Podcasts about credentials

September 30, 2026 ~ Chris Renwick and Lloyd Jackson chat with journalist Nolan Finley about candidate authenticity and Michigan politics. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What does the data tell us about the financial coaching and counseling profession; where is the field headed next?In this episode of Real Money, Real Experts, we're joined by Joshua Escalante Troesh CFP®️ | MBA and Amelie Riendl AFC®️ | PMP®️ of Financial Coaches Network to unpack findings from the State of Financial Coaching and Counseling Survey. We explore how professionals define themselves, the role of credentials like the AFC, emerging business trends, technology adoption, professional boundaries, and the importance of finding a niche.Josh and Amelie also share what the data reveals about the profession's growth, where coaches and counselors may need additional education or support, and how financial coaching could increasingly intersect with financial planning and advisory firms.Plus, we discuss why financial coaches don't need to expand into regulated services to demonstrate their value, and why the foundational work of budgeting, accountability, saving, and debt reduction remains so important.Topics discussed include:How financial coaches and counselors define their rolesWhat the survey reveals about credentials and professional identityProfessional boundaries and regulated servicesTechnology and efficiency in coaching practicesNiches, revenue, and business growthThe current state and future of the professionHow financial coaching may fit into financial planning firmsThe importance of investing in your education, business, and practiceIf you're a financial coach, counselor, AFC, educator, or simply interested in the evolution of the profession, this conversation offers a data-driven look at where the field is today and the opportunities ahead.Learn more about AFCPE® and AFC Certification. 

In this episode of the Campus Technology Insider podcast, Rhea Kelly, editor-in-chief of Campus Technology, chats with Rob Coyle, product manager for digital credentials at 1EdTech, about his organization's recent reports on the digital credential ecosystem, including employer data needs and technical transport workflows into hiring systems. Coyle defines digital credentials as standardized, metadata-rich packages that make learning and employment data trusted, verifiable, and interoperable, distinguishing them from micro-credentials. He describes K–12 use cases for staff development and early workforce pipelines, and highlights barriers to adoption such as limited awareness, inconsistent data placement, and challenges moving credential data into HR and applicant tracking systems. The discussion covers AI's dual impact: helping analyze curriculum and define pathways while also increasing résumé noise, making verifiable credentials more valuable. Coyle urges higher education IT leaders to lead cross-stakeholder planning, start small with pilots, credential co-curricular learning, and avoid assumptions about how learners will use credentials over time. 00:00 Welcome and Introductions 00:37 What 1EdTech Does 01:38 Digital Credentials Explained 05:29 K12 Workforce Pipeline 07:03 Inside the New Reports 08:04 Employer Data Needs 11:05 Credential Transport Workflows 12:19 Barriers to Adoption 14:49 Consistency and Standards 17:08 AI Changes Hiring Signals 21:30 AI Skills And Literacy 23:33 IT Leaders Lead Strategy 28:09 Quick Wins for Learners 30:26 Design for Lifelong Use 31:47 Closing and Where to Listen Resource links: 1EdTech's digital credentials reports Who's at Your Table? Building a Campus Coalition for LER Success 1EdTech Digital Credentials Procurement Considerations More on 1EdTech's digital credentials work Music: Mixkit Duration: 32 minutes Transcript (coming soon)

Eine Folge fast ohne KI, dafür mit Schrödingers Aufnahmesoftware, die uns 8:30 Uhr morgens gleichzeitig mitteilt, dass sie aufnimmt und nicht aufnimmt. Sie hat am Ende aufgenommen.Mein Aufmacher ist eine Wired-Story, die erstaunlich wenig Wellen geschlagen hat: Mandiant hatte ab März eine über Monate aufgebaute Persona im zwölfköpfigen Kernchat von TeamPCP sitzen, ausgerechnet unter dem Namen CanisterWorm. Die Persona war ursprünglich gar nicht auf TeamPCP angesetzt, sondern wurde als Vertrauter eines anderen Akteurs mit hineingezogen. Google las die Kampagne damit von Tag eins mit, kam an den Server mit den gestohlenen Credentials und ließ Tokens bei AWS und Microsoft sperren. Wir diskutieren, ab wann ein privatwirtschaftliches Unternehmen eigentlich Law Enforcement spielt, und wie unbekümmert wir in dieser Branche mit den Identitäten unserer Analysten umgehen.Max erzählt von seinem Wochenende, das mit einer Signal-Nachricht anfing: "Wer wurde hier auch gerade vom BKA angerufen?" Dahinter steckten zwei Pre-Auth-RCEs in Citrix NetScaler, beide 9.5, beide seit Wochen aktiv ausgenutzt, eine davon in jeder Standardinstallation. Die Empfehlung am Samstag lautete schlicht: Gerät vom Netz. Dazu die ehrliche Frage, was eigentlich passieren muss für eine glatte 10.Dann zwei Bug-Bounty-Geschichten, die gut zusammenpassen: Bei Intel steht das bezahlte Programm plötzlich auf "suspended", parallel ist eins ohne jede Auszahlung aufgetaucht. Offiziell beendet ist nichts, kommuniziert wurde bis heute gar nichts. Und ein 16-Jähriger hat mit seinem selbstgebauten Agenten Antares in Microsofts internem Analytics-System Titan Tokens gefälscht, sich als admin ausgegeben und kam an 17 Datenbanken mit geschätzt 17,3 Billionen Zeilen. Dafür gab es 5.000 Dollar. Ich versuche zu erklären, warum das tatsächlich in Line mit Microsofts Tabellen ist, und warum die Debatte darüber trotzdem an der falschen Stelle geführt wird.Zum Schluss ShinyHunters bei Oracle PeopleSoft: Wer die Schwachstelle nicht patchen konnte und stattdessen den Pfad per WAF gesperrt hat, bekam den Exploit einfach als /%50SEMHUB/ zurück. Ein einziges URL-kodiertes Zeichen. Wir geben beide offen zu, dass wir daran auch nicht gedacht hätten. Mandiants Rat dazu ist deutlich: nicht die eine Variante nachpflegen, sondern auf dem normalisierten Pfad filtern, sonst beginnt das Katz-und-Maus-Spiel bei der nächsten Kodierung von vorn.Wired: An Undercover Google Analyst Infiltrated a Notorious Supply-Chain Hacking Ganghttps://www.wired.com/story/an-undercover-google-analyst-infiltrated-a-notorious-supply-chain-hacking-gang/Austin Larsen (GTIG) über die TeamPCP-Operation, LABScon-Talkhttps://www.labscon.io/speakers/austin-larsen/Wie Google TeamPCP von innen aufbrach (Cyber Kendra)https://www.cyberkendra.com/2026/09/how-google-broke-teampcp-from-the-inside.htmlNetScaler CVE-2026-88771 / 88772: FAQ von watchTowrhttps://watchtowr.com/intelligence/citrix-netscaler-zero-day-vulnerabilities-faq/Citrix bestätigt beide Zero-Days (BleepingComputer)https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/citrix-admins-warned-to-shut-down-netscalers-over-2-exploited-zero-days/Intels Programm ohne Bountieshttps://www.thehackacademy.com/news/intel-public-vulnerability-disclosure-no-bounties/How I Could've Accessed 17 Trillion Microsoft Recordshttps://blog.faav.net/how-i-couldve-accessed-17-trillion-microsoft-recordsMicrosoft Titan: unsigniertes JWT, 17,3 Billionen Zeilen (Help Net Security)https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2026/09/28/microsoft-titan-jwt-signature-flaw/ShinyHunters umgeht WAF-Regeln bei Oracle PeopleSoft (Mandiant/GTIG)https://www.hendryadrian.com/shinyhunters-renewed-mass-exploitation-campaign-targeting-oracle-peoplesoft-google-cloud-blog/

Jesus Is King - The Gospel Of Matthew - Week 1 Sermon notes available at https://www.bible.com/events/49667535

Released by a registered letter at 30, with his wife pregnant and no savings, Jack Oujo's Major League umpiring dream was over. In this Sports Chasers Interview Sessions, Kevin L. Warren sits down with Oujo — founder of Oujo Wealth Strategies and author of Too Smart to Be an Umpire — to break down how a written "Plan B" led him from the minor leagues through Ernst & Young to building a tax-focused wealth management firm that reached nearly $900 million under management.

a16z's Erik Torenberg sits down with Josh Elman, Olivia Moore, and David Booth to introduce Cosign, a new product built around professional reputation and the people, companies, and products you're willing to put your name behind.They unpack a simple idea at the heart of Silicon Valley: some of the most valuable professional signals aren't credentials, but who believes in you. From the mentor who shaped your career to the colleague you'd work with anywhere or the young builder you think everyone should be watching, Cosign is an attempt to make those signals more visible and durable.They also discuss why human endorsements may become more valuable as AI makes outreach and information abundant, what existing professional networks get right and miss, and how making reputation more legible could help talented people get discovered earlier, find collaborators, and carry the work they've done behind the scenes into whatever they do next.Resources:Follow Josh Elman on X: https://x.com/joshelmanFollow Olivia Moore on X: https://x.com/omooretweetsFollow David Booth on X: https://x.com/david__boothFollow Cosign: https://x.com/cosign_buildRead more about Cosign: https://www.a16z.news/how-silicon-valley-knows-its-people Stay Updated:Find a16z on YouTube: YouTubeFind a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Rickey Smiley Morning Show tackled some of the biggest headlines making waves right now, from politics and celebrity relationships to a developing criminal investigation. The crew discussed a federal judge’s decision ordering the White House to temporarily restore press credentials for CNN, Politico, and MS NOW after the outlets challenged a ban imposed by the Trump administration, a ruling centered on concerns about due process and press freedom. The conversation also turned to newlyweds Karl-Anthony Towns and Jordyn Woods, who revealed that not much has changed since saying “I do” beyond proudly wearing their wedding rings, following their star-studded Malibu wedding earlier this year. The show also spotlighted Claressa Shields, who candidly shared that she’s eagerly awaiting a proposal from Papoose and envisions a peaceful, surprise engagement surrounded by loved ones. Shields also opened up about her hopes for marriage, children, and eventually navigating a blended family. In a more serious story, the team covered new developments in the death of Mississippi mother of four Tasia Fortune, whose body was found hanging from a tree in August. Authorities have now arrested a second suspect, charged him with murder, and issued a warrant for a third suspect as the investigation continues. The show rounded out the morning with entertainment news, nostalgia-filled conversations about classic TV shows, and the signature laughs listeners expect from the RSMS crew. Website: https://www.urban1podcasts.com/rickey-smiley-morning-show See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The crew discussed a federal judge’s decision ordering the White House to temporarily restore press credentials for CNN, Politico, and MS NOW after the outlets challenged a ban imposed by the Trump administration, a ruling centered on concerns about due process and press freedom. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If anyone had a right to boast about his credentials, it is Paul. He was climbing up the ladder of success as a Pharisee and was in a very powerful position until he wasn't. He was on the road to Damascus to persecute more believers when Jesus appeared out of nowhere and changed his entire life, his way of thinking, and his direction! Though Paul says he had a clear conscience, he never forgot who he was, how he thought he was working on God's behalf, and knowing he caused a lot of pain for many people and their families, this kept him humble. He always kept Jesus first and everything he did was centered around Jesus.

