Podcasts about Decision

Pope Leo XIV's Creole family roots inspired New Orleanian journalist Susan Saulny to research her Creole great-uncle who moved to Chicago, identified himself as white and never returned. She describes her journey to reunite her family. Her piece in the New York Times is called "A Family Secret No More."Also, TV critic David Bianculli reviews the Netflix series ‘The Boroughs.'See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Is your next business expense an investment or a mistake? The answer is always nuanced, but the right questions can help you make wiser spending decisions that actually align with your ROI expectations and overarching business goals.  With nearly 20 years of experience across multiple sectors of the financial industry (banking, lending, and now financial planning and investment/wealth management), founder of independent adviser Divergent Financial Advisory Services, Alicia Martinez knows exactly how to navigate those tough spending decisions that move your business forward while protecting your budget. Back as a returning guest on our show, she goes meta in today's episode by walking us through her own decision tree and how she evaluated a recent marketing expense of her own (our offer, Instant Influence).  What questions did she ask in the consideration process? How is she defining and tracking success? How can business owners effectively evaluate a financial commitment when the outcome isn't guaranteed? This is the episode to tune into before you make your next big purchase for your business.  Connect with Alicia: ⁠https://difiadvisory.com ⁠https://www.instagram.com/difiadvisory ⁠https://www.facebook.com/DiFiAdvisory/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/difiadvisory/ Our last episode with Alicia: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cubicle-to-ceo/id1470966370?i=1000712399762 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/44nj7IVLPBcz3eTIXdqGPZ?si=wAu98ZqyRtWywBXSzkF7ag Loving our bonus content and want more Cubicle to CEO in your ears? Join us every Monday on our subscriber-only premium feed for case study–style interviews with successful entrepreneurs debriefing their real-time growth experiments and results. Subscribe to get insider access to what's actually been working for businesses in the last 3-18 months:  ⁠cubicletoceo.co/podcast⁠ If you enjoyed today's episode, please: Post a screenshot & key takeaway on your IG story and tag us ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@cubicletoceo⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ so we can repost you. ⁠⁠⁠Subscribe to ⁠our premium feed⁠ for case-study style interviews every Monday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, I'll discuss the most backwards federal court ruling yet. Also Gad Saad joins the show to discuss the dangers of 'Suicidal Empathy' seen so commonly on the left. Find the video podcast of The Dan Bongino Show exclusively on Rumble at https://Rumble.com/bongino Fleeing for their futures, a California exodus unleashes a Florida 'gold rush' https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/fleeing-futures-massive-california-exodus-unleashes-florida-gold-rush United States Court of Appeals on Transgenders serving in the Military https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/06/25-5087-2176040.pdf Sponsors: Birch Gold - Text DAN to 989898 Brickhouse Nutrition - https://BrickhouseNutrition.com/dan - code: dan Carshield - https://carshield.com/bongino - code: Bongino All Family Pharmacy - https://allfamilypharmacy.com/bongino - code: Bongino10 American Financing - NMLS 182334, nmlsconsumeraccess.org. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.327% for well qualified borrowers. Call 888-994-7600 for details about credit costs and terms. Visit AmericanFinancing.net/Bongino. Average savings based on borrowers who save over $199.99 Kalshi - https://kalshi.com/r/bongino Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Colleen turned 49 last year and next year she wants to celebrate BIG -- where has she decided to celebrate her 50th birthday? Jason's "25 Words or Less" trailer troubles, NYC food ABFABs: Ess-A-Bagel and Katz Deli, and sleep sweet spots -- are you getting a healthy amount of sleep? See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Take the free Predictable Income Map quiz at predictableproducer.com/quiz. Five questions, two minutes. Find out exactly which of the 5 stages you are in and what is keeping you there. Most loan officers think they have an activity problem.They don't.They have an identity problem.In this episode, Steve unpacks one of the most important concepts behind building a predictable business: Be. Do. Have.Too often, we try to do more in hopes of having better results. But lasting success comes from first becoming the person who consistently does the activities that create the outcome.Steve shares personal stories from his early struggles in the business, the lessons learned from rebuilding, and why motivation alone will never create a predictable income. You'll discover why decisions are more powerful than choices, how limiting beliefs quietly sabotage performance, and why identity is the foundation that makes every other strategy work.  Ready to build a predictable production system? The 5-Day Predictable Producer Challenge walks you through identity, the math, your warm list, your calendar, and the exact ask, one day at a time. On demand. Start today at predictableproducer.com/challenge. 

In hour two, would teams like up for Mike Tomlin next offseason? Dolphins sign a WR. Crowder explains why he opted not to sign with the Patriots after the Fins cut him. Plus, 5 Wemby's vs 5 Michael Jordan's during Talk About It Tuesday.

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: The Daily Caller headlined it this way: Texas announces new tool to keep illiterate foreigners away from driver's seats. There is more to it than that but it is about being able to comprehend English to operate a commercial vehicle. DPS Announces Changes to CDL Knowledge Testing Texas lifts ban on CDLs for temporary agriculture workers Texas Begins Enforcement of Commercial Automated Vehicle Requirements Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.Want evidence of the utter stupidity of today's leftist credentialed class? Just take this editorial: Trump's messy mass deportations hurt American workers. By this reasoning a shortage of workers leads not to higher wages from demand pressures but to more unemployment!Decision take: The historic Downtown Dallas flagship Neiman Marcus to be closed at the end of September by bankrupt Saks Global.National Republican Senatorial Committee to back Paxton the same as all others.Judge cancels Ken Paxon's public divorce trial – because bother parties are coming to a settlement without a trial.Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

Why does choosing dinner, returning a call, or deciding what to do next sometimes feel impossible during cancer caregiving? In this episode, Charlotte continues the Mental Load of Cancer Caregiving series by naming the decision drain: the cognitive and emotional exhaustion that comes from making high-stakes choices all day long with incomplete information and no clear right answer. She explores why caregivers can end up depleted, stuck, and unable to land even small decisions by afternoon, and offers a practical framework for creating decision boundaries so your brain does not have to carry every choice at full intensity all at once.

The traditional image of leadership is built around the hero. When problems emerge, the leader steps in. If uncertainty appears, the leader provides answers. Finally, as pressure increases, the leader shields the team. According to leadership coach Daria Rudnik, that model is becoming increasingly ineffective. In a world shaped by constant disruption, Facilitative Leadership is replacing heroic leadership as the capability organizations need most. About Daria Rudnik Daria Rudnik helps overloaded leaders build self-sufficient teams in an AI-driven world. Through her proprietary CLICK Framework, she works with fast-growing technology and finance organizations to improve team ownership, decision-making, knowledge sharing, and adaptability. Daria is the author of CLICKING (International Impact Book Awards – Leadership Category), co-author of The AI Revolution, and founder of Aidra.ai, an AI coaching platform designed to scale leadership development.

Take the free Predictable Income Map quiz at predictableproducer.com/quiz. Five questions, two minutes. Find out exactly which of the 5 stages you are in and what is keeping you there. Most loan officers think they have an activity problem.They don't.They have an identity problem.In this episode, Steve unpacks one of the most important concepts behind building a predictable business: Be. Do. Have.Too often, we try to do more in hopes of having better results. But lasting success comes from first becoming the person who consistently does the activities that create the outcome.Steve shares personal stories from his early struggles in the business, the lessons learned from rebuilding, and why motivation alone will never create a predictable income. You'll discover why decisions are more powerful than choices, how limiting beliefs quietly sabotage performance, and why identity is the foundation that makes every other strategy work.  Ready to build a predictable production system? The 5-Day Predictable Producer Challenge walks you through identity, the math, your warm list, your calendar, and the exact ask, one day at a time. On demand. Start today at predictableproducer.com/challenge. 

Send us Fan MailFeeling stuck? This episode explores how clarity can cut through indecision, reduce overwhelm, and help you make choices that align with who you want to be. When you're clear on your direction, moving forward becomes a whole lot easier. 

The Hidden Cost of Waiting: Why Wellness Practitioners Stay Stuck (and the Decision Matrix That Gets You Unstuck)Episode description (SEO):Let me guess — you're a wellness practitioner with a wealth of ideas and maybe even an online program idea living in your Notes app that you just can't seem to act on. You're not lazy. You're not unqualified. You're waiting. And waiting has a cost most practitioners never add up until they're three years down the road and nothing has changed.In this episode, Alison breaks down why not deciding is still a decision — and what it's actually costing you every single season you push it off. If you've been telling yourself "next quarter," "after the summer," "once things calm down," this one is for you. Hit play if you're ready to stop waiting and start building.In this episode:Why waiting isn't neutral — and the real price you're paying for every season you stay where you areWhy waiting doesn't always look like waiting — the disguises it wears so you don't have to call it what it isThe 4-Quadrant Decision Matrix that gets you out of your head and into a real choice — so the idea finally leaves the Notes appKey takeaways:Indecision is expensive. The cost just shows up later, quietly, and all at once."I'm not ready" is usually "I haven't decided" wearing a more respectable outfit.You don't need more certainty to move. You need a framework that makes the choice for you.Ready to actually build the thing?Tomorrow I'm hosting my free webinar, Replace Your In-Person Clinic Salary Online — where I'll show you exactly how skilled practitioners are building scalable online income beyond the treatment table. This is the room to be in if this episode hit a nerve. Save your seat at: https://100k-blueprint.pages.ontraport.net/work-from-homeGet into the 100K Online Group Program here: https://igniteurwellness.com/100k-online-practice-blueprint/Follow me on Instagram →  igniteyourwellnessbusinessReady to work with me? Book a consultation call on my website!→ https://igniteurwellness.com/business-coach-for-health-coaches/

The panel return on this edition to discuss Tottenham Hotspur closing in on the signings of Marcos Senesi and Andy Robertson, with both deals now agreed in principle as Roberto De Zerbi's rebuild gathers pace in North London. We also reflect on the news that Tottenham Hotspur have ‘pulled out' of the race to sign Joao Palhinha. Spurs' buy option expires on Monday, and Sporting CP are moving ahead with the deal. Talks with Bayern Munich are expected to follow. Palhinha impressed on loan at Spurs and has expressed a desire to stay, with the London club holding a €30 million purchase option. Sporting want to bring the 30-year-old back to Lisbon, where he began his career. The midfielder is willing to take a significant pay cut to rejoin his boyhood club, and a broad understanding with the player is said to be in place. A new loan move for Luka Vuskovic to Hamburger SV is apparently not a current option avaliable. The Croatian has two options: Long-term contract extension with high salary. A move to one of the biggest clubs in Europe. Talks are ongoing over the player's future. Luka Vuskovic has revealed his Tottenham future will not be decided until after the World Cup. We discuss what the best next step is for the youngster. Tottenham Hotspur are expected to strengthen their attack this summer, and a new report suggests that Marcus Rashford could become an option. Spurs have reportedly shown interest in signing Marcus Rashford this summer after a 28-goal contribution season with Barcelona, during which he scored 14 goals and provided 14 assists. We debate whether the Club could entice him into coming to the club and whether Spurs can get the best out of him. Finally we close on the news that Spurs have launched an internal review into last season. An internal review has been ongoing since the appointment of Dan Lewindon as Performance Director from Manchester City. This comes after he found significant challenges within Spurs. He joined the Club one day before Thomas Frank was sacked. We reflect on whether the Club will take the learnings from last season and put them into action in both the upcoming window in addition to decisions made both off/on the pitch. Independent Multi-Award Winning Tottenham Hotspur Fan Channel (Podcast) providing instant post-match analysis and previews to every single Spurs match along with a range of former players, managers & special guests. Whilst watching our content we would greatly appreciate if you can LIKE the video and SUBSCRIBE to the channel, along with leaving a COMMENT below. - DIRECT CHANNEL INFORMATION: - Media/General Enquiries: lastwordonspurs@outlook.com - SOCIALS: * Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/LastWordOnSpurs * Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/LastWordOnSpurs * Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LastWordOnSpurs * YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/LastWordOnSpurs *Threads: https://www.threads.net/@lastwordonspurs *BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/lastwordonspurs.bsky.social *TikTok: @LastWordOnSpurs WEBSITE: www.lastwordonspurs.com #THFC #TOTTENHAM #SPURS Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ministered by Pastor Jonathan Skiles at New Life Church of La Habra in La Habra, CA. God bless you and thank you for listening! If you would like to learn more about our ministry or give an offering, please visit our website at www.nlclahabra.com Visit us on Instagram: @nlclahabra Our Address: New Life Church of La Habra 740 E. Lambert Rd. Unit E  La Habra, CA 90631

