Podcasts about definitively

Scripture: Luke 2:22-40 Simeon and Anna were waiting for something big their whole lives. They were waiting for God to keep their promises. When Mary and Joseph brought Jesus to the temple to be consecrated, Simeon knew what he had been waiting for had come to pass. Looking at that little baby's face Simeon was looking at the face of God's long promised, long hoped for, seemingly too long deferred salvation. However, unimaginably or improbably or confoundingly, he knew this baby was Israel's consolation. God kept God's promises to Simeon and Anna, to Israel, and to us. God was saying again and anew, "Let there be light." Salvation is here. Definitively, uniquely, finally. But Simeon said more... And what he said certainly adds complexity to the grand message of salvation. Our daily work is not to save the world. It's too late for that. We are free to put that burden down. Our work from day to day is to be faithful witnesses to the good news of Jesus and to try to stay in step with the Spirit who is still moving.

Welcome back for a new episode of the BEST Zelda podcast ever, folks! This week, Al is joined by The Zelda Cast's social media manager, Jules! In celebration of The Minish Cap's 20th anniversary (per the North American release on January 10th, 2005), we get down to business and definitively rank the most charming Zelda game. We discuss the game's world, story, pacing, dungeons, side content and more! And don't worry, we didn't forget about that little nugget of news Nintendo dropped earlier this week! Give us a listen to hear our initial thoughts on the Nintendo Switch 2 reveal, our Minish Cap rankings, and more!   Support The Zelda Cast on Patreon! Subscribe to receive the monthly bonus show ‘The Zelda Cast Top Tens! Follow The Zelda Cast! The Zelda Cast (@TheZeldaCast) Andy Spiteri (@Spiteri316) Alasyn Eletha (@AlasynEletha) Twitch x Facebook x Discord x Tik-Tok x BlueSky Advertise on The Zelda Cast! See Options Here! Subscribe to The Zelda Cast! Apple Podcasts x Podbean x Spotify x iTunes x Google Podcasts x iHeart Radio x PlayerFM Grab The Zelda Cast Merch! Official Zelda Dungeon Merch store

Welcome back for a new episode of the BEST Zelda podcast ever, folks! This week, Al is joined by The Zelda Cast's social media manager, Jules! In celebration of The Minish Cap's 20th anniversary (per the North American release on January 10th, 2005), we get down to business and definitively rank the most charming Zelda game. We discuss the game's world, story, pacing, dungeons, side content and more! And don't worry, we didn't forget about that little nugget of news Nintendo dropped earlier this week! Give us a listen to hear our initial thoughts on the Nintendo Switch 2 reveal, our Minish Cap rankings, and more!   Support The Zelda Cast on Patreon! Subscribe to receive the monthly bonus show ‘The Zelda Cast Top Tens! Follow The Zelda Cast! The Zelda Cast (@TheZeldaCast) Andy Spiteri (@Spiteri316) Alasyn Eletha (@AlasynEletha) Twitch x Facebook x Discord x Tik-Tok x BlueSky Advertise on The Zelda Cast! See Options Here! Subscribe to The Zelda Cast! Apple Podcasts x Podbean x Spotify x iTunes x Google Podcasts x iHeart Radio x PlayerFM Grab The Zelda Cast Merch! Official Zelda Dungeon Merch store

Send us a textThe idea that men need respect while women need love has been treated as gospel truth in the evangelical world. Best-sellers have been written based on it; it informs almost every marriage sermon. What if it's not true? Using data from our marriage survey of 7000 people, we show how reality is very different—and what this means for how we should talk about marriage! TO SUPPORT USJoin our Patreon for as little as $5 a month to support our workFor tax deductible donations in the U.S., support Good Fruit Faith Initiative through the Bosko FoundationAnd check out our Merch, or any of our courses!Join our email list!LINKSPre-order The Marriage You Want! https://amzn.to/3YQfqMySend your pre-order receipts to preorder@marriageyouwantbook.com to get our pre-order bonus and an invite to the launch team!THINGS MENTIONED IN THE PODCASTTake our marriage survey yourself as a date night!Our synopsis of everything wrong with Love & Respect (with other posts and podcasts linked in the bottom)Our open letter to Focus on the FamilyJonathan Pokluda clipFemale Influencer clip #1Female influencer clip #2Josh and Jana HowertonJosh Howerton “Give him a crown”Steve Gaines' sermon on respectJoin Sheila at Bare Marriage.com!And her FACEBOOK PAGE has been HACKED--so please join the new official one!Check out her books: The Great Sex Rescue She Deserves Better The Good Girl's Guide to Great Sex and The Good Guy's Guide to Great Sex And she has an Orgasm Course and a Libido course too!Check out all her courses, FREE resources, books, and so much more at Sheila's LinkTree.

Any questions or comments can be sent to podcast@david-couch.com

Our Echoes of Wisdom coverage is coming to an end for now, as this week, we put a bow on our last few weeks worth of coverage by assigning a final score to each of the ten key categories that define a great Zelda game: the world, the art style, the gameplay, the pacing, the story, the music, the enemies and bosses, the dungeons, the items, and the side content. We debate, discuss, and talk about how this game was exactly what Zelda fans needed. All this, PLUS a little Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, and cozy gaming discussion! Come hang out with us.   Support The Zelda Cast on Patreon! Subscribe to receive the monthly bonus show ‘The Zelda Cast Top Tens! Follow The Zelda Cast! The Zelda Cast (@TheZeldaCast) Andy Spiteri (@Spiteri316) Alasyn Eletha (@AlasynEletha) Twitch x Facebook x Discord x Tik-Tok x BlueSky Advertise on The Zelda Cast! See Options Here! Subscribe to The Zelda Cast! Apple Podcasts x Podbean x Spotify x iTunes x Google Podcasts x iHeart Radio x PlayerFM Grab The Zelda Cast Merch! Official Zelda Dungeon Merch store

Our Echoes of Wisdom coverage is coming to an end for now, as this week, we put a bow on our last few weeks worth of coverage by assigning a final score to each of the ten key categories that define a great Zelda game: the world, the art style, the gameplay, the pacing, the story, the music, the enemies and bosses, the dungeons, the items, and the side content. We debate, discuss, and talk about how this game was exactly what Zelda fans needed. All this, PLUS a little Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, and cozy gaming discussion! Come hang out with us.   Support The Zelda Cast on Patreon! Subscribe to receive the monthly bonus show ‘The Zelda Cast Top Tens! Follow The Zelda Cast! The Zelda Cast (@TheZeldaCast) Andy Spiteri (@Spiteri316) Alasyn Eletha (@AlasynEletha) Twitch x Facebook x Discord x Tik-Tok x BlueSky Advertise on The Zelda Cast! See Options Here! Subscribe to The Zelda Cast! Apple Podcasts x Podbean x Spotify x iTunes x Google Podcasts x iHeart Radio x PlayerFM Grab The Zelda Cast Merch! Official Zelda Dungeon Merch store

It's Friday, December 6th, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus and Jonathan Clark Pastor charged with converting people through prayer A Baptist pastor in India, Pranjal Bhuyan, who also works as a teacher, was arrested last week in the Northeastern state of Assam following complaints from villagers that he was attempting to convert people through prayers, reports International Christian Concern. Attempting to heal people by praying for them is illegal under the Prevention of Evil Practices Act, enacted in February. This law purportedly wants to create science-based knowledge and a safe environment to protect human health. It also aims to end “evil” and “sinister practices” that lawmakers believe thrive on ignorance and people's ill health. The law criminalizes practices resorting to “magical healing” (prayers) and stipulates a three-year jail term and a fine for violations. Christian leaders believe the legislation is ultimately an attempt to restrict and curb the spread of Christianity in Assam. Pastor Bhuyan now holds the dubious distinction of being the first person to be arrested under this law. According to Open Doors, India is the 11th most difficult country worldwide in which to be a Christian. British young people are advocating for the unborn BBC One aired a documentary last week called “Young, British, and Anti-Abortion.” The film shows the rise of pro-life activism among members of Gen Z. One pro-lifer featured in the documentary was Eden McCourt of Abortion Resistance. She has received over 3.4 million views with her content online. Filmmaker Poppy Jay noted, “These activists are young, and they are in it for the long term. They know they are not going to change anyone's mind overnight, and their strong social media presence is just giving them more confidence. Yes, they might be a vocal minority, but they are effective at getting their message across.” In 1 Timothy 4:12, the Apostle Paul told Timothy, “Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” Jeff Bezos applauds Trump's attack on regulations, stands by not endorsing Kamala Harris Amazon founder — and Washington Post owner — Jeff Bezos rarely speaks in public. And to get him to talk about politics in public is an even bigger feat. Political commentator Chris Cillizza said that Bezos did both on Wednesday — sitting down with the New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin. BEZOS: “If we're talking about Trump, I think it's very interesting. I'm actually very optimistic this time around. He seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation. And my point of view, if I can help him do that, I'm going to help him. Because we do have too much regulation.” Bezos suggested an economic growth strategy that would outpace the growth of the national debt. BEZOS: “This country is so set up to grow. If you look at the national debt, and how gigantic it is as a portion of [the Gross Domestic Product], these are real problems, and they're real long-term problems. The way you get out of them is by outgrowing them. “You're going to solve the problem of the national debt by making it a smaller percentage of GDP, not by shrinking the national debt, but by growing the GDP. You have to grow the denominator. That means you have to grow GDP at 3%, 4%, 5% a year and let the national debt grow slower than that. If you can do that, this is a very manageable problem.” In an attempt to appease Trump, Bezos applauded the President-elect's vision to cut regulations. BEZOS: “There are so many advantages here, but we are burdened by excessive permitting and regulation. President Trump is serious about this regulatory agenda, and I think he has a good chance of succeeding.” The New York Times interviewer, Andrew Sorkin, pointed to the blowback that Jeff Bezos received as owner of the Washington Post when he ordered the editorial staff not to endorse Kamala Harris for president and simply remain neutral on the editorial page instead. SORKIN: “Marty Baron, who was your former editor of that paper, he said, ‘This is cowardice with democracy as its casualty.'” BEZOS: “It was the right decision. I'm proud of the decision we made, and it was far from cowardly, because we knew there would be blowback, and we did the right thing anyway.” SORKIN:  “Okay, so let me ask you about that though. There was blowback. I think 250,000 people canceled their subscriptions.” Political commentator Chris Cillizza offered his analysis. CILLIZZA: “He does not want to make an enemy of the incoming president of the United States who has already targeted him repeatedly during his first term. So, I think this is of a piece with Bezos' decision to not run an editorial that, from the Washington Post editorial board, that endorsed Kamala Harris. He defended that decision. He said it wasn't cowardly; it was brave. Look, I think this is, at root, probably a business decision.” Congress definitively concludes COVID-19 came from Wuhan, China lab On December 2nd, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic concluded its two-year investigation into the COVID-19 pandemic.  They released a final report entitled “After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Lessons Learned and a Path Forward.”  Since February 2023, the Select Subcommittee has sent more than 100 investigative letters, conducted more than 30 transcribed interviews and depositions, held 25 hearings and meetings, and reviewed more than one million pages of documents.  In their 520-page final report, which we have linked in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com, the Select Subcommittee's investigation documents  the five strongest arguments which demonstrate that COVID-19 most likely emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. First, the virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature. Second, data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans. This runs contrary to previous pandemics where there were multiple spillover events. Third, Wuhan is home to China's foremost Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research at inadequate biosafety levels. Fourth, researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were sick with a COVID-like virus in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market. And fifth, by nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced. Anti-Bible PCUSA denomination has lost a million members And finally, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released its annual statistics report on Tuesday. The mainline Protestant denomination, which continues to reject Biblical orthodoxy, now has about one million fewer active members or half as many as it did in 2009.  The denomination had 1.094 million members last year, down 46,000 from 2022. Member congregations also declined during the same period.  The mainline denomination's decline comes as it became accepting of sexually perverted lifestyles.  Leviticus 18:22 says, “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, December 6th, in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe by Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

As November comes to a close, so does our month-long coverage on the 20th anniversary of Metroid Prime 2: Echoes. To conclude this month of content, we're busting out an old gem from the early days of the Definitive Ranking series - WITH A TWIST! Echoes was ranked before Doominal Crossing joined the podcast, meaning he never got a say on this legendary title. Today, Doom takes the driver's seat to host a mega review along with 3 special guests making their debut on the pod; Doeboy, Trav Guy & ThatMetroidGuy! Together, this fully assembled Metroid squad take on the definitive ranking gauntlet FOR OVER 2 HOURS in an effort to redetermine Echoes' placement amongst the greats. Join us for this special grand finale event! All of this plus talking about the newly announced Metroid Prime 1-3: Visual Retrospective and why we're all hyped for it! FINAL SCORES: Doominal Crossing - 4.6 / 5 Doeboy - 3.9 / 5 Trav Guy - 4.1 / 5 ThatMetroidGuy - 4.2 / 5   Visit OmegaMetroid.com!   Subscribe! Podbean x iTunes x Spotify x YouTube Support us on Patreon! Omega Metroid Patreon Buy Omega Metroid Merch! Check out our Etsy merch shop! Download the Omega Metroid Theme Song! Get the Single for Free on Bandcamp! Follow us! @OmegaMetroid x @Spiteri316 x @dakcity_ x @DoominalCross Chat with us in Discord! Omega Metroid Discord Advertise on the Omega Metroid Podcast!

With our Echoes of Wisdom playthrough at an end, it's now time to shift focus to the individual characteristics in this game and see how they stack up! First on the docket is definitively ranking the dungeons! We have eight dungeons to get through, so sit back as we go from Suthorn all the way to Null's Body and talk about worked and didn't, with special focus on dungeon items, dungeon echoes, music, puzzles and boss fights! All this, PLUS a little Halloween recap, our thoughts on the Nintendo Music app, and the launch of Dungeon Runners!   Support The Zelda Cast on Patreon! Subscribe to receive the monthly bonus show ‘The Zelda Cast Top Tens! Follow The Zelda Cast! The Zelda Cast (@TheZeldaCast) Andy Spiteri (@Spiteri316) Alasyn Eletha (@AlasynEletha) Twitch x Facebook x Discord x Tik-Tok x BlueSky Advertise on The Zelda Cast! See Options Here! Subscribe to The Zelda Cast! Apple Podcasts x Podbean x Spotify x iTunes x Google Podcasts x iHeart Radio x PlayerFM Grab The Zelda Cast Merch! Official Zelda Dungeon Merch store

With our Echoes of Wisdom playthrough at an end, it's now time to shift focus to the individual characteristics in this game and see how they stack up! First on the docket is definitively ranking the dungeons! We have eight dungeons to get through, so sit back as we go from Suthorn all the way to Null's Body and talk about worked and didn't, with special focus on dungeon items, dungeon echoes, music, puzzles and boss fights! All this, PLUS a little Halloween recap, our thoughts on the Nintendo Music app, and the launch of Dungeon Runners!   Support The Zelda Cast on Patreon! Subscribe to receive the monthly bonus show ‘The Zelda Cast Top Tens! Follow The Zelda Cast! The Zelda Cast (@TheZeldaCast) Andy Spiteri (@Spiteri316) Alasyn Eletha (@AlasynEletha) Twitch x Facebook x Discord x Tik-Tok x BlueSky Advertise on The Zelda Cast! See Options Here! Subscribe to The Zelda Cast! Apple Podcasts x Podbean x Spotify x iTunes x Google Podcasts x iHeart Radio x PlayerFM Grab The Zelda Cast Merch! Official Zelda Dungeon Merch store

Hour 3: The Tara Show - “Vance Definitively Defeated Walz” “Vance Brings National Awareness to CPB1” “Helene Victims Suffer in Place of Illegal Immigrants” “Get your REAL ID”

Vance Definitively Defeated Walz https://www.audacy.com/989word The Tara Show Follow us on Social Media Join our Live Stream Weekdays - 6am to 10am Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/989word Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-2031096 X: https://twitter.com/989word Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/989word/ "Red Meat, Greenville." 10/03/24

On today's show we will be discussing some of the most pressing news of the week. The first article is about a conservative bill that would require proof of citizenship to be able to cast votes in the US election, and the left is not happy about it. Next we will be talking about Kamala Harris' plan to pack the Supreme Court if she is elected president. Filling the Supreme Court with leftist radicals will almost certainly mean the destruction of the Constitution, which is the stated goal of some, including the dean of Berkeley Law, Dean Chemorenski. According to a certain New York Times columnist, the Constitution must be done away with because it was constructed by white slave owners, which brings up an interesting question: what really is the legacy of racism in politics, and where do we see it today? Spoiler alert: it's not on the right. ********** If you would like to donate, just follow this link: https://www.zachdrewshow.com/donate/ and hit the bright orange “Donate” button! You can also give by sending your donations in the mail to:IGBY International MinistriesPO Box 797Decatur, IL 62525 Thank you for your continued support, and please pray about standing with us as we go forward into the next step of this ministry.