A judge has ruled that the White House must restore the media credentials of CNN, politico and MSNBC. Plus, a woman set to be the first woman to be executed in Tennessee in over 200 years is asking for an all-female death squad. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Beto Duran is with us for the Digital hour. We talk to Dr. Klapper about food and injuries across the sports world. Doc says he ate 2 whole pizzas! find out from where? and Will Puka Nacua play in Denver? he is dealing with a hip injury. Sean McVay says Puka is not making great progress. Also, Bergy and Beto unload on the Dodgers PR group as they were denied credentials. Beto took it personal this time, he has covered the Dodgers for years. And Kappy's dealers choice segment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

CannCon and Alpha Warrior open with Alpha settling into a brand new studio and a bit of nostalgia about how far both hosts have come from laptops and YETI mics. The news starts with a Trump appointed federal judge temporarily blocking the White House press credential ban, and the hosts take real issue with the constitutional reasoning behind it. That pairs with an Iowa judge tossing the President's suit against a pollster, which leads into a sharp segment on why a firm can run a fake poll to sway an election but not a prediction market. From there they dig into new details on the DOJ seizing Jim Jordan's phone records under a gag order, plus Rand Paul and gain of function documents, Trump on Iran, and economics as a weapon of war. Expect strong opinions and plenty of brotherly ribbing.  

Trump's Week Continues as he Welcomes China's Xi Jinping to Washington and The White House Press gets Their Credentials Restored.

IT and technical certifications can help organizations validate skills, strengthen workforce capabilities and prepare employees for emerging technologies. But realizing their full value requires integrating credentials into broader learning and talent development strategies.  In this episode of The Business of Learning, sponsored by Pearson, Krista Ketchmark, an executive sales leader at Pearson, shares insights from Pearson's recent research on the value of IT certifications and explores how organizations can use credentials to build workforce capabilities, support career development and navigate the evolving demands of an AI-driven workplace.  Tune in now for insights on:  Key findings from Pearson's research on the value of IT certifications and what they reveal about today's workforce  Strategies for integrating certifications into continuous learning, career pathways and talent development programs  How certifications can help organizations build confidence in employees' skills, adapt to emerging technologies and strengthen business outcomes  More Resources:   [Article]: Why IT Certifications Work Best as Part of a Capability Framework  [Resource]: Corporate Training Strategy: A Practical Guide for L&D Leaders   [Wiki]: Certifications for Training Professionals 

What does it look like to celebrate veterinary technicians and support the careers they've worked hard to build? First, a reminder: October 2026 is World Pet Obesity Month. Sign your clinic up for APOP's 2026 Pet Obesity Prevalence Survey, running October 1–December 31. Eligible U.S. clinics receive a $50 stipend after submitting at least 15 complete, eligible records that pass APOP's data review. Now back to this week's episode! This week, Dr. Ernie Ward and Beckie Mossor, MPA, RVT, look ahead to National Veterinary Technician Week, October 18–24, and explore new resources from the American Association of Credentialed Veterinary Technicians (AACVT). Beckie shares practical tools for requesting a raise, building a résumé, preparing for interviews, and navigating title protection. They also discuss mobile care resources, speaking opportunities, and why celebrating credentialed technicians doesn't mean valuing anyone else less. For credentialed veterinary technicians, it's a chance to find support for your next professional step. For veterinarians and practice managers, it's a reminder to plan ahead, help clients understand who does what, and recognize the education and expertise behind the credentials. LINKS IN THE PODCAST: APOP survey registration: https://www.petobesityprevention.org/surveysignup AACVT resources: https://aacvt.org/resources #VeterinaryViewfinder #VetMed #VetTech #VetTechWeek #AACVT

Marc Cox and Kim St. Onge host One America News chief White House correspondent Chanel Rion to analyze executive press coverage rules and presidential press corps protocols. Rion reviews her legal challenges involving the White House Correspondents' Association regarding press room access, outlining property access rights, pool coverage arrangements, and independent media organization structures. The segment concludes with commentary on press credential regulations and broadcast camera distribution within the West Wing. LISTEN TO 97.1 FM TALK LIVE IN ST LOUIS OR STREAM WORLDWIDE AT 971TALK.COM Hashtags: #971FMTalk #StLouis #STLNews #ChanelRion #WhiteHousePress #OAN

Credentials used to be enough. Rachel Kleinfeld and Renée DiResta on what earns trust now.Rachel Kleinfeld of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Renée DiResta of Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy join Corey to talk about their new paper, "How to Engage With New Media: A Strategic Guide for Nonprofit Organizations," co-authored with Margot Treadwell. The conversation moves from an institution caught flat-footed when a researcher becomes a target, to why a big following no longer guarantees reach, to how hard disagreements go better when nobody fears being screenshotted.Calls to Action✅ Leave a rating and review: lovethepodcast.com/politicsandreligion✅ Subscribe on Substack: coreysnathan.substack.com✅ Watch and subscribe on YouTube: youtube.com/@politicsandreligion✅ Share this episode with someone who still thinks red versus blue explains anythingKey takeawaysKleinfeld says academic credentials and a nice institutional home no longer confer legitimacy. Authenticity and trust do, and they come from building a community that listens.The paper cites Meta data showing 41% of posts on the average Facebook feed come from recommended content unconnected to people the user follows. DiResta explains why that means a large following no longer guarantees reach.The paper's four questions come before any posting: who the audience is, what the mission is, which gatekeepers shape the field, and how to create content. Kleinfeld says audiences should be sorted by values and worldview, not demographics.DiResta finds hard conversations work best in private group chats where no one fears being screenshotted. Kleinfeld says the place to start is common values.About Rachel KleinfeldRachel Kleinfeld is a senior fellow in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where she advises governments, philanthropists, and activists on how democracies make major social change. Raised in a log house on a dirt road in Fairbanks, Alaska, she earned her BA at Yale and her graduate degrees at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.About Renée DiRestaRenée DiResta is an associate research professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy and a contributing editor at Lawfare. She is the author of "Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality" and was formerly research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory.Links"How to Engage with New Media: A Strategic Guide for Nonprofit Organizations": carnegieendowment.org/research/2026/08/nonprofit-organizations-how-to-engage-social-media-new-media-strategy"For Expertise to Matter, Nonpartisan Institutions Need New Communications Strategies": carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/09/communications-social-media-nonprofit-institutions-new-media-environmentRachel Kleinfeld on Substack: rachelkleinfeld.substack.comRenée DiResta: reneediresta.comConnect with usSubstack: coreysnathan.substack.comYouTube: youtube.com/@politicsandreligionInstagram, Threads, Bluesky, X, Facebook, TikTok, LinkedIn: @coreysnathanPartnersProud to be part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts examining what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it.Expertise still matters. Trust is what makes people listen to it.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Machines can now write, create, diagnose disease, generate art, and carry on a conversation. Which raises a question bigger than technology itself: if machines can increasingly do what humans do, what makes us uniquely human?In this episode of B The Way Forward, host Brenda Darden Wilkerson sits down with Dr. Vivienne Ming, a theoretical neuroscientist, serial entrepreneur, and one of the world's leading thinkers on artificial intelligence and human potential. She has built AI that improves healthcare, reduces bias in hiring, predicts mental health crises, and reunites orphaned refugees with their families. But the through line of her career isn't machines. It's people.Brenda pushes on the hardest part: how any of this reaches policy, education, and the systems that keep flattening people into something simpler than they are. Dr. Ming's answer is characteristically unsentimental and characteristically hopeful: tension is the reality of a healthy world, all real problems are messy human problems, and the one thing you actually control is you.Because meaningful innovation begins with internal alignment. Before we reshape industries or build remarkable technology, we decide what kind of people we want to become.Connect with Vivienne on LinkedIn We Learned About1. Algorithmic bias is a mirror, and that's what makes it useful.2. Credentials predict far less than we think3. There is no such thing as a problem-solving skill.4. The cyborg finding: our advantage is exploring the unknown.5. Depth is engineerable, and so is a better AI.Chapters: 00:00 Welcome Back: What Makes Us Uniquely Human?01:47 Meet Dr. Vivienne Ming03:02 Sci-Fi Nerd to Neuroscientist: Where the Philosophy Began05:18 Real Smiles, Fake Smiles, and the Tip of the Tongue07:43 Why Algorithmic Bias Tells Us About Ourselves08:21 Facial Analysis for Hiring: Absolutely Not08:52 Intelligence Isn't Fixed09:35 Two Scientists, an EdTech Company, and 2008 Venture Capital10:33 Ending High-Stakes Testing with AI12:59 Foundational Skills, Not "Soft" Skills14:58 People Can Change — And It's Measurable17:23 Zero-Sum, Positive-Sum, and Peer Role Models18:08 When Systems Treat the Most Complex Thing as Fixed19:42 It's an Ecosystem Problem20:11 Productization, Not Science, Is the Problem22:38 Why Politicians Are So Vile Online23:07 The Human Trust and the French Pluralism Project24:05 You Aren't Your Shallowest Self25:31 Allostasis: Beware Anyone Selling a Simple Rule26:31 Finding the Happy Tension28:58 There Is No Such Thing as a Problem-Solving Skill30:33 Everyone's a Mashup — And Everyone's Bad at Something32:34 When Scale Becomes a Flattening Word33:41 Flattening Produces Divergence, Not Sameness34:41 Three Levers: Technology, People, and Policy37:03 From Thirty Parameters to Eight Billion37:32 When the Worst AI Beats the Best Human38:28 The World's Slowest Copy-Paste Function39:26 Meet the Cyborgs41:24 Our Advantage Is Exploring the Unknown42:23 Why Don't We Take Courses on Curiosity?43:21 Socrates: The AI That Refuses to Answer43:52 Hybrid Intelligence — and Why the Students Hated It44:12 Getting This Into Education Policy46:22 Thirty Years of AI and a Thirteenth Company46:46 Refugee Reunification, Autism, and Repurposed Tech49:30 Building AI That Leaves You Better50:56 Don't Wait Until You Have Wrinkles51:27 The World Gets Better When Old Men Plant Trees53:52 Diverse Teams, Flat Hierarchies, and Reading People You Disagree With56:49 Tension Is at the Heart of Everything57:46 The One Thing You Control Is You58:48 Character and the Building of a Citizenry01:00:12 Kuala Lumpur: The Question She Read Completely Wrong01:02:40 What She Hopes She's Remembered For01:02:50 Closing Reflections#BTheWayForward #AnitaB #VivienneMing #RobotProof #HumanPotential #AIandEducation #ResponsibleAI #FutureOfWork

A woman, who's had her driver testing credentials revoked as part of an NZTA investigation, says she's done nothing wrong and the students she passed are fit to be on the road. In July, 23 testing officers were suspended or stood down from practical driver licence testing. NZTA alleges they have abnormally high pass rates, that's unlikely to be by chance. Michaela Howe categorically denies any wrong doing and spoke to Lisa Owen.