Most coaches and experts never intentionally decide what role their podcast is supposed to play inside their business. They start podcasting to connect deeper with their audience, build authority in their industry and create long-form content that lasts longer than their Instagram stories.And those are all great reasons to start a podcast. But a reason for starting a podcast isn't the same as assigning it a role.In this episode, I'm exploring one of the most overlooked questions in podcast strategy:What job is your podcast actually there to do?Because if the role isn't clear, it's incredibly difficult to know whether your podcast is working, what success should look like, or why listeners aren't taking the next step to working with you.In this episode, I talk about:Why downloads and positive feedback don't always tell the full storyThe difference between a reason and a roleWhy so many podcasts feel disconnected from business outcomesHow podcasts drift as businesses evolveThe one question every podcaster should be able to answerIf you've ever found yourself wondering whether your podcast is actually contributing to the business you're building, this episode will give you a different way of thinking about it.---If you'd like help identifying the role your podcast is currently playing and whether it's the role your business needs it to play, you can learn more about the Decision Gap Diagnostic here: https://evergreenpodcaststrategy.co.uk/podcast-auditResources mentioned in this episode Turn Listeners Into Clients: The Four Stages Of Your Podcast Funnel [Ep 187]-Thank you for listening to this episode of Rethinking Podcasting. If this episode made you think differently about your podcast, your content or the role your podcast plays in your business, I'd love to hear what shifted for you.Send an email to info@evergreenpodcaststrategy.co.uk with DECISION in the subject line. I read and respond to every email personally.

LESSON 152The Power Of Decision Is My Own.No one can suffer loss unless it be his own decision. No one suffers pain except his choice elects this state for him. No one can grieve nor fear nor think him sick unless these are the outcomes that he wants. And no one dies without his own consent. Nothing occurs but represents your wish, and nothing is omitted that you choose. Here is your world, complete in all details. Here is its whole reality for you. And it is only here salvation is.You may believe that this position is extreme, and too inclusive to be true. Yet can truth have exceptions? If you have the gift of everything, can loss be real? Can pain be part of peace, or grief of joy? Can fear and sickness enter in a mind where love and perfect holiness abide? Truth must be all-inclusive, if it be the truth at all. Accept no opposites and no exceptions, for to do so is to contradict the truth entirely.Salvation is the recognition that the truth is true, and nothing else is true. This you have heard before, but may not yet accept both parts of it. Without the first, the second has no meaning. But without the second, is the first no longer true. Truth cannot have an opposite. This cannot be too often said and thought about. For if what is not true is true as well as what is true, then part of truth is false. And truth has lost its meaning. Nothing but the truth is true, and what is false is false.This is the simplest of distinctions, yet the most obscure. But not because it is a difficult distinction to perceive. It is concealed behind a vast array of choices that do not appear to be entirely your own. And thus the truth appears to have some aspects that belie consistency, but do not seem to be but contradictions introduced by you.As God created you, you must remain unchangeable, with transitory states by definition false. And that includes all shifts in feeling, alterations in conditions of the body and the mind; in all awareness and in all response. This is the all-inclusiveness which sets the truth apart from falsehood, and the false kept separate from the truth, as what it is.Is it not strange that you believe to think you made the world you see is arrogance? God made it not. Of this you can be sure. What can He know of the ephemeral, the sinful and the guilty, the afraid, the suffering and lonely, and the mind that lives within a body that must die? You but accuse Him of insanity, to think He made a world where such things seem to have reality. He is not mad. Yet only madness makes a world like this.To think that God made chaos, contradicts His Will, invented opposites to truth, and suffers death to triumph over life; all this is arrogance. Humility would see at once these things are not of Him. And can you see what God created not? To think you can is merely to believe you can perceive what God willed not to be. And what could be more arrogant than this?Let us today be truly humble, and accept what we have made as what it is. The power of decision is our own. Decide but to accept your rightful place as cocreator of the universe, and all you think you made will disappear. What rises to awareness then will be all that there ever was, eternally as it is now. And it will take the place of self-deceptions made but to usurp the altar to the Father and the Son.Today we practice true humility, abandoning the false pretense by which the ego seeks to prove it arrogant. Only the ego can be arrogant. But truth is humble in acknowledging its mightiness, its changelessness and its eternal wholeness, all-encompassing, God's perfect gift to His beloved Son. We lay aside the arrogance which says that we are sinners, guilty and afraid, ashamed of what we are; and lift our hearts in true humility instead to Him Who has created us immaculate, like to Himself in power and in love.The power of decision is our own. And we accept of Him that which we are, and humbly recognize the Son of God. To recognize God's Son implies as well that all self-concepts have been laid aside, and recognized as false. Their arrogance has been perceived. And in humility the radiance of God's Son, his gentleness, his perfect sinlessness, his Father's Love, his right to Heaven and release from hell, are joyously accepted as our own.Now do we join in glad acknowledgment that lies are false, and only truth is true. We think of truth alone as we arise, and spend five minutes practicing its ways, encouraging our frightened minds with this:The power of decision is my own.This day I will accept myself as what my Father's Will created me to be.Then will we wait in silence, giving up all self-deceptions, as we humbly ask our Self that He reveal Himself to us. And He Who never left will come again to our awareness, grateful to restore His home to God, as it was meant to be.In patience wait for Him throughout the day, and hourly invite Him with the words with which the day began, concluding it with this same invitation to your Self. God's Voice will answer, for He speaks for you and for your Father. He will substitute the peace of God for all your frantic thoughts, the truth of God for self-deceptions, and God's Son for your illusions of yourself.- Jesus Christ in ACIM

The MAFFEO DRINKS Podcast is a leading drinks business podcast, listened to in 120 countries worldwide with 125+ episodes. Honest conversations about how the industry actually works, from the bar and what it means for the boardroom.This Episode is hosted by Chris Maffeo and brought to you by MAFFEO DRINKS.Everyone is chasing growth. Everyone is chasing funding. Few are asking the harder question: what are we actually going to do with it?In this episode, Chris Maffeo talks to Maurice Doyle, senior drinks industry leader with decades of brand building across major global companies about why experience can become a trap, why strategy is about what you say no to, and why the leaders who build something lasting are the ones who never stop questioning themselves.Funding. Strategy. Decision-making. Brand building. Bottom up. Wanna know what the conversation above means for your team? It's in the paid section.For €100 a year you get access to Maffeo Confidential (Private Podcast) and get this analysis and access to the full archive of 125 episodes, each one translated from industry conversation into the commercial decisions underneath it. Find out more at maffeodrinks.com

Most of the financial decisions keeping you up at night are two-way doors. You can change them. You can undo them. The real one-way doors -- the decisions that actually lock you in -- are rarer than you think, and the problem is we're spending the same emotional energy on both. Joe, OG, Paula Pant, and Jesse Cramer take Simone Stolzoff's uncertainty framework from Wednesday and run it straight through real financial life: career changes, portfolio risk, entrepreneurial pivots, and the moment you finally flip the kill switch on something that isn't working.What You'll Walk Away WithThe one-way door versus two-way door framework applied to real decisions -- and why automating your savings contributions is the most underrated version of this ideaJesse's anchor: why life insurance changed everything about how he sleeps at night now that there are passengers in the car with himPaula's anchor: why avoiding debt entirely is the entrepreneurial version of keeping your burn rate survivable when revenue gets unpredictableOG's anchor: long-term belief in human ingenuity as a financial strategy -- and why short-term geopolitical noise is actually an opportunity for investors who aren't panickingWhy selling assets in a taxable brokerage account to cover business payroll is a two-way door -- until enough time passes and it quietly becomes a one-way doorThe kill criteria conversation: how Jesse built an 18-to-24-month runway into his career change before he ever made the leapWhy the Everest turnaround time is the most important financial planning concept most people have never applied to their own goalsOG's client story: when the right risk tolerance isn't the mathematically correct one -- it's the one that lets you sleep at night without calling your advisorPaula on the pivot strategy: keep iterating the broad direction until you find the product-market fit, because the version that works might look nothing like what you started withWhy a career shift becomes more of a one-way door the longer you wait -- and what Rocky Mark's electrical engineer to content creator question reveals about timingWhy This Matters NowThe worst financial decisions happen when people treat reversible choices as permanent ones and freeze -- or treat permanent choices as reversible and act too fast. This episode gives you a framework for telling the difference before the emotion hits, which is the only time it actually helps.From the BasementJoe, OG, Paula Pant, and Jesse Cramer take Simone Stolzoff's Wednesday framework and apply it to the messy real world of careers, portfolios, entrepreneurship, and retirement identity. The trivia competition takes a dramatic turn when OG margin calls Jesse on a Mount Everest question -- and the full margin call rule set gets read aloud for the first time in recorded history after Dottie in Wichita makes a call nobody wanted to receive. Jesse wins the point. OG loses one. The coalition closes the gap.Resources MentionedAfford Anything podcast -- Paula Pant; Joe joins most Tuesdays for listener Q&A; youtube.com/affordanythingPersonal Finance for Long-Term Investors -- Jesse Cramer's podcast; current series: 14 biggest risks in retirement, Charlie Munger-inspired inversion frameworkStacking Benjamins Wednesday episode -- "Why Uncertainty Is an Opportunity" with Simone Stolzoff; stackingbenjamins.comStacking Benjamins Vault -- stackingbenjamins.com/vaultStacking Benjamins Newsletter (The 201) -- stackingbenjamins.com/201OG financial planning calendar -- stackingbenjamins.com/ogStacking Benjamins Community -- stackingbenjamins.com/basementSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Joe DeCamara and James Seltzer of the 94WIP Morning Show analyze the Phillies' dominant starting rotation and debate whether Cristopher Sánchez has become the best pitcher in baseball. They also discuss the potential for a Major League Baseball salary cap and make predictions for the NBA Finals. A 'Notable Neighbor' contest features callers sharing their favorite iconic TV and movie neighbors. 01:00 - Joe's Dreams and Phillies 06:16 - Sánchez and Wheeler Analysis 10:20 - Salary Cap and NBA 13:50 - Notable Neighbor Contest 18:30 - Phillies Fan Confidence

