Podcasts about DGE

Bryan Gee steps up for the June edition of the V Podcast with another weighty selection straight from the heart of the underground. Expect a full-spectrum rinse-out featuring future pressure from the likes of L-Side, Sl8r, Command Strange, Fox, and Break—rolling from soulful textures to no-nonsense dancefloor bruisers. There's firepower from Alibi, Zero T, DJ Craze, and Roni Size, plus standout vocals from BR!DGE, Rider Shafique, and Sydney Bryce. The energy flips from deep and dubby to crisp and chaotic, all laced together with that trademark V swagger. Stay connected with us on social media and subscribe to the V Podcast on your favorite platform to stay updated on all the latest episodes. 01. L-Side – Don't Ever Wonder 02. Command Strange and T.R.A.C. – Loyalty 03. Command Strange and T.R.A.C. – Vasness 04. Sl8r, Slay and Jken – Walk All Over 05. Sl8r and Fox – Love What I Do 06. Zero T and Fox – Play Fool 07. Break – Don't You Ever Stop (Calyx Remix) 08. Break and Salo – Raise Your Hands 09. Break – Natural Way (Remix) 10. The Sauce and Rico – Shell Down 11. Sl8r and Fox – Pull It Up 12. Bizzness As Usual feat. BR!DGE – Afi Bun 13. L-Side, Selecta J-Man and Rider Shafique – We Ruff 14. Roni Size – Fashion (PTEO Remix) 15. Paul T and Edward Oberon feat. MC Moose – Future Style 16. Command Strange and Freddy B – Electric 17. Yatuza – Special Reques 18. Manifest – Stone Love 19. Illmatika – Fluid 20. Rugige Kru – Siamise Ghost 21. DJ Craze – Go Go 22. Total Science and Kublai – Rack Em Up 23. Sl8r and Fox – Holla Holla 24. Alibi – Big Bad Soundclash 25. Alibi – Roller Sunday 26. Think Tonk and Alibi – Run Tonight 27. Bizzness As Usual – Condition Reaction 28. Roni Size – Snapshot (Drumsound and Bassline Smith Remix) 29. Roni Size – Out the Game (Crissy Criss Remix) 30. Numatik – Heavy Salad 31. Ruffle Kru – Secret Handshake 32. Alibi and Phentix – Forms 33. Break – Another Life (Mefjus Remix) 34. A-Audio – Welcome Abroad 35. Paul T, Edward Oberon, Benny L and Sydney Bryce – Let It Go --- Level 2 Guest Mix ---

In Episode 138 of the Diary of a UK Stock Investor Podcast this week:- (00:00) Show Start (01:37) Your Messages (04:38) Stocks & Shares ISA Update (09:42) UK Stocks Update (VOD, GRG, MKS, DGE) (16:39) Halfords plc Analysis [LSE: HFD] (41:08) Halfords plc Price Analysis (47:29) Halfords plc Score (49:30) Show Leaderboard Update JOIN THE YOUTUBE CHANNEL:- https://www.youtube.com/@chrischillingworth Diary of a UK Stock Investor Podcast is a show for everyday long-term retail investors, hosted by Chris Chillingworth. The podcast is unique in that it serves as a place for Chris to reflect on the highs and lows of long-term UK stock investing, as well as sharing detailed updates on how his own portfolio is growing. With new episodes every Thursday, and a detailed update on his quest to reach £1,024,867 in portfolio value by 2043, episodes often discuss investing education, strategy, mindset, ideas and even stock picks and analysis. The show, which now has an active following of over 4000 downloads a month, is curated by Chris Chillingworth, a UK investor for over a decade whose stockpicks have achieved a 18% annual average return between Jan 2014 - Nov 2024. Email Chris at the show on chris@chrischillingworth.com Checkout the website https://chrischillingworth.com 

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Upholds CFPB Funding StructureOn May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major ruling in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., upholding the constitutionality of the CFPB's funding structure. In a 7–2 decision, the Court held that the agency's funding—drawn from the Federal Reserve and not subject to annual congressional appropriations—does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the Constitution permits flexibility in funding mechanisms so long as they are authorized by law and subject to congressional oversight in some form. The ruling affirmed the CFPB's continued ability to regulate financial institutions and enforce consumer protection laws independent of Congress's annual budget process.The decision marked a significant moment in the Court's treatment of agency independence, particularly at a time of renewed scrutiny of the administrative state. It was widely seen as a victory for supporters of the CFPB, which had faced ongoing legal and political challenges since its creation under the Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. However, the case also highlighted the growing skepticism among certain justices—and lawmakers—about the breadth of agency power and accountability.Just one year later, the CFPB's future is again uncertain. With a new administration openly hostile to the agency and legislative efforts underway to curtail its authority or restructure its funding, the May 2024 decision is already being treated as legal history. Though the Court upheld the agency's funding, the political battle over the CFPB continues, casting doubt on how long the victory will stand.Intel appeared before the EU General Court to contest a €376 million ($421.4 million) antitrust fine reimposed by the European Commission. The fine stems from the Commission's 2009 decision, which originally imposed a record €1.06 billion penalty for Intel's actions that allegedly excluded rival AMD from the market. Though the General Court overturned the majority of that decision in 2022, it upheld a portion related to so-called “naked restrictions”—payments Intel made to HP, Acer, and Lenovo to delay or halt rival products between 2002 and 2006.Intel's lawyer argued that the violations were narrow and tactical, not part of a broader strategy to shut out competitors from the x86 chip market. He claimed the Commission failed to weigh the limited impact of those actions and imposed a disproportionate and unfair fine. The Commission countered that the fine followed established guidelines and represented only a small fraction of Intel's turnover, asserting that the penalty was appropriate for the seriousness of the conduct.Both sides asked the court to settle the matter by determining the appropriate fine amount. A decision is expected in the coming months.Intel spars with EU regulators over $421.4 million antitrust fine | ReutersA federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., heard arguments in a case that could redefine the U.S. president's authority to remove officials from independent federal agencies. The Trump administration is appealing two lower court decisions that reinstated Democratic officials Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after President Trump removed them without cause earlier this year. Both boards, which handle labor disputes and federal employee appeals, were left effectively inoperable due to vacancies, with thousands of pending cases.The administration argues that statutory protections limiting removals to “cause” violate the president's constitutional authority to control the executive branch. Trump's legal team claims that these agencies exercise substantial executive power and therefore should not be shielded from presidential oversight. The case may hinge on Humphrey's Executor, a 1935 Supreme Court decision that upheld removal protections for members of independent commissions like the Federal Trade Commission. Conservative judges—including two Trump appointees on the panel—have recently questioned the decision's reach.If the D.C. Circuit sides with Trump, it could pave the way for a broader dismantling of long-standing removal protections across federal agencies. Legal scholars warn that such a move could give the president far-reaching power to reshape regulatory policy by purging officials who don't align with the administration's agenda. The case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court and lead to a narrowing or overruling of Humphrey's Executor.US court to weigh Trump's powers to fire Democrats from federal agencies | ReutersData obtained through a public records request reveals that recent buyouts at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have significantly reduced staffing in key divisions. The legal, investment management, and trading and markets offices experienced workforce cuts ranging from 15% to 19% over just a few weeks. Regional offices in Chicago and Denver also saw nearly 20% reductions. Overall, the SEC's full-time staff has shrunk by 12% since January, with agency chair Paul Atkins recently noting a 15% decrease since October.These losses come amid ongoing hiring freezes and budget restrictions. While Atkins suggested that some roles may be refilled, he did not dismiss the possibility of more cuts. In parallel, more than 20 SEC employees have been reassigned to focus on contract reviews, part of a broader cost-cutting initiative coordinated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), led by Elon Musk. DGE has expanded its presence at SEC headquarters and is reviewing agency operations, particularly IT services, to identify further savings.The SEC declined to comment on the staffing reductions, though a spokesperson confirmed it is working with DGE to improve efficiency. The full implications of these staffing losses for the agency's regulatory functions remain unclear.SEC buyouts hit legal, investment offices hardest, data shows | ReutersMeta Platforms asked a federal judge to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust lawsuit, arguing the agency failed to prove that the company holds an illegal monopoly in social media. The case, which centers on Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, claims these deals were aimed at neutralizing potential rivals and maintaining dominance in the market for apps used to share personal updates. The FTC wants to unwind those acquisitions, made more than a decade ago.Meta contends the FTC's case falls short of demonstrating that WhatsApp and Instagram posed meaningful competitive threats at the time of acquisition. The company pointed to internal evidence suggesting WhatsApp had no ambitions to become a social media platform and that Instagram actually thrived post-acquisition. Meta also argued the FTC has not clearly defined the relevant market, especially given competition from platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, and X (formerly Twitter), which Meta says all compete for user attention.The company maintains that its products face constant pressure to evolve in response to competitors. If the judge denies Meta's request to end the case now, the trial will continue through June with closing arguments and final briefs expected afterward. A ruling that Meta holds an illegal monopoly would trigger a second trial focused on potential remedies.Meta asks judge to rule that FTC failed to prove its monopoly case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is the second movement of Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 1, titled “Kräftig bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell. Recht gemächlich”, which translates roughly to “Strongly moving, but not too fast. Quite leisurely.” Composed in the late 1880s and premiered in 1889, Mahler's First Symphony marked his audacious entry into the world of symphonic writing. At once expansive and deeply personal, the work fuses Romantic tradition with the beginnings of Mahler's own, modern voice.The second movement—our focus this week—is a rustic Ländler, an Austrian folk dance form, reimagined with orchestral power and emotional complexity. Mahler, who was born in 1860 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew up surrounded by folk tunes and military marches, and these influences saturate this section of the symphony. It opens with swagger and energy, driven by bold rhythms and a sense of physicality, before softening into a slower trio section that offers brief lyrical repose.Though the movement has a lively surface, its contrasting moods reflect Mahler's signature ability to intertwine the playful and the profound. His orchestration here is vivid but never ornamental—every detail serves a dramatic or emotional purpose. Mahler's symphonies often contemplate mortality, memory, and transcendence, but this movement reminds us that he could also be joyful, ironic, and grounded in the sounds of real life.By the time of his death in 1911, Mahler had transformed the symphony into a vessel for existential expression, bridging the 19th and 20th centuries. This movement from his First hints at all that was to come. As our week closes, we leave you with this music—bold, earthy, and unmistakably Mahler.Without further ado, Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 1, titled “Kräftig bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell. Recht gemächlich.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Ein paar persönliche Gedanken

Ein paar persönliche Gedanken

This Day in Legal History: Harry Blackmun Confirmed to SCOTUSOn May 12, 1970, the U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Harry A. Blackmun to the Supreme Court, filling the vacancy left by Justice Abe Fortas. Nominated by President Richard Nixon, Blackmun had previously served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was considered a moderate, scholarly jurist. His confirmation marked the culmination of a tumultuous series of failed nominations for the seat, including two rejections by the Senate, making Blackmun's 94–0 approval a moment of bipartisan relief.Blackmun would go on to serve nearly a quarter-century on the Court, authoring over 700 opinions. He is perhaps best known for writing the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade (1973), which recognized a constitutional right to abortion. The decision would shape political and legal debates for decades and define Blackmun's legacy, despite his broader jurisprudential contributions. Over time, he evolved from a judicial centrist to one of the Court's more liberal voices, especially on issues of individual rights and the death penalty.After retiring in 1994, Blackmun remained active in legal education and public service until his death in 1999. The Library of Congress released his extensive papers in 2004, providing scholars with a revealing look into the internal workings of the Court during his tenure. His former clerks, some of whom became influential legal figures themselves, publicly remembered him for his deep humanity and commitment to justice. Blackmun's confirmation anniversary serves as a reminder of how judicial legacies can transcend the expectations of those who appoint them.U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued a temporary 14-day halt on the Trump administration's federal government restructuring plan, citing a lack of congressional authorization for mass layoffs and agency overhauls. The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by unions, nonprofits, and local governments opposing the large-scale “reductions in force” initiated by the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), led by Elon Musk. Judge Illston emphasized that the president cannot broadly restructure federal agencies without clear approval from Congress. The plaintiffs submitted extensive evidence showing critical services being disrupted, including nearly complete staff terminations at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in Pittsburgh. Similar losses were reported at Head Start, the Farm Service Agency, and the Social Security Administration. Illston found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits of several claims, including violations of administrative law and overreach by DGE, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Personnel Management. The administration's efforts, ordered in February by Trump, aim to automate services, eliminate redundant roles, and reduce federal personnel. Critics argue the changes are destabilizing and harmful to community services. Illston's ruling aims to preserve the status quo while legal challenges proceed, with a hearing on a potential preliminary injunction scheduled for May 22.Judge orders temporary halt to Trump administration's government overhaul | ReutersRumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish PhD student at Tufts University, returned to Massachusetts after being held for over six weeks in U.S. immigration custody in Louisiana. Her arrest stemmed from a revoked student visa, which the government linked to an opinion piece she co-wrote criticizing Tufts University's response to the war in Gaza and urging divestment from companies tied to Israel. Ozturk was apprehended by masked officers in Somerville, Massachusetts, and was quickly transferred from Vermont to a detention facility in Louisiana. Her legal team, including the ACLU, argued her detention was a retaliatory act against constitutionally protected speech, aimed at silencing pro-Palestinian voices on campus.U.S. District Judge William Sessions granted her release after determining she had strong grounds for claiming her constitutional rights were violated. Upon arrival at Logan International Airport, Ozturk expressed relief and gratitude, thanking supporters and calling attention to other detained women. Representative Ayanna Pressley condemned the detention as a politically motivated act of intimidation, citing inhumane conditions and medical neglect during Ozturk's confinement. The case has drawn national attention amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to deport campus activists engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy.Tufts student returns to Massachusetts after release from immigration custody | ReutersOver the weekend Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested and charged with trespassing at the Delaney Hall immigration detention center in New Jersey during an unannounced visit by three Democratic members of Congress. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents detained Baraka after a scuffle at the facility's gate while a bus of detainees was arriving. Representatives Bonnie Watson Coleman, LaMonica McIver, and Robert Menendez Jr. were also present and said to have been jostled during the confrontation. According to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security, the group's uncoordinated attempt to enter the site was unsafe and politically motivated.Baraka, who is campaigning for governor, stated after his release that he was there to support the lawmakers and did not cross into restricted areas. His supporters and congressional aides claim he remained outside the facility's fence and that ICE exaggerated the incident. DHS accused the group of endangering detainees and law enforcement, while the lawmakers insisted they were exercising lawful oversight powers. The detention center, operated by the GEO Group, has faced criticism from immigrant rights advocates for allegedly lacking local permits and operating against community wishes. The controversy has become entangled in Baraka's gubernatorial campaign, spotlighting tensions over immigration policy and the role of private detention facilities.New Jersey mayor charged with trespassing at US immigration detention center | ReutersPresident Donald Trump announced plans to slash U.S. prescription drug prices to match the lowest prices found internationally, prompting a global selloff in pharmaceutical stocks. In a post touting cuts of “59%, PLUS!,” Trump previewed an executive order mandating a “most-favored nation” pricing rule. This would require that Americans pay no more than citizens in the cheapest country for the same medication—a move that starkly contradicts the administration's prior market-driven rhetoric, now seemingly embracing a form of price fixing. Investors, analysts, and drugmakers scrambled to assess the implications, especially since Medicare and Medicaid represent a major share—around 40%—of U.S. drug spending.The proposed pricing shift offers manufacturers two theoretical paths to comply: lower U.S. drug prices to align with cheaper countries like France or Japan, or raise prices overseas to maintain U.S. revenue levels. It remains unclear which route companies will choose, but economic incentives suggest they'll resist U.S. price drops by inflating foreign costs instead. Trump framed the move as restoring fairness to American consumers, whom he described as having long subsidized global drug development. The executive order follows a prior, unsuccessful attempt during his first term to peg Medicare prices to international benchmarks—a plan struck down in court for procedural flaws.The Inflation Reduction Act already initiated drug price negotiations under President Biden, but Trump's new approach could broaden the scope or accelerate the effort. However, legal and legislative obstacles remain, especially since the administration cannot set prices for the commercial market without congressional support. Analysts are watching closely for whether the policy targets just Medicare, specific drug types, or a wider range. Meanwhile, critics note the contradiction in Trump's newfound support for a centralized pricing strategy after years of decrying government interference in markets.Trump Vows US Drug Price Cuts of Up to 80% in Industry Blow (2) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Fett, Insulin, Kohlenhydrate, DGE