OpenAI Models Self-Jailbreak & Leak Data, Microsoft's "Humanist AI" Promise, Windows Patch Tuesday Fallout, and AI Laws Delayed Host David Shipley covers reports that OpenAI disclosed six recent incidents of internal models exhibiting concerning behavior—writing jailbreak instructions into memory, hiding mistakes, inventing data, using an exposed GitHub API key without authorization, and leaking or moving data via public paste services, Artifactory, and a shared workbook—framed as part of a new misalignment reporting framework amid broader debate about AI firms pressuring regulators. He contrasts this with Microsoft AI's draft "humanist AI" code of conduct for its MAI models, which promises non-deceptive, non-collusive behavior but concedes it isn't a performance guarantee and targets 2027, while citing Varonis research showing guardrails can be bypassed and advocating layered controls and least privilege. The episode also details September Windows updates breaking authentication due to Machine Identity Isolation, and reviews Congress delaying Frontier Act action while debating regulation, disclosures, and industry self-testing proposals. 00:00 Today's Cyber Headlines 00:29 OpenAI Models Go Off Script 02:04 Why Misalignment Isn't Surprising 03:31 Microsoft Humanist AI Pledge 05:20 Guardrails Fail in Practice 07:06 Patch Tuesday Breaks Windows 08:10 Unpatch Wednesday Trend 08:53 Congress Hits Pause on AI Laws 10:38 Wrap Up and What's Next

Elizabeth Ward and Hillary Wright are registered dietitians, authors of *The Menopause Diet Plan*, and together are known as The Menopause Dietitians.They join me to cut through the noise around menopause nutrition and explain what actually changes, what gets exaggerated online, and which habits matter most.We discuss:• Whether metabolism actually slows during menopause• Age, hormones, activity, and energy expenditure• Why women may have less margin for gradual fat gain• Hormones, appetite, sleep, and behaviour• Estrogen and abdominal fat storage• Stress, cortisol, and exercise• Why alcohol can become more significant during menopause• Fibre and practical ways to eat more of it• Fibre fearmongering and “fibre maxing”• Ultra-processed foods and nutrition nuance• Menopause influencers and supplement misinformation• How to judge credentials and health claims• Practical nutrition strategies for menopause• Why adding nutritious foods can work better than constant restriction• Personalized fat-loss planning• Easy nutrition wins like frozen vegetables• And much moreFollow The Menopause Dietitians:@menopausedietplanCHAPTERS00:54 Menopause and the Metabolism Myth02:45 The Reality of Declining Activity05:29 Aging, Pressure, and Grace07:32 Health and Beauty From the Inside Out11:51 What Hormones Actually Change13:37 Estrogen and Abdominal Fat Storage15:20 Alcohol and Smaller Calorie Margins19:43 Stress, Cortisol, and Exercise22:02 Menopause Influencers and Misinformation24:43 Fibre Fearmongering26:27 The “Fibre Maxing” Myth27:13 Alcohol and Trigger Foods27:38 Ultra-Processed Food Needs Nuance29:09 Fast Food and the Speed Trap30:57 The Menopause Supplement Grift35:00 Credentials, Trust, and Health Information40:52 Finding the Middle Ground44:25 Practical Nutrition and Coaching Tips50:33 Personalized Fat-Loss Planning51:28 The Frozen-Vegetable Cheat Code52:28 Final Thoughts and ResourcesSUPPORT THE SHOW• Subscribe and check out more episodes• Share the episode and tag @andrewcoatesfitness• Send it to someone navigating perimenopause or menopauseFOLLOW ANDREW COATESInstagram: @andrewcoatesfitnesshttps://www.andrewcoatesfitness.comPARTNERS AND RESOURCES13-WEEK ONLINE GROUP STRENGTH PROGRAMSJoin my Men's or Women's 13-Week Online Group Strength Programs.Choose:• Gym Upper/Lower• Home Upper/Lower• Full BodyGet full access to me with prompt responses.Use code SEPTEMBER10 to save 10%.[www.foreverstrength.ca/join-now/](http://www.foreverstrength.ca/join-now/)Questions? Message me:https://www.instagram.com/andrewcoatesfitness/?hl=enI would love to coach you.RP STRENGTH APPUse code COATESRP:https://www.rpstrength.com/coatesJUST BITE ME MEALSUse code ANDREWCOATESFITNESS for 10% off:https://justbitememeals.comMACROSFIRST — FREE PREMIUM TRIALDownload MacrosFirst and enter ANDREW when asked how you heard about the app.KNKG BAGS — 15% OFFhttps://www.knkg.com/Andrew59676VERSA GRIPPShttps://www.versagripps.com/andrewcoatesTRAINHEROIC — FREE 90-DAY TRIALhttps://www.trainheroic.com/liftfreeReply to the email you receive or email [trials@trainheroic.com](mailto:trials@trainheroic.com) and tell them Andrew sent you.L1 BIOMECHANICS AND ASSESSMENT COURSEUse code COATES:https://pro.activelifeprofessional.com/assessmentworkshopevents

In this episode of Alliance Insights, Danielle Janecka welcomes Jay Greene, founder of the Certified AI Insurance Credential (CAIC), and Will Hold, President & CEO of the Risk & Insurance Education Alliance.Together, they explore:• Why AI adoption is becoming a competitive necessity• How insurance agencies can prepare for AI transformation• The importance of data quality and governance• What an "agentic agency" looks like in practice• Common mistakes organizations make when implementing AI• How Certified AI Insurance Credential provides practical, insurance-specific AI education• Why a living curriculum is critical in a rapidly evolving technology landscapeJay shares the personal experience that inspired him to create the credential and discusses how AI can help agencies improve workflows, boost productivity, and create new opportunities for professionals at every career stage.Will explains why the Alliance partnered with Certified AI Insurance Credential and how the program aligns with the Alliance's mission of providing practitioner-driven education that helps professionals adapt and thrive.Whether you're an agency owner, carrier professional, wholesaler, MGA leader, producer, or risk manager, this episode offers practical insights into preparing for the future of insurance.Ready to build AI knowledge that applies directly to insurance?The Certified AI Insurance Credential (CAIC) helps professionals understand AI fundamentals, evaluate technology solutions, improve workflows, and develop practical implementation strategies.Register through the Risk & Insurance Education Alliance and start gaining the knowledge needed to navigate the future of insurance with confidence. Focusing exclusively on risk management and insurance professional development, the Risk & Insurance Education Alliance provides a practical advantage at every career stage, positioning our participants and their clients for confidence and success.

Episode #1448: It's Monday as Kyle returns from NCM Friends and Family with four C's for dealers navigating AI: community, context, confusion, and one very real concern after a dealership employee handed Claude the keys to the kingdom. Today's show is ...

Catch up on all the footy news from AFL 360, Wednesday, the 9th of September, with hosts Gerard Whateley and Garry Lyon.On tonight's episode, Garry and Gerard review the Fremantle Dockers and Brisbane Lions huge semi-final wins ahead of the grand final qualifiers. Plus Gaz has made a brutal assessment on Matthew Nicks and the Adelaide Crows and all the latest on Zak Butters potential move to the Bulldogs. For more of the show, tune in on Fox Footy & KAYO.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