The latest episode of Chasing Three took us inside the "Ready Room" ahead of kickoff for Nebraska vs UTEP, and Matt Rhule is DEFINITIVELY a terrific speech giver.

Jerod Mayo joins, says Drake May is definitively the backup

Is it a bird? Is it a kid? Is it another gosh damn hexapod? No, it's Chapter 95! Join Sophie, Sam, and Hannah as they finally, DEFINITIVELY reveal just how the Maximum Ride is made, if birdkids really DO fly in the fetal position, and, most importantly: how did we manage to talk about this dingdang book for so long that we had to make it a duology… in Chapter 95: Maximum Ride: The Angel Experiment: The Birdkid, Explained: Part 1!

Emerging technologies simplify many aspects of life, but they also make it increasingly challenging to safeguard privacy in both personal and professional settings. As a lawyer, it is essential for you to stay informed about how to protect privacy by utilizing the appropriate tools and equipment. Paul Secunda joined us today to talk about protecting your privacy, building open communication between employer and employee, tech tips to focus on your work, and more. Paul Secunda is a partner at Walcheske Luzi LLC. He leads the ERISA litigation unit, which focuses on retirement, medical, and disability class action litigation. He also serves as a consultant, testifying expert, and mediator in the fields of employee benefits and workplace law. Paul is a former labor and employment law professor with 18 years of experience at two law schools, focusing on employment law and employee benefits. Throughout his career, Paul has been engaged in litigating, teaching, and writing about workplace law, handling tasks from reviewing employee handbooks to managing complex class action lawsuits and submitting amicus briefs to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Paul's expertise spans employee rights and the practical application of technology in both professional and personal contexts. Join Paul and me as we talk about the following three questions and more! What are the top three tech tips you would advise any lawyer to maintain a separation from work and personal time? What are the top three tech rights an employee has when it comes to utilizing a personal tech device for a BYOD firm? What are your top three tech tips to ensure focus at work, to help prevent necessary work during personal time? In our conversation, we cover: [01.28] Tech Setup - Paul's current tech setup. [09.00] The Balance – Balancing technology as a small law firm. [10.00] Tech tips – Paul shares some tech tips for separating personal and professional life. [11.40] Clients - How to work with overbearing clients? [13.26] Superiors – Paul explains how you can handle your superiors. [16.38] Open Communication – The importance of open communication between employer and employee. [20.06] Tech Rights – Paul explains how employee privacy rights differ significantly between public and private workplaces. [25.44] Tracking Software – Paul explains why he would advise against letting your employer put tracking software in your computer. [29.52] Focusing on work – Paul shares three tech tips you can use to focus on your work and prevent working on your personal time. Resources: Connect with Paul LinkedIn - linkedin.com/in/paul-secunda-a17228/ Website - walcheskeluzi.com/ Equipment Mentioned in the Podcast Fujitsu Scanners - thescannershop.com/fujitsu-scanners/ HP Printers - hp.com/us-en/shop/mdp/printers/laserjet-pro iPhone 15 Pro - apple.com/iphone-15-pro/ MacBook Air - apple.com/macbook-air/ Software & Services Mentioned in the Podcast Adobe Acrobat Reader - get.adobe.com/reader/ Clio - clio.com/ Sanebox - sanebox.com/ TurboScan - play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.piksoft.turboscan WordPerfect - wordperfect.com/en/ Transcript 00:00:00] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Episode 90, Balancing Your Use of Technology Between Your Work and Home with Labor and Employment Lawyer, Paul Secunda. [00:00:19] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Paul is a former Labor and Employment Law professor with 18 years of experience at two different law schools specializing in ERISA and Employee Benefits Law. He is now an attorney with Woltersky Luzzi, LLC. Paul's legal career has been devoted to litigating, teaching, and writing about workplace law issues, handling all aspects of the employment relationship, from reviewing employee handbooks and summary plan descriptions, to litigating complex class action cases, and submitting amicus briefs to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. [00:00:46] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Paul caught my attention with his law journal article, The Employee Right to Disconnect, after I come across California's recent Employee Right to Disconnect bill. This bill would require employers to create a written policy guaranteeing California employees the right to disconnect from work communications during non working hours. [00:01:01] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Join Paul and me as we discuss how employees, including lawyers, have rights and practical uses of technology in both their workplace and their private lives. Enjoy! [00:01:09] #Add Read #1: Consider giving us a five star review on Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcast feeds. [00:01:09] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Have you been enjoying the techsavvylore. page podcast? Consider giving us a five star review on Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcast feeds. [00:01:21] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Paul, welcome to the podcast. [00:01:23] Paul Secunda: Thank you for having me. [00:01:24] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I appreciate you being here and to get things started, [00:01:26] Our Guest's Current Tech Setup! [00:01:26] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: please tell us what your current tech setup is. [00:01:28] Paul Secunda: Well, currently I'm working on a MacBook Air, about 11 inch screen and being assisted by the new iPhone 15 pro. [00:01:37] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Nice. And is your MacBook Air, is it an M1 chip or an M2, M3, or are we looking at an Intel processor? [00:01:43] Paul Secunda: This is from 2023, and I believe it's an M2 chip. [00:01:48] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Very nice. How do you like the speed? [00:01:50] Paul Secunda: The speed is much better than my previous iteration from 2019, which was a much slower processor, so I very much appreciate it. [00:01:59] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So, I'm guessing that was an Intel chip? That is correct. So you should really notice like a boost. [00:02:04] Paul Secunda: And when you're working and jamming away at five different things at the same time, it really does make a difference as far as getting stuff done on a timely basis. [00:02:12] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: How has the battery been on that? [00:02:14] Paul Secunda: The battery's been okay. I would say I could go about three or four hours. But I'm on a high light and I am meaning I'm, I have a high brightness, I should say, and that seems to drain the battery, but I need that just to see things better, but I'm mostly plugged in most of the day. [00:02:31] Paul Secunda: So I don't really go without the plug, whether I'm at a deposition or whether even if I'm in the courtroom, I usually find a plug to plug in. So I haven't really had to test it that much. Do [00:02:43] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: you carry a backup battery with you? [00:02:44] Paul Secunda: I do not. [00:02:45] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: But I want to check out the anchor. Product line, they come up some really good backup batteries that are usually fairly light will fit in your suitcase or your briefcase. [00:02:52] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I should say, [00:02:53] Paul Secunda: okay, well, I'm ready right now, [00:02:55] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: just sort of as an emergency. And if you go like on Amazon or something similar, I'm sure you'll find a deal at some point anchors had like 20 percent off. Here and there, and there's some good options. There's also of course other brands, but I would go with a reliable brand to make sure that the battery is made well, gonna last a while, and also doesn't cause some sort of like back feed, some sort of back charge by accident. [00:03:17] Paul Secunda: No, that's, that's really much appreciated because needless to say, that can be a lifesaver. [00:03:21] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: And any other tech that you use? [00:03:23] Paul Secunda: Well, I, I did mention the phone, but really I'm a fairly lean and mean operator, I guess. [00:03:29] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So I have to ask, do you have a printer and do you use it a lot? [00:03:32] Paul Secunda: I tried to avoid printing out copies. [00:03:35] Paul Secunda: Can I use an app called TurboScan? In other words, I did take whatever I get in the mail or from others and put it in PDF form almost immediately. I digitize. And thereafter, whether I'm dealing with, let's say, a deposition, a court reporter, or various chambers, I try to stick mostly with PDF files. This is also true with dealing with opposing counsel. [00:04:01] Paul Secunda: We tend not to send things to each other by snail mail anymore. I send documents in discovery through servers and or digital files. [00:04:11] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Do you have a PDF reader of preference? [00:04:13] Paul Secunda: Adobe Acrobat. [00:04:14] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Okay. [00:04:15] Paul Secunda: Yeah, I use Word, Microsoft Word for my word process. [00:04:18] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: And you don't use Pages? Apple Pages? [00:04:21] Paul Secunda: Well, only when it, sometimes I get documents in Pages form. [00:04:26] Paul Secunda: Really? And so what I'll do, unusual, unusual, but what I'll do is I'll redo the format into Microsoft Word. It's what I'm comfortable operating in. [00:04:34] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So I have to ask, the app that you use, when you get a lot of, Documents. I mean, isn't that a little time consuming to have to take a picture page by page by page? [00:04:43] Paul Secunda: Yeah. If I were to get a lot of documents, like a bundle, we'd feed it to the printer we do have in our office. Okay. And I would put it onto a thumb drive and then put it on my server that way. But if you're dealing with anything, let's say less than 25 pages, which is a lot of my documents, It's very handy. [00:05:01] Paul Secunda: It's very easy to use and the, the pages that are generated are very accurate and look good. [00:05:06] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Yeah. I use the Fujitsu scan snap, which is considered like a staple of any cell loan, small practitioners. It's an ADF on a document feeder that. Takes 50 pages at a time and could really move through a lot of documents. [00:05:20] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: When I started practice way back when I was dealing with a lot of large VA files, Department of Veterans Affairs files for my clients. And that could be like a thousand, two or three thousand pages. And that would just taking, of course, also back then the iPhones and other smartphones, PDF capture was not as good as it is today. [00:05:38] Paul Secunda: That is true. And so I guess I should say in talking about PACs, since you've brought up the printer, I am using a Let's see if I can find it here. An HP laser jet pro. You eight zero. Wow. Yeah. So [00:05:53] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: how many pages can you fit into the scanner of that printer? [00:05:56] Paul Secunda: I think the feeder is up to 50 pages. [00:05:58] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Cool. And you know about inkjet superstore, right? [00:06:01] Paul Secunda: I do, because we all know that inkjet could drive you into bank. [00:06:04] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Although I haven't had to order for them in like a couple of years, because since COVID, everything's really gone, really, really gone digital. [00:06:12] Paul Secunda: Yeah. And that's what I was trying to say, which is I really don't do unless it's sent to me. I am not one to send other people things by hard copy. [00:06:22] Paul Secunda: I really do try to avoid it, not just because it's inconvenient, but all that sustainability stuff as well. [00:06:27] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Gotcha. Gotcha. I'm with you on that. So you have an HP printer and what you have an all Apple. [00:06:34] Paul Secunda: No, this is very interesting. I'm the only person in my office who uses Apple, all the other partners that I have, of which there are four other partners on a HP slash Lenovo type of platform. [00:06:47] Paul Secunda: And so the way we handle that is we use a Clio, which is just a management software interacting with a Google business server, this kind of application. [00:06:58] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So you have a Google business account, correct? And why don't you use. Google Docs versus Microsoft Word. [00:07:04] Paul Secunda: I just am a dinosaur, I guess. I've been in practice for 27 years and I just feel more comfortable. [00:07:11] Paul Secunda: It's not that I don't use Google Docs. I do. And in fact, some clients prefer to use Google Docs and I've I've certainly I have that capability, especially when we're working on documents together. It can be very, but if I'm writing a brief or if I'm writing other types of documents, I tend to feel just more comfortable in the Microsoft world when we're talking about something like that. [00:07:35] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Fair enough. Fair enough. So wait, you're not using WordPerfect. [00:07:37] Paul Secunda: I'm not using it. It's funny. I started my life using WordPerfect. When I was in college and law school, I was a WordPerfect guy, and somewhere in the late 90s, early 2000s, maybe when I became a law professor, which was in 2002, I started using Microsoft Word and never went back. [00:07:53] Paul Secunda: So at this point, it's been over two decades I've been on Microsoft Word. [00:07:57] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Do you believe that they still make WordPerfect and that some lawyers actually still use WordPerfect because of whatever little, the macros that they made, that they're afraid to start over again, which is amazing. [00:08:07] Paul Secunda: I have co counsel who use WordPerfect and Needless to say, we've come up with a way of interacting that doesn't get all sorts of codes and other problematic things in our documents. [00:08:17] Paul Secunda: But yes, there are a few people still out there. They're diehards, I would say. [00:08:20] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: How well does the conversion work between a WordPerfect document and a Microsoft Word document going back and forth with the file itself? [00:08:28] Paul Secunda: I would compare it to, have you ever used the converter on like an Adobe and gone to a Microsoft Word document? [00:08:34] Paul Secunda: Yes. So there are problems, right? You have to go through that document and take out codes and other types of information that is either wrong, or like, for instance, it messes up the footnotes, but you have to then remember the footnotes. So I would say it's very similar. I would say that you run into a lot of the same types of problems between Word Perfect and Word that you see between like Adobe and Word. [00:08:55] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I commend you for you guys being able to work through that. [00:08:58] Paul Secunda: We are a. As a sole practitioner, you will understand that as a very small office, we do a lot of things on our own. We have no secretaries, no administrative assistants, no paralegals. We do our own work, and so when we do it, we try to do it in a way that is most comfortable for us individually. [00:09:17] Paul Secunda: But also we need to interact as a firm. So we're trying to have a tech balance there. If you will. [00:09:23] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Yeah. I used to use open office, but I had a paralegal law clerk who had been with me for a while. And it just became too much for her that ultimately ended up getting Microsoft office just because I wanted to sort of keep the peace. [00:09:35] Paul Secunda: But people have a lot of, this comes up also in the PowerPoint world. When you're used the Google version or with the spreadsheets, people are very comfortable with Excel. So fine. There's a comfort there for a lot of people, including myself. Yeah. Well, let's get into the questions. Yeah. Okay. Please. [00:09:53] Q?#1: What are the top three tech tips you would advise any lawyer to maintain a separation from work and personal time? [00:09:53] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: What are the top three tech tips you would advise any lawyer to maintain a separation from work and personal time? [00:09:59] Paul Secunda: Well, the first thing is to put down your darn phone, right? I mean, no one can contact you if you're not constantly getting push notifications by text or by email or by some chat feature. Put down your phone, turn it off. It's good for your mental health and it will be very hard for people to reach you. [00:10:17] Paul Secunda: Now, needless to say, a lot of people are not going to do that because they feel at least in emergency situations that they need to be contacted. Intactable. So if you're going to keep your phone on, which gets into number two, I would tell you to really evaluate what's being asked. And when I say evaluate, I mean, consider the duration of how long it will take to do what's being asked. [00:10:40] Paul Secunda: If it's something that will take you a minute or two, okay, no big deal. And if you're helping someone out, go do it. But if you're talking about hours and interrupting your sleep, then really, I think you, you need to write back to the person who is writing you and ask them. them the priority and what's involved that requires you to do this kind of after the whistle blows. [00:11:00] Paul Secunda: And the third thing I would say to you is talk honestly and openly during the work day with your colleagues, whether they be. Your superiors, your people who are at the same level, people who are your subordinates. Have an honest conversation about electronic communications after the day's over. Because I think a lot of people fail to do that, and sometimes there's just a misunderstanding that can be dealt with if done proactively. [00:11:28] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, how would you handle, say, an overbearing client? I think in the news, we're aware of at least one potential client like that, who expects to have his calls answered. at any time of the day. [00:11:38] Paul Secunda: Well, I think my same advice holds up. I think even with overbearing or maybe even anxiety laden people, because that's sometimes what you're talking about people who are just nervous and therefore overbearing, having an open, honest conversation at the beginning of that representation. [00:11:56] Paul Secunda: If you're Ernie or whatever business you're in and you have a client, set expectations. I think expectation setting is something that unfortunately doesn't happen because people are not having these basic conversations maybe the way they were 20, 30 years ago before the dawning of the age of social media. [00:12:12] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: What's interesting somewhat on the flip side, my day job, I represent veterans before the Department of Veterans Affairs. And one of my former clients called me on a Sunday, and I wasn't very, I wasn't necessarily happy about that. And I let it go to voicemail and I checked the voicemail if I recall this correctly, I believe I checked the voicemail. [00:12:29] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I think he left me a voicemail and he was professing suicidal ideation, like eminent suicidal ideation. [00:12:35] Paul Secunda: And of course, you're not a mental health counselor. So I guess when you should have probably, I mean, I guess you did have to respond and try to get him to the appropriate person. [00:12:43] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: And that's what I spent a couple hours that night doing. [00:12:46] Paul Secunda: Well, that's obviously worth it. No one will tell you, you didn't do the right thing. But that's what I was saying in the beginning, if your phone's on, or if you're listening to your voicemail, evaluate it, I mean, needless to say there, there's nothing to evaluate. It's a life and death situation. It's easy. [00:13:00] Paul Secunda: You have to do what you had to do. But it's also needless to say that most employers who contact. Employees after hours don't do so in life and death situations. It's a matter of just feeling entitled to have your time and your attention even after the workday is over. [00:13:17] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So I think you've kind of talked about how attorneys should handle clients. [00:13:21] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: How about handling their superiors? [00:13:23] Paul Secunda: Well, delicately, right? I mean, the problem is you have a power imbalance, right? Right. And one of the reasons in the article that I wrote back in 2018, 2019, the right to disconnect that I ended up focusing on occupational safety and health as opposed to wage and hours or autonomy or other bases, which you could make these kind of distinctions is because to me, workplace safety and health is a universal So. [00:13:51] Paul Secunda: Right and therefore a human right and therefore the idea is that power imbalances between different people in the workplace between bosses and subordinates should matter less or even if the boss doesn't realize then the subordinate has recourse either through Bringing up a regulation if it exists within your state, occupational and safety agency, or federally. [00:14:13] Paul Secunda: But at least it can be placed within a framework which your boss is hopefully going to at least acknowledge and discuss with you. [00:14:21] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So the right to disconnect law that we're That kind of brought you to my attention. The one that came out in California or is coming out in California. I don't think it's passed yet. [00:14:30] Paul Secunda: No, it's just been introduced recently. [00:14:32] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So are there any states that have this law? And what I'm kind of curious to know is if those that do, has any employer or say former employer been sued for violating that law? [00:14:42] Paul Secunda: So it did come up in New York a year or two ago. I'm not sure that really anywhere. I am not aware of any lawsuits over the right to disconnect. [00:14:51] Paul Secunda: One of the issues. And you see this with the California law, which has just been introduced by a democratic assemblyman out in California, is that they're trying to figure out how to implement it. Like, so for instance, California has a very stringent labor code that goes well on many states in the country. [00:15:08] Paul Secunda: And this is, this would be a state based law. But one of the things that relies upon is this wage and hour distinction, where if you're going to work Your work, you should get overtime. If you're going to put the hours in, you should get paid. No one should But the problem with that, of course, is not all workers are created equally under wage and hour law. [00:15:27] Paul Secunda: You have exempt workers and you have non exempt workers. And the exempt workers we usually refer to as salaried workers and the non exempt workers, you know, are hourly workers. So if you're an hourly worker, great, you work an additional two or three hours, you get an additional two