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

If you feel like your results are inconsistent or your pipeline isn't converting the way it should, this episode is going to connect the dots. In this episode of The Real Truth About Business podcast, I'm sharing a mix of Back Pocket Insights episodes focused on consistency, routines, and how your pipeline actually drives revenue growth. This is for service-based entrepreneurs who are stuck in a revenue plateau, struggling to stay consistent, or unsure how to move leads through their sales process. After 9 years of experience, I can tell you this is not about doing more. It's about doing the right things consistently. Inside this episode, I break down how your habits impact your business strategy and how understanding the four pipeline stages will completely change your approach to lead generation and sales.What You'll Learn:Why consistency is the foundation of sustainable business growthHow breaking routines impacts your revenue and pipeline performanceThe four pipeline stages every service-based business needsHow to move leads from awareness to decision effectivelyWhy clarity in your sales process increases your conversion rateHow to align your daily actions with long-term revenue growthEpisode Highlights:[00:00] Introduction: Back Pocket Insights and coaching-style episodes[02:00] Why consistency is harder to rebuild than maintain[05:00] Identifying where you're breaking your own routines[07:00] How overcommitment leads to inconsistency[09:00] Introduction to the four pipeline stages[11:00] Awareness: how people find you[13:00] Interest and consideration: how leads engage[15:00] Decision: how to move people to a clear yes or noKey Takeaways:Consistency Is What Actually Drives ResultsHere's what I see constantly. Business owners chasing new strategies while ignoring the lack of consistency in what they're already doing.After 9 years of working with service-based entrepreneurs, I can tell you this is one of the biggest reasons for stalled revenue growth.Consistency is not about doing everything. It's about doing a few things repeatedly.And once you break that consistency, it's significantly harder to rebuild than it is to maintain. That applies to your content, your lead generation, and your sales process.Your Habits Are Directly Tied to Your RevenueThis isn't just about routines for the sake of discipline.Your daily and weekly habits are directly connected to your pipeline. If you're inconsistent in showing up, inconsistent in nurturing leads, or inconsistent in following up, your revenue will reflect that.Inside the Focused Visionary Framework, this ties directly into your Pipeline and Sales pillars. You cannot create predictable business growth without consistent action.Every Lead Is Somewhere in Your PipelineOne of the biggest mindset shifts is understanding that everyone who interacts with your business is in your pipeline.Not everyone will buy. But everyone is somewhere in the process.And if you don't know where they are, you can't move them forward.This is where most service-based entrepreneurs lose momentum. They don't have visibility into how people are moving through their business.The Four Pipeline Stages Simplify EverythingYour entire business strategy can be simplified into four stages:Awareness: how people find youInterest: how they start engaging with youConsideration: how they evaluate working with youDecision: how they say yes or noWhen you map your lead generation and sales process to these stages, everything becomes clearer.You know what to focus on. You know where the gaps are. And you know exactly how to improve your conversion rate.Clarity and Action Move People ForwardLeads don't move through your pipeline on their own.They need direction.If you're not giving clear next steps, people will stall. They'll stay in interest or consideration and never move to decision.This is why your sales process needs to be intentional. Every stage should have a clear action that moves someone forward.Business Growth Is Built on Simple, Repeatable SystemsAt the end of the day, this is what it comes down to.Consistent actions. Clear pipeline. Intentional sales process.Not more complexity. Not more tactics.Just better execution of the fundamentals.That's what creates sustainable revenue growth and gets you out of a revenue plateau.Resources MentionedSubscribe to Back Pocket Insights for FREEBook a CEO Strategy Call Learn more about The Missing Piece IntensiveLearn more about The Focused Visionary AcceleratorDownload the FREE Lead and Conversion TrackerSubscribe to the Sunday Morning Brew NewsletterAbout the Host:Michelle DeNio is a business strategist based in Sarasota, Florida, specializing in helping service-based entrepreneurs break through revenue plateaus using her Focused Visionary Framework. With over 300 podcast episodes and 9 years running her consulting business, she helps coaches, consultants, and service providers scale sustainably through strategic planning, pricing optimization, and sales process development.Connect with MichelleWebsiteThreads Instagram LinkedIn Facebook

Jared Jones is back with the Pittsburgh Pirates and will return to the starting rotation, ending any debate about whether he should be used out of the bullpen. Alex Stumpf breaks down why starting was always the right call for Jones, why a six-man rotation never made much sense, and why Carmen Mlodzinski ultimately became the odd man out. The move may help a struggling Pirates bullpen, especially with Mlodzinski capable of giving them multi-inning, high-leverage work, but it also raises a fair question: did a young starter who had earned more runway lose his spot because of roster circumstance? Alex looks at both sides of the decision, what it means for Bubba Chandler, and why Jones' return could reshape the Pirates' pitching staff moving forward. Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9ZY250XUYiS-yX7xOQCdLA/join Use Promo Code NS930 for 30% off your first order at https://www.defer.coffee Use Promo Code NORTHSHORENINE for $20 off your first order at https://www.seatgeek.com LIKE and SUBSCRIBE with NOTIFICATIONS ON if you enjoyed the show! NS9 MERCH: https://northshorenine.myshopify.com ►Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/NorthShoreNine ►Website: https://www.northshorenine.com ►Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/northshorenine ►TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@northshorenine ►Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/northshorenine ►Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/northshorenine ►Discord: https://discord.gg/3HVYPg544m #pittsburghpirates Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

(

Listen to expert insights on the latest clinical evidence for biomarker testing and treatment selection in patients with HER2-mutated NSCLC. Credit available for this activity expires: 05/29/2027 Earn Credit / Learning Objectives & Disclosures: https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/expert-panel-decision-framework-progressive-strategies-2026a1000diy?ecd=bdc_podcast_libsyn_mscpedu

For years, audio creator Helena de Groot felt almost certain that she did not want kids. Then, she got unexpectedly pregnant. That pregnancy was the first in a series of curveballs that set her on a path of questioning everything she thought she knew — not just about whether or not to have children, but about how to live with the doubt and uncertainty that comes with any big adult decision. Helena talks to Anita about this journey, captured in her new memoir podcast “Creation Myth.” Plus, Anita hears from a psychotherapist who has devoted her career to helping people find clarity in the choice about whether to become parents. Meet the guest:- Helena de Groot, creator of the audio memoir “Creation Myth”- Merle Bombardieri, parenting decision coach, psychotherapist and author of “The Baby Decision: How to Make the Most Important Choice of Your Life” Read the transcript | Review the podcast on your preferred platformFollow Embodied on Instagram Leave a message for EmbodiedYou can learn more about coaching opportunities with Merle Bombardieri here and also sign up for her newsletter here. 

Coming This Summer: The PCS Survival Series Because PCS Season is more than just the logistics of moving. Its identity shifts. Decision fatigue. Letting go. Starting over. And trying to protect your mental health and sanity in the middle of it all. This summer, we're breaking down the full PCS experience — from emotional preparation and resilience to routines, relationships, reinvention, and recovery after the move. Whether you're preparing for orders, in the middle of packing chaos, or trying to settle somewhere new, this series is here to remind you that you don't have to navigate military life transitions alone.

2026-05-28 | UPDATES #208 | How the May 26th Pentagon announcement may just have handed Putin the greatest strategic gift of the 21st century. A prize that barely could have been conceived of before Trump returned to the White House. 26–27 May 2026 — a third of us jets pulled from NATO, destroyers cut, every submarine withdrawn, drones slashed — and Russian forces drilling for Baltic operations in the same week. As I predicted in 2025, Europe is now on its own. ----------SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.gofundme.com/f/scaling-up-campaign-to-fight-authoritarian-disinformation----------ACTIVE CAMPAIGN:We are raising funds for 5 of 15 Vampire DronesSilicon Curtain for Kupiansk Vampires. Dzyga's Paw, together with Jonathan Fink, is joining forces to raise $40,000 to provide the Khartiia Brigade with Vampire Drones.https://dzygaspaw.com/silicon-curtain-for-kupiansk-vampiresThese heavy bombers are designed to destroy manpower and equipment, as well as for remote mining. The Vampire UAV, manufactured by Skyfall, has proven itself to be one of the most effective weapons in the Kupiansk direction. Skyfall is one of Ukraine's largest defense tech companies, producing Vampire bomber drones, various modifications of Shrike FPV drones, P1-SUN, Shahed drone interceptors, communication systems, and components.----------PLEASE HELP ME ME TO GROW SILICON CURTAINWe are planning our events for 2026, and to do more and have a greater impact. After achieving more than 12 events in 2025, we will aim to double that! 24 events and interviews on the ground in Ukraine, to push back against weaponized information, toxic propaganda and corrosive disinformation. Please help us make it happen!----------SOURCES: Der Spiegel (via Military Times) — "Report: US to cut strategic bombers and warships available to NATO in a crisis" (26 May 2026)RT — "US plans to slash contributions to NATO – Spiegel" (26 May 2026) Daily Mail (via PapaLinc/Intel Drop syndication) — "Trump's secret NATO ultimatum sparks panic as US 'pulls jets, bombers and EVERY submarine from Europe'" (26-27 May 2026)CNN Politics — Natasha Bertrand, "US military withdrawing some troops from Eastern Europe" (29 October 2025) The Hill / Yahoo News — "GOP chairs blast Trump's move to pull troops from Romania" (October 2025) CBS News — "Trump administration's Europe troop drawdown fuels concern amid NATO allies, draws fire even from Republicans" (October 2025) — Estonia's Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur statement on continued US commitment; Pentagon's "force posture adjustment will not change the security environment in Europe" framing; "primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe" languagePBS NewsHour / AP — "U.S. to withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany in next 6 to 12 months" (May 2026)CNN Politics — "Trump is cutting the numbers of US troops in Europe. Here's how" (14 May 2026)Fox News — "Congress moves block Pentagon from cutting US troops Europe South Korea" (late 2025/early 2026) House Armed Services Committee / Wicker.senate.gov — "Chairmen of Senate and House Armed Services Committees: We Strongly Oppose the Pentagon's Decision to Scale Back the U.S. Troop Presence in Romania" (29 October 2025) Yahoo News / The Hill — "Pentagon cuts troops in Eastern Europe, prompting rare pushback by GOP lawmakers" (October-November 2025) ----------

The Break Room (THURSDAY 5/28/26) 9am Hour

What happens when you achieve everything you thought would make you happy… and still feel deeply unfulfilled? In this raw and emotionally honest conversation, I sit down with entrepreneur, mentor, and transformation coach, Caryn Meininger, to unpack the hidden emotional cost of success built through people pleasing, suppression, survival patterns, and external validation. Caryn shares the deeply personal story behind walking away from her family's 8-figure business, the shame and identity crisis that followed, and the inner work required to rediscover her voice, rebuild self-trust, and create a life aligned with who she truly is. In this episode, you'll learn: Why external success often fails to create internal fulfillment The hidden cost of people pleasing and suppressing your voice How childhood conditioning shapes adult achievement patterns What identity death actually feels like during reinvention Why slowing down is necessary for sustainable growth The emotional reality of walking away from success Why overachievers constantly tie achievement to worthiness How to stop pedestalizing people and reclaim your own power This conversation dives deep into identity death, emotional avoidance, inner child work, belonging, coaching, nervous system patterns, reinvention, and why many successful people secretly feel trapped by the very life they built. Time Stamps: 00:00: Feeling unfulfilled despite building an 8-figure business 06:26: The bold decision to walk away from her family business 12:05: People pleasing, worthiness, and why high achievers overgive 21:35: The shame and loneliness that followed leaving success behind 25:16: Identity death: "Who am I without my business or family?" 36:25: Paul opens up about divorce, shame, and emotional avoidance 54:18: How to process emotions without suppressing or avoiding them 1:00:35: The advice every stuck high performer needs to hear I help high performers get unstuck and out of their own way to unlock their potential.  Apply for Private 1:1 Coaching: If you're successful on paper but feel misaligned, overwhelmed, or stuck at your next level, private coaching may be the fastest path forward. Click here to apply to work with me. Follow me on Instagram: @thepaulsalter Watch on YouTube: @thepaulsalter Join me in the M19 Mastermind: Click here to apply. Tell them Paul sent you. More About Caryn Meininger Caryn Meininger is an identity and energetics mentor, speaker, and founder of Live Iconic, a luxury personal development brand helping high-achieving women step into the version of themselves who can hold more wealth, visibility, leadership, and freedom.  After owning and operating an 8-figure family business for nearly two decades, Caryn reinvented her life and brand around embodied success, emotional mastery, and energetic alignment. Her work blends identity transformation, nervous system regulation, wealth energetics, and feminine leadership to help women become deeply self-trusting, magnetic, and unapologetically powerful. Learn more about working with Caryn at her website here.  Connect with Caryn on Instagram here (@carynmeininger)

Dylan, Matthias and Levi discuss Milan, football schedules and more.