JOIN OUR PATREON FOR JUST $5 PER MONTH: https://www.patreon.com/cw/TheByeRoundPodcast James Graham is joined by Shane Flanagan and Charlie White to dissect all the big moments from the opening round of the 2026 NRL Finals series! Enquire About Our Studio: https://thebyeround.com/pages/contact Email: thebyeround@gmail.com Ladbrokes: https://www.ladbrokes.com.au/ Hyundai: https://www.hyundai.com/au/ RLWC Ticket Offer: https://www.ticketmaster.com.au/artist/1167790?did=byeround Cover More Vegas Competition: https://nos-vegas.covermore-experiences.com Live Show October 3 In Manly: https://hotelsteyne.functiontracker.com/registration/v4/203738948824339 Follow The Bye Round On:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thebyeround/?hl=enTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebyeround?lang=enYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@thebyeroundSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen to Zooming In at The UnPopulist in your favorite podcast app: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeBerny Belvedere: Renée DiResta, thanks for joining us on Zooming In, our flagship podcast here at The UnPopulist. You've been on before a couple of times. You've done podcasts with us, you've spoken at LibCon—in fact, during our first LibCon, LibCon 2024, your book generated intense interest. It seemed to be the book of the summer. You remember that?Renée DiResta: I do, thanks so much.Belvedere: It felt like at every other session, some panelist would say something like, “and to explore this further, I really recommend Renée DiResta's new book, which is just wonderful.” Right? I don't know why I did that in a nerd voice. Your endorsers are wonderful people.But Renée, welcome again. I want to dive right in. You have a new report out. It's put out by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It was written by you and two co-authors, Rachel Kleinfeld and Margot Treadwell. That's a powerful lineup. We've run Rachel's work in our pages before and it's top notch. The report is fantastic. It did not disappoint. For anyone interested in how the broader world of news and opinion discourse works today, it's immediately one of the most useful resources to pick up. And it's especially useful for practitioners, for people who work in the space, like we do.But to help with some scene setting, can you tell us about the report in broad brushstrokes? We'll then narrow in from there.DiResta: So I think about this as report part two. Last year, in September, almost one year to the day, we put out a provocation saying: “institutions need to change how they communicate in order to compete in the new media environment.” And we wrote a framing on why that was, on how social media was no longer this niche thing that those people over there did. If you wanted to reach the public, this is where people are—and you have to reach them where they are and in a manner that they find appealing. The way that you communicate is just different now.That attracted a lot of attention and it got us a ton of inbound, particularly from philanthropy, because we were also telling philanthropists you have to change how you think about outputs and outcomes that matter. For a lot of academics and others, participation in the public conversation is, if not discouraged, it's not really encouraged. It doesn't move the needle for your tenure committee, that sort of thing. How could philanthropists shift the thinking on why communicating to the public actually was critical? We got a ton of inbound on it and the question we got most often was: “How?”This report is the how. The basic premise is that most Americans now get their information and form their opinions through creators, podcasts, Substacks, group chats. Most traditional institutions have only minimal engagement or presence in those spaces. So that ecosystem runs on a very different model of legitimacy. People are following people, not institutions. They're following people that they find appealing or relatable. Somebody coming to you from their kitchen. Credentials and institutional polish actually can read as almost a sort of distance now.Those are the elites saying that stuff from over there, whereas this person is just talking to me in their kitchen. They're real.We write about how fact-based institutions have often thought about this shift to social as a repackaging job. “All right, how do I take my massive PDF”—and, by the way, this report is a massive PDF—“how do I take that and put out a couple screenshots on social media or generate a reel?” They see it more as engaging when you have something to release, when you have just put something out. So it's very self-serving. They're not using social media as a communicator in an ongoing conversation where they're having a back and forth with their audience. They're using it as a broadcast tool and they're reformulating the thing that they wanted to broadcast into a format that nominally works but is missing that dialogue.So our guide argues that it's a strategy problem—and that CEOs and boards have to own this. They have to think about it, not as the thing that happens after you've done your work, but as an active part of your ongoing relationship to the public. We framed the report as a series of questions to guide that thinking. We did a bunch of case studies, really spanning the communication ecosystem we have. How Jon Haidt turned some of his work into a movement. We have how Turning Point became a juggernaut. We have some of the Mamdani campaign stuff. Not endorsing any position there—but saying, “here's some interesting stuff that you can learn from how this group strategically chose to engage the public through these means.”Belvedere: I thought the guide did a really great job of bringing in real world examples. You also brought up David French and the reception he received. His case is a fascinating one because of what it represents and what it says about the subcommunity that he had that parting of the ways with, and the way they gate-kept him from continued access to it.But I want to pick up on something that you mentioned in passing just now in your broad overview. There's a line in the report that really struck me as I was reading it. As you put it, credentials and institutional polish—the CV virtues—now read as distance and disconnect rather than authority, which is what it used to read as. Do you think that's a permanent rewiring of how trust just works now?DiResta: It's an interesting question. Trust and authoritativeness are distinct. You trust your neighbor without necessarily thinking they're an authority. You just find them a trustworthy person. You would give them your keys. They can feed your dog, that sort of thing. And it doesn't matter what they do or what their professional credentials are. What matters is just that you have a relationship. You feel that this person is somebody who would support you if you need it, that they're going to level with you. They're going to tell you the truth, even if you might not want to hear it.That's the idea of trust as something that is deeper than expertise. Sure, it goes hand in hand with it at times. We would like it to be tightly coupled. We want people to trust experts, but the idea of relatability instead is: “Why would this person who seems just like me lie to me? Why would they deceive me? What do they get out of it?” Whereas people sincerely believe that elite institutions are working to serve their own agenda, and that is often seen as being at odds with the average, everyday person. You see this in politics when people ask, “Why is this politician talking about this thing, performing this action, when I just care about putting food on the table for my family?” You see that gap in what lands and resonates with people versus what people in elite or institutional positions want to talk about.Sometimes this is a disconnect that gets lamented in liberal spaces, particularly as, “well, if only they listened, they would understand that my policy proposal for this thing does help them 10 degrees and five years later.” But in the immediate here and now, it's that question of: Do I trust the person who's speaking to me? Do they seem just like me?I had this experience when I was a new mom. I was one of the first in my friend group to have kids. I didn't know what to do. I was living across the country from my family and didn't have much support. So I turned to the internet, right? Who are the people who are going to help me understand what I'm supposed to do with this baby? How do I make him sleep? How do I make him eat? How do I not screw this up? I think it's a very personal experience that a lot of people have where that sense that reading a PDF on an institutional website is not the same thing as somebody sitting there with you taking the time. There's a phrase that I think it was Jeff Jarvis who once said to me in conversation: “the media talks to the public and the influencers talk with them.”I think that's the best framing I've heard for that. Content creators understand how to talk with their audiences, where even people who may have better information, more expertise, authoritative content, are not necessarily communicating that in a way that feels real and connects to a sense that this person is telling me the truth.Belvedere: I'm wondering what's the right read on this broad question of trust that we're all grappling with. Take, for example, the aftershocks from a specific high profile instance of trust collapse—something like Covid. I think Covid's a really instructive episode in many different ways. There's been a lot of revisionism about it. What was different about Covid compared to other past trying moments in society is that Covid became politicized in a particular way by an extremely potent right-wing discourse-shaping machine. That's not going to stop being in place.“A lot of institutions are taught to stay on message at all times—if you hand your message to somebody else, you lose control of it. But you can't tell them what to say. They're going to say what they want to say. They might get it wrong. But counterintuitively, I think that actually generates more dialogue, more attention, and provides you with a way to accomplish something you might not be good at yourself. Your CEO might not actually be the best face to talk about this thing—the 20 year old you hired, who is much more comfortable with this, is actually the person who should be out there engaging, putting out the message, or working with a creator or creator lab and essentially briefing them.” — Renée DiRestaSo my overriding fear is that Covid is not an outlier. And that anything in society like Covid that requires elite management, whether it's the dissemination of information, policies that help curb some of the worst effects of not abiding by certain standards, all of that is going to run up against an information machine architecturally designed to demagogue that issue, to create a trust collapse, to point out any little mistakes and amplify them as though they're an example of the elites just completely botching everything. Is there any hope that that wanes?DiResta: That's a very interesting question—let me give you a couple of answers.Two things were true about Covid. I was writing about this in The Atlantic during the pandemic: the institutional communicators really dropped the ball—in my opinion, but I think that's been quite backed up at this point. I remember writing that it would be nice to see the CDC's website look more like Wikipedia, where you can see the change log, the public can understand in this fast moving situation—you can go back and read the edit history, you can see who made the change, you can understand how consensus forms in a scientific community. Because there's such a time lag, right? They are waiting until they are absolutely, 100% sure before they say something. In that time, the people are still looking for information, and they're going to get it from whoever is willing to give it to them. On social media, there's an incentive structure: if you're first, you get rewarded; if you're sensational, you get rewarded. If you're right? That doesn't really matter. Maybe you'll get a Community Note, maybe a fact check, but that's not really the point. The point is: Are you first, are you relatable, do you seem authentic, can your stuff go viral? It's a very different communication style and game.So the first thing that was true is that the institutions dropped the ball in comms during Covid communications. And I was writing about it as it happened, because my job was to study social media rumors and narratives around the vaccine. I was like: “Come on, guys! You gotta get in the game here! You're not going to content-moderate this out of existence—that's just not how it works. You're going to turn this into forbidden knowledge.” We did everything we possibly could to try to systematically change that. And the people who did respond were the first-person speakers who began to emerge: physicians. You saw doctors working shifts at Bellevue doing live updates about the morgue trucks—those were the people who managed to break through, because they had the credentials, but they were also able to say very directly to the public: this is the truth, this is what you need to know, Covid is real, even as the institutions weren't doing that.But the second thing that's true is that, as you note, the failures, flaws, and missteps get immediately weaponized. That turns into: “you can't trust those people, they didn't tell you the truth then, never forget what they did to us.” That rhetoric isn't really about finding truth, or understanding a novel pathogen, or whether a vaccine works—remember, this was the first time one had ever been rolled out in an emergency setting. It turns into: “here's why you can never trust those people, and you can only trust me.”That got reinforced through litigation. They lost all their court cases, but they still sued people who tried to deal with the falsehoods and misleading content, and any effort to label it or fact-check it got reframed as censorship. It was really wild to see what that machine juggernaut managed to do to reinforce that only it was going to tell its base the truth, and they couldn't trust anything on the outside. That's the kind of rhetoric you usually see from cults—“you can't trust anybody but me.” It's a very different style of communication, and I found it personally alarming to see it happen in the context of a pandemic, because it has serious downstream consequences.Belvedere: Yeah, and I mean, think about the way you just described that—an informational cult kind of environment, scaled up to half the country, or at least to a large share of people getting their news from less-than-ideal sources. I think it's going to continue to be a problem.DiResta: Let me follow up on that quickly. I spent about [six months] watching the vaccine rollout—February through August of 2021, as Operation Warp Speed rolled out. I watched what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other long-standing—just to be clear, long-standing—anti-vaccine activists did. These weren't people who simply didn't like the Covid shot; no, these were people who had been telling you vaccines cause autism, dating back to the 1990s. I watched them capitalize on this in the most incredible ways. They were absolutely transparent about it—they were like, “this is our chance to undermine confidence in the entire vaccine enterprise.” And that is exactly what they did. They didn't hide the ball—they were live-streaming taking about it. “This is our chance to tell the public that all of these things are poison.” And now we have kids dying of measles.That's the downstream effect of this: they managed to connect that distrust to other things. They didn't just create distrust around one incident or fact; they created the idea that nobody in the medical establishment has your best interests at heart. That's what they managed to achieve as a result of Covid.Belvedere: I want to stay on this, because I think we're all trying to figure out the right posture here. You bring up Joe Rogan and his effect on psychedelics policy: a lot of people know him through segments where he talks through his drug trips, or a guest's. Or, another example: online creators helping speed up the end of USAID. And there are other cases. But these are cases where influence and factual accuracy are completely decoupled. For organizations whose whole value proposition is getting reality right, being accurate—a lot of people in these spaces ask a question that is one neighborhood down but the same city: “Where's the liberal answer to Joe Rogan?” We've been asking that question since the post-mortem on 2024, and even before. A lot of our institutions feel saddled by the sense that in order to compete on reach, in this new marketplace of ideas, we can't really compete on accuracy's terms.Roger Ailes created Fox News in the '90s. It wasn't [presented] as a dominant player—it was a countervailing force: “the media is captured, so we're going to bring balance back.” “Fair and balanced”—that whole thing; a whole alternative institution positioned against the media itself. So [this side] has had an insurgent mindset from the start—Rush Limbaugh and others. I've brought this up a lot. Even the Ailes project, Fox News, it had institutional trappings, institutional clothing, but it really had this insurgent energy, whatever it said about itself early on. That posture was able to scale beautifully once podcasting, YouTube, and the internet more broadly made these tools available. It was disintermediation. People like Ben Shapiro with The Daily Wire, Charlie Kirk, really ran with the ball a lot better in these spaces, it seemed like. It never felt like liberals had their own Ailes moment, because it felt like they were fine with The New York Times and The Atlantic.Is the real gap here about talent, effort, and ability, or just needing to catch up after playing behind for so long? Or is it more that this is a different language, that [that side] can easily and naturally slot into, and for us it has to be more performative, a little contrived—like a theater kid having to learn how to act?DiResta: It's funny—there's so much in what you're saying there. First, when you can position yourself oppositionally—“we're the underdog, we're David, they're Goliath”—that's an archetype, a story everybody knows, that people immediately understand where you're positioning yourself. “They are all telling you the same thing”; “that is a monolith, that's the state propaganda machine manufacturing consent, we're the plucky little outlet trying to break through.” And then, of course, they maintain that outsider branding and status even as their audience becomes massive—quite a lot larger, in fact, than some of that so-called establishment media.You see this with a phrase that comes out of QAnon: “we are the media now.” What they're saying is: “we can break through, we can make stuff trend, we can make stuff go viral, we can take our (in the context of QAnon, I think it's fair to say) crackpot ideas and put them out there, get them seen, get them part of the discourse, and then people have to pay attention to us.” That's where “we are the media now” comes from. It was popularized by Elon, because he picked up that phrase and it is so much in the ether on X—I don't even know if he understands the provenance. But “we are the media now” becomes the idea that we're the opposition now, and all that legacy stuff—including Fox, mind you, which is legacy too—is old. You actually see the schisms now, especially since they're in power everywhere on the right: influencers going to war with Fox News.“I once had someone screenshot every social media post where I'd used a curse word and send it to my dean. And I was like: “I said all of that. That's 100% real.” This is the internet, after all. Would I use that language in a talk? Probably not. I'm from New York, so sometimes I do. But if you're constantly second-guessing, clarifying, checking yourself … and you do need to be correct, because in some cases your credentials are on the line when you're speaking about the thing you're actually presenting. But your delivery can afford to be a bit more flexible, a bit more relaxed.” — Renée DiRestaVenkatesh Rao wrote about this in “The Internet of Beefs”—one of the most astute assessments of how social media works, in my opinion. If you have conflict, that's fantastic: it benefits both parties, gets both parties attention, and there's no incentive to actually win the conflict, because the conflict itself is like a soap opera—it just keeps going. That's where you start to see right-wing influencers say, “Fox News is establishment, Bush-era media, and we'll tell you the truth—on social, on our platforms, on our streams, on our podcasts.” That's where you start to see that shift.There's also something Rachel and I wrote about in the first report: institutional and academic speakers are media-trained for a very different world, where you get a three- to five-minute segment. If you've never done TV before, they tell you roughly what you'll be asked, you prepare your talking points in advance because you have so little time, you deliver the soundbite, and the segment's over. That's completely different from what I experienced doing Rogan in 2019—a two-and-a-half-hour conversation with no prep. I'm going to be there and you either know your stuff or you don't. His audience either likes me or it doesn't. Half of them hated me!And that's fine—it is what it is. I showed up for a reason. There's a completely different vernacular, style, and approach when you're having a two-hour conversation with somebody, where you're going to listen to what they have to say, and you're responding back much more as a human than as a person who's there to digest for the public, in a three-minute hit, what you said in that report over there or what happened in the world and why you, the expert, with your credentials and your chyron should think about it. It's a completely different experience.So does it go back to the old way? I don't think it does—I haven't thought that for the better part of 10 years now. I started writing about the anti-vaccine movement in 2015, as a mom, saying: “I have got to say something about this.” What became MAHA is now a political movement that sits in power at HHS. What they understood was that empathy and relatability, the feeling that they are talking with you, matters so much more than a PDF or an academic paper that sits behind a paywall that nobody can read without an academic library license. That's not going back to normal. So the question that's motivated me and Rachel is: How do you teach people who do have the knowledge and the skill set to compete differently?Belvedere: On that note, on liberals' broad failure to penetrate a lot of these spaces, these subcommunities, these niche places where people gather … think about all the subcultures we have in the United States—there are plenty that liberals are just really poor at reaching, or at having any presence within at all.DiResta: I'm an independent. My complaint is about how liberals communicate versus how conservatives communicate. I spend a lot of time in both ecosystems, in person, and I try to engage with the media apparatus on the right too, partly because they make up conspiracy theories about me, so I feel like I have to. But there's a difference in how carefully you have to think through what you're about to say—what performance are you putting on in that moment? Conservatives use the word “based”—you're talking in a way that's almost intentionally provocative at times, and sometimes it goes way off the rails; sometimes it's not good at all. But there's a sense that when you're hearing from the liberal establishment, you're hearing qualifiers—everything is qualified.This is something I used to talk about when making content: on Instagram Reels, you've got three seconds to hook your audience. If you start with a qualifier about how what you're saying doesn't necessarily apply to all people, in all places, at all times, you're done—that took three seconds, that's it, we're done. So the question is: How do you get comfortable either owning an opinion unapologetically, or framing it in a way where you're just like, “yeah, whatever, somebody on the internet is always going to yell at me, I don't care, I'm going to say the thing anyway”? That's a limitation I just don't see in conservative spaces.Again, that means things can go way off the rails, and some of it is genuinely not good. But the flip side is that [liberal content] can sound stilted, practiced, polished. And the incentive structure is scary for the participant—for the academic who decides to try being more casual in their presentation. I once had someone screenshot every social media post where I'd used a curse word and send it to my dean. And I was like: “I said all of that. That's 100% real.” This is the internet, after all. Would I use that language in a talk? Probably not. I'm from New York, so sometimes I do. But if you're constantly second-guessing, clarifying, checking yourself … and you do need to be correct, because in some cases your credentials are on the line when you're speaking about the thing you're actually presenting. But your delivery can afford to be a bit more flexible, a bit more relaxed.What I've loved over the last few years since Covid is watching public health experts and epidemiologists start presenting as themselves: “here I am, I've got this expertise, and I'm also going to tell you about my kids, or this dress I bought, or this thing I did.” It makes