or three hours of pay. [00:15:42] Paul Secunda: But if you're a salaried worker, and you're being paid a certain amount of year, no matter how many hours you work, and then you're putting over six hours a night extra, well, that can really add up. So I personally am not a fan of the California approach that is being considered right now, which, again, is based on this wage an hour idea, because I think out a number of workers. [00:16:04] Paul Secunda: I think it makes more sense if you want a universal right to go to the occupational safety and health route. [00:16:10] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Oh, interesting. [00:16:11] Paul Secunda: Yeah. [00:16:13] Ad Read #2: Consider Supporting the Show by Buying Us a Cup of Coffee or Two! [00:16:13] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Pardon the interruption. I hope you're enjoying the techsavvylary. page podcast as much as I enjoy making them. Consider buying us a cup of coffee or two to help defray some of the production costs. [00:16:21] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Thanks and enjoy. [00:16:23] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, let's go back to the question, though, because I think you've given us, I think, two answers. One, of course, is turn off your phone or don't have it with you. The second is better screening. [00:16:33] Paul Secunda: What would be their third? Well, I think the third is honest and open communication. I think if you are, again, it goes back to what we might call the third is expectation setting. [00:16:43] Paul Secunda: If you never talk to your employer about how you feel about them contacting you at 11pm at night, and then you start doing work at that time for them, don't be surprised when they ask you again a week or two later. Like, you've set that expectation. But on the other hand. It happens in the beginning, or if you can even address it as part of your beginning work with that employer, then it's less likely that the expectations would be misunderstood. [00:17:09] Paul Secunda: Look, I understand that American workers are suffering a huge power imbalance in the workplace. In this country, More than almost any other country in the world because we adhere to this employment at will flexibility for employers where you can be fired for a good reason, bad reason, no reason at all. [00:17:27] Paul Secunda: But on the other hand, I also understand that that's why we have laws and that's why if we can get something on the books that deals with the right to disconnect in a universal manner that applies to all employees. Hopefully employers will come over time to respect that kind of right that employees have to that time to themselves [00:17:47] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: what you don't pulling it back just a little bit more toward tech. [00:17:51] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: The one thing I'm surprised you haven't mentioned being an Apple user yourself is the focus modes that the Mac OS. IOS provide you, do you use that? [00:18:00] Paul Secunda: I have tried them in the past. You have purple mode, you have a sleep mode, you have a drive mode or just universal, do not disturb. I'm looking at it right now. [00:18:09] Paul Secunda: As you can also create your own focus modes. [00:18:12] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Oh, you can do a custom one too. [00:18:13] Paul Secunda: You can set up any custom mode you want. I found it distracting to be honest. I even in the car and the driving mode had been turning on automatically. I have a hands free. Voice only way of responding to, uh, text messages. And I enjoy that. [00:18:29] Paul Secunda: So I guess what I'm saying is, and maybe we should take a step back. I am not saying that there should be a blanket prohibition against people working after work. There are some people who, maybe like me and maybe like you, are workaholics and enjoy working after work. And they shouldn't be prevented. I don't want to become paternalistic here. [00:18:48] Paul Secunda: I'm not saying, even if you want to, I know better what you need and therefore you shouldn't do it. What I'm trying to say is, in a world of an imbalanced workplace between the power the employer has and the less power that employees have, there should be some kind of legal intervention, regulatory intervention that provides employees who want to have the right to be left alone when they go home at night. [00:19:13] Paul Secunda: So for me, and this goes to the Apple's various kind of focuses, I just found it distracting because I do want to interact with people at different times of the day. And even during sleep, I tried that, but then I found that there were people who, like my family, who needed to contact me and, It would have been nice to know if I had gotten up during the middle of the night, that there was something going on. [00:19:34] Paul Secunda: So I've turned them all off, to be honest. I, I did not enjoy them personally, but I could see how for others, the focus mode would make sense. [00:19:42] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, the focus mode definitely comes in handy when I'm recording. [00:19:45] Paul Secunda: Yeah, I can understand. [00:19:47] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Last thing I need is dings, alarms, bells and whistles and the phone going off in the middle of a recording. [00:19:53] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: But let's move on to question number two. Go ahead. [00:19:55] Q?#2: What Are the Top Three Tech Rights an Employee Has Qhen It Comes to Utilizing a Personal Tech Device for a BYOD Firm? [00:19:55] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: what are the top three tech rights an employee has when it comes to utilizing a personal tech device for a BYOD firm? [00:20:01] Paul Secunda: Yeah, I'm going to sound a little bit redundant here, but it's about expectations that in the privacy world. So in employee privacy, first of all, I have to separate the world into two different areas. [00:20:12] Paul Secunda: One is the public employment world, right? The other. Private employment world. In the public employment world, believe it or not, because the government is your employer, you have constitutional rights. They're not vibrant constitutional rights, but you do have the right under the Fourth Amendment, uh, which is the privacy amendment under the Constitution, and even under the First Amendment, uh, to a certain amount of autonomy and privacy in the public workplace. [00:20:36] Paul Secunda: Uh, and then you're saying, well, don't I have that in the private workplace? And the answer is, you don't. Definitively, no, you do not. And the problem is there is no state action in the private workplace and therefore under our state action based Constitution, you don't have a right to privacy just because of the constitution to the extent that you have privacy rights in the private workplace They're either granted to you statutorily or by the common law. [00:20:59] Paul Secunda: So statutorily, there are Now, in a number of states, somewhere between 10 and 15, what we call off duty conduct statutes, and basically off duty conduct statutes say is as long as you're engaged in legal, lawful, recreational activity outside the workplace, your employer has no business seeing you. Now, obviously, this becomes a little gray when you get into certain types of contact. [00:21:26] Paul Secunda: Maybe using marijuana on your own time, or engaging in certain, let us say, avant garde sexual types of proclivities. So, those have been litigated, and to be honest, the cases are all over the place. In the common law, there is, under the tort restatement, a right to be free from an invasion of privacy. And the invasion of privacy right comes in a lot of different flavors. [00:21:51] Paul Secunda: It can be akin to a defamation right, where people can't put you in a false light. Or it can be just a matter of autonomy. That your autonomy is sacred and People shouldn't interfere with what you consider your own private affairs. So in that situation, it goes back to what is your legitimate expectation of privacy? [00:22:10] Paul Secunda: If you're at your employer's brick and mortar business and you're in the bathroom, you have a fairly significant right to privacy, right? There's going to be very little reason that an employer should be spying on you on your bathroom breaks. On the other hand, if you're in your office and you're on your computer and they want to make sure that you're not engaging in Amazon shopping or other inappropriate activities, they can do a basic keystroke surveillance and that is considered acceptable if it's business based. [00:22:40] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: I want to pause you on that one specifically. So since we are more at a work from home right now and say the employee Perhaps a lawyer is working from home on their computer and they have to be button seat from like 8am to 5pm and they're working on whatever. Does the employer have a right to watch those same keystrokes and or more so put like certain monitoring software in the person's own personal computer? [00:23:09] Paul Secunda: I would say it depends on the expectations and the workplace policies that are in place. I mean, If you and your employee handbook have an electronic communications policy that says we will be keeping track of what you're doing during the day, we expect that you will only focus on our business during the workday, then that's a re, then, then an employee says, well, I didn't realize they were doing that when they signed an acknowledgement form saying I realized they were doing that. [00:23:37] Paul Secunda: That's problematic for the employee. A lot of employers, it goes without saying, including law firms, don't have electronic communication policies. Or if they do, they're much more narrow. Don't, don't surf porn. Don't, won't shop. But how about the in between when your kids call you or have to deal with something that's come up during the day that's almost akin to an errand? [00:23:58] Paul Secunda: That's less clear. And so, What I would say is, in my, I've been an employment lawyer for over 27 years now, and I would tell you, and mostly on the employee side, and I would tell you that, generally speaking, most employers do not have such restrictive workplace policies. If anything, as the employee becomes more sophisticated, has more discretion during the workday, like most attorneys, this isn't a huge issue. [00:24:25] Paul Secunda: It's more in. Kind of the warehouses, the blue collar workplace where employees are being monitored much more diligently. Take for instance, the Amazon drivers or even people who deliver packages for UPS or Federal Express. Right being very closely, not only because they want to keep track of where the packages are, but they want to make sure that you're not stopping off and getting a beer when you should be delivering the package to Mr and Mrs Jones. [00:24:53] Paul Secunda: So I really don't think there's a an answer I can give you. I mean, you could see how I kind of. Very lawyerly kind of divided the workplace. And then I said, well, even in the private, you have statutory protections and common law protections. And then even then it depends on what's in your workplace policies and what kind of expectations you've established with your workers, [00:25:14] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: but would you generally speaking without giving legal advice, would you advise someone who's like, all right, I don't want to specify lawyers, but you advise a lawyer. [00:25:25] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Who has a work from home policy to allow their boss to put on their personal computer, some sort of tracking software sites that they look at typing times logged in, et cetera. [00:25:39] Paul Secunda: Absolutely not. I would push back very hard against that. An unnecessary violation of my privacy and autonomy. And that's because I believe what lawyers do is not so necessarily only within the time bounds of the day. [00:25:52] Paul Secunda: I think lawyers, because of the discretion and the creativity they bring to their work, tend to do their work at various times of the day. So perhaps the right to disconnect means something different in our industry than it might mean Let's say in a blue collar industry, but I would advise if an employer said to an attorney, a young attorney, Hey, I understand you're going to be working remotely. [00:26:16] Paul Secunda: Please know that we're tracking you. I would say I'm going to look somewhere else. I don't know many firms that do that, to be honest, [00:26:23] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: but there was some articles. I remember a couple of years ago during COVID that they were employers were actively tracking some of their employees. And I'm talking about lawyers. [00:26:33] Paul Secunda: Yeah. I mean, There's an exception to every rule. I think it's, I think first of all, it leads to very low morale and less productivity. So I think it's foolhardy. I think if you're going to have professionals working for you, giving them independence and discretion is part of saying you trust and believe in them, but I'm not the employer and therefore people do all sorts of different things for different reasons. [00:26:54] Paul Secunda: I'm saying personally, and it's not legal advice. If someone came to me and said, Hey, I'm going to track you. I'd say, okay, well, I'm not working for you because to me, personal privacy and autonomy are important intangibles in my life. [00:27:09] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So from the obvious of not looking at porn, not shopping, not looking at information to overthrow the government. [00:27:16] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Are there any other tech tips you might give employees when it comes to things they should obviously not do with devices that are BYOD or even if it's the employer's device? [00:27:28] Paul Secunda: Yeah, there are a lot of employees and actually this was very relevant because last week the Federal Trade Commission came out with a new proposed rule about getting rid of all covenants not to compete. [00:27:40] Paul Secunda: Needless to say, that will be tied up in litigation for the next two to three years. So any such rule will probably be enjoined until it's worked out by the courts. But needless to say, there are employers who have employees who have sensitive information which they have protect, whether it be through confidentiality provisions. [00:27:58] Paul Secunda: They can do it through non solicitation clauses or non competition clauses. And so what I would say to employees is again, make sure you understand what information you have that is protectable by your boss. I mean, in the law area, we're not allowed to have covenants, not to compete under our professional rules of conduct, but nevertheless, you are under an obligation under attorney, uh, client privilege and other privileges to keep things. [00:28:26] Paul Secunda: Confidential under also the model rules of professional conduct. So maybe law is kind of a little unique, but in, in other parts of the workplace, you have to understand that depending on the types of information you have, if you're dealing with pricing information or customer databases or trade secrets, then yeah, you don't want to be kind of dealing with that type of information without Providing some protection. [00:28:50] Paul Secunda: Let me give you an example in the legal. When I exchange Discovery as a litigator with other law firms, either the other law firm or I don't just send that information attached to an email, almost never. We always use a server which has dual authentication. So we make sure the person getting it is only getting it because they have a user ID and a password. [00:29:12] Paul Secunda: Plus they didn't have to authenticate. They are who they say they are. So that is the reality of whether you're using Dropbox or a lot of these large law firms these days have their own servers with the capability of sending out large swaths of documents. So. There's an example of where you just don't want to deal with sensitive documents in a way that they can be intercepted or used inappropriately. [00:29:38] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Let's move on to our last question. Sure. [00:29:40] Q?#3: What are Your Top Three Tech Tips to Ensure Focus at Work to Help Prevent Necessary Work During Personal Time? [00:29:40] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: What are your top three tech tips to ensure focus at work to help prevent necessary work during personal time? [00:29:46] Paul Secunda: Yeah, well, one we've already discussed, and this is a harder one, which is you can't turn necessarily your phone off, but what you can do is eliminate a lot of those push notifications. [00:29:56] Paul Secunda: This is from personal experience. Used to have every newspaper and every person possible able to kind of get through my screen and kind of tell me they're looking for me or want to sell me something, tell me about a new news tip. And what I would tell you is go to your notifications, whether you're on an app or another phone and really only limit them to the things that you really need. [00:30:19] Paul Secunda: And even with. And your text, you can set up VIP lists so that only those people who are most important in your family, your children, your spouse, whatever, can get in contact with you. I've done that increasingly. So that's number one. Number two, it's a matter of, Learning how to screen your text, emails and other information that you're looking at in a efficient manner. [00:30:44] Paul Secunda: I have, I use an Apple mail, right? And it has kind of a preview where within probably 5 to 10 seconds, I can tell from just when it comes up whether I need to deal with it now. An hour from now, tomorrow, a week from now, and then I categorize stuff that way using that technology. So that's number two. And then number three, I would say it's just a matter of focus, which is kind of funny to say. [00:31:10] Paul Secunda: I don't mean focus like the Apple tech focus, but you have all this technology coming at you through computers and phones and don't people use the telephones I'm told, but you have to focus. I mean, we are a society of attention. Deficit disorder. And I, I don't mean that cavalierly or in a flip way. I mean that honestly, as a society, we have trouble paying attention. [00:31:34] Paul Secunda: We're being pulled in a hundred different direction. And so this is where it's very unique to each person's individual circumstance. What allows you to focus for me? I can't have music on. I can't have other like talk radio or talk, whatever, because it's too, I need complete silence, but someone else Might be able to put on their air pods and put on some soft music in the background and that's the way they kind of tune other things out. [00:31:58] Paul Secunda: So my point is use tech to allow you to focus. That would be my third point. [00:32:03] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, I'm going to go back and pull a little bit on your last two answers. Your second answer, this is something I want to share. I use a service called SaneBox and it sort of adds onto your email. Are you familiar with it? I'm not. [00:32:17] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So SaneBox is a monthly subscription. It's like 10 bucks a month. I think you'd have to double check. And what it does is it allows you to set special rules into your email. And quite frankly, like it works with all, like almost all different email server types, whether it's Gmail, whether it's personal, whether it's this or that or whatever. [00:32:35] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: And it works in the background, not on your computer, but on a server. And if you put, say, an email, like, a constant solicitation. Right. If you put it in the same black hole box, you'll never see that again. In other words, if they send you another one, you'll never see it again. So, I'm just Throw it in there just to help kind of declutter. [00:32:53] Paul Secunda: As opposed to unsubscribing from every unwanted piece of spam you get. [00:32:57] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Well, the problem with unsubscribing is you're telling them there's a warm body there. [00:33:02] Paul Secunda: Yeah, and then that gives them more incentive to try to get in contact with you. [00:33:06] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Whether it's through that in particular email or perhaps like a different service they may be working with as well. [00:33:12] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: So it opens you up to more spam email. But it also has some neat tricks to it like saying. Tomorrow, say next week, so that it doesn't stay in your inbox right now, but it goes, disappears for a day or a week or three hours or until 5 p. m. and then it repopulates to help manage. And like, it also, there's some other functions I'm probably not remembering, but I encourage you to take a look at it. [00:33:36] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Somewhat of a godsend for me because Lord knows I'm getting more and more. Spam and I no longer answer my own phone because half the calls are not business. Right. Yeah. The other thing I do, you know, you talk about focusing at work and as a small and solo practitioner, you're sort of like the, you wear many hats. [00:33:55] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: And when I have to focus on writing a brief, what I'll do sometimes. Or often is I will take my laptop and I'll go to a Starbucks or coffee shop and just plant myself there for like an hour and a half or two hours and I can usually pop out some solid writing and I'm not constantly being interrupted by everything else that's going on around here. [00:34:15] Paul Secunda: That makes a lot of sense too. [00:34:16] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: And if it's too noisy in there, I just pop in my Apple AirPod Pro Mac to the headphones, and I can drown out most of the noise, but I'm usually pretty good about drowning out noise around. [00:34:27] Paul Secunda: Yeah, well, that's a good, that's a good skill to have, I have to say. [00:34:31] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Yeah, the only thing I can't deal with is screaming children and crashes. [00:34:36] Paul Secunda: Yeah. [00:34:37] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: No offense to parents out there. [00:34:39] Paul Secunda: Yeah, I can't help you with that one, but yeah, I understand. [00:34:42] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Excellent. Paul, I wanna thank you for being here. [00:34:44] Where You Can Find Our Guest! [00:34:44] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Please tell us where people can find you. [00:34:46] Paul Secunda: They can find me online at kunda E-S-E-C-U-N-D-A. Mm-Hmm at zeke luzi.com. It's a difficult Wisconsin name, so I'm gonna spell it. [00:34:55] Paul Secunda: W-A-L-C-H-E-S-K-E-L-U-Z i.com. That is the name of the law firm I'm at in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area. And my email and contact information is there. And if you'd like to hear more about the right to disconnect or any other employment law topics, feel free to give me a ring. [00:35:13] Paul Secunda: I will be sure to have all that in the show notes. [00:35:15] Paul Secunda: And if there's anything else you'd like to share, please feel free to send it to me before we publish. But again, Paul, I want to thank you for being here. [00:35:21] Paul Secunda: It's a pleasure, Michael. So nice to talk to you today. Likewise. [00:35:24] Thank You for Listening and Join Us in Two Weeks for a New Episode! [00:35:24] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: Thank you for joining me on this episode of the techsavvylawyer. page podcast. Our next episode will be posted in about two weeks. [00:35:30] Michael D.J. Eisenberg: If you have any ideas about a future episode, please contact me at michaeldj at the techsavvylawyer. page. Have a great day and happy lawyering.

