? When someone doesn’t join Rockefeller, why is it? I’m making that up- Jason Diamond: Yeah, smart. Same thing. Even let go, this advisor mentioned that technology is a step back from the firm I’m coming from. And I’m not asking you to argue with me, but perhaps the manager might be able to say something like, “We’re investing substantially in the platform, and we have these rollouts coming in the next several months that are going to close that gap.” So I completely agree. That’s a really smart- Mindy Diamond: And a follow-up question to that example, Jason, which is a great one, is, “How can I trust, how can I get a sense of security, if I join here in the next couple of months that in fact that investment is going to be made? And how that investment in technology will actually impact thing?” So again, it’s constantly being your own advocate, constantly paying attention, and constantly questions beget more questions. Jason Diamond: I agree we. Haven’t talked at all about the dollars and cents of this, and I think we need to because it’s important. Right? You can have the best platform on the planet, but the reality is a move comes with risk, a move comes with hassle, and there is a market for advisors’ books of businesses. That’s one of, I think, the major kind of paradigm shifts we’ve seen in the last, call it, decade is advisors know their books are assets, their book is a business, and that business is worth something substantial. At any firm, even at their current firm via retire and place deals, the book is worth something substantial. So if you had to put a percentage to it, I’m an advisor making a decision, 100% waiting, how much percent waiting do I put on the economics and how much waiting do I put on culture, platform, everything else? Mindy Diamond: The answer is, absolutely, it’s an inside job, personal, and it depends upon the advisor. There are some advisors, they’re wrong, but they will put all the weight on personal economics. They’re making a big mistake, if that’s the case. And most advisors will put much more weight on getting it right, meaning, “What’s life going to be like afterwards? And will I have a better ability to serve clients and grow the business?” But here’s what I would say, they’re both equally important. So no advisor who’s got a decent enough runway ahead of him or her and who’s looking to really grow the business and who cares about their clients can’t be unconcerned about the culture of where they’re going and what life is going to be like and what are the limitations, all of the questions we’ve been talking about. But an advisor who’s built a great business would be a fool not to consider their own personal economics. It just can’t be the first thing they consider. And in the book I wrote, Should I Stay or Should I Go?, I wrote that 100 times that it’s all about, “Lead with what’s important to the business and important to clients, do the right thing, but you can’t ignore personal financial gain.” Let’s talk about this move of OpenArc, this $129-billion Merrill team. You can only imagine the number of zeros at the end of a check that this team was offered by every major firm on the street. And in the span of a decade, they got those offers. Independence, making this enormous leap, was not the first thing they looked at, was not necessarily their first choice. But as they began, in their case, to really consider how limited they felt on the things they wanted to be able to do for clients… By the way, I don’t want to steal anybody’s thunder because we’re going to be launching a podcast specifically talking about this deal and this move, so I’ll save that for… Louis Diamond, our partner, and Shirl Penney, the CEO and founder of Dynasty, are going to be talking about it and they’ll cover all of that. But I just want to give the example that as this team began to realize, certainly in the last five years, how much things had changed at Merrill and how incongruent they felt between their goals, the goals for the business, the goals for serving clients, and what the firm was asking of them since Bank of America came to town, it became impossible to just say, “Holy cow, we can get a check with a lot of zeros at the end of it.” They couldn’t not see the benefits of everything else, the benefits that creating their own independent entity could bring them. Jason Diamond: I agree with that. I will play devil’s advocate a little bit here and say, “I think what you’re really talking about is the trade-off.” They’re not martyrs, they’re not altruistic and said, “We don’t want your hundreds of millions of dollars.” I think what you’re talking about is the trade-off between near-term upfront recruiting deals, which is the primary means by which the wirehouses, the regionals, the boutique firms recruit. Right? The traditional forgivable loan structure is all about a short term de-risking of the move, a monetization event in the near term where they’re paying you some percentage of revenue, 350%, 400% of revenue, tied to a forgivable loan. But that’s your bite of the apple in that example. With the example of a move to independence, you’ll lose, in some cases, all of that upfront monetization. So this example you’re talking about is a good example where they got no upfront transition dollars because they launched an RIA. But, and this is a very important caveat, they know they are building equity and ownership in something that is going to, at the current rate, be worth a preposterous multiple if and when they decide to sell it. So