them more relatable, more human—because they are, in fact, relatable and human. It's not an artifice. But they understand that doing this actually helps establish their credibility, more than just the credential. So if me saying a curse word on Twitter … normal people curse on Twitter.Belvedere: And not to be too cynical about it, but this is something intuitively understood by people on the wrong side of things. Trump will have a word randomly capitalized as a marker of his style, and without it, the message would feel too polished—even though, grammatically, it would be correct.One reaction people sometimes have to a discussion like this is: “all you're talking about is communication, this is social media stuff, it's more fluff than substance.” I think that couldn't be more wrong, because if we care about the issues we're writing about, if we want action taken on them …DiResta: Yes! It is a persuasive process.Belvedere: … if we want people to care about authoritarianism or corruption in government, raising the salience of those issues becomes really important. If we're collectively bad at it, if we don't have the “juice” that the other side does, our issues stay dormant, untouched, unlistened to, uncared about, while the other side's issues will be front and center, driving the conversation. You talk about issue salience needing to travel across networks before it becomes a thing. Could you unpack that? You've got multiple creators, adjacent communities … help us understand how that works.DiResta: So, often times, when you open your social media feed—whatever ranked platform you use, which is almost all of them—you're seeing what the platform has decided is important for you, and that's not the same as what's important to the person sitting next to you on the train. So you innately think a lot of people care about something, or are talking about something, when it turns out—take X as an example: you log in, there's a “trends” feature, and it'll surface a trend when there are maybe 200 posts about something. That's not a trend in any national sense; it's basically the platform tweaking a small number of people who'll respond to it. They see it and think, “there are 2,000 posts about this, I care a lot about that thing, I'm going to add my voice, retweet it, reshare it”—and if a sufficient number of people do that, it gets bigger, and eventually it shows up on something like a mass-movement leaderboard.I spent five years at the Stanford Internet Observatory taking a network-science approach to this. Let me give a specific example—we can stick with the pandemic, because I think it's quite important as a case study. I don't know how many people remember the Plandemic video. It featured Judy Mikovits, a woman with serious credential issues and at least one retracted paper, who'd had a series of dramatic career incidents that led to her being put into the autism-conference crankosphere. She was releasing a book and doing a lot of book promo, but she was never especially polished doing those direct engagements herself. The director, Mikki Willis, made the video—kept her on task, shot it very strategically. It's about 20 minutes long, and it argues that the pandemic is being used to keep people from “healing microbes on the beach,” and that's why they are locking down beaches, and so on—a very conspiratorial film.Now Mikovits had been saying these things on prior podcasts for a while, but it stayed confined; it got almost no reach outside the anti-vaccine networks, where that kind of content is normal and expected. What was different about Plandemic is that because of the polish, the packaging, the formatting, and Willis's own reach and network, it hopped out of the anti-vaccine ecosystem and started landing everywhere. We had a tool called CrowdTangle that let us pull where URLs were winding up and being shared, and the Plandemic link was showing up in the Corgi Club, the Beach Club, local school-board groups—everywhere. We could only see public data, so I'd imagine that's just the tip of the iceberg.The public really found it compelling. Reading the comments as part of that analysis, people were saying things like: “she seems so authoritative, she has this personal beef with Anthony Fauci, who I've also been hearing is untrustworthy; they are keeping us locked down in our houses, why is that happening?” It really landed and resonated. That's an actual moment where normally this speakers and those topics stay confined to a very specific niche part of the internet, with this video, they managed to absolutely blew out of the water. Here is how it works when you take something and you frame somebody in the right way, you make them seem relatable and resonant and you edit the content in a very compelling, exciting, and mysterious way. This is how you create a mass conversation about something. Ordinarily this person would have stayed confined to her niche, but in that particular moment, with that particular piece of content, they nailed it.Belvedere: I asked about that because on our side, we're trying to do some of the same work you're outlining. ISMA puts out LibCon and The UnPopulist—The UnPopulist is our flagship publication, LibCon is the conference series that we put out. The UnPopulist has buy-in from figures across the ideological spectrum; and the whole model of ISMA is to build a coalition—a realignment of liberal versus illiberal—and for us to be on that liberal side, spanning classical liberals, center-left, and center-right: people who are single-issue defectors, who have enough qualms with the authoritarianism we're seeing that they come over to our side. At our last LibCon, we had C-SPAN in the same room as a bunch of streamers broadcasting. It was an interesting mix, and that's the sort of work we're trying to do. As I said earlier, though, it's not necessarily the language that's easy for a lot of liberals to speak—it takes intentional partnerships, looking through different content forms, finding where a good ally or partner can be found.“These weren't people who simply didn't like the Covid shot; no, these were people who had been telling you vaccines cause autism, dating back to the 1990s. I watched them capitalize on this in the most incredible ways. They were absolutely transparent about it—they were like, ‘this is our chance to undermine confidence in the entire vaccine enterprise.' And that is exactly what they did. They didn't hide the ball—they were live-streaming taking about it. ‘This is our chance to tell the public that all of these things are poison.' And now we have kids dying of measles. That's the downstream effect of this: they managed to connect that distrust to other things. They didn't just create distrust around one incident or fact; they created the idea that nobody in the medical establishment has your best interests at heart. That's what they managed to achieve as a result of Covid.” — Renée DiRestaIt used to be that an organization could get away with just publishing a headline, an article image, and letting the feed auto-populate. Now every platform, the whole online space, requires more thoughtfulness, more intentionality, more strategic thinking. At the risk of asking for a One Neat Trick: is there one thing that, if a capacity developed overnight, would be a game changer for us on this path that we want to take—to be better communicators, to help the issues we care about get that amplification and resonance?DiResta: I think it is that co-creation and that incorporation of people who are innately good and talented at this. I was at LibCon this year with Whick and Soypill, two of the streamers who were there, because the first night of the conference happened to be the night Trump gave that speech about the election being rigged by China. As it happens, I have a lot of experience looking at Chinese influence operations around the 2020 election, so I'd been on Whick's stream before, and he asked if I wanted to come on. I said let's do it, and we broke it down live for the audience—here's what Trump's saying, here's a Georgetown professor who can help explain it—but done conversationally. It's funny, because you still carry that credential with you; you're still saying, “here's how I know this stuff.” And, of course, later on I'm going to write about this for Lawfare, I'm going to write about it on my Substack, I'm going to put it out as personal content. But in this moment the most impactful thing I think I can do is discuss it live with people who are watching it in a community, trying to make sense of it together. That's something streamers in particular are very good at—they bring people together to watch jointly.I don't know how many people have watched a Destiny stream, or, on the other side of the spectrum, a Hasan Piker stream, but it's the same appeal: people who are in a community, like-minded, enjoying that back-and-forth, not only listening to the streamer but participating in the community itself. It reminds me of being in New York in my 20s, gathering at someone's house to watch TV together on a Sunday night—that feeling of experiencing something together, reacting to it together. When you watch a news broadcast by yourself, it's not like that. When you're watching a stream, there's as much back-and-forth and community-building happening among the audience as there is between the audience and the influencer or streamer. That creates a feeling of belonging and participation, and when you want to ask people to take political action, there's a feeling that we're all in this together, we all want to see this thing accomplished. You see this when you watch political streamers across the spectrum doing fundraisers and things like that—“how can we galvanize and generate momentum?”This isn't limited to partisan politics—you can do the same with issue-based advocacy as well.One of the reasons institutions [struggle here] is a fear of relinquishing control. A lot of institutions are taught to stay on message at all times—if you hand your message to somebody else, you lose control of it. But you can't tell them what to say. They're going to say what they want to say. They might get it wrong. But counterintuitively, I think that actually generates more dialogue, more attention, and provides you with a way to accomplish something you might not be good at yourself. Your CEO might not actually be the best face to talk about this thing—the 20 year old you hired, who is much more comfortable with this, is actually the person who should be out there engaging, putting out the message, or working with a creator or creator lab and essentially briefing them like you would brief media: “here's your embargoed copy of my report, I'd love it if you talked about it, no pressure, no requirements, this is just me providing you with information about something we've done that I think your audience might care about—and then wherever it goes, goes.”Belvedere: And as you note in the report, this is already the cultural air a lot of these younger staffers breathe—they have to code-switch to seem more “professional,” to be someone who …DiResta: … doesn't curse on Twitter.Belvedere: Exactly. But that also gives them the advantage of understanding the discourse, the environment, the information landscape, far more natively. So they can put a message that the CEO might want in a way that will have more effectiveness.I want to bring up two of the case studies I found fascinating—David French and Zohran Mamdani. David French was trying to bring a [pluralist], depoliticized message into a very hostile, ideologically policed, polarized evangelical base. Zohran Mamdani, now the mayor of New York, built his campaign almost entirely on vibes, aesthetics, joy—messaging, sure, but messaging that met people where they were and responded to what they actually needed. One of those approaches got crushed by the gatekeepers; the other was able to bypass them. It's not that one was effective and the other wasn't—David French ran up against a buzzsaw that no Christian thinker, however winsome or articulate, probably would have fared well against. Mamdani certainly was very skilled in how he approached his campaign and carried it out. In these two profiles, is there a lesson there about why one got crushed and the other persevered?DiResta: It's very interesting, and I've thought about this a lot. So, first, some of it is: How heavy a hold does the establishment party have on the space you're speaking into? Are you entering fresh ground? Mamdani, of course, ran against an egregiously terrible establishment candidate. I mean, it was one of those “is this really the best we've got to offer?”Mamdani's politics weren't mine, but I'm from New York—I lived there for 30 years, still have a house and family in Brooklyn—and I watched that race, and I just thought … every time I saw Mamdani content in my feed, and there was a lot of it, because I'm still plugged into New York, I was like, “this is so inspiring. This is a person where that love of the city comes through.” I remember he did a thing with a bodega cat. I had a bodega cat, and it was amazing! In a way, the politics and the policy was almost secondary to the feeling that you were watching something genuine.The candidate he was running against—well, there were two, of course, including Curtis Sliwa, who really nailed it on the “genuine” front. I mean, my God, that man gave interviews that left my jaw on the floor—where he's like, “here's how they're trying to pay me to drop out of the race, let's talk about that.” It's a very New York political moment.Belvedere: Zero filter.DiResta: Oh, no filter. I mean, Cuomo doesn't lack a filter either. I'm New York Italian too—you know that. Someone should send him to his dean!It was wild watching that race and seeing what landed with the public. There was such a sense of “God, we need something new! We just need something new”—and that landed, I think, in a way, more than anything else, regardless of your opinions on specific policies. It was the way in which he turned people who found him personally appealing into organizers—fans became organizers. That's really the story of the Mamdani campaign. With French, by contrast, top-down control still held much more strongly. I don't think many New Yorkers love the Democratic Party establishment enough to say, “we really need to listen to what they tell us”—if anything, an official endorsement had become a bit of a negative signal by that point. That's at least how I experienced New York politics.Mamdani was also an unknown quantity, French was much more of a known quantity, so he had this experience of gatekeepers who used character assassination to attack, not so much his ideas as his person—finding things he'd said or done previously and using them to attack him personally and make it costly to associate with him and his ideas by extension. Once an establishment is well-networked enough to mount that kind of opposition, it's much harder to win. French was moving into a hostile, contested, polarized space. Mamdani, by contrast, faced an establishment, in his case the more centrist wing of the Democratic Party, that simply didn't have the social media clout or networks to make its attacks land. It was a very different dynamic.That's why we put French in a section of the report about figuring out what kind of space you're actually trying to participate in. Are you putting forward a policy or a vision that's going to be actively and adversarially rebuffed by very entrenched, well-networked forces? Or are you moving into a much fresher space—a new issue, a new take, less contested ground—where you are potentially going to run a very different kind of strategy?Belvedere: I think that's a great point. Trump is a good example in the political space—the GOP establishment was set against him initially. They had money behind other candidates, Jeb Bush chief among them, and had a war chest that was insane backing Jeb Bush. And that was … nothing in the end. It didn't amount to anything. All the work French had done in the past, caring about the Bill of Rights, about a constitutionally constrained vision of limited government—the intellectual energy the Republican Party used to draw on more heavily—had given way to something else. David went a different direction than a lot of evangelicals did, and there are enough of them to effectively block him now.Whereas Mamdani, I think, was able to bypass a lot of that resistance because there was more overlap with what a standard Democratic candidate might have offered—a lot of the same campaign substance, just a different approach on some issues. There were enough people who weren't already set against him. That's unlike the evangelical space, where mentioning French's name is practically like saying “Voldemort.” Which is sad, because on a lot of issues, especially theological tenets, there's still broad alignment between them.This is something that your report presses people to internalize: the idea that who you're speaking to matters, and how you're speaking to them matters. That's a lesson a lot of liberals still need to work out. There's a lot of trial and error right now, a lot of figuring out how to be effective in this new information landscape. But the report is genuinely helpful. I imagine a lot of people will read it and think: “okay, everything I thought I knew about what it takes to project credibility has been turned on its head, and I need to account for that or risk being left behind.” That's what makes it such an important read.DiResta: Thank you. We really tried to make it as tangible as possible—which is why it's long. We went back and forth at the end about whether to release different versions for different audiences: a philanthropist version, a C-suite version, a version for op-ed writers. In the end we put it all out as one document—you can always Control-F to find what's most relevant to you, there's an index, and AI can digest it too.But, in all seriousness, though, there has to be a shift. You mentioned Trump. His energy came from the internet. He was so good at tapping into … because he was almost a meme candidate at first; people didn't quite believe he'd be a serious thing. This was right around the time … I bring up Gamergate not for its specifics, but because it was a moment when people started realizing the internet could actually affect the real world. The Arab Spring was another one of those moments—realizing that people's voices online could genuinely accomplish things.“When you have this sclerotic sense that nothing happens in the United States, that no one is listening to you, that no change happens, that nothing you want to see in the world will ever be realized, that's an intoxicating moment. ‘Damn, we are the media now'—that phrase is literally about empowerment, the sense that someone powerful is listening to you and making something happen. That's the complete opposite of the faceless institution where you leave a comment in a form and never hear back, where nothing ever changes, your taxes don't change, your cost of living doesn't change. That's what Mamdani tapped into as well: ‘we are actually going to change things, we are going to do things, the world is going to be different starting day one, and here's how it's going to happen.' Whatever you think of the man's politics, he nailed that sense of empowerment—'this is a movement, and you're part of it.'” — Renée DiRestaYou mentioned my book. I'll give a shameless plug here—but only because the paperback just came out and it has a new epilogue. If you bought the Kindle version, go refresh it, because the new epilogue gets into exactly this. What was the appeal of DOGE? It was that the government was going to be transformed—that's great, it's a huge incentive for people who cared about that. Even liberals were like, “Maybe it's time to shake some stuff up.” But what DOGE did for the public, particularly Trump's base and Elon's base, was this: they'd tweet out some grant they found ridiculous, often with no real idea what it actually did, and Elon would respond with something like “killed,” “nuked,” “through the wood chipper,” about USAID.Belvedere: And a lot of those actually got Community-Noted on themselves—people pointing out that he was egregiously misreading the grant. They got fact-checked by their own system.DiResta: They did—but it didn't actually matter, because what mattered to the people participating was: “I said a thing, somebody powerful listened to me, and then a change happened.” When you have this sclerotic sense that nothing happens in the United States, that no one is listening to you, that no change happens, that nothing you want to see in the world will ever be realized, that's an intoxicating moment. “Damn, we are the media now”—that phrase is literally about empowerment, the sense that someone powerful is listening to you and making something happen. That's the complete opposite of the faceless institution where you leave a comment in a form and never hear back, where nothing ever changes, your taxes don't change, your cost of living doesn't change.That's what Mamdani tapped into as well: “we are actually going to change things, we are going to do things, the world is going to be different starting day one, and here's how it's going to happen.” Whatever you think of the man's politics, he nailed that sense of empowerment—“this is a movement, and you're part of it.” That's the same thing Trump tapped into online back in 2015: “we're going to change things, this is your movement, and I'm going to accomplish this for you.” Which can go off in some weird ways, when you look at exclusionary populism and authoritarianism, which you guys at ISMA focus so much on.I want to mention one more thing. In San Francisco, we recalled the school board: a very local, niche race that ended up becoming a story of national attention, for the same reason—people saying, “we've got to change something, what can we do?” The groups that grew out of that were advancing a very liberal policy—this was not the far-left, not the far-right doing it: “we'd like eighth-grade algebra back, we'd like schools reopened.” This is late 2021. “It would be nice for my kid not to have three years of no school.”It was an unapologetically liberal politics that was powering that, and it was unapologetic in how it framed itself, how it spoke, how it used social media. And I thought, “Okay, now maybe liberals will see”—again, not Democrats, but liberals, people who believe in the core liberal values—“people will start to see that there's real power in direct, unapologetic appeals.” And it is my sincere hope that we start to see that in a movement that rises to push back against the excesses of MAHA and things like that.[In the new edition of my book], the new epilogue is really about how these dynamics play out once a group is actually in power—because a lot of people think of social media as a tool of insurgency, and once you're in power, that's supposedly the end of it. What's been interesting watching Trump and DOGE is that they've kept that cycle going: people still believe they're having an impact, shaping policy.We saw a version of this with Obama, who was a very digital candidate—he rose to power on a lot of popular digital support, did interviews with content creators, that kind of thing. There were creators in the White House—my friend Destin Sandlin, who runs Smarter Every Day, did an interview with Obama. There was a sense that the administration was beginning to engage with new media, but there was still a divide: the new media was media, engaging with the president on certain terms, at certain times, in certain venues. What you're seeing from this administration is they're literally the press corps, seated front and center. Some of them are even working as special government employees, which is wild—and there are some real ethical issues there. But there's still a sense that the online movement, that source of validation that propelled someone to a win, is actively in there, working with them on governance and policy.Is that a mirage, to some extent? Yes—there's a veneer of them wanting to do something anyway and using online narratives to justify it. And I'd argue that once an influencer becomes a special government employee, they're no longer independent—they're speaking as an agent of the government at that point. But setting that aside, you really do see the way those boundaries are shifting, and that sense of personal participation is what keeps this particular populist movement feeling valuable to its participants.Belvedere: I remember when Madison Cawthorn infamously hired only comms people rather than policy people, and a lot of people in conservative-adjacent spaces saw that as the start of a new era. The model is no longer Paul Ryan-ing your way through, nor is it about governing—Cawthorn was actively, explicitly building a kind of image-only candidacy, seeing how far that element alone could carry him. It didn't carry him very far; a few things tripped him up, like, hilariously, a visit to Hitler's home. But he was building toward being a comms-only operation as the only thing that matters now. When Trump did the whole Alligator Alcatraz stunt, that's the same understanding at work—it's an ongoing comms exercise, you have to keep the performative aspect going, because the campaign never really stops.We're out of time. Thank you so much, Renée.Thanks for checking out The UnPopulist! Subscribe to support our project.© The UnPopulist, 2026Follow us on Bluesky, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X.We welcome your reactions and replies. Please adhere to our comments policy. Get full access to The UnPopulist at www.theunpopulist.net/subscribe