In this episode, Eric sits down with Alyece Smith, business coach, TEDx speaker, autism advocate, and founder of Socially Ausome, for a candid conversation about ADHD, masking, burnout, boundaries, and what it really takes to build systems that fit your brain. Alyece shares how her son's autism diagnosis changed the way she understood neurodivergence, her own ADHD, and the cost of trying to operate like everyone else. After leaving corporate to prioritize her son's care, she built a successful business quickly, but found herself overdelivering, people-pleasing, working late into the night, and burning out despite outward success. Together, Eric and Alyece explore why "inconsistency" is often misunderstood, especially for ADHDers. They talk about under-stimulation, energy management, spark times, decision fatigue, boundaries, and why sustainable follow-through usually requires better support, not more shame. Alyece also introduces her F.L.O.W. First Thinking framework: Find your spark times, Link boring tasks with stimulation, Organize your overflow, and Work your week around your peaks. This conversation is practical, validating, and useful for anyone who has ever felt scattered, overextended, or exhausted from trying to work against their own brain. Summary In this episode, Eric sits down with Alyece Smith — business coach, TEDx speaker, autism mom, and founder of Socially Ausome — for a candid conversation about what it really looks like to build a business with an ADHD brain. Alyece shares how her son's autism diagnosis cracked open her own understanding of neurodivergency, eventually leading her to leave corporate, launch a six-figure business, burn out spectacularly, and rebuild everything on her own terms. She introduces her F.L.O.W. First Thinking framework, breaks down why consistency advice fails ADHDers, and explains why energy management — not time management — is the real key to sustainable success. This one is raw, practical, and deeply validating for any entrepreneur who has ever felt scattered, burnt out, or like they're just not built for the traditional business model. Key Takeaways You're not scattered — you're bored. ADHD brains are chronically under-stimulated. What looks like inconsistency is really a dopamine regulation issue. Energy management beats time management. Work during your brain's natural peak times (your chronotype) — not just whenever the calendar says to. Boundaries are a business strategy. Burnout wasn't from working hard — it was from having no limits with clients or herself. "That's not in our contract, but I'm happy to invoice you" was a turning point. Masking is exhausting and expensive. Pretending to be neurotypical burns energy that could fuel your actual work. Coming out publicly as ADHD was terrifying — and completely freeing. The 48-hour rule for pivots. Before burning something down, sit with it 48 hours. Still fired up? Probably a real signal. Not? Likely boredom or fear. Systems aren't one-size-fits-all. The right system is one built around how your specific brain works — not how productivity gurus say it should. Brain dump daily. A five-minute voice memo clears mental clutter and can be run through AI tools to generate action lists. Passion is your compass. Hyperfocus kicks in hardest around genuine passion. Can't stop thinking about it? That's your signal. Women with ADHD are chronically misdiagnosed. Internalizing symptoms leads to anxiety and depression, and many women aren't diagnosed until perimenopause amplifies everything. Timestamps 0:00 — Introduction & Alyece's background 0:47 — Her son's autism diagnosis and the research rabbit hole that changed everything 3:17 — Leaving corporate in 2022 to prioritize her son's healthcare 3:56 — Going straight into entrepreneurship — and immediately masking all over again 4:16 — Hitting six figures in six months, then hitting a wall 4:35 — Working until 2–3am and the unrealistic client expectations that drove it 5:15 — People-pleasing, poor boundaries, and faking having an assistant 7:14 — What it means to deliver excellence when you're miserable doing it 8:27 — The breaking point: her husband calls her out 9:20 — Becoming a "brick wall of boundaries" and what that sounds like in practice 26:27 — Coming out publicly as ADHD on Facebook — and the flood of "me too" responses 27:47 — Why she now loves being an ADHD keynote speaker 28:20 — Reframing ADHD inconsistency: dopamine, boredom, and under-stimulation 29:37 — The fMRI study: boredom registers as pain in the ADHD brain 30:25 — Why ADHDers start strong and struggle to finish 31:56 — Decision fatigue and the power of a personal uniform 33:04 — Introducing the F.L.O.W. First Thinking framework 36:31 — Applying Flow First in a corporate setting — $300K saved in one quarter 36:54 — The book and what's inside beyond the TEDx talk 37:15 — Where people get the F (Find Your Spark Times) wrong 38:00 — Why changing your schedule feels uncomfortable — and how to push through 39:00 — Harmful advice in the ADHD space: "just be more consistent" 40:29 — How women internalize ADHD symptoms differently — and the misdiagnosis epidemic 41:17 — One small, actionable shift for overwhelmed entrepreneurs 43:14 — The Voice Pen app recommendation 46:21 — Where to find Alyece and get the book The F.L.O.W. Framework: F — Find your spark times (when your brain is most alert and focused) L — Link boring tasks with stimulating ones (temptation bundling) O — Organize your overflow (a "parking lot" system for ideas and distractions) W — Work your week around your peaks (theme your days, not your hours) Resources Mentioned Book: Flow First Thinking by Alyece Smith - Get it on Amazon Website: sociallyausome.com Nonprofit: Caden's Corner / The Awesome Family's Foundation App: Voice Pen — voice memo to AI-generated action list Tool: ManyCam — virtual camera with timer overlay for Zoom calls Connect with Alyece Website: sociallyausome.com Facebook & Instagram: @sociallyausome (Skip the TikTok DMs — she's not in there) ADHD reWired Services Coaching Groups Adult Study Hall 1:1 Therapy & Coaching Additional Resource Mentioned: Neurodivergent + LGBTQ+ Pride Month Panel

Justin L. Griffith, Commonwealth's Attorney for Pulaski County, joins Cam to detail his decision not to enforce Virginia's new ban on "assault firearms" and "large capacity" magazines set to take effect on July 1.

Illinois basketball waits for the decision from Andrej Stojaković as he's expected to announce his future at 7 p.m. (he's coming back). Illini Headlines include football TV game times being announced and Quentin Coleman earning a spot on the U.S. U18 National Team. Plus, the St. Louis Cardinals fall to the Milwaukee Brewers while the Chicago Cubs drop their 10th straight game. Follow The Drive on X, Instagram, and Facebook.

If you've ever felt like you're doing all the things but still falling behind, this episode is for you. Today, I'm joined by time management expert Megan Sumrell, creator of the TOP Program, who challenges one of the most common productivity habits many of us rely on: daily planning. Megan explains why traditional productivity systems often fail women—especially women with ADHD—and how they can leave us feeling overwhelmed, guilty, and stuck in a cycle of constantly playing catch-up.In our conversation, we explore a more realistic approach to planning that accounts for uncertainty, mental load, energy fluctuations, caregiving responsibilities, and the realities of everyday life. Megan shares practical strategies for reducing decision fatigue, prioritizing what matters most, and creating a weekly planning rhythm that helps you feel more in control without striving for perfection. If you're ready to stop reacting and start planning in a way that actually works for your brain, press play.Episode Highlights[0:00] Why planning by the day may be causing more anxiety than flexibility[2:11] The hidden dangers of relying on daily to-do lists[3:10] Why traditional productivity systems leave many women feeling organized on paper but overwhelmed in reality[5:18] The guilt cycle: unfinished tasks, self-blame, and time debt[7:59] How unrealistic daily planning sets you up for failure before the day even begins[9:30] Decision fatigue, ADHD, and why making choices all day drains your energy[13:35] The cognitive load women carry—and why automation matters[15:31] Productive procrastination and chasing quick dopamine wins[17:09] Why weekly planning creates flexibility instead of rigidity[20:35] What to do when your calendar is already overbooked[23:14] Practical strategies for prioritizing when everything feels important[28:47] Hormones, energy cycles, and creating plans that work with your body[32:49] Managing planning and communication in relationships and neurodivergent households[38:10] Protecting personal time, exercise, and self-care without guilt[42:05] Paper planners vs. digital tools: finding the right system for your lifestyle[46:31] How to bounce back into your routine after vacation or time away[50:41] The biggest mindset shift: a plan is a tool, not a report card[54:40] Inside Megan's TOP Program and why a planner alone won't solve overwhelmLinks & ResourcesMegan Sumrell's Website: https://megansumrell.comFollow Megan on Instagram: @megansumrellAbout Megan SumrellMegan Sumrell is a Time Management Expert, Founder & CEO, and creator of the TOP Program and TOP Planner. After spending more than 20 years in corporate process improvement, she discovered that traditional productivity systems weren't designed for the realities women face—including caregiving responsibilities, mental load, and constant uncertainty. Today, she helps overwhelmed women create harmony in their lives through planning systems built specifically for how women's brains work, transforming unrealistic to-do lists into flexible, achievable plans.Thank you for tuning into "SuccessFULL with ADHD." If this episode has impacted you, remember to rate, follow, share, and review our podcast. Your support helps us reach and help more individuals navigating their journeys with ADHD.