I assume that has to be part of this conversation around independence is, it’s not that you don’t care about monetizing the business, it’s that you plan to monetize the business in a different and probably more significant way. Fair? Mindy Diamond: Beyond fair. 1000%, that’s absolutely correct. Again, not only making it about this example, but it’s a good example. So again, the possibility of getting a check with a lot of zeros on it, and by the way, also tapping into an already established well-familiar, well-run infrastructure. Think about how much easier the move would’ve been, to jump from Merrill Lynch to Morgan Stanley, and not probably was their first choice, if they were going to go the traditional route. Think about how much easier the due diligence process… how much less heavy the lift would’ve been in terms of due diligence, but certainly from a short-term upfront perspective. And that’s really the key, is that not everyone has the appetite to bet on the long term. To me, that’s the beauty of the industry landscape as it’s evolved and the waterfall of possibilities today. If you’re a great team, and there are so many great teams, you’re growing, you’ve got a multi-generational bench of advisors, you’ve got a succession plan, you’ve got sticky clients, you don’t have 5,000 clients but you have 100 or 200 relationships, you’ve got a great business that you’ve got options for it, there’s no right or wrong. It’s, “What do I want to be when I grow up?”, and, “How do I want to live my business life?” And if you query 10 of those great teams, five of them will wind up moving to the traditional space. That doesn’t make it wrong, it’s just, “That’s what’s right for them.” But the other five will have entrepreneurial drive, will value the long term, and willing to forego the short-term upside in order to bet on themselves for the long term. And holy cow, again, we’ll save that for the episode that Shirl and Louis do to talk about what those multiples could look like, but I don’t think there’s enough zeros on the calculator to begin to think about what that business… OpenArc’s business will be worth even as little as five years from now. Jason Diamond: I agree with that. I think the one point I would probably make in defense of people who go the traditional firm route… Actually, two points. Number one, I don’t think it’s only about, “I am not willing to bet on myself, and I don’t want to delay the monetization event.” I think for some people, the idea of being independent and putting the toner in the copy machine and the little K-cups, that’s just not appealing. I like going into a branch and they have everything, my desk is all set up. So that’s one caveat I’d make that some people just prefer the traditional firm world. The other caveat I’d make is there are advisors who, rightly or wrongly, believe in the brand name of the firm mattering. So there are some advisors who say, “Look, I am a good advisor, but my ability to land and grow business is tied very closely to XYZ firm/brand, Morgan Stanley.” I think, a lot of times, we find that’s not always the case as much as advisors believe. But I’m just trying to think of a couple scenarios where there are advisors who genuinely prefer or need or want the stability, big brand, resources of the biggest firms on the planet. Mindy Diamond: I totally agree. Actually, thank you for bringing those two caveats up because, I’d say, there’s a third caveat. Someone can’t go independent, they don’t have a next gen. They don’t have someone that could do the heavy lifting, if they’re not capable of doing it on their own, to build an independent firm. They don’t have entrepreneurial spirit. They’re three years from retirement, and they don’t have the kind of time that it takes to really build the value of an independent practice. And we have great respect for those people. But again, the cool thing about the industry landscape is that as it’s evolved, there’s something for everyone. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the only choice is stay put or go to UBS. Jason Diamond: Agree. In fact, there’s probably even versions of independence. For example, if you don’t have a successor, well, there are versions of independence that might work where there’s a monetization event on the backend where somebody can buy and inherit your book. So that is probably the coolest or most interesting thing, the most exciting thing anyway, about the industry landscape in the last, really call it, five years anyway, probably even a little sooner than that is, especially in the independent side of things, there are options that check just about every box. You as the advisor choose what elements… And this gets back to your begin with the end in mind. Choose what elements of the business you like, and want to maintain control over. Choose what elements of the business you don’t, and there is probably a solution out there that works to check those boxes. Mindy Diamond: And then, that goes back to what we were saying. Even if you are 90% satisfied and 99% certain you would never make a move, if you haven’t gotten educated, in some capacity, whether it be listening to a podcast, reading articles, talking to a recruiter, talking to other firms, talking to friends and colleagues at other firms, or some combination of all of the above, in the last five years, I think you’re doing yourself a disservice. And again, not because in any way we’re trying to sell you on making a move, but because we believe knowledge is power and it