Die Zeiten, in denen Kinder im Kindergarten nur ein selbst mitgebrachtes Pausenbrot aßen, sind längst vorbei, immer häufiger essen die Kinder auch in der Kita zu Mittag. Meist wird das Essen von Caterern geliefert, nicht so im Kindergarten Weyhe-Mitte. Hier bereiten zwei Köchinnen täglich ein DGE-zertifiziertes Mittagessen für die rund 130 Kinder zu.Im Podcast sprechen wir mit den beiden Köchinnen Anke Stöver und Anke Kramer darüber, wie sie es schaffen, ein gesundes Essen zuzubereiten, das auch noch schmeckt. Außerdem im Podcast: Kindergartenleiterin Silke Koß und Inga Bleeker von der Gemeinde Weyhe.Kreis und Quer ist ein Podcast der Mediengruppe Kreiszeitung. Produktion dieser Folge: Hagen Wolf und Melanie Scharfe. Feedback und Anregungen gerne an podcast@kreiszeitung.de. Impressum: https://www.mediengruppe-kreiszeitung.de Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Army-McCarthy Hearings BeginOn April 22, 1954, the Army-McCarthy hearings began in Washington, D.C., marking a pivotal moment in American legal and political history. The televised proceedings, which stretched over two months, were convened to investigate conflicting accusations between Senator Joseph McCarthy and the U.S. Army. McCarthy claimed the Army was sheltering communists; the Army countered that McCarthy and his chief counsel, Roy Cohn, had improperly pressured military officials to give preferential treatment to a former McCarthy aide.These hearings drew millions of viewers and brought McCarthy's aggressive, often unsubstantiated allegations into public view. Under questioning, McCarthy's bullying tactics and disregard for evidence became increasingly apparent. The most famous moment came when Army counsel Joseph Welch rebuked McCarthy with the now-historic line, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”—a turning point in the hearings and in public perception of McCarthy.As support for McCarthy dwindled, the hearings exposed the dangers of reckless accusations without due process, a central legal concern during the Red Scare. Later that year, the Senate formally censured McCarthy, effectively ending his political influence. The hearings stand as a cautionary tale about the abuse of investigatory powers and the erosion of civil liberties in times of national fear. They also highlight the essential role of transparency and accountability in American governance. The legacy of the Army-McCarthy hearings continues to inform debates over the balance between national security and individual rights.Alphabet's Google faces a major antitrust trial starting Monday in Washington, as the U.S. Department of Justice and 38 state attorneys general seek to break up its dominance in the search engine market. Central to the government's case is a proposal for Google to sell its Chrome browser and potentially even its Android operating system if competition isn't restored. Prosecutors argue that Google's exclusive agreements, like those paying billions to Apple and other companies to be the default search engine, have harmed rivals, including emerging AI firms like Perplexity AI and OpenAI.Google insists the DOJ's demands are extreme and warns that ending these deals could harm browser makers like Mozilla and raise smartphone costs. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta is presiding over the trial, expected to last three weeks. Google plans to appeal any unfavorable ruling and argues that its deals help fund free, open-source technology. The case follows a separate DOJ victory last week, where a judge found Google maintained an illegal monopoly in ad tech. The trial's outcome could dramatically reshape how Americans access information online and influence future antitrust enforcement, with similar scrutiny already aimed at companies like Meta.Google faces trial in US bid to end search monopoly | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Minnesota's appeal defending its law that barred individuals under 21 from obtaining permits to carry handguns in public. This decision leaves in place a ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found the restriction unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The case is one of many that have challenged age-based and other gun restrictions following the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which established that firearm regulations must align with the nation's historical traditions to be valid.Gun rights groups, including the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and Firearms Policy Coalition, challenged the law, arguing it infringed on the rights of 18- to 20-year-olds. Minnesota defended the law as a modest safety measure, noting that youths already have access to guns under specific conditions, such as hunting or supervision. The 8th Circuit disagreed, saying the state failed to prove that young adults posed a sufficient threat or that the restriction had historical precedent.While more than 30 states have similar age-related laws, Minnesota's could no longer be enforced once the appeals process concluded. The case underscores how courts are interpreting and applying the Bruen test, which has reshaped the legal landscape for gun laws. Although the Supreme Court has upheld some modern firearm restrictions, it has consistently signaled that any such laws must fit within historical frameworks.US Supreme Court won't save Minnesota age restriction on carrying guns | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I talk about the risk posed by the Department of Government Efficiency's (DGE) access to taxpayer data. If the federal government wants more access to your tax data, it should have to meet a high bar—proving a clear need, protecting the information, and being transparent about how it's used. Right now, the DGE, spearheaded by Elon Musk, is pushing for expanded access to the IRS's Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS), which holds deeply sensitive taxpayer records. The rationale? To root out fraud and streamline federal oversight. But noble intentions aren't a substitute for safeguards—and as it stands, DGE hasn't provided any clear guardrails for how it would handle this data.We've seen how this can go wrong. In Sweden, the national tax agency is now facing a lawsuit for sharing taxpayer data with private companies, including marketers and data brokers. Sweden's commitment to constitutional transparency has been used to justify these disclosures, even as they appear to violate Europe's strict privacy laws. It's a reminder that transparency can be weaponized, and privacy treated as an inconvenience. If that sounds extreme, just imagine your tax return fueling a marketing database in the name of government openness.In the U.S., Section 6103 of the tax code makes unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer data a felony. DGE's quest to tap into the IDRS raises serious questions about whether internal access could amount to disclosure, especially if it increases the risk of leaks, misuse, or political meddling. DGE already has access to some refund-related data, but it's now seeking far more granular insight—without explaining what it will do with it, or how it will prevent abuse.What Sweden's case makes clear is that even the best intentions can lead to disastrous outcomes when privacy is not treated as sacrosanct. The U.S. should take that warning seriously. Taxpayer data is among the most sensitive information the government holds. Expanding access to it—especially by an agency as vaguely defined as DGE—should not happen without a fully transparent, purpose-limited, and accountable framework.Until then, DGE should not be granted access to the IRS's IDRS system or any individualized taxpayer information. The risks are too high, and the protections too flimsy. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Show Highlights: How DGE is reshaping AgTech, notably with the FOB Ag Logistics Platform. [03:09] DGE's unconventional problem-first strategy to create solutions for real industry needs. [06:49] The trust value of utility-centric AgTech vs. theoretical distractions. [16:09] Discover DGE's impact as a pure-tech play partner for ADM and across tech-enabled ag. [21:07] Scale operator example to discuss streamlining logistical operations to reduce friction. [24:52] How does DGE address the issue of interoperability with existing systems? [29:17] Are constraints growth enablers for AgTech startups? [37:24] Strategic insights on ego, capital efficiency and business risk for scalable startups. [42:17] To learn more about Digital Grain Elevator, visit https://dge.ag/. You can also connect with Aaron Secrest at https://www.linkedin.com/in/aaronsecrest/. If you are interested in connecting with Joe, go to LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joemosher/, or schedule a call at www.moshercg.com.