It's time to kick it old school with another entry into our Definitive Ranking series, this time, examining the game that started it all: The Legend of Zelda! We're going through ten critical categories that make up the ingredients to a Zelda game – world, story, pacing, art style, dungeons, bosses/enemies, items, gameplay, extras, and music – and assigning them each a score to see how the original game stacks up against all of the legendary entries that came after it! Some of the scores will be no-brainers, while others might leave you scratching your head, so come along and play with us, and of course, be sure to share what you think! All this, PLUS a little movie talk, our favorite NES titles and more! Come hang out with us!   Download!   Support The Zelda Cast on Patreon! Subscribe to receive the monthly bonus show ‘The Zelda Cast Top Tens! Follow The Zelda Cast! The Zelda Cast (@TheZeldaCast) Andy Spiteri (@Spiteri316) Alasyn Eletha (@AlasynEletha) Twitch x Facebook x Discord x Tik-Tok x BlueSky Advertise on The Zelda Cast! See Options Here! Subscribe to The Zelda Cast! Apple Podcasts x Podbean x Spotify x iTunes x Google Podcasts x iHeart Radio x PlayerFM Grab The Zelda Cast Merch! Official Zelda Dungeon Merch store

It's time to kick it old school with another entry into our Definitive Ranking series, this time, examining the game that started it all: The Legend of Zelda! We're going through ten critical categories that make up the ingredients to a Zelda game – world, story, pacing, art style, dungeons, bosses/enemies, items, gameplay, extras, and music – and assigning them each a score to see how the original game stacks up against all of the legendary entries that came after it! Some of the scores will be no-brainers, while others might leave you scratching your head, so come along and play with us, and of course, be sure to share what you think! All this, PLUS a little movie talk, our favorite NES titles and more! Come hang out with us!   Download!   Support The Zelda Cast on Patreon! Subscribe to receive the monthly bonus show ‘The Zelda Cast Top Tens! Follow The Zelda Cast! The Zelda Cast (@TheZeldaCast) Andy Spiteri (@Spiteri316) Alasyn Eletha (@AlasynEletha) Twitch x Facebook x Discord x Tik-Tok x BlueSky Advertise on The Zelda Cast! See Options Here! Subscribe to The Zelda Cast! Apple Podcasts x Podbean x Spotify x iTunes x Google Podcasts x iHeart Radio x PlayerFM Grab The Zelda Cast Merch! Official Zelda Dungeon Merch store