looks different than it did. So make sure that you’re challenging your own assumptions, and that you’re really crystal-clear that what you believe or what you believe five years ago is still true today. Jason Diamond: This is a little bit of a gear shift, but I think there’s a tie in here. If you are an advisor now, or a point in their career, they’re wise to at least get educated, pick their heads up, understand what’s out there. But then, there’s the question of, “When is due diligence done?” But I’m going to frame this through a different lens here, which is, “Now, I’m an advisor, I’ve done due diligence, I’ve talked to maybe three to five strategic firms.” Is there typically an aha moment when an advisor says, “Oh, my god. It’s RBC, and I need to go that way and I know I need to move”? Or is it more process driven than that? What are your thoughts? Because I think a lot of advisors struggle with that. And I often find myself telling advisors, “Trust the process here and you’ll know when… You don’t have to know right away in the first inning of due diligence which firm or which model you’re meeting, or even if you’re going to make a move.” But curious what your thoughts are on this one. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. In fact, we hope you don’t. We hope that you don’t go into this process with preconceived notions, we hope that you don’t make a decision after one meeting, because we do think that there’s value in the process. And people get to that aha moment at different times. You and I are working with a team, right now, that is 22 meetings in. And that’s not to say every process takes 22 meetings, but the team is sort of taking it slowly. They started out looking at five or six firms. They’ve narrowed it down now to three. The goal is to get to two or one, then to get to a home office visit to the one that’s their first choice. They’re absolutely getting closer. And I’m probably exaggerating at 22 meetings, but I’m making a point, that even at this point in the game, which is probably a good, would you say, five months into the due diligence process, I don’t know that they’ve had an aha moment. They have an aha moment that they know they don’t want another wirehouse. They don’t want to be independent because the senior member of the team is exactly that person we just described, that he doesn’t have the kind of time in the business in order to make independence worthwhile- Jason Diamond: Or drive. They just don’t want independence. Mindy Diamond: Right, and the next generation doesn’t really want it. So at this point of the game, the aha moment is think we want a regional firm or a boutique firm. But it’s not an aha moment yet that it’s going to be this firm, and that’s I think a good point. A lot of times, the aha moment is the model, first, and then the firm. Jason Diamond: Sometimes, deal can be the type like, “Okay. I know I love the regional firms, but one is offering a deal that’s 100% better,” and that’s often when we actually will counsel advisors, “It’s okay to consider the deal.” The deal is a factor, as you said earlier. Mindy Diamond: If I can, that’s actually a great point. That’s the perfect example of where, “Always consider the deal, just don’t make it your primary or first consideration.” Jason Diamond: Right. Mindy Diamond: So if you’ve done all the right due diligence and two firms or two opportunities stack up next to each other perfectly, they both will allow you to move the needle significantly enough. If they both will allow you to do better for clients and grow faster, and do everything else that’s important to you, then it’s absolutely time to make deal the tiebreaker. Jason Diamond: So you threw out five months and talking about 22 meetings, let’s table that. An advisor calls you, Mindy, this morning and says, “Not unhappy, but I’m getting that itch.” Give me the average time it takes them from that first call this morning to the moment they resigned from their firm, and then give me the quickest they could do it if they needed to. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. Let me start out by saying that those calls we get from advisors come in two different categories. One is, “Yeah, getting the itch. The straw that broke the camel’s back happened yesterday when X happened.” But the other call, the one we mentioned earlier, which is, “I am 90% happy. I am growing exponentially. I get time to coach my kids’ soccer game. I have great quality of life. I have a great team. I’ve been here 30 or 40 years, and life is good. I’m watching more of my colleagues go or I’m feeling more pain,” fill in the blank for whatever that is. “Even though I’m 90% happy and I’m 100% convinced I don’t want to move, that moving is a hassle, I can’t not see the handwriting on the wall and I at least need to get educated.” So let’s assume that we get one of those calls. The reason I am calling out the difference between the two is because the time it takes to do the due diligence is usually different. If someone is already at the point where they know that they’re unhappy and likely to move, the due diligence process usually runs quicker. The due diligence process for somebody that’s mostly happy and just beginning to get curious, sort of the latter example, might take a little longer. Jason Diamond: Give me some real parameters to it. Mindy Diamond: Well, I’d love to hear what you think. What’s swirling in my head, it’s all over the map, but I’m going to say typically six months. Jason Diamond: Six months was