This Day in Legal History: Fair Housing ActOn this day in legal history, April 11, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 into law, a pivotal expansion of civil rights protections in the United States. Commonly referred to as the Fair Housing Act, the legislation was enacted just days after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose legacy of nonviolent activism heavily influenced its passage. The law made it illegal to discriminate in the sale, rental, financing, or advertising of housing based on race, color, religion, or national origin.It aimed to dismantle the systemic barriers that had long segregated American cities and suburbs, including redlining, racially restrictive covenants, and other discriminatory practices. Title VIII of the Act directly addressed these inequities and empowered the federal government to enforce fair housing standards for the first time. Though political resistance to housing integration had stalled similar legislation for years, the national mourning following Dr. King's death shifted public and congressional sentiment.Johnson, in a nationally televised address, described the signing as a tribute to Dr. King's life and a necessary step toward realizing the full promise of civil rights in America. Subsequent amendments expanded protections to include sex, disability, and familial status, making the Fair Housing Act one of the most comprehensive civil rights laws on the books. Enforcement mechanisms, however, remained a challenge, and litigation over housing discrimination has continued into the present day.The law has been central to major legal battles over zoning laws, gentrification, and access to affordable housing. It also laid the groundwork for subsequent legislation aimed at combating economic and racial segregation. While the Act did not instantly eliminate housing discrimination, it marked a legal turning point that recognized the home as a critical site of equality and opportunity.A small team from the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), created under Elon Musk's initiative to reduce government spending and staffing, has arrived at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), according to an internal email from the agency. While the team is working with FDIC leadership to identify internal efficiencies, it does not have access to sensitive or confidential bank data, including resolution plans, deposit insurance records, or examination materials. The FDIC emphasized that the DGE operatives are full-time federal employees working under formal interagency agreements and have not sought access to confidential information.DGE has previously drawn concern from industry participants during its visit to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau due to fears over data exposure. The FDIC oversees highly sensitive information about major U.S. banks and their failure plans, which regulators rely on during crises. The number and identity of DGE team members at the FDIC have not been disclosed, and the agency declined to comment further.The agency is also preparing for staff reductions, following the Trump administration's deferred resignation program that has already led to the loss of 500 FDIC employees. Additional buyouts and formal layoffs are expected soon. The timing of DGE's involvement comes as global markets react to new tariffs announced by President Trump, prompting concerns from former officials about weakening regulators' ability to respond to potential financial instability.DOGE Arrives at FDIC but Doesn't Have Access to Bank Data (2)At least three major law firms—Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett—are in talks with the Trump administration to reach a joint agreement that would commit over $300 million in pro bono services to causes favored by the White House. The potential deal is also intended to resolve federal investigations into the firms' diversity programs, which the administration has scrutinized for alleged discriminatory practices. If finalized, the arrangement would bring the total pledged in pro bono services from various firms to at least $640 million.President Trump, speaking at a Cabinet meeting, hinted that a handful of firms remain in negotiations, emphasizing that many firms have already paid significant sums or made concessions. He stated that he expects lawyers from participating firms to assist with policy efforts such as implementing tariffs and expanding coal mining.The administration has previously targeted several firms with executive orders for representing causes or clients viewed as oppositional to Trump's agenda. These orders have included punitive measures such as revoking security clearances and restricting federal access. Some firms—like Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block—have successfully blocked these actions in court, while others like Paul Weiss settled by agreeing to pro bono contributions. Firms such as Skadden and Milbank preemptively negotiated similar deals.Trump Talks Deal With Three Massive Law Firms as Others FightA U.S. immigration judge is set to rule today on whether Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student activist at Columbia University, can be deported. Khalil, who holds Algerian citizenship and became a lawful U.S. permanent resident last year, was arrested last month at his New York City apartment and transferred to an immigration jail in rural Louisiana. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called for Khalil's removal under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, arguing that his presence in the U.S. poses foreign policy risks due to his role in pro-Palestinian campus protests.Rubio's letter to the court claims Khalil was involved in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities” but does not accuse him of any crimes. Instead, Rubio argues the government can revoke legal status based solely on speech or associations if deemed harmful to U.S. interests. Khalil's attorneys say the case is an attempt to punish constitutionally protected speech and have called the letter politically motivated and authoritarian in tone.They are requesting to subpoena and depose Rubio as part of their defense. The immigration court hearing the case operates under the Department of Justice and is separate from the federal judiciary. Khalil is also suing in a New Jersey federal court, alleging that his arrest, detention, and transfer far from his legal team and family were unconstitutional.US immigration judge to decide whether Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil can be deported | ReutersPresident Trump signed a bill nullifying a revised IRS rule that would have broadened the definition of a “broker” to include decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges, or DeFi platforms. The rule, finalized in the final weeks of the Biden administration, was part of a broader IRS effort to tighten crypto tax enforcement and was rooted in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It would have required DeFi platforms to report user transactions to both the IRS and the users themselves.The crypto industry strongly opposed the rule, arguing that DeFi platforms do not function like traditional brokers and lack access to user identities, making compliance impossible. Centralized exchanges like Coinbase and Kraken, by contrast, already meet these reporting requirements as intermediaries. Both the House and Senate voted in March to repeal the IRS rule through the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn recent federal regulations with a majority vote.Trump, who has positioned himself as a pro-crypto candidate, had campaigned on promises to support digital asset innovation. Since taking office, he has formed a federal cryptocurrency working group and signed an executive order to establish a national bitcoin reserve.Trump signs bill to nullify expanded IRS crypto broker rule | ReutersThis week's closing theme takes us back to April 13, 1850, when Richard Wagner's opera Lohengrin premiered in Weimar under the baton of his friend and supporter, Franz Liszt. Wagner, one of the most influential and controversial figures in classical music, was then in political exile, and unable to attend the debut of what would become one of his most iconic works. Known for his revolutionary approach to opera—melding music, drama, and mythology—Wagner crafted Lohengrin as a sweeping, mystical tale of a knight of the Holy Grail who arrives in a swan-drawn boat to defend the innocent Elsa of Brabant. The opera's shimmering textures, leitmotif-driven score, and spiritual overtones would set the stage for his later monumental works like Tristan und Isolde and the Ring Cycle.Lohengrin remains best known for its third-act bridal chorus—“Here Comes the Bride”—but the opera's deeper themes of identity, trust, and the cost of forbidden questions give it lasting emotional and philosophical weight. Set in a quasi-medieval world laced with mystery, the opera tells of a hero who must depart the moment his name is asked, leaving love suspended in silence. Wagner's orchestration in Lohengrin is luminous and patient, often evoking shimmering water and distant prophecy, with long-breathed phrases that seem to float above time.As a closing theme for this week, Lohengrin invites reflection—on belief, on leadership, and on how history so often pivots on names, silence, and the tension between loyalty and doubt. Its premiere on April 13th marks not only a moment in Wagner's evolution as a composer but also a cultural point of departure, where German Romanticism began leaning toward something darker and more transcendental. We end the week, then, with the slow unfurling of Lohengrin's prelude: a gentle, ascending shimmer that begins almost imperceptibly, and rises—like the swan on the river—toward the unknown.This week, we close with the prelude to Lohengrin by Richard Wagner—music of undeniable beauty from a composer whose legacy includes both brilliance and deeply troubling beliefs. We share it for its artistry, not its ideology. Without further ado, Richard Wagner's Lohengrin, the prelude. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Smith v. AllwrightOn April 3, 1944, the United States Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in Smith v. Allwright, reshaping the landscape of voting rights in the American South. The case centered on Lonnie E. Smith, a Black voter from Texas who was denied the right to vote in the Democratic Party's primary election due to a party rule that only allowed white voters to participate. At the time, the Democratic primary was the only meaningful election in many Southern states, as the party dominated politics, making exclusion from the primary tantamount to disenfranchisement.The Texas Democratic Party argued that, as a private organization, it had the right to determine its own membership and voting rules. However, the Court, in an 8–1 decision authored by Justice Stanley Reed, held that primaries were an integral part of the electoral process and could not be exempt from constitutional scrutiny. The justices concluded that excluding Black voters from primaries violated the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.This ruling effectively overturned the Court's 1935 decision in Grovey v. Townsend, which had upheld the use of white primaries. The Smith decision marked a critical step toward dismantling the legal architecture of Jim Crow voter suppression. While states continued to use other tactics to limit Black political power, the ruling energized civil rights activists and laid the foundation for future litigation.By reasserting federal authority over state electoral practices, Smith v. Allwright signaled a turning point in the judicial battle against racial segregation and disenfranchisement. It also demonstrated the Court's growing willingness to confront systemic racism in voting, a commitment that would deepen during the civil rights era. This case is remembered as one of the pivotal moments in the long struggle for voting rights in the United States.The U.S. Supreme Court largely upheld the FDA's authority to deny applications for flavored vaping products, supporting actions taken during the Biden administration under the 2009 Tobacco Control Act. The unanimous ruling rejected arguments from companies like Triton Distribution and Vapetasia LLC, which claimed the FDA unfairly imposed new testing requirements and ignored their marketing plans. These companies had applied to sell flavors like “Suicide Bunny Mother's Milk and Cookies” and “Killer Kustard Blueberry.”The Court found the FDA's approach consistent with its earlier guidance, despite claims from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the agency had pulled a “regulatory switcheroo.” Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion, agreeing with most of the FDA's decisions but sending the case back to the appeals court to reassess whether the agency erred in refusing to consider the companies' marketing plans—an element the FDA had previously called “critical” for evaluating youth appeal.Though the ruling solidifies the FDA's regulatory role, its long-term impact is uncertain. President Trump, in furtherance of his undying effort to always be on the wrong side of everything, has promised to “save vaping,” though his campaign never clarified what that means in terms of future regulation. The case, FDA v. Wages and White Lion, leaves the appeals court to decide whether any procedural missteps by the FDA were ultimately harmless.Supreme Court Largely Backs Biden-Era FDA on Flavored Vapes (1)Elon Musk's time in Washington as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) appears to be nearing its end. Both Musk and President Trump have hinted that his departure is imminent, with Trump noting that DGE itself “will end.” Originally designed as a temporary advisory panel to cut federal costs, DGE has morphed into a more integrated part of the government, staffed with Musk allies tasked with canceling contracts and slashing budgets.However, signs of a wind-down are emerging. DGE staff are being reassigned to federal agencies, layoffs are underway, and the organization's influence seems to be diminishing. Musk, a special government employee limited to 130 working days per year, is approaching that limit, though neither he nor the administration has confirmed when his tenure will end.Musk's recent political involvement also took a hit when his preferred candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court lost, despite significant financial backing and a campaign visit. Tesla's 13% drop in quarterly sales adds further pressure. Trump praised Musk's contributions but acknowledged his corporate obligations, suggesting a graceful exit is likely rather than a public fallout.DGE had once shared leadership between Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, but Ramaswamy left to run for Ohio governor. While Musk boasted about aiming to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars, critics say the group's progress has been overstated. Despite speculation, Trump hasn't committed to keeping DGE operational post-Musk, indicating the administration may be moving to a new phase of governance.Musk could be headed for a Washington exit after turbulent times at Trump's DOGE | AP NewsPresident Donald Trump announced a new agreement with law firm Milbank, marking another chapter in the growing divide among U.S. law firms over how to handle pressure from his administration. According to Trump's Truth Social post, Milbank initiated the deal, which includes a commitment to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services for causes like veterans' support and combating antisemitism.The agreement comes amid a broader Trump administration effort to punish firms that have opposed or challenged his policies. Several law firms—such as Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block—have filed lawsuits seeking to block executive orders they claim were retaliatory and violated constitutional protections of free speech and due process. Federal judges recently issued temporary blocks on parts of those orders.In contrast, other firms including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Willkie Farr have opted for settlement-style deals with the administration to avoid similar sanctions. Milbank's chairman, Scott Edelman, reportedly described the agreement as aligned with the firm's values and praised the productive talks with the administration.This situation underscores a growing rift in the legal community: some firms are resisting what they see as political coercion, while others are choosing cooperation to preserve their standing with the federal government.Trump reaches agreement with Milbank law firm | ReutersPresident Trump announced a sweeping new tariff policy during a Rose Garden press conference, unveiling a "reciprocal" trade strategy aimed at countering what he described as decades of unfair treatment by U.S. trading partners. Holding a copy of a government report titled Foreign Trade Barriers, Trump declared that the U.S. will now impose tariffs that are approximately half the rate other countries charge American exports—but with a minimum baseline tariff of 10%, and many rates going significantly higher.Countries hit with new tariffs include:* China: 34%* European Union: 20%* Japan: 24%* South Korea: 25%* Switzerland: 31%* United Kingdom: 10%* Taiwan: 32%* Malaysia: 24%* India: 26%* Brazil: 10%* Indonesia: 32%* Vietnam: 46%* Singapore: 10%Trump also confirmed a 25% tariff on all foreign-made automobiles, stacking on the above-referenced rates, effective at midnight, and pointed to motorcycle tariffs as a key example of longstanding trade imbalances. He argued that U.S. manufacturers face rates as high as 75% abroad, while the U.S. imposes just 2.4%.The president justified the move as necessary to protect American jobs and industry, singling out countries like Canada and Mexico for benefiting from U.S. subsidies and defense spending. Detroit autoworker Brian Pannebecker spoke in support, calling Trump's actions a hopeful step toward revitalizing shuttered factories.While Trump emphasized that the tariffs fall short of full reciprocity to avoid overwhelming allies, he made clear the era of what he called “economic surrender” was over. The announcement included plans to sign an executive order formalizing the new tariff regime, which boosted U.S. stock futures as markets reacted positively to the aggressive trade stance. Oh no I'm sorry, I got that wrong: stock futures tanked.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Ohje, wir haben leider schlechte Neuigkeiten für alle, die sich schon auf den ein oder anderen Aperol oder Radler diesen Sommer gefreut haben. In dieser Folge haben wir uns die Empfehlungen der #WHO und #DGE angeschaut und diese besagen „nur 0 Promille sind risikofrei“. Die Gesundheitsmythen, dass ein Gläschen Rotwein zum Beispiel sogar gut für das Herzkreislaufsystem seien, sind überholt. Ganz im Gegenteil - rund 200 Krankheiten inklusive 7 Krebserkrankungen stehen in direktem Zusammenhang mit Alkoholkonsum!! Eine enorme Belastung für das Gesundheitssystem, aber eben vor allem für die Gesundheit. Das hat auch der noch aktuelle Gesundheitsminister Kar Lauterbach zuletzt in einem Podcast berichtet. Aber der möchte sich das Weintrinken (zumindest vorerst) nicht abgewöhnen… Instagram: AMS_Podcast Email: aufmessersschneidepodcast@gmail.com Liken nicht vergessen! Am 17.04. gehts mit spannenden Themen weiter. Quellen: Relationship of Alcohol Consumption to All-Cause, Cardiovascular, and Cancer-Related Mortality in U.S. Adults https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28818200/ ESC 2016 Abstracts Heberg et al. Low to moderate alcohole consumption ist not associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events – The danish nurses' cohort study; Golan et al. The effect of moderate wine intake on carotid atherosclerosis in type 2 diabetes; a 2-jear intervention study Genuss mit Folgen Nur eine Mini-Alkoholdosis schützt das Herz https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s15034-017-1216-x?utm_source Statistik Alkoholkonsum in Dtl. BGM https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/service/begriffe-von-a-z/a/alkohol.html#:~:text=Durchschnittlich%20werden%20pro%20Kopf%20der,Tendenz%20im%20Alkoholkonsum%20zu%20registrieren. DGE Alkoholkonsum https://www.dge.de//fileadmin/Bilder/wissenschaft/referenzwerte/DGE-Position_Alkohol_EU_2024_10.pdf Alkoholkonsum Stiftung Gesundheitswissen https://www.stiftung-gesundheitswissen.de/alkohol/allgemeines https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9677535/ Neudefinition von Alkohol WHO https://www.who.int/europe/de/news/item/02-10-2024-redefine-alcohol--who-s-urgent-call-for-europe-to-rethink-alcohol-s-place-in-society 
IARC Group 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_1 Direkte volkswirtschaftliche Kosten durch schädlichen Alkoholkonsum in Deutschland im Jahr 2022 https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1458509/umfrage/direkte-volkswirtschaftliche-kosten-durch-schaedlichen-alkoholkonsum/ Behandlungsfälle Krankenhaus Alkohol https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/73745/umfrage/im-krankenhaus-behandelte-faelle-von-alkoholmissbrauch/ Alkohol führt zu vielen Gewalttaten https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/alkoholbezogene-aggression-9444c5b4-1bae-4956-9cbe-fc3216d14b1b Umgang mit alkoholisierten Patienten https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0031-1276795 Effect of alcohol consumption on diabetes mellitus: a systematic review https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14757619/ kognitive Reserve https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kognitive_Reserve?utm_source= WHO Zu globalem Alkoholkonsum https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/alcohol Resveratrol https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6804046/ https://pmc-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.translate.goog/articles/PMC2359620/?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=de&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=rq Suchtbeauftragte Landesärztekammer https://www.laekh.de/ueber-uns/ombudspersonen/drogen-und-suchtbeauftragte

Face à la domination des géants américains et chinois, l'Europe peine encore à imposer son autonomie technologique. Pour y remédier, l'IMA, en partenariat avec France 2030, La French Tech, France Digitale, Station F et la DGE, publie un Manifeste pour la Souveraineté Technologique et l'Autonomie Stratégique du Numérique. Mais au-delà des intentions, comment transformer l'essai et construire une véritable indépendance numérique ?-----------------------------------------------------------------------SMART TECH - Le magazine quotidien de l'innovationDans SMART TECH, l'actu du numérique et de l'innovation prend tout son sens. Chaque jour, des spécialistes décryptent les actualités, les tendances, et les enjeux soulevés par l'adoption des nouvelles technologies.