Hello to you listening from wherever your feet touch the ground! Walking through John Wayne Airport I saw a man wearing a tee shirt with these words: “Many things in life will catch your eye but only a few will catch your heart. Follow those.” He was gone before I could ask him: What's the story behind your tee shirt? How did you come to have it? What things in life have caught your eye? What caught your heart? And when you followed those what happened next? Today more than ever women need the stories that catch their heart. The storytelling tradition is alive in you. Each time you share a story, you've grown. You understand what's changed. You see yourself differently. As a woman navigating a professional world that doesn't always invite your full story, you may have learned to edit yourself—to show up with credentials and minimize the rest. But your personal narrative is your most powerful asset. It connects, persuades, inspires, leads, and heals. You don't have to wait for permission to tell your story. This is your invitation to discover the stories shaping your life, and to unlock the full power and energy of your voice. Because when women tell their stories, they don't just change the room. They change what's possible. Story Prompt: Your voice is ready. What will you say? Write that story and share it out loud! Meanwhile, I'm building a community of storytelling by women for women focusing on navigating our midlife pilgrimage story. I'm hosting in-person courses on Whidbey Island while developing on-line courses and a special gathering through my Substack account. To learn more please subscribe on Substack or let's have a Discovery Call. Click the LINK to make an appointment. And, as always, thank you for listening!YOU'RE INVITED: “Come for the stories - stay for the magic!” Speaking of magic, subscribe on Apple podcasts & share this episode with a generous 5-star review & comment—it helps us all—& join us next time!STOP BY my newly re-imagined Quarter Moon Story Arts website ARRANGE a no-obligation Discovery Call STAY CURRENT with me as Quarter Moon Story Arts on Substack Stories From Women Who Walk Production TeamPodcaster: Diane F Wyzga & Quarter Moon Story ArtsMusic: Entering Erdenheim by Steve Schuch & Night Heron MusicALL content and image © 2019 to Present Quarter Moon Story Arts. All rights reserved. Enjoy my work? Share & attribute it to Diane Wyzga of Stories From Women Who Walk podcast with a link back to the original source.

Are passwords really on their way out, or are we stuck with them a bit longer? Mikah Sargent and Rosemary Orchard dig into Apple's latest moves in credential management and reveal why the end of passwords is only "dead-ish." Find out why this shift matters for both convenience and security, and how it could upend your digital habits. Apple Passwords app evolves: features, security, and sharing explored Passkeys adoption, magic links frustration, and passwordless future Passkeys security benefits and everyday use cases discussed Verification code autofill and cleanup Real-world quirks and reliability of code autofill features Shared groups and Wi-Fi credentials streamline family password management Comparing Apple Passwords vs. third-party managers: features and limitations Password best practices debunked: phase out bad habits App Caps: ESR magnetic matte screen protector and Spark Daily Learning Puzzles Hosts: Mikah Sargent and Rosemary Orchard Contact iOS Today at iOSToday@twit.tv. Download or subscribe to iOS Today at https://twit.tv/shows/ios-today Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Club TWiT members can discuss this episode and leave feedback in the Club TWiT Discord.

Are passwords really on their way out, or are we stuck with them a bit longer? Mikah Sargent and Rosemary Orchard dig into Apple's latest moves in credential management and reveal why the end of passwords is only "dead-ish." Find out why this shift matters for both convenience and security, and how it could upend your digital habits. Apple Passwords app evolves: features, security, and sharing explored Passkeys adoption, magic links frustration, and passwordless future Passkeys security benefits and everyday use cases discussed Verification code autofill and cleanup Real-world quirks and reliability of code autofill features Shared groups and Wi-Fi credentials streamline family password management Comparing Apple Passwords vs. third-party managers: features and limitations Password best practices debunked: phase out bad habits App Caps: ESR magnetic matte screen protector and Spark Daily Learning Puzzles Hosts: Mikah Sargent and Rosemary Orchard Contact iOS Today at iOSToday@twit.tv. Download or subscribe to iOS Today at https://twit.tv/shows/ios-today Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Club TWiT members can discuss this episode and leave feedback in the Club TWiT Discord.

Are passwords really on their way out, or are we stuck with them a bit longer? Mikah Sargent and Rosemary Orchard dig into Apple's latest moves in credential management and reveal why the end of passwords is only "dead-ish." Find out why this shift matters for both convenience and security, and how it could upend your digital habits. Apple Passwords app evolves: features, security, and sharing explored Passkeys adoption, magic links frustration, and passwordless future Passkeys security benefits and everyday use cases discussed Verification code autofill and cleanup Real-world quirks and reliability of code autofill features Shared groups and Wi-Fi credentials streamline family password management Comparing Apple Passwords vs. third-party managers: features and limitations Password best practices debunked: phase out bad habits App Caps: ESR magnetic matte screen protector and Spark Daily Learning Puzzles Hosts: Mikah Sargent and Rosemary Orchard Contact iOS Today at iOSToday@twit.tv. Download or subscribe to iOS Today at https://twit.tv/shows/ios-today Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Club TWiT members can discuss this episode and leave feedback in the Club TWiT Discord.

Are passwords really on their way out, or are we stuck with them a bit longer? Mikah Sargent and Rosemary Orchard dig into Apple's latest moves in credential management and reveal why the end of passwords is only "dead-ish." Find out why this shift matters for both convenience and security, and how it could upend your digital habits. Apple Passwords app evolves: features, security, and sharing explored Passkeys adoption, magic links frustration, and passwordless future Passkeys security benefits and everyday use cases discussed Verification code autofill and cleanup Real-world quirks and reliability of code autofill features Shared groups and Wi-Fi credentials streamline family password management Comparing Apple Passwords vs. third-party managers: features and limitations Password best practices debunked: phase out bad habits App Caps: ESR magnetic matte screen protector and Spark Daily Learning Puzzles Hosts: Mikah Sargent and Rosemary Orchard Contact iOS Today at iOSToday@twit.tv. Download or subscribe to iOS Today at https://twit.tv/shows/ios-today Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Club TWiT members can discuss this episode and leave feedback in the Club TWiT Discord.

Last week we talked about "I'm not ready yet" as fear dressed up as logic. This week, Jessica and Kelly pull on that thread further to unpack the credential trap — the pattern of adding one more certification, one more year of experience, one more thing to point to before you'll let yourself begin. It looks like ambition and diligence from the outside, but underneath it is often a single question: do I have the right to be here? Kelly shares her own story of pursuing (and ultimately not needing) her MBA and her PMP certification, and Jessica opens up about the moments in 21 years of clinical practice where she's felt the pull toward "just one more" credential — including EMDR certification — even when she knew it wasn't what she actually needed. Together they explore the real difference between preparation and permission-seeking, why this pattern is so deeply tied to how women are socialized, and why the research shows this isn't always "just" imposter syndrome — for many women, and especially women of color, the extra proof they're gathering is a rational response to systems that really do demand more of them. What We Cover The credential trap as its own specific pattern — distinct from procrastination Kelly's story with her MBA, the GMAT, and working alongside colleagues with and without advanced degrees Kelly's PMP certification journey and what she learned about not needing the piece of paper Reshma Saujani's framing: girls are taught to be perfect, boys are taught to be brave A KPMG finding that 75% of female executives report experiencing imposter syndrome, often coping by adding more credentials Jessica on 21 years in clinical practice, the pull toward EMDR certification, and choosing brainspotting instead The real test: is this new knowledge you don't have, or is it a delay? And who are you imagining will finally give you permission? A Harvard Business Review perspective pushing back on "just fix your imposter syndrome" — for many women, especially women of color, the extra preparation is a rational response to real bias, not just a mindset issue Preparation vs. permission-seeking: preparation moves you toward something; permission-seeking keeps you at a safe distance Brighter Moves Jessica: Instead of asking "Am I qualified enough?" ask "Am I curious enough? Am I committed enough? Do I care about this enough?" Qualifications get you in the room — commitment keeps you there. Kelly: Audit one thing you're waiting to finish before you start something else. Ask honestly: is this genuinely necessary, or is it a sophisticated way to stay safe? You don't have to act on the answer — just answer it. This Week's Freebie

The FC crew react to Arsenal's 2-1 win over Chelsea and praise the Gunners for their composure after going behind just minutes into the game. Plus, the guys marvel at Barcelona after Hansi Flick's side bashed Valencia by 5 goals. The crew also break down Man United's 2-2 draw at Everton and explain why the Red Devils will struggle away from home this season. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You do not need to feel completely ready before you make your move.Sometimes confidence comes after action, not before it.In this episode of The Level Up Podcast, Paul Alex breaks down why talented people often delay opportunities waiting for more credentials, while less-qualified competitors move faster and learn in the marketplace.The market does not reward preparation alone.It rewards people who are willing to step into the arena, make the pitch, launch the offer, and improve through real-world experience.In this episode, you'll learn:• Why waiting until you feel fully qualified can slow your progress• How impostor syndrome can keep capable people stuck in preparation mode• Why competence is often developed through action and experience• How confidence, adaptability, and speed can create bigger opportunitiesThe truth is simple:You do not have to know everything before you begin.Take the meeting.Make the pitch.Launch the offer.Learn from the mistakes.Then improve fast enough to become the person the opportunity requires.Credentials can open doors.Audacity gets you to knock.Step into the arena.Claim your seat.Deliver the result.Your Network is your NETWORTH!Make sure to add me on all SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS:Instagram: https://jo.my/paulalex2024Facebook: https://jo.my/fbpaulalex2024YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGhDAD1JyGGzSQUPD9lc9HQLinkedIn: https://jo.my/inpaulalex2024Looking for a secondary source of income or want to become an entrepreneur? Check out one of my companies below to see if we can help you:www.CashSwipe.comFREE Copy of my book “Blue to Digital Gold - The New American Dream”www.officialPaulAlex.com

4pm - CADF Files Lawsuit Challenging Denial of Press Credentials to Ari Hoffman, Brandi Kruse, and Jonathan Choe // Kent man arrested in Chelan Hills Fire investigation // Some Lake Chelan businesses ‘haven’t made a dime since the fires’ // Irish friends & Wife's new purse 

Why did the Titans really pull Jared Stillman's credential? What is he guilty of in this situation? How will this impact coverage? What do fans want from their sports coverage? How has technology impacted these dynamics? Braden Gall and Steve Cavendish talk Nashville sports, media and business. ☕️: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠8th & Roast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Shannon Sharpe, Chad “Ochocinco” Johnson and Iso Joe Johnson react to the NBA’s penalties for Clippers and Kawhi, CJ Stroud contract extension looms into season and Titans pull reporter Jared Stillman’s credentials! Subscribe to Nightcap presented by PrizePicks so you don’t miss out on any new drops! Download the PrizePicks app today and use code SHANNON to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup! Visit https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/NI... 00:00 - Introduction05:05 - NBA rules on Kawhi and the Clippers35:31 - Texans not extending CJ Stroud before Week 147:30 - Titans pull reporter’s credentials (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements.) #ClubSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Willy, Adam, Dmase talk about the news with involving the Titans revoking Stilmans Media credentials with a press conference talk with Cam Ward. Then the crew talks more about the situation and more on Cam Ward and everyone being concerned on him from his preseason and the countdown to the regular season.

Episode #600: “I won't be disappointing the people.” Before Kyaw Moe Tun took the UN General Assembly floor on February 26, 2021, that was as much as he had disclosed about the position he intended to take. Myanmar's permanent representative—its ambassador to the UN—and a diplomat since 1993, he had received the junta's instructions after the coup but secretly prepared a statement siding with the public and the ousted elected government. Almost no one knew his words in advance. Once delivered, they placed both his position and his safety at risk. The junta tried to remove him from the UN and later an assassination plot against him brought FBI intervention and a month of round-the-clock Secret Service protection. Kyaw Moe Tun nevertheless retained the seat after the UN Credentials Committee deferred competing claims in 2021. That arrangement has continued, but at a price: he has withdrawn from the General Debate speakers list each year and kept a lower profile to protect the consensus that excludes the junta's nominee. The next decision is formed through a process he cannot directly address. China, Russia, and the United States are expected to sit on the nine-country committee, while the other six members may emerge only when the new General Assembly session begins. Informal discussions can settle the language before a November meeting, and the full General Assembly may approve the report within seconds. The mission defending Myanmar's democratic claim has meanwhile shrunk from fourteen people to five, surviving on funds held before the coup. Losing the seat would remove the channel through which Kyaw Moe Tun conveys the people's aspirations and seeks international action. It would also strip him of the office from which he has resisted the junta while deepening his exile. He says the military has sentenced him for treason and that he must protect his wife and two children. The institution will decide who represents Myanmar; its current representative cannot safely return there.

Jeremy & Joe talk with Colts reporter James Boyd about the 2026 Colts and injury updates along with discussing Lance Zierlein post about what Houston reporter would be most likely to lose their credentials?

The Buck Reising Show Hr 1- The Credential ControversySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Buck Reising Show Hr 1- The Credential ControversySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Teams taking away credentials from reporters full 906 Wed, 02 Sep 2026 21:59:53 +0000 EAHFy3vRv5Kf9W9LvdTwNqSqqxd0QGdg sports Schopp and Bulldog sports Teams taking away credentials from reporters Sports talk should be entertaining and informative, which is why Schopp and the Bulldog control the WGR 550 airwaves every weekday from 3-7 p.m. Chris "The Bulldog" Parker bleeds Buffalo and is as passionate about the Sabres and Bills as any listener to our radio station. Mike Schopp keeps the callers in line while dishing out his unique perspective and opinions, and creating on-air fantasy drafts of anything from favorite candy and meats, to actors, presidents and bands. Bills reporter Sal Capaccio appears daily on the show covering every move the team makes like nobody else!The top-notch weekly guests include:Mondays (DURING FOOTBALL SEASON) at 4 p.m. - Buffalo Bill, Eric WoodSabres general manager Kevyn Adams (DURING HOCKEY SEASON) - 5:30 p.m.Thursdays at 5:30 p.m. - Sports betting media specialist Evan Abrams from The Action NetworkTogether for 10 years, Schopp and the Bulldog are the No. 1 most listened to talk show in all of Western New York. © 2025 Audacy, Inc. Sports https://player.amperwavepodcasting.com?feed-link=h

Joe Rexrode and Paul Kuharsky are hanging out today with Robby out on vacation.  We open with some quick thoughts on the Luke Evangelista trade for the Preds.  We spend the remainder of the show on the Titans.  What is the latest after they pulled the credential from Jared Stillman?  Was the team trying to protect Cam Ward?  We share some thoughts on Xavier Restrepo landing on the practice squad.  What does it mean for the WR room?  We take lots of your phones today.  Who was the main decision maker in revoking the media credentials?

In Hour 1 of The Greg Pogue and Darren McFarland Show, the guys discuss a variety of topics, including the recent controversy that surrounds the Titans, the Nashville Predators' shocking move to trade Luke Evangelista, Joe Rexrode of 102.5 The Game and The Athletic joins the show, and the guys take calls from listeners.

In this edition of The Greg Pogue and Darren McFarland Show, the guys discuss a variety of topics, including the recent media credential controversy that's surrounding the Titans, the Predators shipping Luke Evangelista to New Jersey, and more. Joe Rexrode, Chase McCabe and Adam Sparks each join the show as guests. 

(0:00) Felger, Mazz, and Murray open the third hour of the show reacting to the Red Sox come from behind victory over the Mariners on Monday night at Fenway Park. (14:48) The callers give their thoughts on the Patriots and the Red Sox. (25:29) Thoughts on friend of the program Jared Stillman having his media credential revoked by the Tennessee Titans. (34:12) More thoughts from the callers on the Patriots and Red Sox. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

   If you ask anyone in KC, it's a stone cold lock that Patrick Mahomes in starting against the Broncos in Week 1 and that includes asking anyone in the media.  But media outside KC are pointing out some contradictions in what the Chiefs are saying, and doing right now, and interpret this situation as totally up in the air.    I'd never heard of Farm School until I had lunch with Tim and Britt Cross of www.crosskitchenskc.com Wednesday.  Their oldest attends Farm School "Lolly and Pops" in Raymore and were featured on a piece produced by KSHB-TV.  This is one of the greatest school ideas ever... you have to hear this.    Senator Josh Hawley is targeting Flock Cameras alongside.... Bernie Sanders?   JOCO property taxes are going up again next year, your democrat leaders couldn't hate you more.    In Sports, the Royals win streak ends at 9 as they faced another Mizzou starting pitcher in Toronto.  The Big 12 joins the Big Ten and SEC in not allowing pros to come back to college and I think they made a mistake at least in the short term.  TCU pulls credentials from the largest media outlet covering their football team as they head for Ireland to face Bill Belichick's UNC team.  And TCU is 1000% in the wrong.    A new documentary by the best sports talk show host in KC, Carrington Harrison,  debuts Thursday night at Screenland Armour Theater in NKC and it's called Armageddon at Arrowhead.  It's about that epic MU-KU football game at Arrowhead nearly 20 years ago.    ESPN dumps something for college football, Tom Brady's store in SF gets robbed and a girl is dominating the Little League World Series.

An FBI profiler thinks Lindsay Clancy is a psychopath who was sick of her kids. That's how one commenter puts it, citing Pat Brown, with Matt Walsh as a second vote. The commenter rejects both of them. She's closer to the record than the people she quoted.Pat Brown was never in the FBI. She's an independent, self-taught profiler with a criminal justice master's who has written that she felt too old to join the Bureau and built her own practice instead. She has posted videos arguing Lindsay fabricated her psychosis. Matt Walsh is a political commentator who wrote that the real source of Lindsay's depression was a selfish hatred of her children. Neither has examined her or testified."Sick of her kids" isn't a fringe idea, though. It's the prosecution's theory in plainer words. Prosecutors told the jury Lindsay was controlling and killed the children because she was no longer satisfied with her life. That's a claim being weighed, and the jury hasn't ruled on it."Psychopath" is something else entirely, and the difference is the whole trial. A psychopath knows exactly what's real and doesn't care. Psychosis means losing track of what's real. The defense experts diagnosed postpartum psychosis. The prosecution's experts rejected that and said major depression or bipolar II. No one who examined her, either side, said psychopath or personality disorder.This segment covers five comments about Patrick and the system. What he did in December 2022, dated by testimony. The five words he said when a nurse raised bipolar. The Manhattan move that happened exactly when the comment says it did. The thirteen medications, which are documented. And what happens to Lindsay under each verdict.Opinions about Patrick are fair. Credentials are checkable. Diagnoses come from the witness stand.END LINKSListen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodDISCLAIMERThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.HASHTAGS#LindsayClancy #PatrickClancy #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #LindsayClancyTrial #PostpartumPsychosis #Duxbury #TrueCrimePodcast #ClancyTrial #MassachusettsTrial