the number I was about to throw out as well. And I think the quickest you want to do this is three months. Anything beyond that starts to be basically a fire drill. We’ve done deals quicker than that obviously, an advisor’s going to or has been terminated. But I think six months in earnest is a good, healthy timeline. Especially, by the way, because a lot of firms are busy, we’re hearing this from a lot of the firm side of things these days. Depending upon what firm you’re moving to, you need to make sure that the firm can handle you. You want to get their A team upon your breakaway and your transition, no matter what firm that is. Mindy Diamond: Do you think, Jason, that it’s six months from, “Gee, I’m a little curious. I want to start to look. I want to begin to do due diligence. What does that look like?”, to, “My butt is in a new seat”? Jason Diamond: No. Because I think in the example where you’re just like, “Eh, I’m a little unhappy,” those early innings conversations typically play out slowly because the guy who’s 90% happy is in no rush to say, “Set me up with a bunch of firms, and let’s talk about it.” In those instances, it could take a year and a half because I think what happens really there is then there’s a catalyst event that takes them from your category two to category one. Right? They went from a little unhappy, just curious, to the straw that broke the camel’s back. And that’s when then they shift into the more… or they say the firm has… A good example, UBS, upset a lot of advisors with the compensation plan. They recently walked back a lot of those changes. I’m certain there will be some advisors who say, “This is a nod to attrition. I’ve seen from management what I need to see, and I’m going to stay put.” Equally, probably plenty of advisors who say, “It’s too little too late.” Mindy Diamond: Let me say something, and again, not to make this episode at all about this team in Atlanta, but that was a ten-year conversation for us. Literally, 10 years ago, maybe even 12 years ago, but let’s say 10, one of the senior partners on the team had called to say, “Curious, really happy, doing incredibly well. Zero chance we are moving in the next year or two or five.” But look, what don’t we know? And every year, we would then have a conversation about what the landscape looked like. But I’m going to say it was six years ago when the conversation shifted from, “Really happy, convinced we’re staying,” to, “starting to think we might leave at some point,” but another six years until this really happened. Now, that’s a good example because they were going independent. The transition itself probably took a year, year and a half. Jason Diamond: And the size and complexity of the team, by the way, probably amplifies that as well. Mindy Diamond: Well, there are outliers on either side, and that’s the point I wanted to make. Correct. Jason Diamond: Very fair. I’m glad you bring that up because there’s no cookie-cutter answer. It totally depends on the makeup of the business, where you’re going, how you’re going, when you’re going. I think we have time for two more questions, and I want to make sure we get to this because we’ve talked about this through the lens of the advisor and the advisor’s team. We haven’t talked much about the client experience, and that is clearly self-portability, in general, is something that gives advisors anxiety rightfully so. I think if you could tell a lot of advisors with 100% certainty that their book would move, I think many more would be interested in moving. I think concerns about portability, a lot of times, would keep advisors in seats. I guess what I’m getting at is because that initial client conversation is so important, is there anything you coach advisors to think about or to say to clients or potential clients as they consider a change, a transition? Mindy Diamond: Well, you have to be mindful certainly of your own employment agreement and legal considerations of pre-soliciting- Jason Diamond: Important point. Mindy Diamond: No way are any of us advocating for pre-solicitation. But you do have to have a pretty good sense in your mind without asking the client specifically, who is likely to come and who not. And the determination, the sort of hypothesis or the supposition, of who will come and who will not has everything to do with where you’re going and the value proposition, “Will I be able to make a compelling enough point? Will I have compelling enough reasons where it’s not about me, the advisor, it’s about you, the clients, about how I will better be able to service them? And if I’m able to say to a client, ‘If I make a move or I’m making this move and I’m now going to be able to do X, Y, and Z for you,’ I’m much more confident that they will be able to come?” In the case of this OpenArc deal, the Atlanta team, they did a lot of retirement plan business, so they had to be really concerned about how they were going to position this move and the new brand separating from Merrill brand, how they were going to convince their Fortune 500 clients that this was the right move. So it always has to start with what’s best for clients and how will I pitch it, if you will. Jason Diamond: I love how you answered that because it’s like two different answers to me. Part one is handicapping the portability, and that’s pre-transition during the due diligence process. Honestly, if you’re an advisor, you could do that now, right? If I were to make a move, “Here’s my client who I know with 100% certainty would follow me. Here’s the maybes, here’s the no,” you come up with a weighted average portability metric. I totally agree with you on that. And then the second piece of it is you have to be constantly thinking this option might sound the best to you, but remember, and I agree, not pre-solicit, but post-transition, you’re going to have to sell it to your clients. So you need to be thinking about every conversation you have with every firm through that lens. Do you agree with that? Meaning I’m going to move my business from UBS to Morgan Stanley. You get paid a big check, but can you articulate the clients- Mindy Diamond: Yeah, 1000%. It’s such a good point because, and we’re going to give you some inside baseball here, the number one question that any advisor who is in traffic with any firm or any model needs to ask is, put words in my mouth, “If we were fast forwarding to the day I made a move and joined your firm or joined your model, help me to understand what would the pitch to my clients sound like.” And then, you need to sort of absorb that pitch from the perspective of your clients. Put yourself in the shoes of your oldest clients, of your youngest clients, of your most important clients, of your middle-of-the-road clients, of your middle net worth clients, of the institutional clients, fill in the blank, “Does that value proposition fit?” That is one of the best ways to assess whether a firm or an opportunity is better enough or good enough for you. Jason Diamond: It’s such a good answer, and I love the inside baseball look there. Also, by the way, it has this side benefit of you’re forcing the managers or the recruiters to articulate almost like a succinct value prop on their firm. Right? Tell me, hypothetically, what would I say to clients about, and you’re just picking on Morgan, “Why is Morgan Stanley better than my current firm?” And that answer ought to be compelling. In closing, I want to wrap this up with a question around the difficulty of a move. You’ve been in this business now 30 years, I think it’s almost exactly 30 years. Has it gotten easier logistically to transition? And do you see that trend continuing, let’s say, because of partially things like AI, DocuSign and the like? What are your thoughts on the nuts and bolts of transitioning? Mindy Diamond: There’s no question it’s gotten easier. There’s no question that, from a legal perspective, the advent of broker protocol certainly makes it less scary or less risky to make a move. But there are plenty of moves that are made as a non-protocol move, and that’s not always the case. And the ecosystem, I should say, has gotten better to support the advisor in transition. Legal counsel, all they do all day long is facilitate these moves. Third-party consultancies, people like us that have been at it 30 years and have seen it all, and all the mistakes have already been made, we know how to do it. But with that said, moving is a hassle. No matter how much better the support system has gotten, no matter how many times a manager or a firm has transitioned advisors, it is a hassle to move. It is disruptive. It is a lot. And again, this statement is not going to win me a place in the headhunter hall of fame, but you should absolutely not consider a move unless you have the appetite for some risk, for some breakage, meaning some loss of clients, and you’re willing to shrink to grow, and you’ve got an appetite for some hassle factor to work perhaps harder for a short period of time than you have in a while. If you don’t have that, then no matter how unhappy you are, you really need to seriously consider whether moving is the best way to solve your problems. Jason Diamond: Yeah. It’s a really great way to tie a bow on this episode. It was a lot of fun. I’m excited. I think that would be 2037 based on your 12-year timeline. So the next $129-billion team, we’ll have to schedule that episode out for 10 or 12 years from now. But Mindy, thank you so much for sharing your years of wisdom and expertise with us. This was a fantastic episode. I had a lot of fun. Mindy Diamond: Yeah, I loved it too. Thank you, my pleasure. Jason Diamond: Thank you for joining us. We'll be back with a new episode next week, so be sure to listen in. Mindy Diamond: As a financial advisor, you hold yourself to the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and credibility. You are successful because you take your professional responsibility seriously and are dedicated to your clients. But are you living your best business life? Are your goals aligned with your firms, or could a better option exist? Should I Stay or Should I Go? is a book written with you in mind. It’s a self-guided journey that walks you through the key steps that we take with our advisor clients. This strategic thought process and road map to professional self-discovery is designed to help you ask the right questions and think critically and objectively, whether you’re considering change or not. Learn how to get your copy at diamond-consultants.com/thebook.     The Advisor Transition Playbook: Inside Baseball on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between A Special Industry Update with Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond. Jason Diamond: Welcome to a replay of one of the most popular episodes from our podcast series for financial advisors, The Advisor Transition Playbook: Inside Baseball on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between. It's Part 1 of a 2-Part Industry Update with Mindy Diamond. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more, who change firms, are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at (908) 879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms, and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual Advisor Transition Report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: Everything about a transition can seem incredibly overwhelming. From understanding the whys of a move, then conducting due diligence, and onto aligning the right models and selecting the best firms, it might seem like a fairly linear process. And for some, it can be. But for others, the layers of minutia can be daunting. Essentially, it comes down to the adage, “You don’t know what you don’t know.” So the goal of this episode is to share some inside baseball in how to get from here to there. I asked Mindy Diamond to join me to help draw from decades of experience in helping advisors through their transitions. We’ve dived into the misconceptions, the common

Trey and Katie celebrate six years of marriage by talking prenups, post-nups, divorce fears, and why money conversations can get surprisingly sentimental. They also cover pregnancy “zombie mode,” Trey closing Katie's mouth while she slept, social media showing way too much death, wild listener parenting stories, and a chaotic attempt at TikTok trends.Support the show!If you're looking for lightweight, comfortable shirts for spring and summer, check out Poncho Outdoors. They've got Ultra-Lite, Original, Western, and Polo styles depending on what you're looking for. Go to http://ponchoutdoors.com/CORRECT and enter your email for $10 off your first order and free shipping.Every mama deserves a boost.Craveable kookies for motherhood and beyond.Visit: https://miraclemama.com/discount/treykennedyGet half off our Patreon by using code, NEWCHAPTER at http://patreon.com/treykennedySubscribe to the channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL3ESPT9yf1T8x6L0P4d39w?sub_confirmation=1 Subscribe to Correct Opinions on Apple: http://bit.ly/COPodcast

Welcome back to SANDCAST: Beach Volleyball with Tri Bourne and Travis Mewhirter, and welcome back to our fourth semi-annual edition of SANDCASTING Your Brains Out with John Mayer and Billy Allen, the hosts of Coach Your Brains Out. Mayer is the head coach of the LMU Beach Volleyball team, while Allen is the assistant -- and AVCA Assistant Coach of the Year! -- at Stanford. We're recapping the NCAA Beach Volleyball season, where Mayer's Lions won another WCC title, making it seven in a row(!!), Allen's Cardinal made their first NCAA finals, and Mewhirter's FSU Seminoles had their second-best regular season ever, won a Big 12 Conference title, and made the NCAA semifinals, losing to Allen's Cardinal. We're chatting: Is there a "correct" way to do anything in beach volleyball, and sports? How do you prep for the post-season in beach volleyball? Injury prevention techniques And a whole lot more SHOOTS! We have a NEW BOOK! Pre-order your copy of Volleyball for Dummies today at Barnes and Noble! Want SANDCAST merch? We got you covered. Check it out here! Get 25 PERCENT off all Mikasa products with our code, SANDCAST and play with the ball. played with the best in the game. Head to Mikasa's website and get your bag of balls today! Get 10 PERCENT OFF VBTV using our discount code, SANDCAST10 Want to get better at beach volleyball? Use our discount code, SANDCAST, and get 10 percent off all Better at Beach products!  If you want to receive our SANDCAST weekly newsletter, the Beach Volleyball Digest, which dishes all the biggest news in beach volleyball in one quick newsletter, click here and sign on up! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A birthday cookout turned into one of the most powerful conversations I've had in a long time, and I had to bring it to you. I sat down with a new friend named Julissa, who founded LearningMind Diagnostics, and everything about her reminded me what it looks like when someone is truly on fire for their work. In this episode, I break down three raw lessons I pulled from that conversation that can immediately shift how you show up in your life, your work, and your community. Key Takeaways Genuine passion cannot be taught, coached, or replicated by AI. If you love what you do, you cannot be replaced. Authenticity always wins. You do not need the perfect words, you need the real ones that come from caring deeply. The power of one is real. Driving hours to help one child is not inefficient, it is exactly how you start a chain reaction of change. Stop trying to reach the masses. Focus on the one person in front of you, give them everything, and repeat that process daily. Your name is attached to your character, your integrity, and your legacy. Make people say it right and make sure it stands for something. Action Steps Ask yourself honestly: am I passionate about what I do, does it have purpose, and does it make someone's life better? If the answer is no, figure out what needs to change. Identify one person today, just one, that you can invest your full attention and effort into. Send the text, offer the help, make the call. Start the chain reaction. Take ownership of your name and your identity. Correct people when they get it wrong, because your name carries everything you have built and everything you are still building. Notable Quote In the end, authenticity always wins. If you're passionate about it, you'll have an audience because we as people need passion. We need people that love what they do.

A video from Bryce Harper sparks an internet wide debate about how to brush your teeth properly.

The Drive wondered if fans have a confidence in John Sherman and JJ Picollo to correct the Royals issues get back to being a winning a team.

Carlos Juan Finlay was a Cuban doctor who did a lot of work to understand the spread of Yellow Fever. But Walter Reed got most of the credit. Research: American Experience. “Carlos Finlay (1833-1915).” From The Great Fever. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/fever-carlos-finlay/ Berenbrok, Dorothy E., "Latin Heritage Month. Carlos Juan Finlay: Outrageous, Courageous and Correct" (2015). Posters: Jefferson History. 3. https://jdc.jefferson.edu/jeffhistoryposters/3 "Carlos Juan Finlay." Encyclopedia of World Biography Online, Gale, 1998. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/K1631002194/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=bfeecc25. Accessed 29 Apr. 2026. Chaves-Carballo, Enrique. “Carlos J. Finlay: The mosquito man.” Hektoen International. 11/2/2020. https://hekint.org/2020/11/02/carlos-j-finlay-the-mosquito-man/ Corbitt, Duvon C. “Carlos J. Finlay, Cuban Physician.” The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Aug., 1965). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2511751 Del Regato, Juan A. “Carlos Juan Finlay (1833-1915).” Journal of Public Health Policy , 2001, Vol. 22, No. 1 (2001). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3343556 Faerstein, Eduardoa; Winkelstein, Warren Jrb. Carlos Juan Finlay: Rejected, Respected, and Right. Epidemiology 21(1):p 158, January 2010. | DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c308e0 Ferreira Moreno, Víctor Guillermo. “Evocation to the Dr. Carlos J. Finlay Barres on the centennial of his death.” Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia) vol. 47,1 63-6. 30 Mar. 2016 Finlay, Carlos J. “The Mosquito Hypothetically Considered as the Agent of Transmission of Yellow Fever.” Read before the Royal Academy of Medical, Physical and Natural Sciences Session of August 14th, 1881. https://archive.org/details/b33448541/page/590/mode/1up Finlay, Carlos Juan. “Trabajos selectos del Dr. Carlos J. Finlay. Selected papers of Dr. Carlos J. Finlay.” Habana. 1912. https://archive.org/details/trabajosselectos00finl Finlay, Charles. “Inoculations for Yellow Fever by Means of Contaminated Mosquitoes.” Published in The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, n.s. 102: 264-268, 1891. https://archive.org/details/b33445242/page/n4/mode/1up Finlay, Charles. “Yellow Fever: Its ‘Transmission by Means of the Culex Mosquito.” Published in The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, n.s. 92: 395-409, 1886. https://archive.org/details/b33435698/page/613/mode/1up Palmer, Steven. “A Cuban Scientist Between Empires: Peripheral Vision on Race and Tropical Medicine.” Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies / Revue canadienne desétudes latino-américaines et caraïbes, Vol. 35, No. 69, Special Issue: Landscapes of LatinAmerican Health, 1870-1970. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41800498 Spears, Ellen Griffith and Rosa López-Oceguera. “Carlos Juan Finlay, William Gorgas, and Walter Reed and the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Controversy: Competing Historical Memories.” Alabama Review The University of Alabama Press. Volume 74, Number 1, January 2021. https://doi.org/10.1353/ala.2021.0011 Stepan, Nancy. “The Interplay between Socio-Economic Factors and Medical Science: Yellow Fever Research, Cuba and the United States.” Social Studies of Science , Nov., 1978, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Nov., 1978). Via JSTOR. http://www.jstor.com/stable/284817 Thomas Jefferson University. “10 Notable Jefferson Alumni of the Past.” https://library.jefferson.edu/archives/exhibits/notable_alumni/juan_carlos_finlay.cfm Tone, John Lawrence. (2002) “How the mosquito (man) liberated Cuba.” History and Technology, 18:4, 277-308, DOI: 10.1080/07341512.2002.11417735 “Carlos J. Finlay.” 5/16/2023. https://www.unesco.org/en/prizes/carlos-j-finlay/about Woodall, Jack. "Yellow Fever." Infectious Diseases: In Context, edited by Brenda Wilmoth Lerner and K. Lee Lerner, vol. 2, Gale, 2008, pp. 925-931. In Context Series. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3045200265/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=bf646a26. Accessed 29 Apr. 2026. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the prayer we recite before the Korbanot section each morning, we express our joy over the fact that we arise early each morning to go to the synagogue and study hall, and we remain there in the evenings: "Fortunate are we! How good is our portion, how pleasant is our lot, and how exceedingly beautiful is our heritage. Fortunate are we when we rise early and stay late in synagogues and houses of study." In some editions of the Siddur, the phrase "Ke'she'anahnu Mashkimim" is written without the prefix "Ke" at the beginning. According to this version, we are exclaiming that we are fortunate "She'anahnu Mashkimim" – "that we arise early," not "when we arise early." The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that a person should not say, "She'anahnu Mashkimim," because this would be dishonest, as most people do not arise at dawn to go to the synagogue or study hall. We should instead recite "Ke'she'anahnu," expressing that we are fortunate when we succeed in arising early to serve Hashem. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagreed, noting that the word is written "She'anahnu Mashkimim" in numerous texts of the earlier generations. It is found in Tana De'beh Eliyahu, the Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon, the Tur, the Seder Ha'yom, and several other sources. Hacham Ovadia explains that even one who does not rise early can recite this text – "She'anahnu" – because this word is written in the plural form, and thus refers not specifically to the individual reciting the prayer, but to the Jewish People generally, and many Jews indeed make a point of rising very early. This is comparable to the Vidui Ma'aser declaration that would be made every third and six years of the seven-year Shemitta cycle avowing compliance with the various tithing requirements (Terumot and Ma'aserot). Rashi (to Kiddushin 26a) writes that even a person who does not own land in Eretz Yisrael can make this proclamation, even though it refers to Eretz Yisrael as the land "Asher Natata Lanu" – "that You have given us" (Debarim 26:15), because this means that the land was given to the entire Jewish Nation. Even though the person himself has no portion in the Land of Israel, he can nevertheless speak of it as the land which Hashem has given "us," because the land was given to the entire nation. By contrast, a person without land in Eretz Yisrael cannot make the Mikra Bikkurim proclamation which is declared upon bringing one's first fruits, because this declaration speaks of the land "Asher Natati Li Hashem" – "that You, O G-d, have given me" (Debarim 26:10), in the first-person form. The phrase "She'anahnu Mashkimim" is written in the plural form, and thus refers to all Am Yisrael, and not specifically to the person reciting the prayer. Hence, it is legitimate even for somebody who does not rise early to recite this text. Nevertheless, most of the Siddurim that have become accepted in our community use the text "Ke'she'anahnu Mashkimim."

Trey and Katie recap a wild week of girls' trips, tour comments, newborn photo negotiations, and the humbling reality of trying to look like a competent adult. Plus, Trey realizes his toddler's questions are getting harder, and he'd like the record to show he is not as dumb as his son is starting to think he is.Start this spring season off right and order your Cove system today! Head to http://covesmart.com/CORRECT or use code CORRECT at checkout for up to 70% offyour first order!Rula patients typically pay $15 per session when using insurance. Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at https://www.rula.com/correctopinions #rulapod Our listeners can buy one prescription pair and get 20% off additional pairs at WarbyParker.com/CORRECTOPINIONS — and using our link helps support the show. #WarbyParker #adHelp protect your home systems – and your wallet – with HomeServe against covered repairs. Plans start at just $4.99 a month. Go to http://HomeServe.com to find the plan that's right for you. Subscribe to the channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL3ESPT9yf1T8x6L0P4d39w?sub_confirmation=1 Subscribe to Correct Opinions on Apple: http://bit.ly/COPodcast

You might have seen the CNN article from a while back entitled Exposing a global ‘rape academy'. While most of the article is technically true, the broad takeaway that virtually everyone had (including me) was wildly, irresponsibly false. Even if you came across debunks of this, there's a good chance that I'm debunking this even more than you've seen. I don't think people have fully grasped how misleading it was.