AI is changing how work gets done — but more importantly, it's changing how people understand their value, identity, and ability to navigate uncertainty.That's one of the reasons I wanted Chris Walker on the show. Chris has spent years helping companies rethink growth, systems, and organizational performance, but this conversation goes far beyond marketing or AI tactics. Drawing on ideas from his new book The Frequency Era, Chris explores what happens when the work that once made people feel valuable can suddenly be done by AI and automation.One idea that stood out to me most in this conversation is that decision quality depends less on information and more on the person making the decision's internal state. In a world where AI can accelerate execution and analysis, judgment, discernment, and emotional clarity become increasingly valuable leadership capabilities — the very qualities machines cannot replicate.Key TakeawaysAI is reshaping identity, not just jobs: Chris explains that many people attach their self-worth to the work they perform. As AI absorbs more execution-based tasks, leaders will need to help teams navigate the emotional disruption that comes with that shift.Judgment becomes more valuable as automation increases: AI can accelerate execution and analysis, but leaders are still responsible for interpreting context, weighing tradeoffs, and making decisions under uncertainty.Decision quality is driven by internal state: Chris argues that calm, present leaders consistently make better long-term decisions under pressure than leaders operating from anxiety or fear.Creativity requires psychological safety: The conversation explores why innovation suffers in environments dominated by pressure and fear, and why teams create better ideas when people feel safe enough to challenge assumptions.Leaders need a compass more than a map: In fast-changing environments, rigid plans become less useful. Adaptability, awareness, and self-trust become more valuable than certainty.Additional InsightsAI exposes weak leadership systems faster: As AI accelerates execution, unclear decision-making, poor communication, and weak organizational alignment become more visible.Fear changes how people interpret information: Chris explains how anxiety and subconscious patterns can distort communication, amplify uncertainty, and affect leadership behavior.Experienced leaders reduce noise and focus on signal: Barry and Chris reflect on how strong operators simplify complexity and make clear decisions even when conditions are uncertain.Self-awareness becomes a leadership advantage: Understanding personal triggers, assumptions, and subconscious patterns improves both decision-making and interpersonal effectiveness.Episode Highlights00:00 – Episode RecapAI is not just changing how work gets done. It is forcing people to rethink identity, judgment, leadership, and the human capabilities that matter most in an uncertain future.01:42 – Guest Introduction: Chris WalkerBarry introduces Chris Walker, entrepreneur, systems thinker, and author of The Frequency Era, exploring how subconscious patterns shape leadership, performance, and decision-making.03:23 – Systems Thinking Beyond MarketingChris explains how thinking like a CEO and understanding entire systems shaped his approach to business, leadership, and organizational growth.08:11 – AI Is Elevating Human CapacityChris shares the core idea behind The Frequency Era, arguing that AI is not replacing humans but pushing people toward higher-order capabilities like judgment, creativity, and discernment.10:37 – When Identity Is Tied to WorkThe conversation explores why AI feels threatening for many people. Chris explains how attaching identity to specific tasks or roles creates fear and instability during periods of technological change.14:21 – Judgment Becomes the Competitive AdvantageBarry and Chris discuss why judgment may become the most important human skill in an AI-driven world, especially as people increasingly outsource interpretation and thinking to machines.18:58 – Calm Leaders Make Better DecisionsBarry reflects on why the best leaders are often the most present under pressure. Chris explains how emotional state directly affects decision quality and long-term outcomes.20:58 – Creativity Requires Psychological SafetyThe discussion shifts toward innovation and team dynamics. Barry and Chris unpack why fear suppresses creativity and how strong leaders create environments where people feel safe to challenge ideas.24:41 – Emotional Sovereignty and UncertaintyChris explains why anxiety, imposter syndrome, and self-doubt should be viewed as trainable patterns rather than permanent traits, especially in periods of rapid change.26:45 – Leaders Need a Compass, Not a MapThe conversation explores why rigid planning becomes less effective in fast-changing environments and why adaptability, self-trust, and clarity matter more than certainty.36:03 – The 30-Second Identity TestChris shares a simple but revealing exercise that exposes how unclear most people are about their own identity and direction.39:38 – Defining Your Own DirectionBarry reflects on why intentionality and self-awareness become critical leadership tools during periods of ambiguity and constant change.41:08 – Closing Reflections on Leadership and IdentityThe episode closes with reflections on self-awareness, adaptability, and the kind of leadership needed to navigate the AI era with confidence.FAQsQ1. What is The Frequency Era about?Chris Walker's book explores how subconscious patterns, beliefs, and emotional states influence leadership, decision-making, and performance, especially during periods of rapid technological change.Q2. Why does Chris Walker believe judgment is becoming more important in the AI era?As AI automates more execution-based work, leaders still need to interpret context, evaluate tradeoffs, and make decisions under uncertainty. Judgment becomes a differentiator when information and output are abundant.Q3. How does AI affect leadership and organizational culture?The episode explains that AI increases the pace of work and exposes weaknesses in communication, trust, and decision-making. Leaders need stronger emotional regulation and clearer principles to guide teams effectively.Q4. Why is psychological safety important for creativity?Chris and Barry discuss how fear and anxiety limit experimentation. Teams are more likely to produce innovative thinking when people feel safe enough to challenge ideas, make mistakes, and contribute openly.Q5. What human skills become more valuable as AI advances?The conversation highlights judgment, empathy, ethical reasoning, adaptability, communication, and self-awareness as essential skills that remain difficult to automate.Useful ResourcesChris Walker's book: The Frequency Era - https://a.co/d/0aUgBFeU Chris Walker on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/chriswalker171/ Encoded Website - https://www.encoded.ai/ Barry O'Reilly's book: Artificial Organizations - https://geni.us/artificialorgs

This week's "At her Career Crossroads" insight comes from myself, Dr. Robin. "You can make a brave decision and then quietly punish yourself because the new path is not performing well enough by old standards. And that's not freedom. That's old conditioning wearing new clothes." Making the decision is not always the hardest part. Sometimes the harder part comes after — when doubt creeps back in, old habits resurface, and you start questioning whether the change you made was the right one. In this episode, I talk about what it really means to stay grounded after making a purpose aligned decision, especially when your nervous system still craves the familiarity of your old life, career, or identity. Here are 3 reasons why you should listen to this episode: If you've made a big career or life decision but still feel uncertain afterward, this episode will help you understand why discomfort does not automatically mean you made the wrong choice. You'll hear practical ways to stay connected to yourself after clarity arrives — including how to recognize old patterns, stop measuring yourself by outdated standards, and return to what you know is true. If you're tired of achieving externally while feeling disconnected internally, this conversation will help you rethink what progress, success, and alignment actually look like for you now. I am a leadership and purpose expert helping high-achieving women close the gap between external success and inner fulfillment by making purpose aligned choices in their careers, leadership, and lives. Join the waitlist for the Clarity Circle here at: https://robinlowens.com/waitlist Would you prefer to watch or listen to the podcast on YouTube?Head on over to https://www.youtube.com/@leadershippurposepodcast   Want to connect? Connect with Dr. Robin on  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robinlowensphd/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robinlowensphd Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/robinlowensphd/ Email: Robin@LeadershipPurposePodcast.com   Thank you for listening! Rate, review, & follow on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast player. Talk to you soon! This episode was produced by Lynda, Podcast Manager for Creative Entrepreneurs at https://www.ljscreativeservices.co.nz

LSU Tigers Head Coach Lane Kiffin is still trying to clean up his Vanity Fair interview. Will it ever work? Lane Kiffin says that Ole Miss would've played for the championship if he was allowed to coach CBS Sports Brad Crawford: 26 Mindblowing Stats for the 2026 Season. Our daily 4 Downs presented by Central Alabama Asphalt! Decision time for Alabama's Amari Allen PLUS, Tyler's Viewing Menu presented by Michelson Laser Vision! SUBSCRIBE: @NextRoundLive - / @nextroundlive FOLLOW TNR ON SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/7zlofzLZht7dYxjNcBNpWN FOLLOW TNR ON APPLE PODCASTS: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-next-round/id1797862560 WEBSITE: https://nextroundlive.com/ MOBILE APP: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/the-next-round/id1580807480 SHOP THE NEXT ROUND STORE: https://nextround.store/ Like TNR on Facebook: / nextroundlive Follow TNR on Twitter: / nextroundlive Follow TNR on Instagram: / nextroundlive Follow everyone from the show on Twitter: Jim Dunaway: / jimdunaway Ryan Brown: / ryanbrownlive Lance Taylor: / thelancetaylor Scott Forester: / scottforestertv Tyler Johns: /TylerJohnsTNR Brooks Carter: /BrooksACarter Sponsor the show: sales@nextroundlive.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In honor of Mother's Day, get $200 off a new Dear FoundHer... Forum membership through the month of May. Join the community built for women business owners over 40 who are building real businesses on their own terms. JOIN US INSIDE HERE, no code necessary to save.A group of executives walked into a room, and Leah knew exactly who mattered.Dear FoundHer host Lindsay Pinchuk sits down with Leah Solivan to talk partnership marketing, founder visibility, and one of the clearest business growth stories from Taskrabbit's path to acquisition. Leah built Taskrabbit from a Boston apartment with no MBA, no startup network, and no idea how venture funding worked. What she had was an idea she refused to stop talking about and the discipline to do the unsexy groundwork for years before the right opportunity arrived. That is the entire lesson of this episode, and it applies to every woman building something right now.This conversation is for women founders who are tired of being told to run ads, chase virality, or wait for the perfect moment. Leah's story proves that partnership marketing is not a tactic. It is a long game built on real relationships, real data, and showing up consistently in the right markets before you ever get the right meeting.Taskrabbit's sale to IKEA started with one lucky opening, but the deal did not happen because of luck alone. It happened because Leah spent years trying to get on IKEA's radar, knew her numbers cold, and was ready when one person in a room of eight finally mattered. Taskrabbit was already operating in London, one of IKEA's largest markets, and a quarter of its jobs were IKEA furniture assembly. Founder visibility is not about being everywhere. It is about being undeniable when it counts.If you are a woman founder wondering whether the quiet, unglamorous work is moving anything forward, this episode will answer that. Building relationships in business the right way is slow. It compounds in a way quick wins often do not.Episode Breakdown:00:00 From IBM Engineer to Taskrabbit Founder: Leah Solivan's Origin Story03:33 Why Talking About Your Idea Is the First Step in Partnership Marketing08:57 Rebranding From Run My Errand to Taskrabbit11:09 How Leah Validated the Taskrabbit Concept Before Raising Money13:23 Raising a Startup's First Round of Funding With No Business Background19:40 Scaling a Business City by City and the Decision to Go International21:26 Building Trust in a Gig Economy Marketplace24:56 The IKEA Partnership That Led to an Acquisition28:49 Life After the Exit: Investing, Podcasting, and What Comes Next31:03 Three Actionable Tips for First-Time FoundersConnect with Leah Solivan:Follow Leah on InstagramConnect with Leah on LinkedInFollow Leah on XSubscribe to The FoundHer Files Substack: http://foundherfiles.substack.comFree Forum Open House + Networking Session Come see what's inside the Dear FoundHer Forum SAVE YOUR SEAT https://lindsaypinchuk.myflodesk.com/q2forumopenhouse Join THE networking community for women business owners over forty, The Dear FoundHer... Forum Follow Dear FoundHer... on Instagram http://www.instagram.com/dearfoundherPodcast production and show notes provided by HiveCast.fm Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's easy to hold your standard when everything is going well, but what happens when pressure builds? Welcome back to another episode of the Seven-Figure Standard. Today, Mykie and Arash unpack the identity shift that changes everything under pressure, exploring how your ability to handle pressure is directly tied to the identity and discipline you've built long before the moment arrives. They break down why pressure doesn't create character, but reveals it, why preparation equals character, and the impact of self-imposed pressure by high achievers. Arash also shares practical ways to pivot in the middle of high-pressure situations, build your pressure capacity over time, and shift from anxiety into solution-oriented leadership. This episode is a powerful reminder that elite results require the decision to normalize pressure and embrace it as a necessary part of growth.Key Points From This Episode:Introduction to today's topic.Preparation equals character: how pressure builds or reveals character.The ability to hold the emotional capacity that pressure is a privilege. How the ability to hold pressure is tied to identity. The importance of treating winning and losing with the same attitude.Making it part of your identity: handling pressure without the performance. Thinking about what your relationship is to pressure.Identifying pressure responses, what they look like, and how to overcome them. Arash coaches listeners on how to process worst-case scenario pressure.The impact of self-imposed pressure among high achievers.Arash unpacks his framework for building the capacity to handle pressure.His thoughts on creating artificial pressure for yourself. A real-life example of overcoming a big pressure test. How to pivot when you're right in the middle of a pressurized situation: the difference between performance and an operator identity.Decision, awareness, and identity: the things that allow you to build pressure capacity.Questions to ask yourself to see how you are handling pressure.Developing your relationship with pressure and the three responses to pressure. Final words from Arash on today's topic. Links Mentioned in Today's Episode:Voss Coaching CoVoss Coaching Co on LinkedIn Voss Coaching Co on InstagramVoss Coaching Co on FacebookEmail Voss Coaching CoMykie Stiller on LinkedInMykie Stiller on Instagram Arash Vossoughi on LinkedInArash Vossoughi on YouTube

The Minnesota Court of Appeals won't reinstate a law to ban certain gun trigger mechanisms. And gas prices were down slightly today after hitting a four-year Memorial Day high yesterday.Those stories and more in today's evening update from MPR News. Hosted by Emily Reese. Music by Gary Meister.

Presented by Howard Hamilton, the founder of SoccermetricsIt's put up or shut up, make a statement of go home...Howard previews everything you need to know about this week on the pitch- all in one place for Matchweek 6...