Can Congress require China-based ByteDance to divest itself of TikTok as a condition for TikTok continuing to be easily accessible in the US? Alan Rozenshtein, Jane Bambauer, and Eugene Volokh discuss whether the law is consistent with the First Amendment – and with the much more rarely talked about Bill of Attainder Clause. To view the full transcript of this episode, read below: Free Speech Unmuted Eugene Volokh: Hello, welcome to Free Speech Unmuted from the Hoover Institution. I'm your co host Eugene Volokh, now basically emeritus from UCLA Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Jane Bambauer: I'm Jane Bamberger, the Breckner Eminent Scholar and Professor of Law at University of Florida. And today we have with us Alan Rosenstein. So Alan, tell us, tell us about yourself and correct my pronunciation of your name if I just butchered it. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. it's Rosenstein, but I, don't, I don't, wait, Eugene Volokh: wait, a minute. You, spell it Alan Rozenshtein: Rosenstein. I can't, I, I cannot, I am not responsible for my parents immigration choices. Eugene Volokh: Exactly. So Alan and I. are both of Russian Jewish extraction. I was actually born in Kiev and it came here when I was, seven. Alan's parents are from, from Russia. I don't know the former Soviet union, but he was born very [00:01:00] shortly after they came. So there is always this question of how you, how you transliterate the relic names into something that Americans can pronounce. And I, I'm not sure either of our parents did a great job with that. mu much as we love them on this particular point, they may have aired. Alan Rozenshtein: it's funny because both of our names have these silent Hs and I like to joke that there's a STL somewhere that's missing an H. There you go. Found its way into my name. It's s. Eugene Volokh: But I'm sorry to have interrupted, Alan, tell us about yourself. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. I'm an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota where I've taught now for seven years. And I am also a senior editor at Lawfare where I do a lot of my writing on the sorts of topics that we're going to talk about today. and before that, I was a, attorney at the Department of Justice in the law and policy section of the National Security Division. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, so we're here today to talk about the tick tock ban or so called tick tock [00:02:00] ban it will see what, whether it actually, you know what its future actually has in store. But can you tell us a little bit about the law that was passed by Congress and signed by President Biden and then. We'll figure out what the free speech issues are. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. So the law and, this is actually one of these, cases where Congress did not use a backer name for some reason, it's the protect Americans from foreign adversary controlled applications act. So it's perfect. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Which is, Alan Rozenshtein: which is not great. which is not great. So we're just going to tell, I'm going to call it the tick talk law. so this was a law that was introduced in the house as part of the, bipartisan select committee on China, sailed through the house, a few months ago, surprising a lot of people how quickly it went through. It seemed to stall in the Senate for a while, but then for a number of reasons, including some changes made to the [00:03:00] law and then the broader, foreign aid package that went through. To assistance to Ukraine, Israel in particular, this was, signed or enacted by Congress and signed the law by the president. I think late last month, and the law, is sometimes called a, it's called by its supporters as a divestment law, it's called by its opponents as a ban law. Basically what it does is it requires bite dance. The Chinese company that owns approximately 20 percent of TikTok to, divest itself of TikTok. And if it doesn't do so within a little less than a year. TikTok is banned now. What band means is a little complicated. really what it is that, the law actually applies to, app stores and in particular, internet providers. They're not allowed to, Host tiktok services, so it doesn't actually make for consumers using tiktok illegal or anything. But given that the vast, majority of people just want to use a, [00:04:00] social media platform without too much, fuss, once the app stores stop carrying updated versions of tiktok. And once it gets, hard to use tiktok through the website, through your internet service provider, the assumption is that tiktok will be for the vast majority of people effectively banned. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. so you've written on Lawfare about the First Amendment implications and I understand you're going to have another post coming out soon. We'll link to both of those. But what do you make of this? how would you apply First Amendment jurisprudence to this particular law? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, no, it's an interesting question. And to be honest, I, it's funny. I, I, have never thought of myself as a first amendment scholar, though, in the last year or two, just given how much time I spend thinking about all things internet related, I feel like I've become one. But really, I think of you two as far more expert in this than I am. So I have my own ideas, but I'm actually very curious This is what you two with kind of a much longer history of thinking about the First Amendment think, so [00:05:00] I think of myself as in the minority of scholars, not a tiny minority, but I think a minority of scholars who think that although the First Amendment arguments that TikTok and TikTok users will be making, against this law, although the arguments are strong, that ultimately the government actually has a pretty good Case and I think more likely than not that the first amendment that the government will ultimately prevail You know at the end of the day and here I'll cheat a little bit in answering your question Jane because When one traditionally starts a first minute analysis the most important thing to do once one has decided that The first time it actually applies so that this is First Amendment protected activity. And I think here there's general agreement that the first time it definitely is implicated is one has to figure out what the appropriate quote unquote tier of scrutiny is. is this a prior restraint, which is the highest level of review? Is it [00:06:00] a viewpoint based? Law. Is it a content based law? Is it a content neutral law? In which case, it's not strict scrutiny, but intermediate scrutiny. And then all these gradations in between, and again, it's something that you two who are real first known scholars know one can spend infinite brain cycles thinking about this. And I think one thing that's interesting about this law is that I think they're actually plausible arguments for all of those positions. I think you can argue that it's a prior restraint, that it's viewpoint based, that it's content based, that it's content neutral. I think part of that is because this is a, I think a pretty novel fact pattern, at least in First Amendment jurisprudence. I think it's also the fact that the tiers of scrutiny analysis has never been, I think, particularly clear. And when I said I'm gonna cheat in your answer a little bit, what I meant is that I think at the end of the day it doesn't matter all that much. Which is to say, at the end of the day, the vast majority of First Amendment cases come down to some sort of balancing of the various interests at stake. And this is particularly true at the Supreme [00:07:00] Court, where, you really, I'll be a little bit of a legal realist here. It's really all about can you count to five justices that will agree that your side's values are more important than the other side's values. and that although the tiers of scrutiny do real work in that they, function as kind of presumptions, if the court concludes that such and such is a prior restraint, then presumptively the government's going to have a big problem, though sometimes prior restraints are fine. Similarly, if the court concludes that this is merely a neutral time, place, and manner restriction, presumptively the government's probably going to be okay, though those are also struck down all the time. At the end of the day, a lot relies again, especially in really high profile, sui generous cases like this on the specific facts. in my writing on this, I have tried not to, and again, I'm happy to get pushback, from, you too. I have tried not to spend too many cycles worrying about exactly what level of scrutiny should apply here. And instead, just [00:08:00] try to outline what are the values on each side? What are the values The First Amendment interests of TikTok, and I think more importantly, the 150 million American users of TikTok on the one hand. Versus on the other hand, what are the government's interests here in potentially banning TikTok, or at least really risking a ban of TikTok? and there are two in particular. One is a data privacy concern, because in the course of personalizing the TikTok algorithm for users, TikTok collects an enormous amount of information on what it is that you are watching and clicking and liking and disliking. and TikTok and therefore ByteDance and therefore the Chinese Communist Party could potentially use that information to America's detriment. So that's the data privacy concern. And the other concern is a foreign manipulation concern. That, because TikTok is You know, entirely run by the algorithm is totally inscrutable. if [00:09:00] a foreign entity can influence that algorithm, they can influence the information ecosystem of 150 million Americans and not just 150 million Americans, but because of TikTok, because TikTok is so popular among young people. And for those young people, TikTok is not just a source of fun cat videos, but it's actually the main source of news that they get. one can imagine, just generally, or especially in a conflict, let's say over Taiwan, that TikTok could suddenly become a, profound, Vector of foreign influence and foreign manipulation. And so I think ultimately comes down to balancing those two. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. So before we go into the values and the sort of government interest, I do want to pause and Talk through the coverage or maybe levels of scrutiny issue because I'm actually not sure and I really regret to say this because as a policy matter. I have some major issues with the tick tock [00:10:00] band, but I'm not sure that actually the First Amendment would even apply. I'm curious to hear Eugene's thoughts as well. But here's, my thinking. I guess there are two reasons to doubt that we have to do a First Amendment analysis. One is that maybe you could conceive of this as really a trade restriction, that has obvious, free, speech, results, and, maybe even speech related, content based related, even viewpoint based related maybe motivations, but that ultimately still it's a Restriction on managing, trade and so the way, much, much the way that we, don't allow certain other types of, products or services, to, pass through the borders. Another reason though that I have some skepticism is because the Supreme Court in cases that are somewhat old, but, they've suggested that [00:11:00] even when the government's goal basically is to restrict information that comes from outside the borders in. They have wide latitude and, these cases don't seem to really apply a constitutional analysis. So the two cases I have in mind, first, the earliest was Zemel versus Rusk, which is a little different because this is the case that involves, a set of plaintiffs who wanted to travel to, to, Cuba in the sixties. And they alleged, and no one disagreed, that they wanted to go there in order to gather information and an understanding of what's happening in Cuba. And, the Supreme Court went out of its way, not only to say that the government has full authority to decide who can leave the country, but, but also the Supreme Court said that the right to speak and publish does not carry with it unrestrained right to gather information. A lot has happened since that case. And I think the Supreme Court has over time [00:12:00] recognized the right to gather information. but. the board, if you combine that logic with the logic of the whole state control of the borders. you can see where I'm going here. And then the second case, was, Kleindienst versus Mandel. Yeah. yeah. So this one I think is even closer analogy. that one, I know. Yeah. Yeah. And so this one involved, this is a little later in the seventies. It's still a long, long ago though. And it involved, an invitation offered by Stanford University to a Belgian revolutionary Marxist as he himself portrayed. Yeah. Yeah. his own work, who, applied for a visa to come to campus and give a speech and the, customs office said no. And although there were a couple of dissenting, justices, the Supreme Court decided there is, basically that the government has full control over, over these decisions, irrespective of the reasons, the [00:13:00] speech related reasons that they may be made. Eugene, do you, what, do you make of. Just this application question, the coverage question. Eugene Volokh: so I'd love to hear what Alan has to say about those cases. But I'd also add a third one, which is Lamont v. Postmaster General, which specifically involved the travel not of people, but of information. And that was actually, it was 1965, the first Federal statute ever struck down by the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. Of course, the Supreme Court has the power to strike down Lamont. It's true. It has the power to strike down federal statutes and often exercises it. In fact, The whole point of the First Amendment originally was to constrain Congress, that's it starts with Congress shall make no law, but it took a long time before the court actually said this federal statute, not a state statute, not a federal executive action, but this federal statute is unconstitutional, happened in 1965. The statute, [00:14:00] basically required Americans who wanted to receive foreign communist propaganda to go to the post office. maybe not the post office, but in any case, go to the government and say, I am willing to receive it by the mail. And it made it illegal to send and deliver it to them, unless they have actually specifically, specifically requested. and the Supreme Court did not decide the question whether foreign. Foreigners, and especially foreign governments, have any First Amendment rights. It didn't focus on the rights of the senders, but it did talk about the rights of the recipients and, concluded that this law was unconstitutional because it interfered with the rights of Americans to receive this information. And so it did not view, federal governments had undoubted power to control what comes into the country, [00:15:00] as A total as being unlimited or put, more positively concluded that even Congress's broad power to, control what goes into the country is limited by the first two. So those are the three cases that strike me as most, most relevant. Although Alan, I totally agree with you that in many ways, this is sui generis and part of the problem is the Supreme Court has never really confronted a question quite like this one. even Lamont, which I do think is. Some respects close. This is a mailings of foreign propaganda to Americans. How many Americans would likely, even if they didn't have to put their name down on a list, would have been particularly interested in reading that? Very few. Tick tock very many. so, it's an interesting, I'm not saying any of these cases are strictly binding here, but I'd love to hear what you think about how these cases play out. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. so a lot there. So let me say a couple of things. So first, and [00:16:00] this is not dispositive, but it's something all the, all of the courts to have all of the courts who have heard cases like the one that is about to be heard in the DC circuit, because this is not the first attempt to ban tick tock. There was, I think Montana. some Midwestern state. I think it was Montana tried to remove Wyoming, tried to ban it. And then, of course, in the Trump administration, Trump through executive order, tried to ban it in litigation there. everyone seemed to concede. And certainly the courts assumed that there was a first amendment issue here again. That doesn't mean that there necessarily is. But I think that's one data point. The second point I would say is, just to get back to Lamont, because I think Lamont is a very important issue. Case I reread it this morning because I needed to for this law for peace that I'm writing and what you described Eugene as the holding of Lamont, which is that Americans have a right to receive foreign propaganda, which is how Lamont is generally understood. I'm actually not sure. That's what Lamont says. That's what Justice Brennan's concurrent says in Lamont. But Justice Douglas is very short and in [00:17:00] true Justice Douglas fashion, extremely under argued and under theorized opinion really actually focuses on, the, the chilling effect of having to go to the government and say, Yes, I would like to receive the peaking review. And that was coincidentally, the, propaganda at issue. So it's another Chinese propaganda case. but we should get back to Lamont. I think Lamont is an interesting case. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that, and that, yeah, that, that makes sense. And Brennan is consistent because he also dissented in that client and in the, case involving the Belgian. Yeah. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think, Kleindienst is very interesting, and again, it's, hard to know what exactly to make of that, what I, whatever Kleindienst stands for, the reason I don't think that it would really apply here is, it'd be one thing if the government From a blank slate said, or, let me give you a more specific example. It's one thing if a [00:18:00] Chinese company wanted to buy a us platform and the government, and here would be SIFI as the committee on foreign investment in the United States said, no, you can't do this. And in fact, CFIUS has done this, when a Chinese company tried to buy Grindr, which is a dating service, very popular with gay and lesbian Americans. CFIUS said, no, you can't do this because we don't want the Chinese government to have access to the HIV status of Americans. Cause that's something that Grindr allowed people to put in. that I think is different than you have an existing platform where 150 million users are every day doing things that have profound first amendment implications. And we are now going to ban this platform. I think that's quite different then. There's something outside the United States. And then the question is, can it come into the United States? Something you already have in the United States. Now, to, to your point, Jane, I think the fact that the government generally has broad national security, foreign relations, economic trade, however you want to think of it, powers, is a really important part of the First [00:19:00] Amendment analysis. But I think that, the kind of brute fact that you have 150 million Americans using TikTok every day is going to make it very difficult, I think, for any court, even if they ultimately uphold the law, which I think they will, to say there's no First Amendment issue here. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I hope you're right, but it is one of those things that where, there's probably all sorts of ways in which our national security or customs and border enforcement, keep us from knowing what we'd actually like to know and we're just And so the being, joining you on the realist side a little bit I, you're probably right but if we knew more about what we're missing from certain policies, maybe that same logic should apply to cases that the Supreme Court, The thought where you're, unrelated to the first moment. So Eugene Volokh: I do want to, I do want to also stand by a little bit my characterization of a Lamonti Postmaster General. I think even in Justice, Douglas's [00:20:00] majority opinion for the court, he talks about how the requirement that the addressee must request in writing that it be delivered Is, quote, an unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee's First Amendment rights. Close quote. Sounds like in context, what he's saying is That the addressee has a First Amendment right to receive information and, that, by saying in order to get the information, you've got to do something that will put you on a list of people who are interested in foreign communists, but again, that which is a list most people might not have wanted to be on. the, the concern there is that, it burdens your ability to receive that information. It imposes a barrier to your First Amendment rights as a listener. But in any case, whether it's Justice Douglas or Justice Brennan's quite influential concurrence that you're [00:21:00] quite right, has gotten a lot of traction since then. I do think in many ways, Structurally it is quite similar because here the concern is also that TikTok users have an interest in using this app and receiving the information on it, although many of them are also TikTok content creators, so they have an interest in being able to use it to distribute their speech. So I'm totally with you that there's a Pretty substantial burden on people's ability to speak and to listen for sure. But also again just returning to your sui generis point You might say that what was true of this relatively minor form a potential form of foreign influence in the form of mailings of the peking review or similar publications from overseas may not be really relevant to a situation where we've got something that's being used by so many, Americans and so many young Americans. Alan Rozenshtein: [00:22:00] Yeah. And I, think it's part, partially what you just said, right? It's a scale issue, but I think it's partially also a transparency issue. So I think one thing that's important about this, ban is that it does not prevent Chinese propaganda. I can go today and I link from this from lawfare. So I the peaking review is interesting. It is, China's only English language state on newspaper. and it you can click on. It's called the Beijing review today. It still operates. it says exactly what you would think it would say. and you can access it and you can access it today. You can access it after the law goes into effect. Similarly, if you want to go and, you want to hear what, The China Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants to say you can go and hop on Twitter and read their Twitter account and you'll be able to do after this bill goes into effect as well. So it's not a ban on Chinese propaganda per se, or I think even at all. It's a ban on Chinese control over an information environment. Now why is that different? [00:23:00] if you dig into the justifications, so let's, say that we interpret Lamont Through the Brennan concurrence, right? and, we just say, okay, Lamont stands for some general proposition that Americans have a right to foreign propaganda. Why? I think the, best argument is there's like a marketplace of ideas. argument that foreign propaganda is information like anything else and it should be part of the flow and One person's propaganda is another person's truth And even if it's bad it helps sharpen our understanding all the standard marketplace of ideas arguments that i'm totally happy with but one difference I think between foreign propaganda and foreign control over a platform is foreign propaganda is usually at least Pretty clearly foreign propaganda when you're reading, or at least it's foreign when you're reading the Beijing review, you're reading the Beijing review. You know what you're reading. and I think that helps contextualize what you're reading. You can agree with it, disagree with it when you're on tick tock. The whole point is that this algorithm is totally unscrutable. You have [00:24:00] no idea why you are seeing what you are seeing and the potential for subconscious manipulation, that I don't think, furthers the marketplace of ideas. in the same way that being able to read the Peking Review does. I think that's another really big difference. Now, we could spend all day talking about it, but maybe even, subconscious propaganda still has information and stuff like that. But I think at the very least from a doctrinal matter, it's pretty clear that this distinguishes Lamont and, I emphasize this because I've heard a lot of critics of this law cite Lamont as if it straightforwardly disposes of this case because Lamont stands for some super broad proposition about foreign propaganda. And, what I would say is I don't think the case does. And I also don't think that. The historical context does either. Matt Iglesias, the, well known blogger, had a nice piece a couple months ago, why he is, was for the ban. And he's not a lawyer, so his is more of a policy analysis, but he made a very nice analogy. And he said, look, imagine during the height of the Cold [00:25:00] War, the Soviet Union wanted to go and buy CBS. Would we have allowed that? And the answer is no, we would not have allowed that. And it is, I think, inconceivable that the Supreme Court would have had problems with that. it, it strikes me as very unlikely. Again, this is not a legal point. This is a historical sociological point that even the court that I think unanimously, struck down that law in Lamont in 1965 would have, three years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, been okay with the Soviet Union buying CBS. Because I think there is really a distinction and it's not just one of degree. it's one of kind. Eugene Volokh: so first of all, I'm sorry, you're quite right that, the, court, the court, was unanimous in the case. I was mistaken, talking about dissent. I'm sorry. I should have said that the government's position, in Lamont postmaster general, but the second thing I wanted to say, is that, you, raise this question of buying, broadcasters and indeed, [00:26:00] there are to this day. Limits, substantial limits on foreign ownership of, of, broadcasters, presumptive limits. they could be, as I understand it, waived by the FCC, but there are such limits. what do you think of that as a precedent, do you think? the Supreme Court, to my knowledge, has never really squarely confronted them. But the broad assumption is that they are, they're valid. Is it something that's just a broadcasting only rule? Because there are a lot of. Supreme Court cases that say, broadcasting is special, or is it something that you think stands for a broader proposition and the other thing? actually, I have a follow up question for you, but I wanted to see what you thought about that. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's both. So, I do think the broadcast precedents are really important, in terms of, this long history of, foreign ownership rules. And, here I, I will. Suggest, the folks are interested. Ganesh Sitaraman, [00:27:00] who's a law professor at Vanderbilt, wrote a wonderful article in the Stanford Law Review last year, two years ago, I think called Foreign Ownership of Platforms. We can put it in the show notes. That really goes through this history, not just communications platforms, but generally of foreign ownership, restrictions. I think that precedent is, important. I think you're also right, Eugene, to be fair, that, A response could be, yeah, but those were in the broadcast context, and the court has often distinguished restrictions that are okay under the First Amendment for broadcast, or what are something called limited spectrum situations, and that would not be in the context of an unlimited spectrum. But I have a response to that, which is that, it is true that the internet is not limited in the way that broadcast is, right? If I want to broadcast on a radio frequency, no one else can broadcast on that radio frequency, and therefore you need to have government intervention. Otherwise, none of it works. That's not true for the internet. But the internet is limited in a different way, and that is with attention. [00:28:00] it used to be that the bottleneck for communications was the internet. Broadcast or spectrum now it's the attention of the audience and because you still have a bottleneck, right? You can still get monopolistic effects where it used to be that there were a few small a few very large Broadcasters and they carved the broadcast Spectrum that was the bottleneck now. There are a few large platforms. They're not carving up spectrum. They're carving up attention and I think that actually, if you think deeply about, what justified intervention in the broadcast industry, it was general scarcity, but it doesn't just be scarcity Of, of, spectrum. It can be whatever scarcity of the bottleneck there is. And so Jane Bambauer: I think I just go ahead, finish it. Yeah, it will. Alan Rozenshtein: So and, and and I think this is, this is, a different project and maybe this is a project I should write. [00:29:00] And then you Jane can tell me why, I'm wrong. I actually think that, where you have, limited attention, that is just as good of a reason as limited broadcast for the government to, regulate, if it regulates well. Now, ISIL has to regulate well. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that's not my objection, though. I think the problem is the scarcity that the spectrum scarcity has to do with the means of production. The attention scarcity is more like saying there are only there's at any given point a set number of dollars in the world and consumers don't have unlimited dollars to spend on different types of content. It doesn't actually prevent a competitor from coming in and creating content or curating content, which I think. I think the limited set of platforms that are doing well, because they're actually in fierce competition with each other in a curation market, not in, a traditional content market. But, [00:30:00] nevertheless, there are lots of ways to get copious amounts of information. The trouble is figuring out how to pitch the right information to the right person so that it's worth their time. And there, I just don't see I don't see a monopoly style problem there. And I guess that leads me to the skepticism about, about the, policy behind the tick tock ban that, I, get that there's a lot of really bad content on tick tock and that the Chinese government may have a motivation that's different from the capitalistic one, and that is, that, that, does. seek to cause, disarray and, and, polarization among Americans. But I don't see a big difference between the effects of TikTok and the effects of every other social media company because, first of all, I think there's reason to think that even if you have completely malignant intent. There's [00:31:00] only so much that you can do to manipulate a person into thinking or pursuing some information that they don't already want to pursue. and then also that even through just the normal capitalistic, motivations, most of these platforms are incentivized to find information and curate information. that leads to polarization, that leads to anger and to resentment and to, all, of the things that the Chinese government may benefit from, but doesn't really cause in a, fundamental sense. Alan Rozenshtein: So I, I, so there are a couple, of points there, right? So, one, And let's just say generally, the field of, I don't even know what you'd call it, social media communication psychology, is still quite young. it is advancing very quickly or changing very quickly because The actual infrastructure is changing very [00:32:00] quickly. and if you're looking for a clear social science answer, like you can find, there are lots of papers that will say all sorts of things, right? So policymakers and judges are definitely going to be, legislating and deciding under real uncertainty, which raises interesting meta questions about, okay, then, should we err on this side or that side? then there's a more specific question about, what do we know about specifically China and specifically ByteDance and specifically TikTok? And we can get into the evidence that we have and how speculative or not speculative it is. and then third, we can get into this question of what is the specific threat here? Because I agree with you if the concern is it's in China's interest to addict all our kids to stupid cat videos, or it's in China's interest to feed, TikTok users inflammatory polarizing content because, that's what gets the most clicks. Then I agree with you that would not be a great argument because it's not clear that Twitter or Instagram or Meta operate any differently than, [00:33:00] than, than that, right? I think the unique danger is that, The Chinese government has shown, a couple of things. One, a willingness to, in a very heavy handed way, try to alter how it is perceived around the world with respect to any number of issues. the Hong Kong democracy protests, the issues with the Uyghurs, certainly relations with Taiwan. and in addition, And in a way that just goes beyond your general polarization or feeding people, content that gets them angry. and in addition that, the Chinese government, is also willing to use its, private companies, in a way that very much goes against those private companies own market and capitalist interests. If the Chinese government perceived that it is in their interest, right? And I, think the government's real concern is. In a [00:34:00] shooting war with Taiwan, right? what will the Chinese government, force TikTok to show to 150 million users, right? Now you may say, at the end of the day, people make up their own minds and so forth, right? And, it's a risk. But the question is, is are the courts going to require? And here we have to we have to separate the legal question from the policy questions, because courts have a very specific role. and although we all understand that they make policy, they don't really want to be in a position of second guessing the national security and foreign policy judgments of the political branches. do courts want to tell the government? No, Go get into a war with China. China over Taiwan. Let's see what's on TikTok. And if TikTok spends six months feeding the young people of America, pro China content and gets them all to protest and stuff like that, then we can talk again. That's a bit of a caricature of the view. But I think that's the thing that keeps the government [00:35:00] up at night. and speaking only for myself, right? That's good enough for me. this is a your mileage may vary situation. I totally accept that. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. I see the same logic in the communist era. but Eugene, what do you think? Eugene Volokh: so I want to ask a couple of follow up questions or maybe three questions. one first amendment question and two turns out they're more than first amendment issues in the case. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. Yeah. Eugene Volokh: So the first is we haven't focused on the fact that this law doesn't ban TikTok as such, but requires. It essentially to be divested from Chinese influenced ownership. So I'm inclined to think that doesn't eliminate the First Amendment issue. But at the same time, it sounds like maybe it Would affect it? maybe not. I'd love to hear your thinking. And then I wanted to follow up, with a couple of more questions. One about the [00:36:00] bill of attainder question, and the other about this weird procedural posture of the case. But first, tell me what you think about this, how this, divestiture option affects the first amendment analysis. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. again, I take a middle position between some of the defenders of the bill who just say this is just divestiture and some of the critics who say this is an outright ban. It's not. It's you have to divest or you get a ban. I do think, I don't think that eliminates the First Amendment issue because there's a real risk of a ban that has to be taken into account. and the government can't just say, it's China's fault if it's banned and therefore we don't have to defend this law in First Amendment grounds. That's not how this works. On the same, on the other hand, I do think that the divestiture option helps in, two ways. One is that a lot of First Amendment analysis is about overbreath, right? a lot of constitutional analysis is about, did the government's action go further than necessary? And by definition, a law that allows for divestment instead of a ban. is more narrowly tailored, again by [00:37:00] definition, than a law that just does a ban. So it's almost like a good faith showing on the part of the government that we're actually trying to solve a problem here. We're really trying to solve, have different options here. The second reason, and this is maybe a little cute, but I do think it's plays importantly, at least politically, maybe also legally. If the investment fails, it's probably be going to be because China refuses to allow ByteDance to sell the algorithm to TikTok. And in fact, in the complaint that TikTok filed with the D. C. Circuit, they have essentially said that. They said divestment is not an option because China will not allow it. But if China won't allow it, shows a little bit, exactly what the government is worried about. That China cares a lot about this, and it's going to use its weight to, It's going to use its weight around here, which is exactly the point. I want to be fair. Anupam Chander, who's a sparring partner of mine on this and is great. and is at Georgetown, has argued that actually there are plenty of good reasons for countries not to want to allow the [00:38:00] export of sensitive technologies that have nothing to do with manipulation. and that's a fair point, but I think it it's almost like performatively shows. It's very clever. It shows to the courts in part, the very problem that the government is citing, which is China's influence and ability to throw its weight around. so that's the divestment thing. Should we talk about bill of attainder? Eugene Volokh: before we get to bill of attainder, I wanted to ask you about the, procedural issues. So a lot of what we're talking about here turns on facts. just how much influence does the Chinese government have? over bike debts. just, just how much of a burden will this impose on American creators and others? just how much, just what evidence is there of real national security threat? and in a typical situation, what would happen there would be is that there would be a challenge brought in federal district court, which is a trial court, the [00:39:00] judge might have a hearing where the judge would consider both written submissions, written, declarations of experts and others and, and other witnesses, and, at the same time, would also potentially have, have an oral hearing. and then it would go up on appeal where the appellate courts and perhaps eventually the Supreme Court would consider, how the legal rules apply to that. here, Congress provided that the challenge would be brought in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is an appellate court, which does not regularly, and I'm not sure, If it ever, maybe it does have some mechanisms for this, but at least does not regularly hear evidence. The job of an appellate court is not to hear evidence. It's to review an evidentiary record built either by the, trial courts or by, administrative agencies. So tell us how any of these factual questions are going to be resolved, [00:40:00] in, a case like this. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I will say this is a among the nerderati. This is a real topic of excitement. and we'll have to see. So so a couple of points. so first is, unfortunately, the bill does not have legislative findings attached to it, which is usually actually really important part of these kinds of bills. And it's surprising that it doesn't given that there's been reporting that Congress collaborated very closely with DOJ to really bulletproof this bill. It's not clear why they didn't On the other hand, the co sponsors of the bill, Representatives Gallagher and Krishnamurti, introduced a resolution, which is basically a very long list of legislative findings, and a lot of that resolution ended up in the House Committee Report. that accompanied the bill, and that has a lot of information about classified briefings that Congress received about the threat. Why alternatives that tick tock offered were not sufficient. I think that, though that resolution, this committee reports will play a really important role, [00:41:00] and may go some way to establishing the factual and evidentiary record. But Eugene, you're totally right. It doesn't go all the way, and it's certainly much less than what happened in district court. So what's going to happen? Appellate, you're right, appellate courts, they're appellate courts. They don't usually hear trials or take evidence, but they can, and not just the D. C. Circuit, but the Supreme Court can. So the Constitution provides original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court and all sorts of things. And I, there is at least one time that I know of that the Supreme Court tried to hold a trial and it went extremely poorly. I, have to, I, Once I read a very funny Law Review article about this. I got to dig it out. It's, it was a real comedy of errors, and so from then on, they decided, that what they would do is, in case of original jurisdiction, where like states sue each other, which happens from time to time, they would get a, I think it's called special master, basically an outside lawyer who would go do the fact finding for them. I'm sure the DC circuit could do the same thing. I haven't read the, I'm not a litigator. I haven't read the federal rules of civil procedure in a long time, repellent procedure. [00:42:00] I'm sure there's some mechanism for that. I think what's more interesting is the role of potentially classified information, because a lot of this is classified. the appellate courts can hear classified information. the DC circuit certainly can. It did so routinely in the 2010s during, the many Guantanamo habeas cases, that it heard. and actually just last year, the ninth circuit in another national security case, Twitter versus Garland, had to hear a lot of national classified information to decide whether or not Twitter's challenge against certain gag orders was constitutional and literally in the opinion, the Ninth Circuit says we are not at liberty to discuss the classified information that we have reviewed, but we reviewed it as part of our analysis and trust us. It's fine. I made up that last part. so it may very well be, that there is some classified information that is submitted to the court in camera. Maybe there's a protective order. I have no idea how it's going to work, but it may very well be that the D, the D. C. Circuit says, we look at the classified information, trust us.[00:43:00] Eugene Volokh: Got it. so that's very helpful to know. So let's just close by, stealing something from, we have a sister podcast, the Bill of attainder, unmuted podcast, we probably should have had this other, no, there is no real, for the real Alan Rozenshtein: Nerderati, Eugene Volokh: because it's a pretty rare issue to arise, but there is this issue of whether this law violates the bill of attainder clause and to quote the Supreme Court in actually a case involving President Nixon, is that, Bill of Attainder is a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial tribe. The classic example historically was Parliament backed law. Back in jolly old England would say we think this person is, is a traitor often or has done something [00:44:00] very bad. but maybe he's allied with the king, so we can't trust that he will be normally prosecuted. We're just going to say he is a traitor and needs to be beheaded. And that's that. so I think historically bills of attainder have been mostly for capital, punishment. There also used to be bills of pains and penalties, vague recollection, but the U. S. Constitution Were you Alan Rozenshtein: old enough to remember when Parliament used to do bills of attainder? Yeah, there you go. All that Eugene Volokh: gray hair. so the, so the U. S. Constitution has long forbidden bills of attainder. But the question is, what is a bill of attainder? Whenever we see a law that mentions someone by name, and maybe, interesting question, what about mentioning a business by name, then, people start talking about, maybe that's a bill of attainder, but not all such laws are indeed [00:45:00] unconstitutional. So, again, This is, on the one hand, not a free speech issue, on the other hand, very much an issue in this case, and I suspect many people who may have heard about the case, even if they're not lawyers, would say, wait a minute, this law, it's just the government, the Congress trying to ban a particular business, is that what they're supposed to do? Aren't they supposed to pass general laws that say, here are the criteria that, if met, cause you to be restricted in various ways. So what do you think about this bill of attainder, question, even if just tentative? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's interesting. so a couple of thoughts on the bill of attainder question. So first, there is an open question whether or not the bill of attainder applies to corporations. The Supreme Court has never, Definitively answer that question. I think one lower one appellate court, I forget which one has held that it does apply to corporations. I don't know if there's a circuit split on that or just other circuits haven't gotten to it. But that's [00:46:00] one interesting question. and, especially with the originalist turn that the Supreme Court's had, I think there's going to be a lot of, Justice Alito or, pouring over, 18th century parliamentary records to know was this ever applied to corporations. the second question is, the Bill of Attainder, it's not just about specifically singling someone out. It's specifically singling someone out for punishment and punishment is a technical term of art here. Unfortunately, again, the Supreme Court has never said exactly what a punishment is. There's a historical test and a functional test. so one might argue that this isn't a punishment. Nothing is being stolen. nothing is being taken away from tick tock. No one's being put in jail. This is a proscriptive regulation that tick tock can no longer afford itself of certain, corporate benefits. now, as with many things, There's a certain angels on the head of a pin kind of quality to, is that [00:47:00] a punishment or a regulation? But honestly, this stuff comes up all the time. there are similar logical puzzles in Fifth Amendment takings cases. Is it taking or regulation or whatnot? so that's another question that the courts will have to, decide whether this is a punishment or just a forward looking, prospective. regulation. And the third question is, and this is a part of the law we haven't actually talked about, but it's actually very important. The TikTok ban or divestment and ban is only one part of the law. The law also sets up a broader scheme by which the president can identify other TikTok like companies, which is to say social media platforms that are controlled by Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. and, and trigger a similar divestment type process. And so this raises the question of whether or not the government will be able to use that part of the law to soften the fact that the law also targets tick [00:48:00] tock. that may not be relevant to the bill of attainder issue, but tick tock has also made, other arguments that sound similar swiftly run equal protection that they're getting being singled out. and so the government may point to say, no, this is a general law. We're just starting with tick tock. I don't know if that gets there. I suspect that, and again, I'm not an expert in this, but I have done some preliminary research that the courts will ultimately move. This is just not a punishment. It's not a punishment in the way that the bill of attainder, contemplates that this is a, forward looking, regulation. Eugene Volokh: Got it. Thanks very much. very interesting. Jane, any closing questions or remarks? Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I think one thing that all three of us. expressed at one point is that one thing that makes this topic hard is that it's a, there are national security questions and facts that none of us have access to. And so it's hard to know as [00:49:00] a matter of policy, especially what should happen here. And, Alan Rozenshtein: and we haven't even talked about the international dimensions, potential repercussions. This is a big deal. Eugene Volokh: Big deal, indeed. Alan, thank you so much for joining us. It has been tremendously enlightening for me and I, sure for, our viewers and listeners as well. Jane, always a great pleasure to be on with you. And folks, we'll see you in a couple of weeks with our next episode.