This Day in Legal History: Selma to Montgomery MarchOn March 21, 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. led the beginning of the third and final Selma to Montgomery march, a pivotal moment in the American civil rights movement. The march was a direct response to the violent suppression of earlier demonstrations and the systemic disenfranchisement of Black voters in the Jim Crow South. Just weeks earlier, peaceful marchers had been brutally attacked by law enforcement on “Bloody Sunday,” as they attempted to cross Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge. That violence was broadcast nationwide, shocking the conscience of the country and mobilizing public support for voting rights legislation.The march that began on March 21 was federally sanctioned, with U.S. District Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. ruling that the demonstrators had a constitutional right to march. Protected by federal troops and the National Guard, the marchers traveled 54 miles over five days, arriving at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery on March 25. Their numbers swelled to more than 25,000 by the time they reached the steps of the Capitol, where Dr. King delivered his famous "How Long, Not Long" speech, declaring that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”This sustained campaign of nonviolent resistance laid the moral and legal foundation for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law just five months later. The Act outlawed discriminatory practices like literacy tests and poll taxes and empowered federal oversight of voter registration in areas with histories of discrimination. The Selma marches highlighted the power of constitutional protest and judicial protection of civil rights, reinforcing the essential role of federal courts in safeguarding democratic participation.There was once a towering oak tree that stood firm in the wind and, under it, a reed that bent whenever the wind blew. A tyrant came to the land of the reed and oak, stomping his boot wherever he pleased. The oak resisted and was chopped down. The reed, seeing this, bent deeper–letting the boot press it into the mud day after day. Years passed and the reed, still alive, whispered to the boot: “See? I'm wise – I survived.”The boot replied, “You're not wise. You're soft. The oak was crushed because it defied us. But you? I step on you because I can.” Then the boot ground the reed into the dirt—without another thought. In a move that underscores the growing influence of executive power over traditionally independent legal institutions, President Trump rescinded an executive order targeting Paul Weiss after the firm pledged $40 million in pro bono services aligned with his administration's political goals. The announcement followed a private meeting with firm chairman Brad Karp and was accompanied by a sweeping commitment: no DEI policies, merit-based hiring, and representation of clients across the political spectrum—including those favored by the administration.Trump had previously sanctioned Paul Weiss by revoking its security clearance and threatening client contracts, citing the involvement of former partner Mark Pomerantz in the Manhattan DA's prosecution of Trump. That campaign against Paul Weiss, part of a broader effort targeting over 20 legal entities, seemed aimed at punishing firms perceived as adversarial while promoting loyalty through coercion.Karp's public gratitude for the order's withdrawal—and his reported acknowledgment of “wrongdoing” by Pomerantz—reads less like a principled resolution and more like a compelled confession by a simpering coward. Paul Weiss, a firm with deep Democratic ties, has now aligned itself with a president actively dismantling traditional norms around legal independence, seemingly in exchange for restored access and favor.This capitulation signals more than just a thaw in Trump's icy relationship with Big Law—it may represent a strategic blueprint: punish, pressure, and reward compliance – like with dogs. Legal experts and those with eyes to see warn that this redefinition of executive influence risks turning law firms into instruments of political will rather than defenders from it.Trump Rescinds Paul Weiss Order as Firm Pledges $40 Million (2)Frustrated by constant helicopter and seaplane noise, New York lawmakers are pushing for a first-of-its-kind "noise tax" targeting non-essential flights over the city. The proposal, led by state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, would charge $50 per seat or $200 per flight for tourist and luxury air travel, while exempting essential services like medical transport, law enforcement, and construction. The revenue—expected to reach $10–15 million annually—would fund the state's Environmental Protection Fund, a move Gonzalez says is critical amid federal environmental funding cuts under President Trump.The bill reflects growing anger among residents across socio-economic lines who say aerial traffic disrupts daily life, especially in parks and along waterfronts. App-based services like Blade have exacerbated the issue by making chartered air travel more accessible to the wealthy, turning the skies into noisy corridors over neighborhoods and landmarks.Supporters, including advocacy group Stop the Chop NY/NJ, hope the tax discourages unnecessary flights by raising costs. However, the helicopter industry, represented by Vertical Aviation International, strongly opposes the bill. They argue that aviation regulation is solely under federal jurisdiction and warn the tax could trigger lawsuits and threaten jobs. The group says it has already taken steps to reduce noise but acknowledges that changing flight paths often just shifts the problem from one area to another.The legislation has passed the state Senate but faces challenges in the Assembly, where it stalled last year. With a budget deadline approaching on April 1, negotiations continue.New Yorkers Sick of Hovering Helicopters Prompt Bid to Tax NoiseA federal judge has ruled that the Social Security Administration (SSA) likely broke privacy laws by giving Elon Musk's anti-fraud team, known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), unrestricted access to sensitive personal data on millions of Americans. Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of Maryland blocked any further data sharing and criticized the agency for turning over vast amounts of information without proper oversight. The judge described DGE's actions as a "fishing expedition" based more on suspicion than evidence, warning against overreach in the name of rooting out fraud.The data in question comes from the SSA's “Numident” database—its so-called “crown jewels”—which holds Social Security numbers, medical records, banking data, and more, some dating back to the 1930s. SSA officials admitted DGE staff had access to a “massive amount” of records, and privacy advocates said the team was embedded in the agency without vetting or training. The ruling requires DGE to delete any data it accessed.The decision is a significant setback for DGE and comes on the heels of another ruling limiting Musk's authority to shut down USAID, since he lacks Senate confirmation. President Trump's administration has defended DGE's mission, calling it a necessary tool to cut waste, but the court noted a disturbing lack of concern for citizen privacy. SSA's acting head, Leland Dudek, expressed confusion over the order's breadth and said it might require cutting off access for all SSA staff.Meanwhile, labor unions and advocacy groups involved in the lawsuit welcomed the decision, saying it defends Americans' data from unlawful government intrusion. DGE's aggressive tactics have drawn scrutiny across other agencies as well, with courts allowing access in some departments but blocking it in more sensitive areas like the Treasury.Judge stops Musk's team from 'unbridled access' to Social Security private data | ReutersChief Judge Diane Sykes of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will take senior status on October 1, creating the first appellate court vacancy during President Donald Trump's second term. Sykes, appointed by President George W. Bush and once considered a potential Supreme Court nominee under Trump, has served over three decades in both the Wisconsin and federal judiciary. Her transition to semi-retirement allows Trump to nominate a new full-time judge to the influential Chicago-based court, which currently holds a narrow 6–5 Republican-appointed majority.Sykes cited a desire to spend more time with family as her reason for stepping back from active service. She becomes the second federal appellate judge to announce senior status since Trump's return to office, following Judge Sandra Ikuta of the 9th Circuit. While four appellate vacancies remain from President Biden's term, Sykes's departure offers Trump his first direct opportunity to shape the 7th Circuit bench.Sykes has authored notable decisions, including one upholding Wisconsin's voter ID law and a dissent in a landmark 2017 case where the 7th Circuit ruled that LGBTQ employees are protected under Title VII. She criticized the majority in that case for overstepping legislative boundaries—a position later rejected by the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).7th Circuit's Sykes to take senior status, creating vacancy for Trump | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.This week, we close with a piece as enduring and elemental as the legal principles we often discuss: Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, specifically its iconic Prelude. Born on this day, March 21, 1685, Bach remains one of the foundational figures in Western music—a composer whose work balances mathematical precision with deep emotional resonance. Though he wrote for kings and churches, his music speaks to the full range of human experience, from joy to lament, duty to wonder.The Prelude to this suite is among the most recognizable solo cello pieces ever written, opening with a simple G major arpeggio that expands into a flowing, almost improvisational meditation. It's unaccompanied, yet complete—no orchestra, no embellishment, just one instrument revealing infinite depth. Written around 1717–1723 during Bach's time in Köthen, the suites were not published in his lifetime and lay in relative obscurity until cellist Pablo Casals rediscovered them in the 20th century.The piece carries a quiet authority that feels apt for reflection—whether on a ruling, a civil rights march, or a government in turmoil. It's structured, yes, but never rigid; expressive, but never indulgent. The Prelude doesn't declare or argue. It invites, it unfolds. It reminds us, like authority best wielded, that elegance lies in clarity and that restraint can be a form of power.This week, we let the steady resonance of Bach's Prelude accompany us out.Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, the Prelude. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: LBJ Federalizes Alabama National GuardOn March 20, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson took a decisive step in the fight for civil rights by federalizing the Alabama National Guard to protect marchers participating in the Selma to Montgomery march. This action followed the brutal events of "Bloody Sunday" on March 7, when peaceful demonstrators advocating for Black voting rights were violently attacked by Alabama state troopers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. A second attempt to march on March 9, known as "Turnaround Tuesday," ended without violence but still lacked sufficient protection.Johnson's decision to federalize the National Guard came after Alabama Governor George Wallace refused to ensure the safety of demonstrators, despite mounting national pressure. With federal troops in place, the march proceeded on March 21 under the protection of U.S. Army units, the FBI, and the Justice Department. Over five days, thousands of demonstrators walked the 54-mile route to Montgomery, with their numbers growing to 25,000 by the time they reached the Alabama State Capitol on March 25.This federal intervention was a turning point in the civil rights movement, demonstrating the government's willingness to enforce constitutional rights against state resistance. The Selma marches galvanized public support for voting rights and led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed discriminatory voting practices. Johnson's decision highlighted the power of federal authority to challenge systemic racism and protect fundamental freedoms.Thousands of probationary federal employees ordered reinstated by federal courts remain in limbo as the Trump administration fights lawsuits over workforce changes. Courts in Maryland and California ruled that roughly 25,000 employees must be rehired, but many are on paid leave instead of actively working. Some workers fear they may have to return their back pay if an appeals court overturns the rulings.Attorneys representing federal employees say agencies are slow to restore full duties or compensation. Ashley Ashworth, a reinstated Health and Human Services worker, said she was rehired but given no work, making her uncertain about her future. Adding to concerns, Trump's broader federal agency reorganization plans could lead to further layoffs, with probationary employees at the highest risk.Judges have pressed the administration for details on when affected employees will return, emphasizing that indefinite paid leave is not permitted. While agencies claim they are taking steps to reinstate workers, some employees have only received vague instructions about returning to duty. With legal battles ongoing, many fear their reinstatement—and pay—may be temporary.Fired Federal Workers Stuck in Limbo After Judges Order ReturnDisney shareholders are set to vote on a proposal urging the company to withdraw from the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, which ranks businesses based on LGBTQ-friendly policies. The proposal, backed by the National Center for Public Policy Research, follows similar exits by companies like Lowe's, Ford, and Harley-Davidson, which faced conservative pressure to scale back diversity initiatives.This effort aligns with broader conservative pushes, including those from the Trump administration, to dismantle corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Disney, which holds a perfect score on the index, has previously faced scrutiny for its opposition to Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law.Similar shareholder proposals in the past have received little support, typically failing to reach more than 2% backing. The proposal also references backlash against brands like Bud Light and Target over LGBTQ marketing. Disney has defended its transparency in such matters and called the proposal unnecessary.Anti-DEI Disney Investors Press Vote on Abandoning LGBTQ IndexA federal judge warned the Trump administration of potential consequences if it violated his order temporarily halting the deportation of Venezuelan migrants. Judge James Boasberg expressed skepticism that revealing deportation details would compromise national security, especially after Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly shared flight information. Despite the order, three planes carrying deported Venezuelans landed in El Salvador, leading to questions about whether the administration defied the ruling.Boasberg requested details on the deportation flights, extending the administration's deadline to provide information. Trump's administration pushed back, arguing that the judge was overstepping his authority and that executive branch decisions on deportations were absolute. Meanwhile, Trump called for Boasberg's impeachment, drawing a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who stated that appeals—not impeachment—are the proper response to judicial disagreements.Boasberg initially blocked the deportations, ruling that the 1798 Alien Enemies Act did not justify Trump's claims that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua's presence in the U.S. constituted an act of war. His order came after two deportation flights had already taken off. While some planes landed after the ruling, a third took off after the written order was publicly filed, raising further legal disputes. The administration defended its actions, arguing that some deportations were based on other legal grounds beyond the Alien Enemies Act.Judge warns of consequences if Trump administration violated deportation order | ReutersThe Trump administration is appealing a judge's order requiring Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) to provide records related to their role in reshaping the federal government. The Justice Department argues that the order, which demands Musk and DGE disclose information to Democratic state officials, raises serious separation-of-powers concerns by compelling a presidential adviser and White House-affiliated entity to comply.The dispute stems from a lawsuit by 14 Democratic-led states alleging that Musk and DGE unconstitutionally exercised power by cutting federal programs, downsizing agencies, and accessing sensitive government systems. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's ruling allows state officials to request documents and written responses but stops short of allowing depositions or direct questioning of DGE officials. Trump himself is not subject to the evidence requests.New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, leading the lawsuit, argues that DGE must provide transparency regarding its actions. The case follows other legal challenges against DGE, including a Maryland ruling that found Musk's involvement in shutting down USAID likely unconstitutional and another requiring DGE to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request. The administration may escalate the fight to the Supreme Court if the appeals court does not intervene.Trump Administration Fights Order to Turn Over DOGE Records (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Our roundup episodes summarize brand-new, deposition-related court rulings from around the country. We cover four new rulings in this episode on crucial issues:You can successfully oppose even otherwise taxable deposition costs, when an adversary prevails, by making these fairness-based argumentsFRCP 30(b)(6) topic lists must be proportionate to the case, as a court ruled when refusing to evaluate a list of 503 topicsThe rule of sequestration does not apply in federal civil cases and the majority of states, but you may succeed in getting a court to impose it if you can show one of these "plus" factorsIn-person depositions are still a thing, and should not be treated as unusual or requiring an extraordinary showingAs always, thanks for listening! And remember - these episodes are always free and contain no advertising. What's the catch? Only that we'd ask you to leave us a 5-star rating wherever you download your podcasts. Those ratings are deeply motivating to, and deeply appreciated by, our research and production staff. And be sure to check out the book on which this podcast is based - 10,000 Depositions Later: The Premier Litigation Guide for Superior Deposition Practice. Now in its 4th edition at 625 pages, available on Amazon and almost everywhere books are sold.SHOW NOTESLUV N' CARE v. LINDSEY LAURAIN, ET AL, No. CV 3:16-00777, 2025 WL 622334, at *8 (W.D. La. Feb. 26, 2025) (while courts cannot award costs not explicitly identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, courts do have discretion to deny award of otherwise recoverable costs where fairness or other considerations dictate)NATHEN W. BARTON, Plaintiff, v. REAL INNOVATION INC. et al., Defendant., No. 3:24-CV-05194-DGE, 2025 WL 606167, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2025) See 36-page notice (Case 3:24-cv-05194-DGE Document 51-1 Filed 01/14/25 Page 1 of 36 (contains 503 actual questions, not topics)MARK WRIGHT-AHERN, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF CLERMONT, Defendant., No. 5:24-CV-173-MMH-PRL, 2025 WL 605059, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2025) (rule of sequestration does not apply to depositions, absent particularized showing of specific facts warranting the relief; the correct procedure for seeking to exclude a person from deposition is to seek a protective order); see also Order (from same case, awarding fees and explaining sequestration concept in depositions), CM/ECF Document No. 31, filed Jan. 31, 2025)UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. The M/Y Amadea, a Motor Yacht Bearing Int'l Mar. Org. No. 1012531, Defendant., No. 23 CIV. 9304 (DEH), 2025 WL 754124, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2025) (ordering witness to travel overseas to United States for in-person deposition, finding that while remote depositions are the new normal, there remains nothing unusual about insisting that a key witness appear in person)

This Day in Legal History: Nevada Re-Legalizes GamblingOn March 19, 1931, Nevada Governor Fred B. Balzar signed a bill legalizing gambling, a decision that would reshape the state's economy and identity. At the time, Nevada was struggling through the Great Depression, and state lawmakers saw legalized gambling as a way to generate revenue and attract tourism. The measure made Nevada the first U.S. state to formally embrace commercial gaming, setting the stage for the rise of Las Vegas as the world's gambling capital.Initially, the law allowed for small-scale gaming operations, but over time, it evolved into a massive industry. In the 1940s and 1950s, organized crime syndicates invested heavily in Las Vegas casinos, fueling both the city's expansion and its reputation for vice. By the 1960s, corporate interests took over, bringing legitimacy and regulation to the industry. Today, Nevada's gaming industry generates billions in revenue and remains a cornerstone of its economy.The legalization of gambling also influenced other states, many of which later followed Nevada's lead by authorizing casinos and lotteries to boost their own economies. However, the decision was not without controversy—critics argued it would lead to crime and social problems. Despite these concerns, the success of legalized gambling in Nevada proved that, with regulation, gaming could be a major economic driver.Governor Balzar's decision on this day in 1931 not only changed Nevada but also helped shape the broader American gaming industry, making March 19 a landmark date in legal and economic history.A federal judge has halted Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) from further efforts to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), ruling that their actions likely violated the U.S. Constitution. Judge Theodore Chuang's preliminary ruling orders the restoration of USAID employees' computer access after Musk and DGE had placed thousands on leave and blocked agency systems. The lawsuit, filed by USAID employees, argues that Musk unlawfully took control of the agency without Senate confirmation, exceeding executive authority.President Trump, who had appointed Musk as an adviser, responded by vowing to appeal, calling the ruling an example of judicial overreach. While Chuang agreed that Musk's actions were unconstitutional, he did not reverse the termination of USAID contracts, which had already crippled global humanitarian operations. In a related case, another judge ordered the administration to release $671 million in frozen payments to USAID contractors, though the government has delayed full compliance. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that over 80% of USAID's programs were being eliminated.US judge finds Musk's USAID cuts likely unconstitutional, blocks him from making more cuts | ReutersA federal judge rejected the Trump administration's attempt to dismiss a legal challenge brought by Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student arrested by immigration authorities for his role in pro-Palestinian protests. However, Judge Jesse Furman ruled that he lacked jurisdiction and transferred the case to New Jersey, where Khalil was detained when his lawyers first filed the challenge. The ruling did not address Khalil's request for bail.Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of Palestinian descent, was arrested on March 8 outside his Manhattan residence. His lawyers argue that his detention was retaliatory and violated his First Amendment rights. The Trump administration has justified his removal under a rarely used provision of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, allowing deportation if a noncitizen is deemed a threat to U.S. foreign policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited Khalil's participation in "pro-Hamas events" as justification, though Khalil denies any ties to Hamas and claims he was a mediator in the protests.Legal experts note that this law was previously ruled unconstitutional by the late Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, though that decision was later overturned on a technicality. Khalil's case has become central to debates over immigration enforcement and free speech, particularly as Trump pushes for deporting noncitizens involved in campus protests.Judge denies Trump bid to toss Columbia student's challenge to arrest | ReutersChief Justice John Roberts issued a mild rebuke to President Donald Trump for calling for the impeachment of a federal judge, stating that impeachment is not an appropriate response to a judicial ruling. While Roberts' statement affirms judicial independence, it does little to address the broader issue: Trump's rhetoric is not just about disagreement with a ruling—it is part of a broader effort to delegitimize the judiciary and erode checks on executive power.Roberts has a history of making these kinds of statements, such as his 2018 remark that "we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges." But mere words are insufficient when Trump and his allies actively undermine the rule of law. The administration's refusal to comply with Judge James Boasberg's order halting deportations under a rarely used 18th-century law is more than a policy dispute—it is an act of defiance that inches toward a constitutional crisis. If the courts' authority is disregarded, the judiciary's power is only as strong as its willingness to enforce its rulings.Trump's call for impeachment is not an isolated outburst. It coincides with a broader push by his allies, including Elon Musk and congressional Republicans, to frame judges as enemies of democracy. Given rising threats against judges, the Chief Justice's response should have gone beyond a procedural reminder to file an appeal. A firm defense of judicial enforcement and the rule of law, backed by action from the courts, is needed—because if the judiciary allows itself to be treated as an advisory body rather than an independent branch of government, mere statements will not protect it.US Chief Justice Roberts rebukes Trump's attack on judge | ReutersIn my column this week, I talked about grocery taxes–or more accurately their potential elimination in some states. With grocery prices remaining high, some states are considering eliminating grocery sales taxes entirely to ease financial burdens on residents. However, a blanket repeal could strain already-tight state budgets, especially as federal funding for social programs faces potential cuts. Instead of eliminating the tax entirely, targeted approaches—such as income-based exemptions or allowing municipalities to retain and reinvest grocery tax revenue—offer more sustainable relief.Income-based exemptions would ensure that low-income households receive the most benefit while maintaining revenue streams for essential services. For example, Idaho already provides grocery tax credits for low-income taxpayers, and a more efficient model could exempt qualifying households from paying the tax at checkout, reducing their financial strain. This method would prevent a full repeal that could destabilize state budgets while addressing the regressive nature of grocery taxes.States struggling with budget shortfalls from past tax cuts, like Arizona and West Virginia, serve as cautionary tales. Arizona's 2021 flat tax contributed to a $1.6 billion deficit, forcing cuts to higher education, while West Virginia's aggressive post-pandemic tax cuts created funding gaps that could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Removing grocery taxes without a revenue replacement could lead to similar outcomes.Alternatively, allowing local governments to retain grocery taxes and use the revenue for food assistance, childcare subsidies, or public transportation could provide relief without compromising state services. Since different municipalities have varying fiscal needs, this approach would offer flexibility while ensuring that low-income families receive targeted aid.A well-designed policy would balance tax relief with financial responsibility, preventing unintended consequences like service cuts that ultimately harm those who need assistance the most.States Shouldn't Cut Grocery Taxes Entirely, Just Refine Them This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

„Trink Milch, sie stärkt die Knochen!“ – Ein Satz, den du sicher schon oft gehört hast. Aber ist Kuhmilch wirklich die ultimative Calciumquelle? Oder steckt dahinter einfach cleveres Marketing?In der neuen Folge von "Darf's ein bisschen Chemie sein?" nehme ich Mineralstoffe & Spurenelemente genauer unter die Lupe. Du lernst:

Sono molte le macellerie tedesche che hanno chiuso negli ultimi anni, ma quali i motivi? Sicuramente il consumo di carne, tradizionalmente molto alto, che si è ora ridotto. Fra i motivi una maggiore consapevolezza per il clima e la salute personale, ma anche la mancanza di personale. Ne parliamo con Cristina Giordano e con Silvio Forleo, macellaio italiano a Colonia. E anche la Società tedesca per l'alimentazione DGE consiglia di mangiare poca carne: alcuni consigli da Silke Restemeyer. Von Luciana Caglioti.

James Fishback joins Bob. James who has been a semi frequent guest on the show has become very popular lately. James Fishback in an investor who created the DGE stimulus check plan. Bob talks with James about how he popped up on Elon Musk's radar and what his plan is all about.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Reichstag Fire DecreeOn February 28, 1933, German President Paul von Hindenburg issued the Reichstag Fire Decree, formally known as the Presidential Decree for the Protection of People and State. The decree was a direct response to the Reichstag fire the night before, which the Nazi Party blamed on Communists. It suspended key civil liberties, including freedom of speech, press, assembly, and protection from unlawful detention. The decree also allowed warrantless arrests and indefinite imprisonment of political opponents. Using this power, the Nazis swiftly arrested thousands of Communists, Socialists, and other adversaries. The decree marked the legal foundation of Nazi repression and paved the way for the Enabling Act, passed on March 23, which granted Hitler dictatorial powers. By July 14, 1933, the Nazis had criminalized all political opposition, establishing a one-party state. The decree remained technically in effect throughout Nazi rule, providing a legal cover for widespread persecution. It exemplified how emergency powers, once enacted, can be used to erode democracy rather than protect it.KPMG has received approval to practice law in Arizona, making it the first Big Four accounting firm to do so in the U.S. However, due to legal prohibitions, the firm cannot offer legal services to its audit clients, limiting its potential customer base. Despite this restriction, KPMG expects to attract many new clients rather than shedding existing ones. The Arizona Supreme Court's approval aligns with its goal of increasing access to legal services, but it also introduces a well-funded competitor to traditional law firms. Other Big Four firms like Deloitte, PwC, and EY may eventually follow suit.While U.S. regulations bar auditors from providing legal services to public company clients, Arizona's decision opens opportunities in the non-audit market. KPMG plans to focus on services complementing traditional legal work, such as contract management and supply chain restructuring. The firm must maintain an internal compliance program, overseen by attorney David Rizzo, and submit biannual reports to the state. With consulting already a major revenue stream, KPMG sees legal services as a way to expand further, particularly through technological advancements like AI.KPMG Must Pivot Around Audit Clients in Creating US Law PracticeThe Trump administration's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has dropped five enforcement cases against financial institutions, including a major lawsuit against Capital One over $2 billion in alleged illegal interest charges. Other dismissed cases involved student loan servicer PHEAA, Vanderbilt Mortgage, Rocket Homes, and Heights Finance, all of which had been accused of various predatory lending and mortgage fraud practices. The move significantly weakens the agency's legal actions against financial firms investigated for consumer abuse.The mass dismissals coincide with Trump's broader effort to dismantle the CFPB, an agency he has long opposed. His nominee for CFPB director, Jonathan McKernan, testified before the Senate, promising to enforce consumer protection laws but criticizing past enforcement as excessive. Meanwhile, Trump's administration has fired CFPB staff, shut down its Washington offices, and attempted to cancel its lease, though legal challenges have temporarily halted further layoffs.Consumer advocates, including Public Citizen and the Consumer Federation of America, condemned the dismissals, warning they encourage financial misconduct. The CFPB now has fewer than 20 active cases, with several likely to be paused under new leadership. While McKernan claims he will follow the law, critics fear a watered-down agency unable to protect consumers from financial abuses.Trump admin drops 5 consumer watchdog cases, including Capital One | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) to provide a representative for a deposition regarding its authority, structure, and operations. The ruling by U.S. District Judge John Bates also requires the Trump administration to produce documents and answer questions in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and nonprofits. The plaintiffs seek to block DGE's access to systems at three federal agencies, citing concerns over transparency and legality.The Justice Department opposed the order, but Bates ruled that critical details about DGE remain unclear. While he allowed questioning on DGE's access to personal data, he limited inquiries into trade secrets or other confidential business records. The judge also set an eight-hour cap on questioning representatives from DGE and the agencies.Bates previously denied an immediate restraining order blocking DGE's access, stating the plaintiffs had not yet proven legal violations. Meanwhile, the White House recently disclosed that Elon Musk is not the actual administrator of DGE, contradicting earlier claims by Trump. Other lawsuits challenging DGE's legality and access to government records remain ongoing.Judge Orders Musk's DOGE, Agency Staff to Testify in LawsuitA federal judge in California has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ordering mass firings of probationary federal employees at agencies like the Department of Defense and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)lacks the authority to direct agencies to fire workers, contradicting administration claims that it was merely issuing guidance.Trump, backed by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, has sought to slash federal jobs as part of a broader plan to cut $1 trillion from the national budget. The layoffs have drawn opposition from Democrats, unions, and government employees, who argue they are illegal and threaten essential government functions, including veterans' services, scientific research, and national parks.While 5,400 Defense Department employees are still set to be fired, Alsup ordered OPM to rescind memos directing mass layoffs. The ruling is temporary while the legal challenge proceeds, with plaintiffs arguing OPM violated administrative law by issuing directives outside its authority. Meanwhile, Trump's administration continues to push for deeper federal workforce cuts, with agencies required to submit reduction plans by March 13.US judge halts Trump administration's calls for mass firings at agencies | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution On February 27, 1951, the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, formally limiting the president to two terms in office. This amendment was a direct response to Franklin D. Roosevelt's unprecedented four-term presidency, which spanned the Great Depression and World War II. Before Roosevelt, no president had served more than two terms, following the precedent set by George Washington. However, there was no constitutional restriction preventing a president from seeking additional terms.  Roosevelt's long tenure raised concerns about excessive executive power and the potential for an elected leader to hold office indefinitely. After his death in 1945, Congress moved to ensure that no future president could serve more than two terms. The amendment was passed by Congress in 1947 and ratified by the required number of states in 1951. It states that no person may be elected president more than twice or serve more than ten years in cases where a vice president assumes the role due to a predecessor's death or resignation.  Since its ratification, the 22nd Amendment has shaped U.S. presidential politics, preventing any leader from holding office for more than eight years. Some have argued that it protects democracy by preventing the concentration of power, while others believe it limits voter choice. Despite occasional calls for repeal, the amendment remains in effect, reinforcing the principle of regular transitions of power.A federal court is scrutinizing the role of Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) in cutting U.S. government spending, raising questions about transparency and legality. At a hearing, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly repeatedly pressed a Justice Department lawyer on Musk's authority but received vague answers. Multiple lawsuits argue that DGE, which operates with secrecy, wields power beyond what is constitutionally allowed for agencies that require congressional approval or Senate confirmation.Despite Musk's public claims of leadership, the White House insists he is not an official DGE employee. Courts have been divided on the issue, with some judges refusing to block DGE's actions due to a lack of clear evidence of immediate harm. However, Judge Jeannette Vargas temporarily restricted DGE's access to Treasury Department systems over concerns about unauthorized data access.The Trump administration's shifting characterizations of DGE—sometimes calling it an agency, other times not—have further complicated legal battles. One judge described it as a “Goldilocks entity,” molded to fit legal needs. While some courts are hesitant to act without stronger evidence, ongoing lawsuits seek to bring DGE's operations into clearer legal scrutiny.'Where is Mr. Musk in all of this?' Judges question secrecy of DOGE's activities | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who claims she was denied a promotion and later demoted due to her sexual orientation. Ames alleges that in 2019, her gay supervisor promoted a less qualified gay woman and replaced her with a gay man. The case challenges a legal standard that requires plaintiffs from majority groups—such as white or heterosexual individuals—to provide extra evidence of workplace discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Ames' lawyer argued that Title VII protects all individuals from discrimination, not just historically marginalized groups. The state of Ohio, her former employer, countered that Ames had not proven bias, noting that decision-makers may not have even known her sexual orientation. Some justices expressed concern that ruling for Ames could flood the courts with discrimination claims. Others questioned whether the heightened standard for majority-group plaintiffs improperly excludes valid cases.  The case comes amid increasing lawsuits from white and straight workers alleging "reverse discrimination," as well as political pushback against diversity and inclusion programs. A ruling in Ames' favor could make it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to challenge employment decisions, potentially reshaping workplace discrimination law.US Supreme Court hears straight woman's 'reverse' discrimination case | ReutersPresident Donald Trump's decision to designate Latin American drug cartels as terrorist organizations introduces new legal risks for U.S. businesses and migrants. The February 19 designation applies to groups like the Sinaloa Cartel and Tren de Aragua, allowing the Justice Department to prosecute cartel leaders for terrorism. However, legal experts warn that U.S. and foreign companies operating in cartel-controlled regions could also face prosecution if they make payments to these organizations, which could be considered material support for terrorism.  This concern is not hypothetical—similar cases have occurred before. In 2022, French cement company Lafarge pleaded guilty and paid $778 million in fines for making payments to terrorist-designated groups in Syria to keep its operations running. Given Mexico's status as the U.S.'s largest trading partner, businesses must reassess their dealings in high-risk areas.  Beyond corporate liability, migrants who pay cartels for border crossings or send money to cartel-influenced regions could also be prosecuted. Additionally, drug-related offenses linked to designated cartels could carry harsher penalties, including a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for narcoterrorism—double the usual drug trafficking penalty. The designation thus has sweeping implications for both corporate compliance and immigration enforcement.Trump's terrorist label for cartels raises prosecution risks for companies | ReutersIn a piece I wrote for Forbes, I review the latest misguided foray into tech policy from the Trump administration. The White House has issued a memorandum condemning foreign digital services taxes (DSTs), arguing that they unfairly target American tech companies. The memo warns that unless these taxes are repealed, retaliatory tariffs will be imposed. However, this stance appears to protect Big Tech rather than uphold economic fairness, as these taxes exist to counter profit-shifting tactics that allow tech giants to avoid local taxation. The U.S. frequently applies its own extraterritorial laws, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the CLOUD Act, yet objects when other countries enforce similar policies on American firms.The memorandum frames the issue as an attack on U.S. businesses, but every country has the right to tax corporations operating within its borders. DSTs primarily ensure that companies pay taxes where they generate revenue rather than in low-tax havens. The U.S. position ignores the broader global tax landscape and the rationale behind these policies, opting instead to shield Silicon Valley from accountability.If the U.S. enacts tariffs in response, it could trigger a trade war that harms American farmers, manufacturers, and consumers while preserving Big Tech's profits. The memorandum's real purpose seems to be maintaining an uneven playing field where American firms operate abroad without the same obligations as local businesses.Big Tech Protection: U.S. Picks A Trade Fight To Defend Tech Firms This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Lincoln Signs Legal Tender ActOn February 25, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Legal Tender Act into law, allowing the U.S. government to issue paper money not backed by gold or silver. These new notes, called "greenbacks" due to their color, became the first widely circulated fiat currency in American history. The Civil War had placed enormous financial strain on the Union, and the government needed a way to fund its war effort without relying solely on borrowing or taxation. By making greenbacks legal tender for all debts except customs duties, the law ensured their widespread use. However, the move was controversial, as some feared it would cause inflation and undermine public confidence in the currency. Despite this, the greenbacks helped stabilize the wartime economy and ensured that soldiers and suppliers were paid. After the war, legal battles arose over whether the government could require creditors to accept paper money instead of gold or silver. The Supreme Court initially ruled against the policy in Hepburn v. Griswold (1870) but reversed its decision in The Legal Tender Cases (1871), upholding the government's power to issue fiat currency. The Legal Tender Act set a precedent for the federal government's control over the monetary system, paving the way for modern U.S. currency.A federal judge has temporarily blocked Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) from accessing sensitive data held by the U.S. Education Department and the Office of Personnel Management. The ruling, issued by Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland, came in response to a lawsuit from labor unions arguing that granting DGE access to personal records violated the Privacy Act of 1974. The data in question includes Social Security numbers, addresses, income details, and citizenship status of federal employees and student aid recipients. The Trump administration contended that restricting DGE's access would hinder its government downsizing efforts, but the judge determined that the agency had no legitimate need for such information. The White House has not commented on the decision. Since Trump's return to office, DGE, led by Musk, has pursued aggressive cost-cutting measures, including mass layoffs. The ruling follows another court decision in New York that blocked DGE from accessing Treasury Department systems, amid multiple lawsuits challenging its authority.US judge blocks Musk's DOGE team from accessing Education Department, OPM data | ReutersPresident Donald Trump is set to appoint Kash Patel, the newly confirmed FBI director, as the acting head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), according to a source. Patel, a staunch Trump ally, will oversee both agencies simultaneously, a move that has sparked concerns among Democrats and moderate Republicans who previously opposed his FBI nomination due to his history of targeting Trump's critics. Patel has strong backing from pro-gun groups and is expected to shift the ATF's focus away from firearm regulation. The decision aligns with Trump's campaign rhetoric criticizing the ATF for being overly aggressive toward gun owners. Attorney General Pam Bondi recently fired the agency's top legal counsel, Pamela Hicks, claiming ATF officials had unfairly targeted gun owners. Bondi has also redirected the ATF's priorities toward immigration enforcement. Patel's dual appointment is part of a broader Trump administration strategy, with multiple officials holding multiple roles, including Marco Rubio at the State Department and Russ Vought at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.Trump to name FBI chief Patel as acting ATF director, source says | ReutersFrom a great piece written by Karl Bode for Techdirt, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) is funding affordable, community-owned broadband networks in underserved areas, challenging monopoly control by major telecom companies. In New York, Oswego County received a $26 million grant to build an open-access fiber network, allowing multiple internet providers to compete over shared infrastructure. The network's primary provider, Empire Access, is offering 500 Mbps service for $50 a month and 1 Gbps for $65, significantly undercutting industry giants like Charter and Verizon.Similarly, Minnesota's Carver County has used ARPA funds to build dark fiber infrastructure, leasing it to MetroNet in a public-private partnership. MetroNet now provides residents with gigabit fiber for $50 and 5 Gbps for $110, far cheaper than traditional providers. This strategy contrasts with other states that continue to funnel broadband subsidies to large telecoms with a history of neglecting rural and low-income areas.Some states—Vermont, Maine, California, and New York—are using federal funds to expand community-owned broadband, treating internet access as an essential utility. However, with an additional $42.5 billion in broadband grants from the 2021 infrastructure bill set to be distributed, the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) will likely attempt to redirect these funds toward corporate-backed projects instead of community-driven initiatives.ARPA Is Quietly Funding Cheap ($50-$65 A Month) Community-Owned Gigabit Fiber Access To Long Neglected Neighborhoods | Techdirt This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Ein Bierchen, ein Begrüßungssekt – was ist schon dabei? Doch schon drei Drinks pro Woche gelten als riskant. Bestsellerautor und Wissenschaftsjournalist Bas Kast erklärt in dieser Folge die Studienlage. Und wie er sich selbst vom Alkohol gelöst hat. Wir freuen uns über Kritik, Anregungen und Vorschläge! Per Mail an smarterleben@spiegel.de oder auch per WhatsApp an +49 151 728 29 182. Mehr Infos:Buch: Warum ich keinen Alkohol mehr trinke Homepage: baskast.de YouTube: @baskastofficial+++ Alle Infos zu unseren Werbepartnern finden Sie hier. Die SPIEGEL-Gruppe ist nicht für den Inhalt dieser Seite verantwortlich. +++ Den SPIEGEL-WhatsApp-Kanal finden Sie hier. Alle SPIEGEL Podcasts finden Sie hier. Mehr Hintergründe zum Thema erhalten Sie mit SPIEGEL+. Entdecken Sie die digitale Welt des SPIEGEL, unter spiegel.de/abonnieren finden Sie das passende Angebot. Informationen zu unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

This Day in Legal History: Executive Order 9066On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, authorizing the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Issued in the wake of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, the order empowered the military to designate "exclusion zones" from which individuals could be removed. Although the order did not explicitly mention Japanese Americans, it led to the incarceration of over 120,000 people of Japanese descent, two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens. Families were uprooted from their homes and businesses, sent to remote camps under harsh conditions, and held without due process. The Supreme Court upheld the internment in Korematsu v. United States (1944), ruling that national security concerns justified the action. Decades later, the decision was widely condemned, and in 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act, formally apologizing and granting reparations to surviving internees. The internment remains a stark example of how fear and prejudice can lead to grave violations of constitutional rights.The Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), spearheaded by Elon Musk, claims to have saved $55 billion in federal spending, but publicly available data only supports about $8.6 billion in verified savings. A major accounting error inflated a single contract cancellation from $8 million to $8 billion, significantly distorting the numbers. Despite promising "maximum transparency," DGE operates outside traditional oversight, raising concerns about its accountability. Musk, whose companies receive billions in federal contracts, is supposedly self-policing conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, a federal judge has allowed DGE to continue slashing jobs and contracts, handing Trump a legal win. The administration touts these efforts as transformative, with Trump and Musk claiming they'll eventually cut $1 trillion in waste. However, with major entitlement programs off-limits and nearly half of discretionary spending tied to defense, the math is fuzzy at best. Who knew the efficiency agency run by the guy who wildly guessed about Twitter bots might struggle with basic accounting?DOGE Says It's Saved $55 Billion, Itemized Data Show Far LessBradley Weinsheimer, the Justice Department's top ethics official, resigned after being reassigned by Trump administration officials to a new working group on sanctuary cities. A 34-year DOJ veteran, Weinsheimer opted for deferred resignation rather than accept the move, joining a wave of career officials who have left amid concerns over the politicization of the department. His ethics duties were transferred to two political appointees—one of whom helped defend Trump in his New York hush-money case, and the other a 2021 law school graduate. Critics, including former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, argue this shift undermines the DOJ's independence. The Trump administration has aggressively reshaped the department, firing or reassigning officials and dropping criminal cases against Trump under the rationale that sitting presidents shouldn't be prosecuted. The Justice Department, now led by Attorney General Pam Bondi—another former Trump defense lawyer—has also launched a “weaponization working group” to scrutinize past investigations into Trump. The White House, for its part, insists the DOJ was previously weaponized against Trump and is now being restored.Senior Justice Department ethics official resigns over sidelining by Trump appointees, source says | ReutersA federal judge is set to hear arguments on whether to dismiss corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, following a controversial request from Trump administration prosecutors. The Justice Department, under orders from Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove—a former Trump defense lawyer—asked to drop the case, claiming Adams is needed to help enforce the president's immigration policies. The move has sparked outrage, with several prosecutors, including the lead attorney, resigning in protest. Critics argue the dismissal is politically motivated, especially after reports that Adams' team suggested the mayor would support Trump's policies if the charges disappeared. The DOJ insists the decision isn't about the case's merits, but Adams' political future. The charges, filed under Biden's administration, accused Adams of accepting bribes from Turkish nationals, which he denies. The dismissal would be *without prejudice*, meaning the case could be reopened after the November mayoral election—something critics see as a pressure tactic. With Adams' political future in question and New York Democrats calling for his resignation, the legal and political stakes are high.Judge to weigh Trump administration bid to drop NY mayor Eric Adams' case | ReutersElectric-truck maker Nikola has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, citing cash shortages and difficulties securing funding. The company, which once promised to revolutionize the EV industry, struggled with leadership instability, weak sales, and a plummeting stock price. Like other pandemic-era EV startups such as Fisker and Lordstown Motors, Nikola found itself unable to sustain its capital-intensive operations as high interest rates and low demand dried up investor support. The company plans to sell off most or all of its assets while maintaining limited truck and hydrogen-fueling operations through March. Nikola, which went public in 2020 via a SPAC deal, has cycled through four CEOs in four years, with industry veteran Stephen Girsky currently at the helm. Despite ramping up production of hydrogen-powered trucks in 2024, the company bled money, losing hundreds of thousands of dollars per vehicle. Fleet operators' reluctance to invest in EV infrastructure further compounded its struggles. The bankruptcy marks the end of a turbulent journey for a firm that once positioned itself as Tesla's trucking rival.Struggling e-truck maker Nikola files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Du kanske vill ta ordet oftare på möten? Eller vill slipa på dina presentationer?Att tala inför publik gör många av oss väldigt nervösa. Den amerikanske författaren Mark Twain lär ha sagt: ”There are two types of speakers: those that are nervous and those that are liars.” Det positiva med det här är att det finns mycket att vinna på att ta steget och våga tala, ändå. Först och främst för att det ibland är avgörande i livet att kunna göra sin röst hörd. Men också för att det ger en riktig kick att våga och lyckas. Din vilja spelar rollBara du vill något är du på god väg. Det som spelar störst roll är att du har ett budskap och att du ser något viktigt eller meningsfullt med det.Vad är du rädd för?Rädslor är helt normalt, de flesta är nervösa. För att komma vidare och inte fastna i rädslan, fundera på vad det egentligen är du är rädd för. Sätt fingret på de värsta farhågorna.Är det att du ska få tunghäfta, att publiken ska vara ointresserad eller att tekniken ska krångla? Vad är det värsta som kan hända?Förbered dig på rätt sakerNär du har det klart för dig blir nästa fråga vad du kan göra för att förbereda dig. Läs in på ämnet – men tänk inte att du måste kunna ALLT. Du måste bara kunna tillräckligt för just det tillfället du förberede. Fråga en kollega om hjälp att bolla idéer eller få stöd med tekniken.Släpp taget om dig självDet kanske viktigaste tipset av alla är att släppa taget om dig själv. Om du harklar dig eller verkar nervös, vad gör det så länge innehållet är angeläget? Det tankesättet kan hjälpa dig att komma förbi nervositeten. Fokusera på ditt budskap istället.Skapa en röd trådGe dig själv att förbereda en bra inledning, innehåll och avslutning. Ha en ram, en röd tråd.Engagera med frågorEngagera dem du har i rummet – hur inleder du? En fråga kan väcka intresse och göra det tryggare och roligare att börja.Repetera gärna och oftaMissa inte att repetera, var inte rädd för det. Sammanfatta regelbundet innan du tar nästa steg. Titta tillbaka och summera. Skicka ut en fråga då och då. för repetition och reflektion.Avslutet: hjälp lyssnarna att summera i 3-5 punkter. Vad vill du att de tar med sig?Det är inte din Powerpoint eller presentation som är det viktiga utan det du har att säga. Du ska inte ha mycket text för då konkurrerar texten i presentationen med det du säger och ingen hänger med. Använd en rubrik per bild eller max tre korta punkter.Använd kroppens resurser. Stå upp även om det är digitalt, då ger du bättre plats åt lungorna och andningen. Prata lugnt och låt människor få tid att ta emot ditt budskap. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us a textWell it has been 5years since Evan and I sat down for a chat,and BOY a lot has changed. From a new partner, to two new boys and now DGE for his area.Come join me as we talk the past, the present, and a wonderful future with Rotary influencer Evan BurrellSupport the showJoin me as I talk to those "amazing people who proudly call themselves Rotarians." and tell a friend to join us too.

Laut der DGE soll man nur 1 Ei pro Woche essen. Patric Heizmann hat diese Empfehlung als Herausforderung betrachtet und in einem Selbstexperiment ganze 600 Eier in 30 Tagen gegessen. Natürlich hat er alle Blutwerte nehmen lassen und zusammen mit Stef bespricht er in dieser Folge die Ergebnisse. Was man für die Gesundheit nicht alles tut... Meine 10 Tipps kostenlos ► https://coachstef.de/motivation-ist-ein-scam Patric auf Insta ► https://bit.ly/4hDUfmO

In Teil 2️⃣ unserer Doppel-Folge knöpfen wir uns weitere neue Ernährungsempfehlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Ernährung (DGE) vor.

Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung (DGE) hat im letzten Jahr ihre Richtlinien überarbeitet. ✍

Außerdem: Ausgewogene Ernährung - Was ist das eigentlich? (07:54) / Zahnspangen - Nötig oder Abzocke? (15:04) // Mehr spannende Themen wissenschaftlich eingeordnet findet Ihr hier: www.quarks.de // Habt Ihr Feedback, Anregungen oder Fragen, die wir wissenschaftlich einordnen sollen? Dann meldet Euch über Whatsapp oder Signal unter 0162 344 86 48 oder per Mail: quarksdaily@wdr.de. Von Sebastian Sonntag.

Welche Lebensmittel auf den Teller kommen, ist entscheidend. Aber es geht auch um Körpersignale und darum, wie wir essen. Tipps dafür gibt es in dieser Extrafolge. Im Januar präsentieren wir euch jeden Mittwoch 5 Ideen von 5 Profis, immer zu einem bestimmten Thema. Mit wichtigen Gedanken aus mehr als 200 Folgen Smarter leben. Wir freuen uns über Kritik, Anregungen und Vorschläge! Per Mail an smarterleben@spiegel.de oder auch per WhatsApp an +49 151 728 29 182. Mehr Infos: Wie Emotionen unser Essverhalten beeinflussen (Mit Michael Macht) Wie wir lernen, wieder zu essen, was wir wollen (Mit Maike Ehrlichmann) Wie wir entspannt abnehmen und unser Gewicht halten (Mit Carsten Lekutat) Wie Gerichte auch ohne Rezept gelingen (Marc Christian) Wie Scheinfasten funktioniert und wobei es hilft (Mit Franca Mangiameli)+++ Alle Infos zu unseren Werbepartnern finden Sie hier. Die SPIEGEL-Gruppe ist nicht für den Inhalt dieser Seite verantwortlich. +++ Den SPIEGEL-WhatsApp-Kanal finden Sie hier. Alle SPIEGEL Podcasts finden Sie hier. Mehr Hintergründe zum Thema erhalten Sie mit SPIEGEL+. Entdecken Sie die digitale Welt des SPIEGEL, unter spiegel.de/abonnieren finden Sie das passende Angebot. Informationen zu unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Sinken die Marktanteile der Fleischalternativen? Wie sehen Zukunftsprognosen aus? Und sollten externe Folgekosten von Lebensmitteln stärker berücksichtigt werden? Dr. Markus Keller begrüßt in diesem Interview einen besonderen Gast: Prof. Dr. Jan Wirsam, Professor für Operationsmanagement & Innovationsmanagement an der HTW Berlin. Zudem ist er Mitgesellschafter des IFPE. 00:00 Begrüßung 02:00 Ist der Boom der Fleischalternativen vorbei? 03:30 Die Anteile veganer Milch- und Fleischalternativen in Supermärkten nehmen zu, aber teilweise auch wieder ab - passt das mit der Marktentwicklung zusammen? 06:00 Wie können die Preisunterschiede bei Milchalternativen erklärt werden? Wie sind diese gerechtfertigt? 09:15 Sind teurere Alternativprodukte besser? 13:10 Wie ist der zunehmende Anteil von Eigenmarkenprodukten in Hinblick auf eine pflanzenbasierte Ernährung in der Gesellschaft zu beurteilen? 19:00 Wo siehst du aktuell die größten Chancen für Innovation auf dem Markt? 23:00 Welche Rolle spielt die Mehrwertsteuer bei Fleischalternativen? 28:00 Wie gut können die Folgekosten erfasst werden? 32:20 Welche ökonomischen Möglichkeiten gibt es für Hersteller, Handel und Wissenschaft, um diese Verhaltensänderung zu fördern? 37:15 Wie kann ein Wandel des Einkaufsverhaltens erreicht werden? 40:30 Steigender Markt trotz Insolvenzen? 42:25 Wie lange gibt es noch echtes Fleisch? 45:10 Wie verhalten sich die Märkte international für vegane Alternativprodukte? 50:00 Wie prognostiziert du die Entwicklung für pflanzliche Alternativprodukte in Deutschland? 51:30 Wann werden pflanzliche Fleischalternativen den Marktanteil von Fleisch global überholt haben? Kennst du Prof. Dr. Jan Wirsam bereits? Vielleicht von seinem Buch "Vermessung der Ernährung"? Damit du kein neues Video verpasst, abonniere einfach den Kanal und aktiviere die Glocke

Muskeln aufbauen - was sind die Basics dafür? Wenn du dich mit dem Thema Muskelaufbau beschäftigst, dann wirst du an der Muskelproteinsynthese nicht vorbei kommen. Wie du deine MPS bestmöglich ankurbelst & steigerst, erfährst du in dieser Folge. Ich spreche mit dem Ernährungs- & Trainingsexperten Felix Unger. Felix ist Master of Science in Ernährung & Gesundheit mit Schwerpunkt Ernährung & Sport. Er hat u.a. Zusatzausbildungen bei der DGE, wie auch dem deutschen Institut für Sporternährung. === NUTZE DIE KOMMENTARFUNKTION VON SPOTIFY: Feedback, offene Fragen & Anmerkungen gerne in die Kommentare! Wir antworten! === Worüber wir sprechen: Was ist die Muskelproteinsynthese (MPS)? Welche Faktoren beeinflussen die MPS? Was musst du bei deiner Ernährung beachten? Was ist mTOR? Mythen rund um die MPS ... === Mehr über Felix: Podcast: Move well, eat well Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/moveandeatwell/ ===

Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung stellt ihren Jahresbericht vor. Johannes Frewel hat ihn gelesen. Ernährungssoziologin Tina Barthelmeß spricht über das Kostenproblem bei gesunder Ernährung. Jennifer Johnston über das Positivbeispiel Singapur. Von WDR 5.

In seinem aktuellen #Buch „Die größten plant-based #Ernährungsmythen: Warum Veganer nicht immer recht haben, aber manchmal eben doch“ (Droemer-Knaur Verlag, 2024) stellt der Ernährungswissenschaftler und Autor @Dr. Malte Rubach die 10 größten anti-plant-based Mythen den 10 größten pro-plant-based Mythen gegenüber und ergänzt. Und weil es noch viel mehr Wissenswertes gibt, hat er noch 10 weitere plant-based Mythen unter die Lupe genommen. Dr. Malte Rubach beschreibt, warum er diese 30 Mythen ausgewählt hat, was sein liebster Mythos ist und für welchen es am schwersten zu recherchieren war. Er stellt klar, dass er keineswegs das System der derzeitigen Massenproduktion tierischer Lebensmittel unterstützt und es durchaus gute Argumente für das Essen tierischer Lebensmittel gibt. Zusammen mit Heike redet er über den Verzehr von Sojabohnen, Tofu und Formula-Diäten und die Kritik an der Hochverarbeitung von Rohstoffen – unabhängig ob sie rein pflanzlich sind oder nicht. Erfreulicherweise ist eine wachsende Zahl an herstellende Unternehmen dabei, diese Kritik zu berücksichtigen und auch bessere Convenience-Produkte herzustellen. Außerdem erklärt er, warum ein „proof of concept“ bei seiner Arbeit entscheidend ist, um Mythen aufzudecken und mit großer Sachlichkeit und Belegen einem hoch-emotionalen Thema wie dem Essen zu begegnen. Überraschend ist für Heike gewesen, dass wir in Deutschland hinsichtlich der Verzehrmenge pflanzlicher Lebensmittel gar nicht so weit weg sind von der Empfehlung der DGE. Auf die Frage, ob wir dann alles so belassen könnten, wie es jetzt gerade ist, fallen Dr. Malte Rubach dann doch viele Gründe dafür ein, dass sich etwas ändern müsste. Diese Podcastfolge ist für all diejenigen, die beide Seiten – für und gegen pflanzliche Ernährung – verstehen wollen, die sich mehr Sachlichkeit in dieser Debatte wünschen und nachvollziehen möchten, wie sich der eine oder andere Mythos entwickeln kann. Unser Podcast „essenZ fürs Ohr“ ist überall zu finden, wo es Podcasts gibt und auch auf unserer Website: www.essenZ.hamburg/podcast Wir freuen uns wie immer über Ihr Feedback!

In unserer Gesellschaft wird Alkoholkonsum als normal angesehen. Aber was passiert, wenn wir uns dagegen entscheiden? In dieser Folge spreche ich über die gesundheitlichen Risiken von Alkohol, den sozialen Druck und die aktuellen, brandneuen Empfehlungen der DGE. Hier kannst du dich auf die Warteliste für den großen vollundwertig Kurs setzen: https://vollundwertig.de/kurs-warteliste/ Wenn dir der Podcast gefällt, hinterlasse mir eine Bewertung bei Spotify oder Apple Podcasts. Damit unterstützt du mich sehr. Für mehr fundiertes Ernährungs- und Einkaufswissen und alles rund um eine vollwertig, pflanzliche(re) Ernährung folge mir bei Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/vollundwertig/

Die Themen: Alain Delon ist gestorben; Linken-Vorsitzende Wissler und Schirdewan kündigen Rücktritt an; Esken schließt Zusammenarbeit der SPD mit BSW im Osten nicht aus; CDU will Rentenalter anheben; Messerdelikte an Bahnhöfen nehmen zu; Trump findet sich schöner als Harris; Klimaaktivisten blockieren Urlaubsschiffe in Amsterdam; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung empfiehlt gar keinen Alkohol zu trinken; Boris Becker wird seine dritte Hochzeit in Portofino feiern und soll Robert Habeck wieder Bücher schreiben? Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte: https://linktr.ee/ApokalypseundFilterkaffee

183: Ernährung und Homöopathie II Interview Farina Zander https://www.dge.de/fileadmin/dok/gesunde-ernaehrung/ernaehrungsempfehlung/10-regeln/10-Regeln-der-DGE.pdf https://www.krebsgesellschaft.de/onko-internetportal/basis-informationen-krebs/bewusst-leben/basis-informationen-krebs-bewusst-leben-ernaehrung/die-10-regeln-fue.html Hier der Link zu Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2sM0wO9T_1N4VG3OQJk_Ew/join #Homöopathie #VollständigesSymptom #IndividuelleBehandlung #GanzheitlicheHeilung #Naturheilkunde #AlternativeMedizin für kleine "Spenden" paypal.me/marwinzander für Sponsoring: info@marwinzander.ch Details über Unterstützung in Episode 90 zu Beginn Hier kannst du dich in den Podcast Newsletter Eintragen: [LINK](https://marwinzander.ch/newsletter-anmeldung/) Hier findest du aktuelle Onlinevorträge: [LINK](https://marwinzander.ch/laienkurse-und-vortraege/) Facebookgruppe: [Link](https://www.facebook.com/groups/164944427523966/) Link für die Supervisionsgruppe: [LINK](https://marwinzander.ch/weiterbildung/) https://marwinzander.ch/weiterbildung/ Webseite zum Podcast: LINK [https://marwinzander.ch/podcasts/](https://marwinzander.ch/podcasts/) Marwin Zander im Facebook [Link](https://www.facebook.com/marwin.zander) Marwin Zander auf Instagram [Link](https://www.instagram.com/marwinzander/?hl=de) Webseite: [LINK](https://marwinzander.ch/) Youtube: [Link](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2sM0wO9T_1N4VG3OQJk_Ew?view_as=subscriber) #Homöopathie #Medizin #Gesundheit #Krankheit #Alternativmedizin #Podcast #Globuli #Heilpraktiker #Naturheilkunde #Sokrates Hashtags: #Homöopathie #Reflexion #Lernprozess #Geduld #FehleralsLernchance #Bescheidenheit #Demut #Heilung #Erfahrungen #Podcast Hashtags: #Homöopathie #Anamnese #MateriaMedica #Repertorium #HomöopathieFürAnfänger #Podcast #Gesundheit #Selbstheilung #AlternativeMedizin

Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung hat im Frühjahr 2024 ihre Ernährungsempfehlungen überarbeitet und veröffentlicht. Was ist neu und wie könnte ein solch gesunder Alltag aussehen? Autorin: Anita Horn. Von Anita Horn.

Zu den beliebtesten Ernährungstrends der letzten Jahren zählt der Verzicht auf verarbeitete Lebensmittel. Der bekannteste Vertreter ist wohl das Clean Eating, aber es gibt auch noch radikalere Varianten wie beispielsweise die Rohkost- oder die Paleodiät. All diese Ernährungsweisen versprechen einen positiven Effekt auf die Gesundheit - aber sind sie den Verzicht wirklich wert oder einfach nur absurd? Sind verarbeitete Lebensmittel wirklich so ungesund? Und welche dieser Ernährungsweisen sind tatsächlich alltagstauglich, insbesondere für Ausdauersportler:innen? Ernährungswissenschaftlerin und DGE-Pressesprecherin Antje Gahl gibt uns in dieser ACHILLES RUNNING Podcastfolge ihre Einschätzungen nach aktueller Studienlage dazu. Viel Spaß beim Hören!(00:01:27) - Intro Ende(00:02:58) - Was sind (un)verarbeitete Lebensmittel?(00:06:14) - Studien zu Vorteilen einer unverarbeiteten Ernährung(00:08:51) - Welche Zusatzstoffe sind gesundheitsschädlich?(00:10:29) - Vegetarisch und vegan: Unverarbeitet und gesund?(00:11:10) - Clean Eating - neuer Trend?(00:13:23) - Können wir mit Clean Eating unseren Nährstoffbedarf abdecken?(00:14:57) - Kann Clean Eating unsere Leistungsfähigkeit verbessern?(00:18:13) - Hat Clean Eating Nachteile?(00:23:30) - Rohkost-Ernährung: Definition und Vorteile(00:26:04) - Warum roh nicht immer gesund ist(00:32:06) - Vegan & Rohkost = vereinbar?(00:36:35) - Basische Ernährung: Gesund oder Blödsinn?(00:40:57) - Einfluss der Ernährung auf den Stoffwechsel und pH-Wert(00:46:38) - Übersäuerung durch die falsche Ernährung(00:48:51) - Die Grundidee der Steinzeit-Diät(00:51:23) - Vor- und Nachteile der Paleo-ErnährungFoto: DGEMusik: The Artisian Beat - Man of the CenturyAuf der Website der DGE findet ihr noch mehr rund um das Thema Ernährung.Hier findet ihr unsere aktuellen Gewinnspiele & Rabatt-Aktionen! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

DGE, Übergwicht, LowCarb, Kohlenhydrate, Vollkorn

Zu viel Fast Food, Zucker und Fleisch: Ungesundes Essen kann krank machen. Wie entscheiden Sie, was auf den Tisch kommt? Und wen geht das etwas an? Moderation: Ralph Erdenberger Von WDR 5.

... und dir wird das nicht passieren.

Im November haben sich Bund und Länder auf ein neues Maßnahmenpaket zur Regelung der Asyl- und Migrationspolitik geeinigt. Dazu gehörten unter anderem die Beschleunigung der Asylverfahren von Menschen aus Staaten mit geringer Anerkennungsquote, die Bezahlkarte für Geflüchtete oder die Prüfung, ob Asylverfahren außerhalb Europas möglich wären. Am Mittwoch wollen Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz (SPD) und die Ministerpräsidenten nun über den Fortschritt der Umsetzung diskutieren. Über den aktuellen Stand spricht Politikredakteurin Katharina Schuler im Podcast. Basierend auf dem aktuellen wissenschaftlichen Stand der Forschung hat die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung (DGE) ihre Richtlinien aus dem Jahr 2017 neu überarbeitet und diese am Dienstag in Kassel vorgestellt. Eine wichtige Neuerung: Nach der letzten Aktualisierung vor sieben Jahren galten noch 600 Gramm Fleisch als wöchentliche Obergrenze, nun empfiehlt die Gesellschaft eine noch stärker pflanzlich geprägte Ernährung. Über die Entstehung der Empfehlungen und die Schwächen der Methodik berichtet Elena Erdmann, Redakteurin im Ressort Wissen bei ZEIT ONLINE. Und sonst so? Wie Taylor Swift einen Streit zwischen Singapur und seinen Nachbarn entfachte. Moderation und Produktion: Jannis Carmesin Redaktion: Constanze Kainz Mitarbeit: Mathias Peer, Olga Ellinghaus Fragen, Kritik, Anregungen? Sie erreichen uns unter wasjetzt@zeit.de.   Weitere Links zur Folge:  Asylverfahren in Drittstaaten: Das Modell Ruanda scheidet aus Bund-Länder-Treffen: Union-Länderchefs fordern konkrete Ergebnisse bei Migrationstreffen Migration: Was ändert sich durch die Bezahlkarte für Asylbewerber?  Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung: Ein Ei pro Woche sollte Ihnen reichen Übergewicht: Adipositas hat sich unter Jugendlichen vervierfacht Gesunde Ernährung: Was krank macht, muss mehr kosten! [ANZEIGE] Mehr über die Angebote unserer Werbepartnerinnen und -partner finden Sie HIER. [ANZEIGE] Falls Sie uns nicht nur hören, sondern auch lesen möchten, testen Sie jetzt 4 Wochen kostenlos DIE ZEIT. Hier geht's zum Angebot.

Außerdem: Gewalt in Beziehungen - Welche Warnsignale gibt es? (08:25) / Eigenblutbehandlung - Bringt das was? (14:42) // Mehr spannende Themen wissenschaftlich eingeordnet findet ihr hier: www.quarks.de // Kritik, Fragen? Schreibt uns! --> quarksdaily@wdr.de Von Ina Plodroch.

O projeto bilionário de um parque eólico no Nordeste conduzido por uma empresa gaúcha provoca um debate sobre o cenário das energias renováveis no Rio Grande do Sul. Por que os projetos estão travados no estado? Qual é a perspectiva? Para falar sobre isso, o programa recebe Guilherme Sari, diretor comercial na DGE Soluções Renováveis e presidente do Sindienergia-RS, e Daniela Cardeal, diretora de Operações e Sustentabilidade na DGE.

C'est à la Une de tous les journaux sénégalais ce vendredi matin… la réintégration de l'opposant Ousmane Sonko sur les listes électorales qui semble ouvrir la voie à sa participation à l'élection présidentielle de février prochain. Toutefois, ce n'est pas si simple... Car l'État sénégalais a décidé de faire appel de cette décision judiciaire rendue hier, qui, comme le rappelle Seneweb a été annoncée « moins de 15 jours avant la clôture des dépôts des dossiers de candidature en perspective de l'élection présidentielle du 25 février 2024 ». Et « les prétendants à ce scrutin ont jusqu'au 26 décembre pour déposer leur dossier devant la Cour constitutionnelle ».Le délai est donc très court, mais les avocats des deux parties ne sont pas d'accord sur la suite à donner à la décision annoncée hier. « Le recours n'est pas suspensif », a déclaré Maître Ciré Clédor Ly, l'un des avocats d'Ousmane Sonko, à sa sortie de l'audience. Et il ajoute : le code électoral est très clair : « Lorsque le juge rend sa décision, cette décision doit être immédiatement exécutée ».  Autrement dit, précise Seneweb, « c'est une manière de couper court aux arguments de ceux qui avancent l'hypothèse selon laquelle le maire de Ziguinchor ne peut être réintégré qu'à la prochaine révision des listes électorales ». Il ne pourrait alors participer à l'élection présidentielle de 2024.De son côté, Le Soleil précise quels sont les arguments de l'État, avancés par ses avocats : « la décision du tribunal n'étant ni définitive, ni exécutoire, Ousmane Sonko reste radié des listes électorales ». Des avocats qui ne baissent pas les bras et ont décidé de se pourvoir en cassation : en conséquence, la décision du tribunal d'instance de Dakar (...) « Ousmane Sonko reste radié desdites listes jusqu'à ce que la cause soit définitivement jugée ».Un feuilleton judiciaire à rebondissementsIl est même loin « de connaître son épilogue », selon Dakaractu qui pose la question. « Ce pourvoi en cassation venant des avocats de l'État prolonge le suspens malgré l'espoir des militants de Sonko, mais n'ouvre-t-il pas un boulevard vers un court délai qui pourrait conduire à une forclusion ? » autrement dit, l'impossibilité, pour Ousmane Sonko, de faire valoir ses droits devant la justice.Ce n'est bien sûr par l'avis des partisans d'Ousmane Sonko. Dans Dakar Matin, Ayib Daffé, mandataire de l'opposant, fait savoir qu'il compte se rendre à la DGE, la Direction générale des Élections, le plus tôt possible, pour récupérer les fiches de parrainage. Il ajoute, sur les ondes de RFM : « cette décision nous conforte dans notre position que la radiation du candidat Ousmane Sonko était précipitée, arbitraire, illégale, irrégulière et sans motif. Une radiation politique qui, dit-il, n'était pas fondée sur le droit ».Une affaire qui intéresse au-delà des frontières du Sénégal. Ainsi, en Côte d'Ivoire, l'Infodrome rappelle tout d'abord qu'Ousmane Sonko est actuellement en prison, mais il ne semble pas douter de ses chances de participer à la prochaine élection présidentielle, avant d'estimer qu'il a eu « gain de cause ».Enfin, Tribune Sahel parle « d'un revirement judiciaire en faveur d'Ousmane Sonko ».  Mais, ajoute le site d'information, « les semaines à venir s'annoncent cruciales, avec un possible appel de l'État en cassation ». Tribune Sahel, très intéressé par la politique sénégalaise, « mêlée d'intrigues judiciaires et d'enjeux démocratiques ». « La saga judiciaire d'Ousmane Sonko continue », nous dit-on, « suscitant des développements captivants pour les citoyens sénégalais et les observateurs internationaux, dans une dynamique propre au paysage politique contemporain. »

Chiropractic philosophy provides the 'why' behind the what and the how of practice. It has the potential to bring greater meaning to your experience of practice as well as being a powerful tool to discern the truth. Dr. Travis Corcoran joins Martin on this episode to explore the value of philosophy and it's potential to improve your practice and your life. To learn more about Travis's book https://www.restoringreason.com/ To check out the Philosophy Symposium and DGE https://spinalresearch.com.au/get-involved/events/tpsdge/ To learn more about Vismai and Martin's Grow Your Tribe Workshop https://insideoutpractices.com/grow-your-tribe To learn more about the Retention Recipe 2.0 https://insideoutpractices.thinkific.com/courses/retention-recipe-2-0 Check out Certainty 2.0 https://insideoutpractices.thinkific.com/courses/certainty-2-0 Email me - martin@insideoutpractices.com --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/martin-harvey/message