There are more possible chess moves than atoms in the universe, and chess champion Jennifer Shahade tells us how we can borrow from the best chess players' decision-tree approach to avoid considering every possible option and instead "think sideways" to consider the best choices on the board. Previous Episodes How Minds Change Jennifer Shahade's Website Thinking Sideways Does chess need intelligence? David McRaney's Twitter David McRaney's BlueSky YANSS Twitter YANSS Facebook Newsletter Patreon Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Last time we spoke about the first phase of the One Hundred Regiment Offensive. On 20 August 1940, forces launched the Zhengtai Campaign, part of the "Hundred Regiments Offensive," aiming to disrupt Japan's transport network and thus weaken its "cage-and-strongpoint" defense. Orders from the Eighth Route Army split tasks: the Jin-Cha-Ji Military Region attacked the eastern Zheng–Tai line, the 129th Division struck the western section , and the 120th Division hit the Tongpu Railway and the Fen–Li Highway. Success was to be judged by the damage inflicted on the Zheng–Tai line. Preparations were conducted under strict secrecy: reconnaissance teams mapped Japanese strongholds with help from villagers; communities stockpiled grain, ammunition, and tools, and trained for demolition, including heating and bending rails. At night, units infiltrated stations and villages, seized positions, and destroyed bridges, power lines, roads, and mines across multiple columns; rain slowed movement and shaped the fighting. By early September, the Zheng–Tai line and related transport routes were severed, isolating strongpoints and hindering reinforcement.    #203 The One Hundred Regiment Offensive Phase Two Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. During the second phase, the Hundred Regiments Offensive stopped being a single burst of action and became a sustained attempt to keep the Japanese occupation system off-balance. More regiments entered the fighting until, by the scale of commitment on the map, 104 regiments were involved. This matters because it changes what the campaign was: not merely a set of raids, but an effort to broaden pressure so that the enemy could not concentrate everything in one place at one time. Years later, Peng Dehuai—the commander closely associated with the Hundred Regiments offensive—described how the entry of these units felt as "spontaneous." That word can sound mysterious, so it helps to interpret it in operational terms. "Spontaneous" here does not mean unplanned chaos; it means that once the offensive logic took hold—once units saw that Japanese movement and control were being disrupted—local commanders and regiments felt empowered to join the fight without always waiting for the Eighth Route Army headquarters to issue fresh, detailed instructions for each smaller step. In other words, the campaign became something like an expanding network: local success and shared strategic perception fed into more participation across regions. Strategically, the campaign was guided by political and military guidance issued on September 10, 1940 by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. That instruction tied current operations to the earlier political-military framework of the July 7 Declaration and the July 7 Decision. The instruction argued that the moment mattered: it called for focusing "main efforts" on striking the Japanese army during a period when unity was being strengthened. It specifically urged that, based on the experience of the North China Hundred Regiments Offensive, Communist forces should organize one or more planned large-scale offensive operations in Shandong and Central China. In North China, the instruction pushed for expansion into Japanese army areas that had not yet been attacked—because the battlefield effect of the campaign was not only measured in immediate battlefield outcomes, but in reducing enemy-occupied space, enlarging base areas, breaking through blockade lines, and improving combat effectiveness. That last phrase—"Striking the enemy and attacking our allies is the general policy of military operations at present"—was the harsh shorthand for the operational reality: the campaign had to prevent Japanese occupation from appearing stable and manageable. If the occupation system could treat insurgency as "localized trouble," it would recover quickly. If, instead, occupation became dangerous in multiple places at once—requiring constant defense, constant movement, constant reinforcement—then the Japanese would be forced into a defensive posture that undermined their ability to exploit control. On September 16, 1940, the headquarters issued the second phase plan with a clear aim: expand results from the first phase. The headquarters explained the second phase would continue with an emphasis on disrupting Japanese transportation and destroying some strongholds that had penetrated deep into the base areas. This reveals the campaign's real "background and stakes": the offensive wasn't built around capturing territory in the traditional sense alone. It was built around breaking the system that makes occupation work. In the enemy's logic, occupation relies on movement: soldiers need to move, supplies need to be shipped, and reinforcement must be routed quickly to where trouble appears. Transportation infrastructure—roads, railways, bridges, power lines—forms the skeleton of control. Strongholds and outposts are the organs that occupy space, but they depend on that skeleton. If transportation becomes unreliable, strongholds become isolated islands. If strongholds become isolated, the Japanese must decide between (1) defending each island and spreading themselves thin, or (2) leaving some islands to contain the rest—either way, control weakens. Strongpoints—whether forts, fortified villages, gatehouses, or road blocks—also function as a "cage-and-silkworm" system: they are placed so Japanese forces can consolidate inside them, while routes outside are controlled or denied. In that model, even a small disruption can trigger a major ripple effect. When highways or key segments of rail are repeatedly broken, Japanese units cannot move "cleanly." They must detour, slow down, repair under threat, or escort repairs with larger forces than they prefer. Every extra hour spent repairing is an hour not spent consolidating. Every detour is a chance for ambush or for further sabotage. The second phase sought to exploit that dependency deliberately. That strategic framing explains why, even as the campaign broadened, different regions emphasized different battles. The Jin-Cha-Ji Military Region mainly fought the Lai-Ling Campaign, the 129th Division mainly fought the Yu-Liao Campaign, and the 120th Division focused on attacking the Tong-Pu Railway. They were not separate stories. They were different methods of attacking the same underlying vulnerability: the occupier's ability to move, reinforce, and coordinate. In Jin-Cha-Ji's sector, the stakes were especially sharp around Laiyuan and Lingqiu. The Japanese forces stationed in Mongolia had occupied those areas and penetrated deeply into the northwestern parts of the Jin-Cha-Ji Border Region. Japanese strength around these positions included elements of the 2nd Independent Mixed Brigade and the 26th Division, totaling more than 1,500 men, plus more than 1,000 puppet troops. The presence of puppet forces mattered not only for manpower, but because puppet troops supported the occupier's local control apparatus: they served as locally sourced enforcers, scouts, guards, and "administration-adjacent" security. Removing or weakening them was part of disrupting occupation credibility and local stability. Because the Japanese had been attacked in the first phase, they did not respond by retreating into passivity. They increased troops at each stronghold. Laiyuan City alone was reinforced to around 500 men, and the Japanese strengthened fortifications and stockpiled food and ammunition. This meant the defenders were preparing for a second round: not a sudden surprise raid, but a sustained threat that would test their ability to endure isolation and keep their network intact. Under these conditions, the Jin-Cha-Ji leadership decided to mobilize forces for the Lai-Ling Campaign, beginning at 22:00 on September 22, 1940. Here the background and stakes show up in the campaign's timing and tactics. The objective was not to "beat the defenders in open battle" only; it was to attack in ways that would prevent consolidation. By pushing on county areas and surrounding strongholds immediately, the attackers aimed to force the defenders into reactive mode—closing gates, shifting forces into defensive positions, and preparing for fights that would consume time and ammunition. The right wing launched a fierce attack on Laiyuan County and surrounding strongholds. After a night of hard fighting, the east, west, and south gates were taken, and the Japanese troops retreated into the city. Taking gates matters because it compresses space. It turns a wider defensive perimeter into a narrower, more concentrated posture. It also creates a psychological and operational trap: defenders who retreat into the city may survive longer as a fortified concentration, but their ability to conduct aggressive movement outside their walls—and their ability to receive reinforcements through many approaches—becomes more limited. In the night of September 23, the 2nd Regiment, supported by a battalion of the 1st Regiment and artillery, attacked Sanjia Village, described as an important enemy stronghold on the Laiyuan–Yixian highway, roughly 10 kilometers east of Laiyuan City. Highways are not just routes; they are corridors that connect strongholds to each other and to supply lines. By capturing a stronghold on a highway, the campaign attempted to break a portion of the corridor network feeding the city. The attackers annihilated most of the enemy and captured the village. At the same time, the 3rd Regiment attacked Dongtuanbao, northeast of Laiyuan City, and by the night of September 24, they had taken surrounding fortifications and forced remaining enemies into only a few houses inside the village. Then, on September 25, the enemy burned weapons, supplies, and food stored at the stronghold, preparing for a breakout. That detail reveals a key stake of stronghold warfare: if defenders believe they cannot hold and cannot escape, they may destroy supplies rather than let attackers seize them intact. It's a grim tactical psychology—destroying stores can deny the enemy immediate benefit, even if it reduces defenders' chances of future endurance. When the attackers launched another fierce assault and the remaining defenders, with no hope of escape, threw themselves into the flames and perished, the event underscored the "closed-options" nature of the battle: the stronghold system was being compressed until breakout became impossible. On September 26, other right-wing units, together with the 9th Regiment of the Pingxi Military Sub-district, captured 13 strongholds including Taohuabao, Bailebao, Jijiazhuang, Xinzhuang, Beikou, Xiabeitou, Baishikou, Zhongzhuang, Wangxidong, Liujiazui, Zhangjiayu, Beishifo, and Jinjiajing. Capturing strongholds in clusters has a strategic function. It doesn't just remove personnel; it interrupts local control geography. It makes it harder for defenders inside the city to extend influence outward and harder for them to create new safe points for movement. But the Japanese did what well-prepared occupiers can do: reinforce at the most important time and the most important place. On the second day after the start, Japanese reinforcement began from Zhangjiakou and other locations. Roads had not been completely destroyed, so the Japanese could advance rapidly. This becomes a major background lesson of the second phase. The first phase had demonstrated the power of sabotage to disrupt Japanese movement. But by the time second-phase campaigns began, the Japanese were not ignorant—they were learning. Where sabotage had fully severed roads, reinforcement could be delayed or routed into danger. Where sabotage remained incomplete, reinforcement could arrive quickly, changing the battle's character from attack-dominant to defense-dominant. By noon on September 28, over 3,000 Japanese and puppet troops arrived in Laiyuan City by car, supported by 20 tanks and 4 aircraft. This mechanized support was not just "extra firepower." It was a statement about how the Japanese aimed to retain control: tanks and aircraft increase defenders' ability to resist assault and keep morale from collapsing. Under these conditions, the right wing found it difficult to launch a favorable offensive. So the Jin-Cha-Ji leadership shifted offensive focus to the Lingqiu area, rather than forcing the original plan to continue against reinforced mechanized defense. The first step was to eliminate enemy strongholds between Lingqiu and Hunyuan. The second step was to seize enemy strongholds along a line from southeast of Daying to Shentangbao, and in mountainous areas north of Daying and Shahe. This shift highlights a core strategic principle: when a target becomes too fortified, the offensive can still succeed by moving the pressure elsewhere—aiming to break the enemy's network of strongpoints and keep forcing them to respond across space. On October 2, the headquarters ordered the main force of the right wing to concentrate in the area east and southeast of Laiyuan. Part of the force was assigned to monitor and contain the enemy in Laiyuan, while the 1st and 2nd Regiments were placed under the left wing's command and joined the left wing in combat. This reallocation reflects operational adaptability. If a city becomes a fortress, smaller units may be better employed as containment—tying down defenders—while the main effort moves to seize other stronghold lines where the Japanese might still be vulnerable. The fighting continued with tactical attacks that show how strongpoint warfare unfolded in the field. On the night of October 8, the 1st Battalion of the 1st Regiment launched an attack on the 2nd Regiment while a portion of the Japanese army in Nanpotou was attacking it. The attackers broke into enemy lines, annihilated most of the enemy, and drove the rest off. At the same time, the 1st Battalion of the 6th Regiment captured Qiangfengling, and the Japanese forces in Qingciyao fled in panic. The campaign also included actions such as attacks on Jinfengdian by the 3rd Battalion of the 6th Regiment on the night of September 9, and mention that the 26th Regiment entered Huangtai Temple on the night of October 8 while attacking between Lingqiu and Guangling. By understanding the background and stakes, you can see what these actions were really doing. They weren't random. They were repeated attempts to keep dismantling the enemy's ability to maintain a functioning strongpoint chain. Each captured stronghold reduces the enemy's ability to create secure corridors. Each panic-driven retreat increases their time burden and may cause breakdown in communication between local nodes. Even when the battle remains fierce and deadly, these changes in tempo can accumulate into operational outcomes. The Lai-Ling Campaign lasted 18 days, producing concrete results: killing and wounding over 1,000 Japanese and puppet troops, capturing 49 Japanese and 237 puppet troops, and leaving 1,419 casualties for the Eighth Route Army. The losses show the campaign was not a "clean victory." It was expensive. But the operational logic—disrupting a strengthened occupation zone, capturing strongholds, and forcing enemy reinforcements to concentrate—was consistent with the second phase's broader mission. Support for Lai-Ling came from the Jizhong Military Region through the Renqiu–Hejian–Dacheng–Suning Campaign from October 1 to October 20, simultaneously sabotaging the Cangshi, Deshi, Beining, and Jinpu railways. This is where "background and stakes" become especially clear. The Japanese, even when they defend in one area, have to move elsewhere to respond. When you attack multiple transportation lines and strongpoint zones at once, you prevent the enemy from solving one problem cleanly before moving to the next. You make the enemy chase multiple fires. After the Hundred Regiments Offensive began, Japanese forces in Jizhong moved west to reinforce in some cases, but most were tied down on important transportation lines. That relative weakening meant defenses in Jizhong's interior became weaker—creating space where a larger contest could occur. Jizhong decided to deploy 10 battalions totaling more than 8,500 men from the 18th, 23rd, and 30th Regiments across left wing, center, and right wing roles, fighting in the area. The plan was not only to attack; it was to manipulate where the Japanese had to respond. The two wing units would contain and draw Japanese forces away from the central Renhe Dasu zone, and then the central unit would break into that central area to open the situation. In other words: wings would pull; center would punch. The Renhe Dasu battle began on October 1, 1940. On the left wing, the 18th Regiment entered an area east of the Zhulong River and west of Hejian and Renqiu, capturing Lianjiazhuang, Dongguxian, and Liangcun between October 2 and October 6. By the night of October 7, Japanese troops at strongholds including Yuhuangmiao, Fenglebao, and Liushansi fled in panic—another reminder that once stronghold cohesion fractures, the enemy's ability to endure a second phase of pressure drops. On the right wing, the 30th Regiment operated with four battalions east of Dacheng and east of the Ziya River, capturing a series of strongholds including Liminju, Dengzhuangzi, Shigeju, Xiliuzhuang, Zangzhuangzi, and Chencun, while engaging in road-breaking and ditch digging. These actions show the campaign's "method," not just its target. Even when the opponent could be fought directly, sabotage and engineering measures could amplify the damage by reducing mobility and forcing time-consuming repairs. The central unit, the 23rd Regiment, had two battalions crossing the Hutuo River northward. On October 1, it ambushed more than 100 Japanese troops coming from Shangjialin to seize grain, killing more than 90 and capturing all their weapons. On October 9, it ambushed the enemy from Liugezhuang to Litan at Baimatang, annihilating 20 Japanese and puppet troops. These ambushes illustrate a second background principle: occupiers need sustenance and extraction operations, and those operations follow routes and patterns. By striking troops during foraging or supply-related movement, the offensive attacks not only the army but also the logic that keeps occupation armies fed and maintained. From October 15 to October 20, the second stage of those operations targeted the east and west banks of the Ziya River, leaving only a small force in the central Renhe River Great Suppression area. On the night of October 19, the central force captured Banjiehe and destroyed a bridge over the nearby Guyang River. On the night of October 16, the left wing captured Daqudi and the Renqiu Shimen Bridge, and on October 18 it captured the stronghold at Wangpan. A note in the operational description also indicates that the right wing faced a serious enemy situation and could not take major action during one segment—another reminder that even a planned operation cannot control all battlefield variables. What matters is whether the operation still meets its strategic purpose, not whether every segment goes perfectly. In the Battle of Renhe Dasu, Japanese and puppet losses were heavy: 805 killed or wounded, and 3 Japanese and 326 puppet troops captured. The campaign took 29 strongholds. The Jizhong Military Region suffered 573 casualties. Strategically, this battle contained enemy forces and effectively supported the Battle of Lai-Ling. Again, support here is not just "help in the same region," but redistribution of pressure: by forcing the enemy to allocate troops to Jizhong, Japanese defenders around Lai-Ling face more difficulty maintaining overall operational coherence. While Jin-Cha-Ji and Jizhong fought around Laiyuan and Lingqiu, a deeper pressure developed in the Taihang base region—through the Yuliao (Yu-Liao) Campaign, fought mainly by the 129th Division. The background stakes in the Yu-Liao theater were the highway route from Yangquan through Pingding, Heshun, Liaoxian to Yushe, described as the deepest penetration route through which the Japanese penetrated the Taihang base area. The Japanese tried to extend this road southwestward and connect it with the Baijin Railway through Wuxiang, aiming to split the Dahang area and deploy forces flexibly along the Zhengtai and Baijin lines. This was about strategic mobility and operational geometry. A road connection isn't only "transport"; it reshapes where the enemy can exert pressure and how quickly they can shift forces from one axis to another. The Yuliao section measured 45 kilometers and included eight strongholds: Yushe, Yanbi, Wangjing, Guantou, Pushang, Xiaolingdi, Shixia, and Liaoxian. These were guarded by the 13th Battalion of the Japanese 4th Independent Mixed Brigade. A line of strongholds along a highway is the occupier's version of a corridor defense: it enables them to keep movement inside a protected chain. If that chain is cut, movement becomes vulnerable and the "deep penetration route" turns into a dangerous liability. On September 22, 1940, the 129th Division issued basic orders: launch a surprise attack to eliminate the enemy from Yushe to Xiaolingdi, recapture strongholds, destroy the highway, and then press forward toward Liaoxian to recapture it when the opportunity arose. This is a textbook example of how the offensive combined surprise, seizure, and destruction. Surprise prevents the defenders from organizing a coordinated response. Seizure eliminates their nodes. Highway destruction prevents them from restoring their corridor quickly, forcing time and labor—exactly what the second phase wanted. The assault began on the night of September 23. On September 24, the left wing captured Yanbi and Wangjing, while the right wing captured Pushang and Xiaolingdi. By September 25, Yushe and Jucheng had also fallen, leaving only the enemy at Guantou on the Xiaolingdi–Yushe line still resisting. Concurrently, detachments attacked on related axes: the Pingliao Detachment captured Hanwang Town north of Liaoxian; the Qinbei Detachment sabotaged roads and attacked frequently, pinning Japanese forces on the Wuxiang and Baijin routes. On September 26, the 129th Division ordered part of the right wing to continue besieging the enemy at Guantou, while the main force and the left wing moved east to recapture Liaoxian and eliminate reinforcements. At dawn on September 27, the right wing attacked Shixia west of Liaoxian and captured it that night. On September 28, the left wing reached near Majiu in preparation for an attack on Liaoxian that night. Then battlefield logic reasserted itself: the Japanese did not sit idle once their corridor was threatened. Troops from Heshun and Wuxiang reinforced Liaoxian and Guantou respectively. The Eighth Route Army headquarters ordered the Liaoxian attack halted. Some forces were to contain the enemy advancing south from Heshun, while the main force moved to the Hongyatou and Guandinao areas to prepare to annihilate enemy reinforcements arriving from Wuxiang. This decision reveals a deeper stake: even if an army can seize targets, it must avoid exhaustion and must avoid allowing the enemy to convert a partial tactical loss into a larger opportunity. Headquarters essentially chose the operation's "survival path": shift from capturing more nodes to annihilating the reinforcements that would otherwise restore the corridor. Following these orders, the 129th Division attacked Guantou and took it at 24:00 on September 29. In the narrative description that follows, the enemy reinforcements moving through ambush terrain clashed with Communist formations in an engagement where aircraft coverage and terrain allowed the enemy to seize high ground and resist stubbornly. The battle lasted two days and one night, with heavy casualties on both sides. That is an important background lesson: the offensive could still destroy corridor nodes, but the enemy's ability to bring aircraft support and seize terrain meant that the "destroy and move on" approach wasn't always enough. Sometimes, momentum had to be re-channeled into another kind of contest—one closer to a blocking ambush and a battle of endurance. By the evening of October 1, more than 500 Japanese troops from Liaoxian broke through the right wing's blockade and approached near the left wing's command post. The left wing was ordered to withdraw from the battle. Headquarters then assessed that Japanese troops from Liaoxian and Wuxiang had joined and that more than 1,000 Japanese troops from Yangquan had reached Hanwang Town north of Liaoxian. Combined with the 129th Division's exhaustion and heavy casualties, headquarters decided to end the Yulin–Liaoxian Campaign—not because the offensive had no value, but because the risk of allowing the enemy to "sweep" the Taibei area could outweigh further gains. This termination decision illustrates a stake that is often overlooked: in insurgency-style campaigns, operational survival is part of success. The second phase did not merely chase targets; it sought to transform conditions so that the enemy would have to spend strength defending a failing network. If continuing a battle risks letting the enemy regroup into a larger counter-offensive that clears base zones, then ending becomes strategic. While the 129th Division wrestled with corridor defense around Liaoxian and Guantou, the 120th Division pursued a transport-centered strategy against the Tong-Pu Railway—because rail disruption was not a supporting detail; it was a main axis of pressure. On September 12, 1940, the 120th Division issued an action plan for the northern section of the Tongpu Railway, deciding to attack the Ningwu and Xinxian sections (with emphasis on the section between Ningwu and Daniudian) starting September 20. This timing shows planning designed to synchronize with broader operational pressure. Rail sabotage required engineering preparation and coordination across units, and the campaign sought to create disruption when the enemy would be most vulnerable to delayed reinforcement. On September 14, the 358th Brigade left its base west of Loufan and crossed the Jingle–Lanxian Highway to the north. It assembled at Majiagou on the 16th, then launched an attack on Toumaying using its 3rd Detachment (comprising the 7th and 8th Regiments and the special service battalion). At 24:00 on September 18, that detachment attacked Touma Camp, while the 7th and 8th Regiments attacked reinforcements. Fighting continued until the following morning when more than 40 Japanese soldiers from Ninghuabao reinforced Touma Camp. Once reinforcements reached Shanzhai Village, they were surrounded and annihilated. On September 20, around 200 Japanese soldiers from Yangquanling went to Liyan Village to counterattack. The 716th Regiment attacked at 14:00, and by dawn the next day, the enemy fled back to Yangquanling. These battles are more than local clashes. They serve the background logic of sabotage campaigns: before destroying rail infrastructure, you need to reduce the enemy's ability to respond instantly. Fighting reinforcements and counterattacks clears windows of time. Those windows can then be used to sabotage tracks, bridges, and related installations. If sabotage occurs under active reinforcement pressure, the enemy can repair quickly or trap the sabotage teams. If sabotage occurs after the enemy's response capacity is disrupted, repair becomes slower and the operational effects last longer. Parallel operations reinforced this logic. On the night of September 16, the Independent 1st Brigade crossed the Fen River east. On September 18, it was learned that more than 400 Japanese troops had attacked the Yanbei Detachment at Yangquanling but returned to Shangzhuang after failing to find them. The brigade then chose to encircle and annihilate the enemy rather than chase endlessly. The attack began at 13:00 on September 18 and lasted until early morning on September 19. The main force withdrew to sabotage the railway, while the remaining enemy retreated to Yangquanling. The engagement inflicted 105 casualties on the Independent 1st Brigade, while killing or wounding about 200 Japanese. Once the blocking threat was removed, units quickly moved into sabotage actions on the Tongpu Railway. Then sabotage itself proceeded systematically. On the night of September 22, the 4th Regiment of the 358th Brigade—attached to the division's engineering company—and the division's special service regiment advanced to the area between Duanjialing and Xuangang to sabotage several sections of the Tongpu Railway. At the same time, the 2nd Regiment attacked Qicun, and the 715th Regiment attacked Xinkou and Loubanzhai. On the night of September 23, the 2nd Regiment sabotaged the railway south of Xinkou while the 715th Regiment sabotaged it north of Xinkou. On the night of September 25, the 715th Regiment sabotaged between Daniudian and Xuangang. The Independent 2nd Brigade also sabotaged several railway sections between Shuoxian and Ningwu. After six days of sabotage operations, the 120th Division again caused the Tongpu Railway to be interrupted. The background stakes here are straightforward but huge: a rail interruption forces the occupier into repair work, escorts, and re-routing. During the second phase—when the Japanese were already under pressure across multiple theaters—the need to continuously handle repair reduces the capacity for offensive operations and for rapid reinforcement to any single contested point. It also slows their ability to respond to new threats as quickly as they would like. By connecting all these threads—Laiyuan and Lingqiu strongholds, Renhe Dasu containment and roadbreaking, the Yuliao highway corridor fight, and repeated Tongpu railway sabotage—you can see the deeper logic of the second phase. The campaign aimed to create a battlefield environment where Japanese forces could not enjoy stable mobility and where strongpoints could not function as a reliable cage. Transportation disruption isolated strongholds. Stronghold destruction and capture shrank the enemy's local control points. Highway and rail sabotage forced the Japanese to defend not only troops and walls, but also the infrastructure that enabled their coordination. That's why the second phase emphasizes disrupting transportation and destroying some strongholds penetrated deep into base areas. It wasn't simply "hit more places." It was a deliberate attempt to force the Japanese to abandon their preferred operational pattern: a networked system of strongpoints supported by transportation reliability. If that reliability breaks down, the occupier's "cage" becomes porous and unstable, and Communist base areas gain room to expand and persist. By early October, the second phase was winding down, while a third phase was developing: reinforced Japanese columns sought to engage and destroy 8RA units. Over the next two months, several fierce counterattacks occurred, and after that the Hundred Regiments campaign was considered to be finished. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. After earlier setbacks in the 1930s, the CCP sought national leadership in resistance while maintaining political room to maneuver within an uneasy arrangement with the KMT. By early 1940–1941, the strategy shifted toward "strongpoint" and transportation warfare: guerrilla actions were used to fracture Japanese defensive networks and sabotage logistics. Japanese attempts to consolidate territory, through local administration and security practices—often provoked the CCP's dual struggle, militarily and politically. As Japanese sweeps temporarily gave the CCP advantages, the situation forced rapid adaptation.