Definitively, yes! Thank you for listening! Please leave a 5 star review, share and subscribe!

It's one of the biggest questions asked every year in the lead up to the NFL Draft: What are the chances our team will land its next franchise QB if it trades significant draft capital to move up and draft one of the top 3 QB's in the draft? After this episode (and thanks to some impressive analysis by our resident-stat/numbers guru, Nick), we have your answer. It may be what you're thinking, but the actual chance of such a move solidifying your QB of the future may surprise you.Applying the question to this year's draft: Unless you've been living under a rock, it's common knowledge at this point that the top 3 rated.QB's in the 2024 draft are widely predicted to go off the board with the top 3 picks. As Saints fans not so "enamored" with our current QB (to put it nicely) and unsure of the future of the position beyond next season, a lot of talk is out there about the Saints "trading up" to get a QB in the 1st round - some even mentioning into that top 3, knowing it'll cost a serious price in future draft picks..BUT - as good as Caleb, Jayden, and Drake may seem to be, can an investment in any of them provide even a coin-flip of a chance that - if drafted - they'll even be worthy of signing a second contract with the team?In this episode, we go in-depth through every QB drafted in the first round over the past 10 years and vote whether we'd have given that QB the going-rate QB extension deal after his rookie contract is up. What percentage of those did we give the nod to? What percentage of that were QB's drafted by a team who gave up significant draft picks to go get them? This episode will give you all the answers, and very well may have DEFINITIVELY answered the question of whether it is ever a good idea to trade up to the top end of. the draft for a QB, regardless of how good he's rated coming out of college.This was definitely a fun episode to record and an absolute must listen. WHO DAT?!