Dean Hall was sick, grieving, and without hope — until he made a decision that changed everything: find something worth living for. In this powerful encore release from the Biological Blueprint, Dean joins Freddie to explore the terrain that no lab test can measure — purpose, spirit, and the courage to take just one more step. Drawing on Viktor Frankl's observations from Auschwitz, Dean reveals why it wasn't the strongest or the smartest who survived the unsurvivable — it was those most passionately tied to a purpose larger than themselves. He walks through his three pillars for navigating a dark night of the soul: releasing the need for perfection, trusting the body's innate ability to heal what it created, and the radical simplicity of asking yourself only one question — what is the next step? Whether you're 180 miles into an open water swim or sitting with a diagnosis that just changed your life, Dean's answer is always the same: you already know. The second half of this conversation goes into territory rarely explored in health and wellness — transgenerational trauma, family systems therapy, and the epigenetic wounds passed silently from generation to generation. Dean shares how he's only recently begun mapping his own ancestral lineage, from a 14-year-old great grandmother who crossed the ocean alone from Sweden to fishermen and brawlers from Northern England — and how forest bathing and cold water immersion have become his most powerful tools for releasing what isn't his to carry. He also shares a profoundly simple breathwork and prayer practice he has used with thousands of clients over 20 years — a tool he calls centering down — that uses the brain's hardwired need to answer every question it's asked to surface your deepest purpose. One hundred percent of people who stick with it through the frustration, he says, find their answer. This one is worth a second listen.   Episode Highlights [02:13] – Dean shares the world-record swims that reshaped his life after cancer [06:36] – How mindfulness and purpose helped him endure extreme physical suffering [10:20] – The sudden brain cancer diagnosis that took his wife's life in just 52 days [14:20] – Losing his identity after grief and feeling completely disconnected from himself [20:52] – Discovering leukemia during a routine knee surgery workup [24:30] – Viktor Frankl's work on meaning becomes a turning point in Dean's recovery [31:00] – Why swimming the Willamette River became a mission bigger than himself [41:22] – Attempting the 187-mile swim while living with active leukemia and lymphoma [46:47] – How cold water immersion unexpectedly changed his mental and physical health [51:20] – The shocking blood test that showed his leukemia had disappeared [58:14] – Forest bathing, natural killer cells, and the role of nature in healing [01:03:20] – How grief finally began leaving his body in the forest [01:07:20] – Dean's philosophy of “BioWild Psychology” and reconnecting with nature [01:15:22] – Why people facing illness must become active participants in their healing   Links & Resources: Dean's Website: https://www.thewildcureway.com/ “The Wild Cure” book: https://www.thewildcureway.com/books   Upgrade Your Health The Biological Blueprint Course: https://www.beautifullybroken.world/biological-blueprint Earn 200 in BitCoin + Change your health BEAM Minerals: http://beamminerals.com/beautifullybroken Code: BEAUTIFULLYBROKEN LightPathLED: https://lightpathled.pxf.io/c/3438432/2059835/25794 Code: beautifullybroken Silver Biotics Wound Healing Gel: https://bit.ly/3JnxyDD 30% off with Code: BEAUTIFULLYBROKEN StemRegen: https://www.stemregen.co/products/stemregen?_ef_transaction_id=&oid=1&affid=52 Code: beautifullybroken CONNECT WITH FREDDIEWork with Me: https://www.beautifullybroken.world/biological-blueprintWebsite and Store: (http://www.beautifullybroken.world) Instagram: (https://www.instagram.com/freddie.kimmelYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@beautifullybrokenworld Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Smylie Kaufman and Charlie Hulme recap Wyndham Clark's win at the CJ CUP Byron Nelson, where Clark closed with a final-round 60 to reach 30-under par and win by three over Si Woo Kim — despite TPC Craig Ranch's much-discussed renovation. They break down why an unusual weather week in Dallas - with soft conditions and no wind - still kept the course vulnerable to low scoring.Smylie and Charlie also dive into Blades Brown earning PGA TOUR Special Temporary Membership, the pros and cons of chasing Korn Ferry Tour status versus PGA TOUR starts, Bryson DeChambeau's comments about possibly choosing content creation over professional golf, and the latest reports that LIV Golf is pitching a reduced 10-event international schedule while seeking new investment.Follow us on socials @thesmylieshow ⛳️ and don't forget to like, comment and subscribe!CHAPTERS:00:00 Weekend golf recap + Charlie's Biltmore Forest trip05:00 Smylie's 16-man game at Vestavia06:00 The yellow ball game explained12:00 TPC Craig Ranch renovation reaction14:15 Why 30-under still happened17:00 Zoysia, Bermuda, soft conditions + course setup21:50 Wyndham Clark's win and putting heater27:15 Why Wyndham could be dangerous again31:00 Wyndham's mental reset after Oakmont34:36 Blades Brown earns Special Temporary Membership36:15 How Blades should manage his schedule40:20 Blades Brown vs. the college golf route44:22 Why college golf and pro golf are so different51:52 Bryson DeChambeau's content creator comments
56:10 Bryson, LIV money, and what comes next
01:05:48 LIV's reported 10-event future
01:12:22 Closing thoughts#golf #pgatour #LIV #Bryson #bladesbrown #smyliekaufman #smylieshow

Luis Elizondo, former head of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), discusses his decision to resign from the Pentagon in 2017. Frustrated by the bureaucracy's refusal to acknowledge unusual aerial systems interfering with military platforms, he wrote a final appeal to Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Elizondo details his transition from a counterintelligence career to leading a secret program focused on UAPs. Initially skeptical, he was recruited by Dr. Jim Lacatski, who warned him not to let analytic bias hinder his understanding of these real, national security-threatening phenomena. (1/4)V

Reshma Saujani, founder of Girls Who Code and Moms First, sits down for a Meet the Moment conversation about her work advocating for mothers in the workforce. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Tesla Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen and Engineering VP Lars Moravy both join me to discuss the legacy and history of the Model S and Model X as both cars are officially retired this week. Plus: my recap of the Model S and X Celebration event. Stay tuned! 00:12:18 Interview Start 00:13:30 How the Decision to Discontinue S and X Happened 00:18:02 S and X Would Need a Complete Redesign to Continue 00:21:55 Next-Gen Roadster News 00:25:03 Signature Numbers 00:29:03 Final S and X Production Numbers 00:29:43 The Beginning of Model S 00:36:20 More Lightning 00:36:48 Old S and X Stories 00:39:26 First Drive of the Model S...Ever 00:45:14 The EV Market and EV Adoption Rate 00:49:36 Adding Dual Motors to Model S 00:51:36 A 3rd Motor in a Model 3? 00:54:37 About the Never-Made Model S Plaid+ 00:56:58 Are 18650s done at Tesla? 00:58:10 Favorite Wheels 01:02:10 Pencils Down on S and X 01:03:22 Parting Message 01:05:07 Drive or Preserve their Signature S's If you enjoy the podcast and would like to support my efforts, please check out my Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/teslapodcast and consider a monthly or (10% discounted!) annual pledge. Every little bit helps, and you can support for just $5 per month. And there are stacking bonuses in it for you at each pledge level, like early access to each episode at the $5 tier and the weekly Lightning Round bonus mini-episode (AND the early access!) at the $10 tier! And NO ADS at every Patreon tier! NEW: Level up your business with NetSuite by Oracle! Get your free business guide, Demystifying AI, at www.netsuite.com/lightning  Also, don't forget to leave a message on the Ride the Lightning hotline anytime with a question, comment, or discussion topic for next week's show! The toll-free number to call is 1-888-989-8752. INTERESTED IN A FLEXIBLE EXTENDED WARRANTY FOR YOUR TESLA? Be a part of the future of transportation with XCare, the first extended warranty designed & built exclusively for EV owners, by EV owners. Use the code Lightning to get $100 off their "One-time Payment" option! Go to www.xcelerateauto.com/xcare to find the extended warranty policy that's right for you and your Tesla. P.S. Get 15% off your first order of awesome aftermarket Tesla accessories at AbstractOcean.com by using the code RTLpodcast at checkout. Grab the SnapPlate front license plate bracket for any Tesla at https://everyamp.com/RTL/ (don't forget the coupon code RTL too!). Enhance your car with cool carbon-fiber upgrades from RPMTesla.com and use the promo code RTL5-10 for 5-10% off your next purchase. And make your garage door foolproof with the Infinity Shield – get yours at https://www.infinity-shield.com and use the promo code RTL at checkout for a $35 discount.

Peter Mauch reveals Emperor Hirohito's daily involvement in military details. Tojo suppressed any talk of an exit strategy, though he eventually complied with the sacred decision to surrender after the atomic attacks. (11/16)1943

In Autocrats vs. Democrats, Michael McFaul examines the aftermath of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown, critiquing the U.S. decision to "look away" from human rights for economic gain. He argues that while economic engagement enriched American capitalism, the theory that economic growth would naturally lead to democratization in China failed. Drawing on George Shultz's memoirs, McFaul advocates for a dual-track diplomacy where security and economic interests are pursued alongside human rights. He warns that Western complacency following the Cold War led to a missed opportunity to consolidate democratic institutions in emerging states. Values must remain central to foreign policy. (2/8)1900 BRUSSELS