This Week's Panel - Big Ell, KooshMoose, wildwest08 This Week's Discussion - It's time for the question of the week! Hope you had a great weekend and a good day on Monday. Time for the question of the week by Matrarch With 2024 around the corner what goals/achievements do you hope to accomplish next year on Xbox? If you'd like to shout out any 2023 goals you accomplished, feel free to tell us those as well! Show Discussion: We have even MORE 12 Days of Xmas in store for you, in which Ell took Koosh to task about a certain game! Koosh played a unique new pixely adventure game. wildwest played a FPS Game Pass game. Ell played with balls. Games Discussed: Kooshmoose - Wall World Big Ell - Super Dodgeball wildwest08 - Shadow Warrior 3: Definitive Edition OLTL 22 Inigo and Elroy discuss young people trends after a trip to the mall and then fully show their old age by discussing a game full of dad jokes and another game they might have already critiqued the achievement list of.  We ain't afraid of no repeats. AH101 Podcast Show Links - https://tinyurl.com/AH101Links Year of the Veiner spreadsheet - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VkAvMjmVmXLjRWS61eoMimaoovUz7fr7uPsD6DQPIz4/edit?usp=sharing Intro music provided by Exe the Hero. Check out his band Window of Opportunity on Facebook and YouTube

After a long, long layoff, Definitive Ranking returns to the Zelda Cast, and what better game to usher its return than the most recent entry into the series: Tears of the Kingdom! We're going through ten critical categories that make up the ingredients to a Zelda game - world, story, pacing, art style, dungeons, bosses/enemies, items, gameplay, extras, and music - and assigning them each a score to see where Tears ranks among the hallowed halls of greatest Zelda games of all time! Some of the scores will be no-brainers, while others might leave you scratching your head, so come along and play with us, and of course, be sure to share what you think! All this, PLUS a Skyward Sword puzzle update, Ganondorf and Zelda amiibo, and a big thanks to everyone who had us in their Spotify Wrapped!   Support The Zelda Cast on Patreon! Subscribe to receive the monthly bonus show ‘The Zelda Cast Top Tens! Follow The Zelda Cast! The Zelda Cast (@TheZeldaCast) Andy Spiteri (@Spiteri316) Alasyn Eletha (@AlasynEletha) Twitch x Facebook x Discord x Tik-Tok x BlueSky Advertise on The Zelda Cast! See Options Here! Subscribe to The Zelda Cast! Apple Podcasts x Podbean x Spotify x iTunes x Google Podcasts x iHeart Radio x PlayerFM Grab The Zelda Cast Merch! Official Zelda Dungeon Merch store

After a long, long layoff, Definitive Ranking returns to the Zelda Cast, and what better game to usher its return than the most recent entry into the series: Tears of the Kingdom! We're going through ten critical categories that make up the ingredients to a Zelda game - world, story, pacing, art style, dungeons, bosses/enemies, items, gameplay, extras, and music - and assigning them each a score to see where Tears ranks among the hallowed halls of greatest Zelda games of all time! Some of the scores will be no-brainers, while others might leave you scratching your head, so come along and play with us, and of course, be sure to share what you think! All this, PLUS a Skyward Sword puzzle update, Ganondorf and Zelda amiibo, and a big thanks to everyone who had us in their Spotify Wrapped!   Support The Zelda Cast on Patreon! Subscribe to receive the monthly bonus show ‘The Zelda Cast Top Tens! Follow The Zelda Cast! The Zelda Cast (@TheZeldaCast) Andy Spiteri (@Spiteri316) Alasyn Eletha (@AlasynEletha) Twitch x Facebook x Discord x Tik-Tok x BlueSky Advertise on The Zelda Cast! See Options Here! Subscribe to The Zelda Cast! Apple Podcasts x Podbean x Spotify x iTunes x Google Podcasts x iHeart Radio x PlayerFM Grab The Zelda Cast Merch! Official Zelda Dungeon Merch store

Mike Tomlin spoke on how the team wants to win definitively. Seven of the Steelers nine wins last season were by one score. The same was the case in 2021. All four wins this season have come by one score! The team can't win definitively if they start slow. NFL Trade Deadline Day. 

Hour 1: Mike Tomlin spoke on how the team wants to win definitively. Seven of the Steelers nine wins last season were by one score. The same was the case in 2021. All four wins this season have come by one score! The team can't win definitively if they start slow. NFL Trade Deadline Day. What is the biggest need for the Steelers at the trade deadline? 65% in our Twitter poll say cornerback. Ian Rapoport reports the Bears have granted corner Jaylon Johnson to seek a trade. He has a PFF grade of 84! A tight end typically has been rumored to the Steelers. The Penguins turned it over on the power play and turned into a short-handed goal for the Ducks to win the game. Tristan Jarry didn't make the save. He's been bad. They outshot Anaheim significantly. Jarry is being paid as a top 10 goalie. Pens have lost five of their last six. They are last place in the division! What changes could be made? Dorin said Narduzzi told his team they're not going to point fingers and will get through it together. Narduzzi's words were taken out of context and he's never lost the locker room, in Dorin's opinion. His culture is about building relationships and trust. 

In this minute of Batman v Superman, Bruce disarms some of Lex's contractors. Definitively.

Definitive Ranking returns! This time around, we're analyzing what's often called the "weak link" of the Metroid Prime Trilogy, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption. We spend a lot of time debunking that weak link theory, talking about Corruption's story as the best in the series, debate how Hypermode could have been better, complain about the lack of challenging expansions, gush about using Samus's Gunship, ask if Prime 3 has that one killer song, and so much more! As an added bonus, here are Doom's notes! Come play along, and as always, here's the criteria for the Definitive Rankings: World / Atmosphere (the vibe, the setting, the mood) Art Style (design of Samus, the enemies, the graphics in general) Story (what works, what doesn't) Pacing / Progression (are there any parts that really bog the player down, or is it still fun getting lost?) Gameplay / “Gimmick” (what new or different gameplay aspects we like) Items / Abilities (how are the powerups and are they cool and practical) Areas (how does each individual area look, feel, play, etc.) Enemies / Bosses (are they fun, creative, etc.) Expansions / Powerups (are the expansions hidden throughout the world fun, creative, and enjoyable to collect?) Music (are we humming along?) Of course, all of these are subjective, and we're putting our critics hats on, but we want to hear what you have to say on Twitter!   Visit OmegaMetroid.com!   Subscribe! Podbean x iTunes x Spotify x YouTube Support us on Patreon! Omega Metroid Patreon Buy Omega Metroid Merch! Check out our Etsy merch shop! Download the Omega Metroid Theme Song! Get the Single for Free on Bandcamp! Follow us on Twitter! @OmegaMetroidPod x @Spiteri316 x @dakcity_ x @DoominalCross Chat with us in Discord! Omega Metroid Discord Advertise on the Omega Metroid Podcast!

The Marlins season comes to an official end yesterday after a Game 2 elimination-loss in the Wild Card round vs the Phillies. We debate whether the Marlins season can be a success even if their post-season was a failure. 

It's the most wonderful time of the year when LTRT celebrates everything Dads! Come join us to explore what it means to be, become, and evolve beyond a Dad. And it's our 7th year doing it! We know in our hearts that we wouldn't have been able to do it without all of you, but especially to the big man himself: agent 007, James Bond. Plus a hearty shout-out and potentially an apology to Steely Dan. In this episode: Tess simulates fatherhood and creates a house of cards. Giovanni exonerates dads everywhere of all their sins. David listens closely for the soundtrack that will attract the most papas. Greg observes grossness in a variety of ways. If you would like to be our surrogate fathers through financial support, consider visiting patreon.com/LTRT and throwing us as little as $1/month. Doing so unlocks access to our discord, where we might call you "Dad" intentionally or accidentally! Games discussed include: Crusader Kings 3, The Last of Us, Sleeping Dogs, The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom

The most controversial Metroid game of all time returns to ignite debate and discussion, as this week, Andy and Dak are Definitively Ranking Metroid: Other M! We weigh in on the story, the gameplay, the music, and more to see where Other M went wrong, and more importantly, what areas the game excels at! Come play along, and as always, here's the criteria for the Definitive Rankings: World / Atmosphere (the vibe, the setting, the mood) Art Style (design of Samus, the enemies, the graphics in general) Story (what works, what doesn't) Pacing / Progression (are there any parts that really bog the player down, or is it still fun getting lost?) Gameplay / “Gimmick” (what new or different gameplay aspects we like) Items / Abilities (how are the powerups and are they cool and practical) Areas (how does each individual area look, feel, play, etc.) Enemies / Bosses (are they fun, creative, etc.) Expansions / Powerups (are the expansions hidden throughout the world fun, creative, and enjoyable to collect?) Music (are we humming along?) Of course, all of these are subjective, and we're putting our critics hats on, but we want to hear what you have to say on Twitter!     Visit OmegaMetroid.com!   Subscribe! Podbean x iTunes x Spotify x YouTube Support us on Patreon! Omega Metroid Patreon Buy Omega Metroid Merch! Check out our Etsy merch shop! Download the Omega Metroid Theme Song! Get the Single for Free on Bandcamp! Follow us on Twitter! @OmegaMetroidPod x @Spiteri316 x @dakcity_ x @DoominalCross Chat with us in Discord! Omega Metroid Discord Advertise on the Omega Metroid Podcast!

In the final hour of this Monday edition of The Morning Shift, Mike, Tiffany, and Beau kick off the final hour by spending some time with NBC Sports Draft Analyst, Peter King! Peter, Mike, Tiffany, and Beau discuss Peter's latest mock draft and who he's mocking to the Falcons. The Morning Shift Crew also talks to Peter about why he thinks the Falcons want to trade down, why he thinks Will Anderson will fall to Lions, how the Texans can shake up the draft early on and more!

Video game journalist Jeff Gerstmann sits down at the Insert Credit table to cover video game history, AI, and the return of Violence Island. Hosted by Alex Jaffe, with Frank Cifaldi, Tim Rogers, Brandon Sheffield, and Jeff Gerstmann. Edited by Esper Quinn, original music by Kurt Feldman. Questions this week: Have any of you seen the news lately? (09:58) Let's examine the evolution of the endless runner. (21:53) Wrestling games. Glorified character creators, or is there something there gameplay-wise? (28:22) Definitively rank tank, healer, and DPS from best to worst. (35:52) Kyle asks: Form a musical super group composed of video game characters. (43:38) Are AI programs like ChatGPT good for video games? (50:44) LIGHTNING ROUND: Violence Island (01:03:50) Recommendations and Outro (01:23:49) Discuss this episode in the Insert Credit forums A SMALL SELECTION OF THINGS REFERENCED: Yakuza / Ryū ga Gotoku series GDC James Austin Johnson The Jeff Gerstmann Show Service Discontinuation: Nintendo eShop for Nintendo 3DS EU's Microsoft-Activision Deadline Delay Puts UK in Driving Seat Detroit: Become Human Final Fantasy Creator On Why He Thinks ‘Quality' Japanese Games Saw A Brief Drop Square Enix's NFT game has a new trailer Commodore 1571 https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/03/why-game-archivists-are-dreading-this-months-3ds-wii-u-eshop-shutdown/ Canabalt TikTok is helping games about high heels and long nails go viral Jetpack Joyride Jetpack Joyride 2 Idle Slayer Holedown Tunic Pepsiman WWE All Stars Style Savvy / Style Boutique / Girls Mode series Tomodachi Life Kingdom Something or Other 3 Hyper Gunsport Super Smash Brothers series Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Series NBA 2K series SaltyBet Fire Pro Wrestling series A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) Final Fantasy XIV Online: A Realm Reborn EverQuest World of WarCraft A Healer Only Lives Twice Final Fantasy series Squall Leonhart Duke Nukem PaRappa the Rapper Linkin Park Noctis Lucis Caelum Shatterhand I-No Lord Raptor Chaos Jack Garland Locke Cole Sabin Rene Figaro Cloud Strife Tifa Lockhart Aerith Gainsborough Zell Dincht Wakka Gladiolus Amicitia Barret Wallace ChatGPT Fallout 76 Goat Simulator Noam Chomsky: The False Promise of ChatGPT Dizzy Billy Hatcher Machamp Goro Quiet The Quiet Man Mario Link Recommendations: Brandon: the plot of Kung Fu Traveler (2017) Jeff: Go listen to the Snoop Dogg Call of Duty: Vanguard voicelines Frank: Chicory: A Colorful Tale Tim: Croupier (1998) Support on Patreon Subscribe: RSS, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and more!

Video game journalist Jeff Gerstmann sits down at the Insert Credit table to cover video game history, AI, and the return of Violence Island. Hosted by Alex Jaffe, with Frank Cifaldi, Tim Rogers, Brandon Sheffield, and Jeff Gerstmann. Edited by Esper Quinn, original music by Kurt Feldman. Questions this week: Have any of you seen the news lately? (09:58) Let's examine the evolution of the endless runner. (21:53) Wrestling games. Glorified character creators, or is there something there gameplay-wise? (28:22) Definitively rank tank, healer, and DPS from best to worst. (35:52) Kyle asks: Form a musical super group composed of video game characters. (43:38) Are AI programs like ChatGPT good for video games? (50:44) LIGHTNING ROUND: Violence Island (01:03:50) Recommendations and Outro (01:23:49) Discuss this episode in the Insert Credit forums A SMALL SELECTION OF THINGS REFERENCED: Yakuza / Ryū ga Gotoku series GDC James Austin Johnson The Jeff Gerstmann Show Service Discontinuation: Nintendo eShop for Nintendo 3DS EU's Microsoft-Activision Deadline Delay Puts UK in Driving Seat Detroit: Become Human Final Fantasy Creator On Why He Thinks ‘Quality' Japanese Games Saw A Brief Drop Square Enix's NFT game has a new trailer Commodore 1571 https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/03/why-game-archivists-are-dreading-this-months-3ds-wii-u-eshop-shutdown/ Canabalt TikTok is helping games about high heels and long nails go viral Jetpack Joyride Jetpack Joyride 2 Idle Slayer Holedown Tunic Pepsiman WWE All Stars Style Savvy / Style Boutique / Girls Mode series Tomodachi Life Kingdom Something or Other 3 Hyper Gunsport Super Smash Brothers series Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Series NBA 2K series SaltyBet Fire Pro Wrestling series A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) Final Fantasy XIV Online: A Realm Reborn EverQuest World of WarCraft A Healer Only Lives Twice Final Fantasy series Squall Leonhart Duke Nukem PaRappa the Rapper Linkin Park Noctis Lucis Caelum Shatterhand I-No Lord Raptor Chaos Jack Garland Locke Cole Sabin Rene Figaro Cloud Strife Tifa Lockhart Aerith Gainsborough Zell Dincht Wakka Gladiolus Amicitia Barret Wallace ChatGPT Fallout 76 Goat Simulator Noam Chomsky: The False Promise of ChatGPT Dizzy Billy Hatcher Machamp Goro Quiet The Quiet Man Mario Link Recommendations: Brandon: the plot of Kung Fu Traveler (2017) Jeff: Go listen to the Snoop Dogg Call of Duty: Vanguard voicelines Frank: Chicory: A Colorful Tale Tim: Croupier (1998) Support on Patreon Subscribe: RSS, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and more!

Dan discusses the release of January 6th video on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" plus an Aaron Rodgers update and what companies listeners believe need to be sued now that Madison is likely to sue Kia and Hyundai.

A slew of unanswered questions emerge after U.S. fighter jets shoot down unidentified flying objects. President's Biden's team is offering little information but says there is no indication of aliens or extraterrestrial activity. Also, we are getting a fuller picture of the catastrophic damages in Turkey and Syria one week after the earthquake. Chef José Andrés joins from the disaster zone.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

This week, Sam researched Yoko Ono, and finally answers the question of whether she broke up the Beatles (spoilers: she didn't!). Yoko Ono's life was rarely easy. She was in Tokyo during the bombing of Japan in WWII, and her family was forced to beg for food. She later lost a daughter and husband to a Christian Japanese Cult. John Lennon was killed in front of her. And on top of all of that, she was vilified in the press. Despite everything, she's managed to continue creating artwork and contributing to charitable causes, usually pushing for global peacekeeping efforts. She's performed her unique brand of avant-garde around the globe, including at Carnegie Hall, doing shows in both English and Japanese. Check out the full episode to learn more about why Yoko Ono is a Broad You Should Know! — A Broad is a woman who lives by her own rules. Broads You Should Know is the podcast about the Broads who helped shape our world! 3 Ways you can help support the podcast: Write a review on Apple Podcasts Share your favorite episode on social Tell a friend! — Broads You Should Know is hosted by Sara Gorsky. IG: @SaraGorsky Web master / site design: www.BroadsYouShouldKnow.com — Broads You Should Know is produced by Sara Gorsky & edited by Chloe Skye

We're concluding our run of Metroid Fusion shows in style, bringing the 20th anniversary to a close by ranking all of the different boss fights in the game! With a staggering 14 boss fights, we have a lot of ground to cover, so come and listen to what we think of Serris, Nightmare, B.O.X., Yakuza, and the rest of the gang, and let us know if you agree with out hot takes at the end! If you haven't played Metroid Fusion in a while, go and dust it off to celebrate it's anniversary! Thanks to Omega Metroid's boss section for helping us out with our rankings!   Visit OmegaMetroid.com!   Subscribe! Podbean x iTunes x Spotify Support us on Patreon! Omega Metroid Patreon Buy Omega Metroid Merch! Check out our Etsy merch shop! Follow us on Twitter! @OmegaMetroidPod x @Spiteri316 x @dakcity_ x @DoominalCross Chat with us in Discord! Omega Metroid Discord Advertise on the Omega Metroid Podcast!

Happy Thanksgiving week (or canned cranberry sauce to those who celebrate)! This week we are re-playing a Criminality favorite. It's part Macy's Day Parade, part #Balloonboytruther. The truth is out there.Welcome to our 21st Episode - yay! Today we will set sail to Colorado where Melissa will share the incredible story of the Heene Family. Perhaps you remember them from Wife Swap? Me either. Perhaps BALLOON BOY jogs your memory? Yep. That's right. Melissa makes a compelling case and comes down DEFINITIVELY on whether or not this was a publicity hoax. You have to listen and make up your own mind - Rebekah was on the edge of her seat complete with gasps along the ride. This episode also has super fun clips that are even more fun when you WATCH on YouTube!For next episode, Rebekah shared 3 clues:ROBBERY, DELI MEAT, FAMILY!We are on YouTube! Subscribe to our channel and WATCH our episodes!https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzv0DDmGsiakOtQX1JD06vgFollow us on social media! We are @criminalityshow on IG/FB + TwitterYou can say hi and tell us what you're watching: criminalityshow@gmail.comEnjoy the show? Please rate/review then share with a friend because loving REALITY isn't a CRIME! https://podfollow.com/criminalitySources:WIFE SWAP:Season 5, Episode 1: Heene/MartelCNN:https://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/15/colorado.boy.balloon/index.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/10/15/heene.wife.swap/index.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/15/colorado.boy.balloon.family/index.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/21/balloon.hoax.fine/index.html?hpt=Sbinhttps://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/18/colorado.balloon.vessel/https://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/23/colorado.balloon.investigation/index.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/12/balloon.boy.charges/index.htmlWEB ARCHIVE:https://web.archive.org/web/20091019151745/https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ie0x4tv2tFVwxzfVpFiJG47OvbgwD9BBQM3O3https://web.archive.org/web/20091027223435/https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iC6jwbmzuVUF4YLJVJo5CPNtOLxQD9BDV3FO0https://web.archive.org/web/20091027071129/https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ibLL-Qm2uk35zwcHcTlr11c1VaFwD9BG611G0https://web.archive.org/web/20091027070906/https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jtDn4Wq2stcxmBOzbwM1UJcCv-QwD9BDQ9B81https://web.archive.org/web/20091024115915/https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ie0x4tv2tFVwxzfVpFiJG47OvbgwD9BCVKFG0https://web.archive.org/web/20091020125405/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C567720%2C00.htmlhttps://web.archive.org/web/20120306045141/http://www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/heene2009affidavit.pdfDENVER POST:https://www.denverpost.com/2009/10/18/balloon-boy-saga-absolutely-a-hoax-larimer-sheriff-says/NBC:http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33330516#.Xy270pNKhQIABC NEWS:https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/balloon-boy-mom-mayumi-heene-conspirator-abused-wife/story?id=8865824https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/10-years-balloon-boy-family-denounce-idea-saucer/story?id=66604256NPR:https://www.npr.org/2020/12/24/950074173/balloon-boy-parents-pardoned-by-colorado-governor-for-2009-hoaxYOUTUBE:https://youtu.be/QWhUvm8SunYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZYSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Happy Thanksgiving week (or canned cranberry sauce to those who celebrate)! This week we are re-playing a Criminality favorite. It's part Macy's Day Parade, part #Balloonboytruther. The truth is out there. Welcome to our 21st Episode - yay! Today we will set sail to Colorado where Melissa will share the incredible story of the Heene Family. Perhaps you remember them from Wife Swap? Me either. Perhaps BALLOON BOY jogs your memory? Yep. That's right. Melissa makes a compelling case and comes down DEFINITIVELY on whether or not this was a publicity hoax. You have to listen and make up your own mind - Rebekah was on the edge of her seat complete with gasps along the ride. This episode also has super fun clips that are even more fun when you WATCH on YouTube! For next episode, Rebekah shared 3 clues:  ROBBERY, DELI MEAT, FAMILY! We are on YouTube! Subscribe to our channel and WATCH our episodes!  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzv0DDmGsiakOtQX1JD06vg  Follow us on social media! We are @criminalityshow on IG/FB + Twitter You can say hi and tell us what you're watching: criminalityshow@gmail.com Enjoy the show? Please rate/review then share with a friend because loving REALITY isn't a CRIME! https://podfollow.com/criminality   Sources: WIFE SWAP: Season 5, Episode 1: Heene/Martel  CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/15/colorado.boy.balloon/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/10/15/heene.wife.swap/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/15/colorado.boy.balloon.family/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/21/balloon.hoax.fine/index.html?hpt=Sbin https://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/18/colorado.balloon.vessel/ https://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/23/colorado.balloon.investigation/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/12/balloon.boy.charges/index.html WEB ARCHIVE: https://web.archive.org/web/20091019151745/ https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ie0x4tv2tFVwxzfVpFiJG47OvbgwD9BBQM3O3 https://web.archive.org/web/20091027223435/https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iC6jwbmzuVUF4YLJVJo5CPNtOLxQD9BDV3FO0 https://web.archive.org/web/20091027071129/https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ibLL-Qm2uk35zwcHcTlr11c1VaFwD9BG611G0 https://web.archive.org/web/20091027070906/https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jtDn4Wq2stcxmBOzbwM1UJcCv-QwD9BDQ9B81 https://web.archive.org/web/20091024115915/https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ie0x4tv2tFVwxzfVpFiJG47OvbgwD9BCVKFG0 https://web.archive.org/web/20091020125405/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C567720%2C00.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120306045141/http://www.radaronline.com/sites/default/files/heene2009affidavit.pdf  DENVER POST: https://www.denverpost.com/2009/10/18/balloon-boy-saga-absolutely-a-hoax-larimer-sheriff-says/  NBC: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33330516#.Xy270pNKhQI  ABC NEWS: https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/balloon-boy-mom-mayumi-heene-conspirator-abused-wife/story?id=8865824 https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/10-years-balloon-boy-family-denounce-idea-saucer/story?id=66604256 NPR: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/24/950074173/balloon-boy-parents-pardoned-by-colorado-governor-for-2009-hoax YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/QWhUvm8SunY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

11.23.22 Kevin and Denton discuss which NFC teams they think are definitively better than the Commanders. Kevin gives a Thanksgiving Smell Test. Paul Charchian, Guillotineleagues.com, gives his weekly fantasy advice.

Definitive Ranking makes its triumphant return to evaluate arguably the greatest Metroid game of all time - Metroid Prime! Andy and Doom dive deep into all ten categories, and no surprise, Metroid Prime scores high on almost everything! Come play along, and as always, here's the criteria for the Definitive Rankings: World / Atmosphere (the vibe, the setting, the mood) Art Style (design of Samus, the enemies, the graphics in general) Story (what works, what doesn't) Pacing / Progression (are there any parts that really bog the player down, or is it still fun getting lost?) Gameplay / “Gimmick” (what new or different gameplay aspects we like) Items / Abilities (how are the powerups and are they cool and practical) Areas (how does each individual area look, feel, play, etc.) Enemies / Bosses (are they fun, creative, etc.) Expansions / Powerups (are the expansions hidden throughout the world fun, creative, and enjoyable to collect?) Music (are we humming along?) Of course, all of these are subjective, and we're putting our critics hats on, but we want to hear what you have to say on Twitter!   Visit OmegaMetroid.com!   Subscribe! Podbean x iTunes x Spotify Support us on Patreon! Omega Metroid Patreon Buy Omega Metroid Merch! Check out our Etsy merch shop! Follow us on Twitter! @OmegaMetroidPod x @Spiteri316 x @dakcity_ x @DoominalCross Chat with us in Discord! Omega Metroid Discord Advertise on the Omega Metroid Podcast!

On this episode of Agent Provocateur with Allan Walsh and Adam Wylde, they chat with Christopher Nowinski about CTE and its relationship with hockey and the NHL.Chris Nowinski, PhD, is co-founder and CEO of the Concussion Legacy Foundation, a non-profit organization leading the fight against concussions and CTE and dedicated to improving the lives of those impacted. He is also a former All-Ivy Harvard football player and WWE Superstar.Visit https://concussionfoundation.org/ for more.Originally aired: November 10, 2022Powered by https://sportsinteraction.com/sdpnAny opinion expressed is not advice, a promise or suggestion that increases the chance of winning. Gambling can be addictive, please play responsibly. To learn more, visit: https://help.sportsinteraction.com/hc/en-us/articles/216779528-Responsible-Gaming-Self-Limitation-Self-Exclusion Or if you have concerns about a gambling problem, call ConnexOntario 1-866-531-2600. Ontario Only. Must be 19+ or older to play.Visit https://sdpn.ca/agentprovocateur for more episodes of Agent Provocateur with Allan Walsh and Adam Wylde.Follow us on Twitter: @walsha & @AdamWyldeAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Whatever We Want: Celebrating Storytelling! What is the Best DreamWorks Franchise? We're definitively deciding today what is the best DreamWorks Animated Property! We ask the important questions. We give you Behind-The-Scenes trivia and filmmaking insights! Follow and subscribe! Geek out with us! Thank you as always for the continued support! Time Codes: 00:00:00 - WWW Episode 122! 00:00:14 - Introduction! 00:00:29 - PreBanter Peanut Butter 00:02:55 - Chicken Run 00:04:23 - Shrek 00:10:30 - Shark Tale 00:15:46 - Madagascar 00:17:46 - Wallace and Gromit 00:19:13 - Over the Hedge 00:21:27 - Flushed Away 00:23:13 - Bee Movie 00:24:10 - Kung Fu Panda 00:27:45 - Monsters vs. Aliens 00:28:35 - How to Train Your Dragon 00:31:48 - Megamind 00:33:11 - Trolls 00:34:12 - Boss Baby 00:34:45 - Final Verdict! What is the Best DreamWorks Franchise? 00:37:48 - Totally Tubular Trivia Tidbits! 00:40:07 - Da Draft! 00:46:58 - Patron Shout Outs! 00:47:24 - Cool Comments! 00:49:32 - Outroduction Please share this episode with a friend! Thanks. #dreamworks #animation #shrek Website: https://www.whateverwewantpodcast.com All Links: https://solo.to/whateverwewantpod Consider supporting us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/WhateverWeWant Social Media Pages: https://www.instagram.com/whateverwewantpod https://twitter.com/WhatWeWant_Pod https://www.tiktok.com/@whateverwewantpod Daniel's Game Studio: https://www.darkcreststudios.com/home Intro/Outro Music: https://soundcloud.com/cottardick Thanks for listening everyone! If you enjoyed, we'd really appreciate it if you left a review or rating, it really helps! Rights to Marvel, Disney, Star Wars, the great John Williams, and all that jazz.

What up stokers! This week we draft the best tv shows of all time.  Get 20% Off and Free Shipping with the code [GODEEP] at Manscaped.com. That's 20% off with free shipping at manscaped.com, and use code [GODEEP].   Visit ATHLETIC GREENS.com/ GODEEP for a FREE 1 year supply of Vitamin D AND 5 FREE travel packs with your first purchase.   Upgrade your wardrobe with True Classic. Get 25% Off  at trueclassic.com with code [GODEEP] Free shipping included on purchases over $100. 

Al again! Judy and I are back with even more Spirit Tracks love this week. And for this episode, we are joined by a fellow DS Zelda enthusiast, and one of the masterminds behind the Zelda Dungeon Marathon, Katherine Endicott! Today we sit down and discuss the dungeons found in Spirit Tracks and rank them definitively from not bad, to the absolute best in the game! Who knew that one train game had such great dungeons? Come hang out with us and see if you agree with our list! As always, feel free to play along and share your own definitive ranking of these epic dungeons!   Follow The Zelda Cast! Twitter The Zelda Cast (@TheZeldaCast) Andy Spiteri (@Spiteri316) Alasyn Eletha (@AlasynEletha) Twitch x Facebook x Discord   Advertise on The Zelda Cast! See Options Here!   Subscribe to The Zelda Cast! Apple Podcasts x Podbean x Spotify x iTunes x Google Podcasts x iHeart Radio x PlayerFM   Grab The Zelda Cast Merch! Official Zelda Dungeon Merch store   Pledge to Receive the Spiteri Show! Patreon

IQ demolished. Definitively. Goodbye IQ. You're not real. Brain numbers are a foolish undertaking, tied to unimaginable suffering and horror. You are not science. Bye bye. Theme Song by Harpers of the...

On this edition of the Arsenal Vision Post Match Podcast, the podcast crew make their predictions for the rest of the season and determine where Arsenal will finish. Definitively. All that and more on this edition of the Arsenal Vision Post Match Podcast. Signup for our Patreon at patreon.com/arsenalvisionpodcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices