Podcasts about dodging

West Indies Australia Daily, 2nd Test, Grenada Day 0: After a few days of a story bubbling away, Cricket West Indies have finally got themselves organised to... not deal with it. The captain's pre-match press conference was one of stonewalling. On the field, Steve Smith returns for Australia, and West Indies contemplate leaving out their spinner to go all pace. Support the show with a Nerd Pledge at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/thefinalword⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Maurice Blackburn Lawyers - fighting for the rights of workers since 1919: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠mauriceblackburn.com.au⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Check out Noobru to give your brain a boost: 15% off at our link: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠noobru.com/finalword⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Tickets for our Wormsley match, August 18: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠uk.emma-live.com/WormsleyFinal2025⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to Wisden and never pay full price for the Almanack again: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.wisdenalmanack.com/subscribe⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Get your big NordVPN discount: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠nordvpn.com/tfw⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Get 10% off Glenn Maxwell's sunnies: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠t20vision.com/FINALWORD⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Save more, earn more—up to 4.22% AER (variable). Interest rates are tiered, with the top rate for balances over £1M. Each tiered rate applies to the portion within that range. New members get these rates free for 6 months; after that, your Tide plan's rates apply. For full offer T&Cs visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠tide.co/savings⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Claim £100 cash back (on a £5k deposit) at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://tide.co/offers/tfw⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Find previous episodes at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠finalwordcricket.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Title track by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Urthboy⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

▷ SUBSCRIBE TO FILTHY FELLAS https://bit.ly/FilthyFellasSubscribe ▷ LIVE SHOW TICKETS: https://www.gotobeat.com/gig/filthy-fellas-ten-year-anniversary-live-show/ ▷ LISTEN ON SPOTIFY: https://bit.ly/FilthyFellasSpotify ▷ LISTEN ON APPLE PODCASTS: https://apple.co/3GIFthj ▷ LISTEN ON AMAZON MUSIC: https://amzn.to/44aouyk SIGNINGS. SIGNINGS. SIGNINGS. THEY MAKE OR BREAK FOOTBALL TEAMS. SOME TURN OUT TO BE WORLD-BEATERS. OTHERS? ABSOLUTE FLOPS. AND THEN THERE ARE THE ONES YOU'RE GLAD NEVER HAPPENED—TRUE BULLETS DODGED. TAKE MYKHAILO MUDRYK, FOR EXAMPLE. WITH REPORTS SWIRLING ABOUT A POTENTIAL FOUR-YEAR BAN AFTER ALLEGEDLY TESTING POSITIVE FOR THE PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUG MELDONIUM, ARSENAL FANS MIGHT JUST BE BREATHING A SIGH OF RELIEF. THEY WERE THIS CLOSE TO SIGNING HIM. IN THIS MONDAY EPISODE, WE'RE DIVING INTO THE BIGGEST BULLETS DODGED IN THE PREMIER LEAGUE. FROM TRANSFER NEAR-MISSES TO LAST-MINUTE U-TURNS THAT SAVED CLUBS FROM DISASTER. OH—AND WHO EXACTLY IS CRYSTAL PALACE'S MYSTERIOUS NEW 45% SHAREHOLDER, WOODY JOHNSON? WE'VE (ALLEGEDLY) GOT THE INSIDE SCOOP. HAPPY FILTHY MONDAY. FILTHY FELLAS ON SOCIAL ▷ PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/filthyfellas ▷ TIKTOK: https://www.tiktok.com/@filthy_fellas ▷ INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/filthy_fellas ▷ X: https://x.com/Filthy_Fellas ▷ MERCH: https://filthyatfive.com FOLLOW THE MANDEM POET https://www.instagram.com/poetscorneruk STEVO THE MADMAN https://www.instagram.com/stevothemadman LIPPY https://www.instagram.com/dondadalippy SAVAGE DAN https://www.instagram.com/savagedan10 MARGS https://www.instagram.com/margsmt LOONS https://www.instagram.com/fruitpunch_papi KG https://www.instagram.com/kgthacomedian SKITS https://www.instagram.com/skitsybuddha SKRIBZ https://www.instagram.com/skribzst JOHN WICK https://www.instagram.com/johnwick_nvb MENACE https://www.instagram.com/mseven_____

“To navigate proof, we must reach into a thicket of errors and biases. We must confront monsters and embrace uncertainty, balancing — and rebalancing —our beliefs. We must seek out every useful fragment of data, gather every relevant tool, searching wider and climbing further. Finding the good foundations among the bad. Dodging dogma and falsehoods. Questioning. Measuring. Triangulating. Convincing. Then perhaps, just perhaps, we'll reach the truth in time.”—Adam KucharskiMy conversation with Professor Kucharski on what constitutes certainty and proof in science (and other domains), with emphasis on many of the learnings from Covid. Given the politicization of science and A.I.'s deepfakes and power for blurring of truth, it's hard to think of a topic more important right now.Audio file (Ground Truths can also be downloaded on Apple Podcasts and Spotify)Eric Topol (00:06):Hello, it's Eric Topol from Ground Truths and I am really delighted to welcome Adam Kucharski, who is the author of a new book, Proof: The Art and Science of Certainty. He's a distinguished mathematician, by the way, the first mathematician we've had on Ground Truths and a person who I had the real privilege of getting to know a bit through the Covid pandemic. So welcome, Adam.Adam Kucharski (00:28):Thanks for having me.Eric Topol (00:30):Yeah, I mean, I think just to let everybody know, you're a Professor at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and also noteworthy you won the Adams Prize, which is one of the most impressive recognitions in the field of mathematics. This is the book, it's a winner, Proof and there's so much to talk about. So Adam, maybe what I'd start off is the quote in the book that captivates in the beginning, “life is full of situations that can reveal remarkably large gaps in our understanding of what is true and why it's true. This is a book about those gaps.” So what was the motivation when you undertook this very big endeavor?Adam Kucharski (01:17):I think a lot of it comes to the work I do at my day job where we have to deal with a lot of evidence under pressure, particularly if you work in outbreaks or emerging health concerns. And often it really pushes the limits, our methodology and how we converge on what's true subject to potential revision in the future. I think particularly having a background in math's, I think you kind of grow up with this idea that you can get to these concrete, almost immovable truths and then even just looking through the history, realizing that often isn't the case, that there's these kind of very human dynamics that play out around them. And it's something I think that everyone in science can reflect on that sometimes what convinces us doesn't convince other people, and particularly when you have that kind of urgency of time pressure, working out how to navigate that.Eric Topol (02:05):Yeah. Well, I mean I think these times of course have really gotten us to appreciate, particularly during Covid, the importance of understanding uncertainty. And I think one of the ways that we can dispel what people assume they know is the famous Monty Hall, which you get into a bit in the book. So I think everybody here is familiar with that show, Let's Make a Deal and maybe you can just take us through what happens with one of the doors are unveiled and how that changes the mathematics.Adam Kucharski (02:50):Yeah, sure. So I think it is a problem that's been around for a while and it's based on this game show. So you've got three doors that are closed. Behind two of the doors there is a goat and behind one of the doors is a luxury car. So obviously, you want to win the car. The host asks you to pick a door, so you point to one, maybe door number two, then the host who knows what's behind the doors opens another door to reveal a goat and then ask you, do you want to change your mind? Do you want to switch doors? And a lot of the, I think intuition people have, and certainly when I first came across this problem many years ago is well, you've got two doors left, right? You've picked one, there's another one, it's 50-50. And even some quite well-respected mathematicians.Adam Kucharski (03:27):People like Paul Erdős who was really published more papers than almost anyone else, that was their initial gut reaction. But if you work through all of the combinations, if you pick this door and then the host does this, and you switch or not switch and work through all of those options. You actually double your chances if you switch versus sticking with the door. So something that's counterintuitive, but I think one of the things that really struck me and even over the years trying to explain it is convincing myself of the answer, which was when I first came across it as a teenager, I did quite quickly is very different to convincing someone else. And even actually Paul Erdős, one of his colleagues showed him what I call proof by exhaustion. So go through every combination and that didn't really convince him. So then he started to simulate and said, well, let's do a computer simulation of the game a hundred thousand times. And again, switching was this optimal strategy, but Erdős wasn't really convinced because I accept that this is the case, but I'm not really satisfied with it. And I think that encapsulates for a lot of people, their experience of proof and evidence. It's a fact and you have to take it as given, but there's actually quite a big bridge often to really understanding why it's true and feeling convinced by it.Eric Topol (04:41):Yeah, I think it's a fabulous example because I think everyone would naturally assume it's 50-50 and it isn't. And I think that gets us to the topic at hand. What I love, there's many things I love about this book. One is that you don't just get into science and medicine, but you cut across all the domains, law, mathematics, AI. So it's a very comprehensive sweep of everything about proof and truth, and it couldn't come at a better time as we'll get into. Maybe just starting off with math, the term I love mathematical monsters. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?Adam Kucharski (05:25):Yeah, this was a fascinating situation that emerged in the late 19th century where a lot of math's, certainly in Europe had been derived from geometry because a lot of the ancient Greek influence on how we shaped things and then Newton and his work on rates of change and calculus, it was really the natural world that provided a lot of inspiration, these kind of tangible objects, tangible movements. And as mathematicians started to build out the theory around rates of change and how we tackle these kinds of situations, they sometimes took that intuition a bit too seriously. And there was some theorems that they said were intuitively obvious, some of these French mathematicians. And so, one for example is this idea of you how things change smoothly over time and how you do those calculations. But what happened was some mathematicians came along and showed that when you have things that can be infinitely small, that intuition didn't necessarily hold in the same way.Adam Kucharski (06:26):And they came up with these examples that broke a lot of these theorems and a lot of the establishments at the time called these things monsters. They called them these aberrations against common sense and this idea that if Newton had known about them, he never would've done all of his discovery because they're just nuisances and we just need to get rid of them. And there's this real tension at the core of mathematics in the late 1800s where some people just wanted to disregard this and say, look, it works for most of the time, that's good enough. And then others really weren't happy with this quite vague logic. They wanted to put it on much sturdier ground. And what was remarkable actually is if you trace this then into the 20th century, a lot of these monsters and these particularly in some cases functions which could almost move constantly, this constant motion rather than our intuitive concept of movement as something that's smooth, if you drop an apple, it accelerates at a very smooth rate, would become foundational in our understanding of things like probability, Einstein's work on atomic theory. A lot of these concepts where geometry breaks down would be really important in relativity. So actually, these things that we thought were monsters actually were all around us all the time, and science couldn't advance without them. So I think it's just this remarkable example of this tension within a field that supposedly concrete and the things that were going to be shunned actually turn out to be quite important.Eric Topol (07:53):It's great how you convey how nature isn't so neat and tidy and things like Brownian motion, understanding that, I mean, just so many things that I think fit into that general category. In the legal, we won't get into too much because that's not so much the audience of Ground Truths, but the classic things about innocent and until proven guilty and proof beyond reasonable doubt, I mean these are obviously really important parts of that overall sense of proof and truth. We're going to get into one thing I'm fascinated about related to that subsequently and then in science. So before we get into the different types of proof, obviously the pandemic is still fresh in our minds and we're an endemic with Covid now, and there are so many things we got wrong along the way of uncertainty and didn't convey that science isn't always evolving search for what is the truth. There's plenty no shortage of uncertainty at any moment. So can you recap some of the, you did so much work during the pandemic and obviously some of it's in the book. What were some of the major things that you took out of proof and truth from the pandemic?Adam Kucharski (09:14):I think it was almost this story of two hearts because on the one hand, science was the thing that got us where we are today. The reason that so much normality could resume and so much risk was reduced was development of vaccines and the understanding of treatments and the understanding of variants as they came to their characteristics. So it was kind of this amazing opportunity to see this happen faster than it ever happened in history. And I think ever in science, it certainly shifted a lot of my thinking about what's possible and even how we should think about these kinds of problems. But also on the other hand, I think where people might have been more familiar with seeing science progress a bit more slowly and reach consensus around some of these health issues, having that emerge very rapidly can present challenges even we found with some of the work we did on Alpha and then the Delta variants, and it was the early quantification of these.Adam Kucharski (10:08):So really the big question is, is this thing more transmissible? Because at the time countries were thinking about control measures, thinking about relaxing things, and you've got this just enormous social economic health decision-making based around essentially is it a lot more spreadable or is it not? And you only had these fragments of evidence. So I think for me, that was really an illustration of the sharp end. And I think what we ended up doing with some of those was rather than arguing over a precise number, something like Delta, instead we kind of looked at, well, what's the range that matters? So in the sense of arguing over whether it's 40% or 50% or 30% more transmissible is perhaps less important than being, it's substantially more transmissible and it's going to start going up. Is it going to go up extremely fast or just very fast?Adam Kucharski (10:59):That's still a very useful conclusion. I think what often created some of the more challenges, I think the things that on reflection people looking back pick up on are where there was probably overstated certainty. We saw that around some of the airborne spread, for example, stated as a fact by in some cases some organizations, I think in some situations as well, governments had a constraint and presented it as scientific. So the UK, for example, would say testing isn't useful. And what was happening at the time was there wasn't enough tests. So it was more a case of they can't test at that volume. But I think blowing between what the science was saying and what the decision-making, and I think also one thing we found in the UK was we made a lot of the epidemiological evidence available. I think that was really, I think something that was important.Adam Kucharski (11:51):I found it a lot easier to communicate if talking to the media to be able to say, look, this is the paper that's out, this is what it means, this is the evidence. I always found it quite uncomfortable having to communicate things where you knew there were reports behind the scenes, but you couldn't actually articulate. But I think what that did is it created this impression that particularly epidemiology was driving the decision-making a lot more than it perhaps was in reality because so much of that was being made public and a lot more of the evidence around education or economics was being done behind the scenes. I think that created this kind of asymmetry in public perception about how that was feeding in. And so, I think there was always that, and it happens, it is really hard as well as a scientist when you've got journalists asking you how to run the country to work out those steps of am I describing the evidence behind what we're seeing? Am I describing the evidence about different interventions or am I proposing to some extent my value system on what we do? And I think all of that in very intense times can be very easy to get blurred together in public communication. I think we saw a few examples of that where things were being the follow the science on policy type angle where actually once you get into what you're prioritizing within a society, quite rightly, you've got other things beyond just the epidemiology driving that.Eric Topol (13:09):Yeah, I mean that term that you just use follow the science is such an important term because it tells us about the dynamic aspect. It isn't just a snapshot, it's constantly being revised. But during the pandemic we had things like the six-foot rule that was never supported by data, but yet still today, if I walk around my hospital and there's still the footprints of the six-foot rule and not paying attention to the fact that this was airborne and took years before some of these things were accepted. The flatten the curve stuff with lockdowns, which I never was supportive of that, but perhaps at the worst point, the idea that hospitals would get overrun was an issue, but it got carried away with school shutdowns for prolonged periods and in some parts of the world, especially very stringent lockdowns. But anyway, we learned a lot.Eric Topol (14:10):But perhaps one of the greatest lessons is that people's expectations about science is that it's absolute and somehow you have this truth that's not there. I mean, it's getting revised. It's kind of on the job training, it's on this case on the pandemic revision. But very interesting. And that gets us to, I think the next topic, which I think is a fundamental part of the book distributed throughout the book, which is the different types of proof in biomedicine and of course across all these domains. And so, you take us through things like randomized trials, p-values, 95 percent confidence intervals, counterfactuals, causation and correlation, peer review, the works, which is great because a lot of people have misconceptions of these things. So for example, randomized trials, which is the temple of the randomized trials, they're not as great as a lot of people think, yes, they can help us establish cause and effect, but they're skewed because of the people who come into the trial. So they may not at all be a representative sample. What are your thoughts about over deference to randomized trials?Adam Kucharski (15:31):Yeah, I think that the story of how we rank evidence in medicines a fascinating one. I mean even just how long it took for people to think about these elements of randomization. Fundamentally, what we're trying to do when we have evidence here in medicine or science is prevent ourselves from confusing randomness for a signal. I mean, that's fundamentally, we don't want to mistake something, we think it's going on and it's not. And the challenge, particularly with any intervention is you only get to see one version of reality. You can't give someone a drug, follow them, rewind history, not give them the drug and then follow them again. So one of the things that essentially randomization allows us to do is, if you have two groups, one that's been randomized, one that hasn't on average, the difference in outcomes between those groups is going to be down to the treatment effect.Adam Kucharski (16:20):So it doesn't necessarily mean in reality that'd be the case, but on average that's the expectation that you'd have. And it's kind of interesting actually that the first modern randomized control trial (RCT) in medicine in 1947, this is for TB and streptomycin. The randomization element actually, it wasn't so much statistical as behavioral, that if you have people coming to hospital, you could to some extent just say, we'll just alternate. We're not going to randomize. We're just going to first patient we'll say is a control, second patient a treatment. But what they found in a lot of previous studies was doctors have bias. Maybe that patient looks a little bit ill or that one maybe is on borderline for eligibility. And often you got these quite striking imbalances when you allowed it for human judgment. So it was really about shielding against those behavioral elements. But I think there's a few situations, it's a really powerful tool for a lot of these questions, but as you mentioned, one is this issue of you have the population you study on and then perhaps in reality how that translates elsewhere.Adam Kucharski (17:17):And we see, I mean things like flu vaccines are a good example, which are very dependent on immunity and evolution and what goes on in different populations. Sometimes you've had a result on a vaccine in one place and then the effectiveness doesn't translate in the same way to somewhere else. I think the other really important thing to bear in mind is, as I said, it's the averaging that you're getting an average effect between two different groups. And I think we see certainly a lot of development around things like personalized medicine where actually you're much more interested in the outcome for the individual. And so, what a trial can give you evidence is on average across a group, this is the effect that I can expect this intervention to have. But we've now seen more of the emergence things like N=1 studies where you can actually over the same individual, particularly for chronic conditions, look at those kind of interventions.Adam Kucharski (18:05):And also there's just these extreme examples where you're ethically not going to run a trial, there's never been a trial of whether it's a good idea to have intensive care units in hospitals or there's a lot of these kind of historical treatments which are just so overwhelmingly effective that we're not going to run trial. So almost this hierarchy over time, you can see it getting shifted because actually you do have these situations where other forms of evidence can get you either closer to what you need or just more feasibly an answer where it's just not ethical or practical to do an RCT.Eric Topol (18:37):And that brings us to the natural experiments I just wrote about recently, the one with shingles, which there's two big natural experiments to suggest that shingles vaccine might reduce the risk of Alzheimer's, an added benefit beyond the shingles that was not anticipated. Your thoughts about natural experiments, because here you're getting a much different type of population assessment, again, not at the individual level, but not necessarily restricted by some potentially skewed enrollment criteria.Adam Kucharski (19:14):I think this is as emerged as a really valuable tool. It's kind of interesting, in the book you're talking to economists like Josh Angrist, that a lot of these ideas emerge in epidemiology, but I think were really then taken up by economists, particularly as they wanted to add more credibility to a lot of these policy questions. And ultimately, it comes down to this issue that for a lot of problems, we can't necessarily intervene and randomize, but there might be a situation that's done it to some extent for us, so the classic example is the Vietnam draft where it was kind of random birthdays with drawn out of lottery. And so, there's been a lot of studies subsequently about the effect of serving in the military on different subsequent lifetime outcomes because broadly those people have been randomized. It was for a different reason. But you've got that element of randomization driving that.Adam Kucharski (20:02):And so again, with some of the recent shingles data and other studies, you might have a situation for example, where there's been an intervention that's somewhat arbitrary in terms of time. It's a cutoff on a birth date, for example. And under certain assumptions you could think, well, actually there's no real reason for the person on this day and this day to be fundamentally different. I mean, perhaps there might be effects of cohorts if it's school years or this sort of thing. But generally, this isn't the same as having people who are very, very different ages and very different characteristics. It's just nature, or in this case, just a policy intervention for a different reason has given you that randomization, which allows you or pseudo randomization, which allows you to then look at something about the effect of an intervention that you wouldn't as reliably if you were just digging into the data of yes, no who's received a vaccine.Eric Topol (20:52):Yeah, no, I think it's really valuable. And now I think increasingly given priority, if you can find these natural experiments and they're not always so abundant to use to extrapolate from, but when they are, they're phenomenal. The causation correlation is so big. The issue there, I mean Judea Pearl's, the Book of Why, and you give so many great examples throughout the book in Proof. I wonder if you could comment that on that a bit more because this is where associations are confused somehow or other with a direct effect. And we unfortunately make these jumps all too frequently. Perhaps it's the most common problem that's occurring in the way we interpret medical research data.Adam Kucharski (21:52):Yeah, I think it's an issue that I think a lot of people get drilled into in their training just because a correlation between things doesn't mean that that thing causes this thing. But it really struck me as I talked to people, researching the book, in practice in research, there's actually a bit more to it in how it's played out. So first of all, if there's a correlation between things, it doesn't tell you much generally that's useful for intervention. If two things are correlated, it doesn't mean that changing that thing's going to have an effect on that thing. There might be something that's influencing both of them. If you have more ice cream sales, it will lead to more heat stroke cases. It doesn't mean that changing ice cream sales is going to have that effect, but it does allow you to make predictions potentially because if you can identify consistent patterns, you can say, okay, if this thing going up, I'm going to make a prediction that this thing's going up.Adam Kucharski (22:37):So one thing I found quite striking, actually talking to research in different fields is how many fields choose to focus on prediction because it kind of avoids having to deal with this cause and effect problem. And even in fields like psychology, it was kind of interesting that there's a lot of focus on predicting things like relationship outcomes, but actually for people, you don't want a prediction about your relationship. You want to know, well, how can I do something about it? You don't just want someone to sell you your relationship's going to go downhill. So there's almost part of the challenge is people just got stuck on prediction because it's an easier field of work, whereas actually some of those problems will involve intervention. I think the other thing that really stood out for me is in epidemiology and a lot of other fields, rightly, people are very cautious to not get that mixed up.Adam Kucharski (23:24):They don't want to mix up correlations or associations with causation, but you've kind of got this weird situation where a lot of papers go out of their way to not use causal language and say it's an association, it's just an association. It's just an association. You can't say anything about causality. And then the end of the paper, they'll say, well, we should think about introducing more of this thing or restricting this thing. So really the whole paper and its purpose is framed around a causal intervention, but it's extremely careful throughout the paper to not frame it as a causal claim. So I think we almost by skirting that too much, we actually avoid the problems that people sometimes care about. And I think a lot of the nice work that's been going on in causal inference is trying to get people to confront this more head on rather than say, okay, you can just stay in this prediction world and that's fine. And then just later maybe make a policy suggestion off the back of it.Eric Topol (24:20):Yeah, I think this is cause and effect is a very alluring concept to support proof as you so nicely go through in the book. But of course, one of the things that we use to help us is the biological mechanism. So here you have, let's say for example, you're trying to get a new drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the request is, well, we want two trials, randomized trials, independent. We want to have p-values that are significant, and we want to know the biological mechanism ideally with the dose response of the drug. But there are many drugs as you review that have no biological mechanism established. And even when the tobacco problems were mounting, the actual mechanism of how tobacco use caused cancer wasn't known. So how important is the biological mechanism, especially now that we're well into the AI world where explainability is demanded. And so, we don't know the mechanism, but we also don't know the mechanism and lots of things in medicine too, like anesthetics and even things as simple as aspirin, how it works and many others. So how do we deal with this quest for the biological mechanism?Adam Kucharski (25:42):I think that's a really good point. It shows almost a lot of the transition I think we're going through currently. I think particularly for things like smoking cancer where it's very hard to run a trial. You can't make people randomly take up smoking. Having those additional pieces of evidence, whether it's an analogy with a similar carcinogen, whether it's a biological mechanism, can help almost give you more supports for that argument that there's a cause and effect going on. But I think what I found quite striking, and I realized actually that it's something that had kind of bothered me a bit and I'd be interested to hear whether it bothers you, but with the emergence of AI, it's almost a bit of the loss of scientific satisfaction. I think you grow up with learning about how the world works and why this is doing what it's doing.Adam Kucharski (26:26):And I talked for example of some of the people involved with AlphaFold and some of the subsequent work in installing those predictions about structures. And they'd almost made peace with it, which I found interesting because I think they started off being a bit uncomfortable with like, yeah, you've got these remarkable AI models making these predictions, but we don't understand still biologically what's happening here. But I think they're just settled in saying, well, biology is really complex on some of these problems, and if we can have a tool that can give us this extremely valuable information, maybe that's okay. And it was just interesting that they'd really kind of gone through that kind process, which I think a lot of people are still grappling with and that almost that discomfort of using AI and what's going to convince you that that's a useful reliable prediction whether it's something like predicting protein folding or getting in a self-driving car. What's the evidence you need to convince you that's reliable?Eric Topol (27:26):Yeah, no, I'm so glad you brought that up because when Demis Hassabis and John Jumper won the Nobel Prize, the point I made was maybe there should be an asterisk with AI because they don't know how it works. I mean, they had all the rich data from the protein data bank, and they got the transformer model to do it for 200 million protein structure prediction, but they still to this day don't fully understand how the model really was working. So it reinforces what you're just saying. And of course, it cuts across so many types of AI. It's just that we tend to hold different standards in medicine not realizing that there's lots of lack of explainability for routine medical treatments today. Now one of the things that I found fascinating in your book, because there's different levels of proof, different types of proof, but solid logical systems.Eric Topol (28:26):And on page 60 of the book, especially pertinent to the US right now, there is a bit about Kurt Gödel and what he did there was he basically, there was a question about dictatorship in the US could it ever occur? And Gödel says, “oh, yes, I can prove it.” And he's using the constitution itself to prove it, which I found fascinating because of course we're seeing that emerge right now. Can you give us a little bit more about this, because this is fascinating about the Fifth Amendment, and I mean I never thought that the Constitution would allow for a dictatorship to emerge.Adam Kucharski (29:23):And this was a fascinating story, Kurt Gödel who is one of the greatest logical minds of the 20th century and did a lot of work, particularly in the early 20th century around system of rules, particularly things like mathematics and whether they can ever be really fully satisfying. So particularly in mathematics, he showed that there were this problem that is very hard to have a set of rules for something like arithmetic that was both complete and covered every situation, but also had no contradictions. And I think a lot of countries, if you go back, things like Napoleonic code and these attempts to almost write down every possible legal situation that could be imaginable, always just ascended into either they needed amendments or they had contradictions. I think Gödel's work really summed it up, and there's a story, this is in the late forties when he had his citizenship interview and Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern went along as witnesses for him.Adam Kucharski (30:17):And it's always told as kind of a lighthearted story as this logical mind, this academic just saying something silly in front of the judge. And actually, to my own admission, I've in the past given talks and mentioned it in this slightly kind of lighthearted way, but for the book I got talking to a few people who'd taken it more seriously. I realized actually he's this extremely logically focused mind at the time, and maybe there should have been something more to it. And people who have kind of dug more into possibilities was saying, well, what could he have spotted that bothered him? And a lot of his work that he did about consistency in mass was around particularly self-referential statements. So if I say this sentence is false, it's self-referential and if it is false, then it's true, but if it's true, then it's false and you get this kind of weird self-referential contradictions.Adam Kucharski (31:13):And so, one of the theories about Gödel was that in the Constitution, it wasn't that there was a kind of rule for someone can become a dictator, but rather people can use the mechanisms within the Constitution to make it easier to make further amendments. And he kind of downward cycle of amendment that he had seen happening in Europe and the run up to the war, and again, because this is never fully documented exactly what he thought, but it's one of the theories that it wouldn't just be outright that it would just be this cycle process of weakening and weakening and weakening and making it easier to add. And actually, when I wrote that, it was all the earlier bits of the book that I drafted, I did sort of debate whether including it I thought, is this actually just a bit in the weeds of American history? And here we are. Yeah, it's remarkable.Eric Topol (32:00):Yeah, yeah. No, I mean I found, it struck me when I was reading this because here back in 1947, there was somebody predicting that this could happen based on some, if you want to call it loopholes if you will, or the ability to change things, even though you would've thought otherwise that there wasn't any possible capability for that to happen. Now, one of the things I thought was a bit contradictory is two parts here. One is from Angus Deaton, he wrote, “Gold standard thinking is magical thinking.” And then the other is what you basically are concluding in many respects. “To navigate proof, we must reach into a thicket of errors and biases. We must confront monsters and embrace uncertainty, balancing — and rebalancing —our beliefs. We must seek out every useful fragment of data, gather every relevant tool, searching wider and climbing further. Finding the good foundations among the bad. Dodging dogma and falsehoods. Questioning. Measuring. Triangulating. Convincing. Then perhaps, just perhaps, we'll reach the truth in time.” So here you have on the one hand your search for the truth, proof, which I think that little paragraph says it all. In many respects, it sums up somewhat to the work that you review here and on the other you have this Nobel laureate saying, you don't have to go to extremes here. The enemy of good is perfect, perhaps. I mean, how do you reconcile this sense that you shouldn't go so far? Don't search for absolute perfection of proof.Adam Kucharski (33:58):Yeah, I think that encapsulates a lot of what the book is about, is that search for certainty and how far do you have to go. I think one of the things, there's a lot of interesting discussion, some fascinating papers around at what point do you use these studies? What are their flaws? But I think one of the things that does stand out is across fields, across science, medicine, even if you going to cover law, AI, having these kind of cookie cutter, this is the definitive way of doing it. And if you just follow this simple rule, if you do your p-value, you'll get there and you'll be fine. And I think that's where a lot of the danger is. And I think that's what we've seen over time. Certain science people chasing certain targets and all the behaviors that come around that or in certain situations disregarding valuable evidence because you've got this kind of gold standard and nothing else will do.Adam Kucharski (34:56):And I think particularly in a crisis, it's very dangerous to have that because you might have a low level of evidence that demands a certain action and you almost bias yourself towards inaction if you have these kind of very simple thresholds. So I think for me, across all of these stories and across the whole book, I mean William Gosset who did a lot of pioneering work on statistical experiments at Guinness in the early 20th century, he had this nice question he sort of framed is, how much do we lose? And if we're thinking about the problems, there's always more studies we can do, there's always more confidence we can have, but whether it's a patient we want to treat or crisis we need to deal with, we need to work out actually getting that level of proof that's really appropriate for where we are currently.Eric Topol (35:49):I think exceptionally important that there's this kind of spectrum or continuum in following science and search for truth and that distinction, I think really nails it. Now, one of the things that's unique in the book is you don't just go through all the different types of how you would get to proof, but you also talk about how the evidence is acted on. And for example, you quote, “they spent a lot of time misinforming themselves.” This is the whole idea of taking data and torturing it or using it, dredging it however way you want to support either conspiracy theories or alternative facts. Basically, manipulating sometimes even emasculating what evidence and data we have. And one of the sentences, or I guess this is from Sir Francis Bacon, “truth is a daughter of time”, but the added part is not authority. So here we have our president here that repeats things that are wrong, fabricated or wrong, and he keeps repeating to the point that people believe it's true. But on the other hand, you could say truth is a daughter of time because you like to not accept any truth immediately. You like to see it get replicated and further supported, backed up. So in that one sentence, truth is a daughter of time not authority, there's the whole ball of wax here. Can you take us through that? Because I just think that people don't understand that truth being tested over time, but also manipulated by its repetition. This is a part of the big problem that we live in right now.Adam Kucharski (37:51):And I think it's something that writing the book and actually just reflecting on it subsequently has made me think about a lot in just how people approach these kinds of problems. I think that there's an idea that conspiracy theorists are just lazy and have maybe just fallen for a random thing, but talking to people, you really think about these things a lot more in the field. And actually, the more I've ended up engaging with people who believe things that are just outright unevidenced around vaccines, around health issues, they often have this mountain of papers and data to hand and a lot of it, often they will be peer reviewed papers. It won't necessarily be supporting the point that they think it's supports.Adam Kucharski (38:35):But it's not something that you can just say everything you're saying is false, that there's actually often a lot of things that have been put together and it's just that leap to that conclusion. I think you also see a lot of scientific language borrowed. So I gave a talker early this year and it got posted on YouTube. It had conspiracy theories it, and there was a lot of conspiracy theory supporters who piled in the comments and one of the points they made is skepticism is good. It's the kind of law society, take no one's word for it, you need this. We are the ones that are kind of doing science and people who just assume that science is settled are in the wrong. And again, you also mentioned that repetition. There's this phenomenon, it's the illusory truth problem that if you repeatedly tell someone someone's something's false, it'll increase their belief in it even if it's something quite outrageous.Adam Kucharski (39:27):And that mimics that scientific repetition because people kind of say, okay, well if I've heard it again and again, it's almost like if you tweak these as mini experiments, I'm just accumulating evidence that this thing is true. So it made me think a lot about how you've got essentially a lot of mimicry of the scientific method, amount of data and how you present it and this kind of skepticism being good, but I think a lot of it comes down to as well as just looking at theological flaws, but also ability to be wrong in not actually seeking out things that confirm. I think all of us, it's something that I've certainly tried to do a lot working on emergencies, and one of the scientific advisory groups that I worked on almost it became a catchphrase whenever someone presented something, they finished by saying, tell me why I'm wrong.Adam Kucharski (40:14):And if you've got a variant that's more transmissible, I don't want to be right about that really. And it is something that is quite hard to do and I found it is particularly for something that's quite high pressure, trying to get a policymaker or someone to write even just non-publicly by themselves, write down what you think's going to happen or write down what would convince you that you are wrong about something. I think particularly on contentious issues where someone's got perhaps a lot of public persona wrapped up in something that's really hard to do, but I think it's those kind of elements that distinguish between getting sucked into a conspiracy theory and really seeking out evidence that supports it and trying to just get your theory stronger and stronger and actually seeking out things that might overturn your belief about the world. And it's often those things that we don't want overturned. I think those are the views that we all have politically or in other ways, and that's often where the problems lie.Eric Topol (41:11):Yeah, I think this is perhaps one of, if not the most essential part here is that to try to deal with the different views. We have biases as you emphasized throughout, but if you can use these different types of proof to have a sound discussion, conversation, refutation whereby you don't summarily dismiss another view which may be skewed and maybe spurious or just absolutely wrong, maybe fabricated whatever, but did you can engage and say, here's why these are my proof points, or this is why there's some extent of certainty you can have regarding this view of the data. I think this is so fundamental because unfortunately as we saw during the pandemic, the strident minority, which were the anti-science, anti-vaxxers, they were summarily dismissed as being kooks and adopting conspiracy theories without the right engagement and the right debates. And I think this might've helped along the way, no less the fact that a lot of scientists didn't really want to engage in the first place and adopt this methodical proof that you've advocated in the book so many different ways to support a hypothesis or an assertion. Now, we've covered a lot here, Adam. Have I missed some central parts of the book and the effort because it's really quite extraordinary. I know it's your third book, but it's certainly a standout and it certainly it's a standout not just for your books, but books on this topic.Adam Kucharski (43:13):Thanks. And it's much appreciated. It was not an easy book to write. I think at times, I kind of wondered if I should have taken on the topic and I think a core thing, your last point speaks to that. I think a core thing is that gap often between what convinces us and what convinces someone else. I think it's often very tempting as a scientist to say the evidence is clear or the science has proved this. But even on something like the vaccines, you do get the loud minority who perhaps think they're putting microchips in people and outlandish views, but you actually get a lot more people who might just have some skepticism of pharmaceutical companies or they might have, my wife was pregnant actually at the time during Covid and we waited up because there wasn't much data on pregnancy and the vaccine. And I think it's just finding what is convincing. Is it having more studies from other countries? Is it understanding more about the biology? Is it understanding how you evaluate some of those safety signals? And I think that's just really important to not just think what convinces us and it's going to be obvious to other people, but actually think where are they coming from? Because ultimately having proof isn't that good unless it leads to the action that can make lives better.Eric Topol (44:24):Yeah. Well, look, you've inculcated my mind with this book, Adam, called Proof. Anytime I think of the word proof, I'm going to be thinking about you. So thank you. Thanks for taking the time to have a conversation about your book, your work, and I know we're going to count on you for the astute mathematics and analysis of outbreaks in the future, which we will see unfortunately. We are seeing now, in fact already in this country with measles and whatnot. So thank you and we'll continue to follow your great work.**************************************Thanks for listening, watching or reading this Ground Truths podcast/post.If you found this interesting please share it!That makes the work involved in putting these together especially worthwhile.I'm also appreciative for your subscribing to Ground Truths. All content —its newsletters, analyses, and podcasts—is free, open-access. I'm fortunate to get help from my producer Jessica Nguyen and Sinjun Balabanoff for audio/video tech support to pull these podcasts together for Scripps Research.Paid subscriptions are voluntary and all proceeds from them go to support Scripps Research. They do allow for posting comments and questions, which I do my best to respond to. Please don't hesitate to post comments and give me feedback. Many thanks to those who have contributed—they have greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for the past two years.A bit of an update on SUPER AGERSMy book has been selected as a Next Big Idea Club winner for Season 26 by Adam Grant, Malcolm Gladwell, Susan Cain, and Daniel Pink. This club has spotlighted the most groundbreaking nonfiction books for over a decade. As a winning title, my book will be shipped to thousands of thoughtful readers like you, featured alongside a reading guide, a "Book Bite," Next Big Idea Podcast episode as well as a live virtual Q&A with me in the club's vibrant online community. If you're interested in joining the club, here's a promo code SEASON26 for 20% off at the website. SUPER AGERS reached #3 for all books on Amazon this week. This was in part related to the segment on the book on the TODAY SHOW which you can see here. Also at Amazon there is a remarkable sale on the hardcover book for $10.l0 at the moment for up to 4 copies. Not sure how long it will last or what prompted it.The journalist Paul von Zielbauer has a Substack “Aging With Strength” and did an extensive interview with me on the biology of aging and how we can prevent the major age-related diseases. Here's the link. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

As BT marks his 52nd birthday, the dynamic duo of BT and Sal continues to bring their lively and often hilarious sports discussions to the airwaves. While BT celebrates another year around the sun, seemingly clinging to his 51st for as long as possible, Sal, his younger co-host, ensures the banter is always flowing. From musings on New York sports struggles to everyday observations, their show is a blend of sharp takes, comedic tangents, and genuine camaraderie, proving that even as the years tick by, the fun (and the Mets' woes) never stops.

With John Maytham standing in for Lester Kiewit, Rebecca Davis joins him for a special early edition of their weekly segment Plan B, where they unpack the stories stirring conversation in the news and online. This morning, they claim New York City mayoral hopeful Zohran Mamdani as one of Cape Town’s own – tenuous links be damned – and explore the early backlash he's facing. Then, they delve into a curious cultural shift: why are heterosexual men (except John) increasingly steering clear of fiction? Finally, they dissect Gen Z’s take on the classic office smoke break — meet the “fridge cigarette.” Good Morning Cape Town with Lester Kiewit is a podcast of the CapeTalk breakfast show. This programme is your authentic Cape Town wake-up call. Good Morning Cape Town with Lester Kiewit is informative, enlightening and accessible. The team’s ability to spot & share relevant and unusual stories make the programme inclusive and thought-provoking. Don’t miss the popular World View feature at 7:45am daily. Listen out for #LesterInYourLounge which is an outside broadcast – from the home of a listener in a different part of Cape Town - on the first Wednesday of every month. This show introduces you to interesting Capetonians as well as their favourite communities, habits, local personalities and neighbourhood news. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Good Morning Cape Town with Lester Kiewit. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 06:00 and 09:00 (SA Time) to Good Morning CapeTalk with Lester Kiewit broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/xGkqLbT or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/f9Eeb7i Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this explosive "best of" compilation, David and Brad navigate Trump's Oval Office theatrics as well as the Democrats who are already launching their 2028 fantasy campaigns with Pete Buttigieg and AOC leading the charge into electoral oblivion.The hosts dissect the government's breathtaking talent for spending hundreds of millions on transgender farming initiatives while the country faces real challenges, then pivot to the cultural wasteland of reality TV where woke brides leave grooms at the altar over their BLM protest participation. Meanwhile, AI promises to cure cancer but instead delivers virtual girlfriends, because apparently that's what humanity really needs.Plus: Loch Ness Monster sightings and the world's hairiest man. Finally, it should be a relief to most Earthlings that the 3% chance of an asteroid impacting our planet is down to 0.0004%, proving once again that dodging bullets comes in many forms.

06/23 Hour 3: Listener's Incredible Story At How He Dodged Death - 1:00 Would You Risk This To Get The Redskins Name Back - 17:00 Callers On The Commanders Debate - 31:00

Up - NO FEES OVERSEAS! Sign up now and join over 1 million Aussies regaining control of their coin with the financial revolution that's got ya back! Sign up here in under 5 minutes! Deadly sits down with his old man Alfie to find out how a kid from the North Shore of Sydney ended up selling stolen surfboards and winning a Stomp comp to avoiding Vietnam War by hightailing it to J-Bay. A walk through 1950s and 60s Australian surf culture with the old boy!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sports Daily Full Show 23 June 2025

Choice Classic Radio presents This Is Your FBI, which aired from 1945 to 1953. Today we bring to you the episode titled "Draft Dodging.” Please consider supporting our show by becoming a patron at http://choiceclassicradio.com We hope you enjoy the show!

Dodging raindrops - Bax, Spaniard and Nuno escape from the containment ....although a few mistakes were made.  We forgot to post the show :) www.TheLifePodcast.net TheHooliganCorp@gmail.com

REPLAY (Original Air Date Oct 21, 2024)   Today on the Social-Engineer Podcast: The Security Awareness Series, Chris is joined by Stacey Edmonds. Stacey is a multi-disciplinary EdTech innovator and Digital Safety Pioneer, driven by a commitment to democratizing knowledge. Stacey's expertise, encompassing social science, education, EdTech, and multi-platform screen production, culminated in the founding of Lively, which we will hear all about on this podcast. Since 2002, Stacey has been designing and delivering enterprise-wide cyber safety upskilling programs. In 2023, embodying her mission to make knowledge accessible, Stacey launched 'Dodgy or Not?' – a social enterprise offering an engaging approach to digital safety education.   She continues to bridge the gap between emerging technologies and practical education, driving innovation in AI ethics and digital literacy - she is also known for deepfaking herself. [Oct 21, 2024]   00:00 - Intro 00:19 - Intro Links: -          Social-Engineer.com - http://www.social-engineer.com/ -          Managed Voice Phishing - https://www.social-engineer.com/services/vishing-service/ -          Managed Email Phishing - https://www.social-engineer.com/services/se-phishing-service/ -          Adversarial Simulations - https://www.social-engineer.com/services/social-engineering-penetration-test/ -          Social-Engineer channel on SLACK - https://social-engineering-hq.slack.com/ssb -          CLUTCH - http://www.pro-rock.com/ -          innocentlivesfoundation.org - http://www.innocentlivesfoundation.org/                                                03:00 - Stacey Edmonds Intro 04:18 - Teaching, Trains & Turkeys 08:43 - Toilets vs Videos 11:16 - Dodgy or Not? 15:15 - Social Engineering for Good! 17:46 - Pause for the Cause 20:17 - Training in Real Time 24:11 - Real Time Threat Detection 27:49 - Culture is Everything 30:33 - Find Stacey Edmonds online -          LinkedIn: in/staceyedmonds/ 31:28 – Mentors -          Carolyn Breeze -          Chris Hadnagy -          Janine Thompson -          Steve Rowe -          Shane Bell 33:58 - Book Recommendations -          Feel The Fear and Do It Anyway - Susan Jeffers -          The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams -          1984 - George Orwell -          Man-Made – Tracey Spicer 35:51 - Wrap Up & Outro -          www.social-engineer.com -          www.innocentlivesfoundation.org

Today on Valentine In The Morning: Listeners share the AI-generated lies they believed and the men in their lives who avoid the doctor. Listen live every weekday from 5–10am Pacific: https://www.iheart.com/live/1043-myfm-173/Website: 1043myfm.com/valentineInstagram: @ValentineInTheMorningFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/valentineinthemorningTikTok: @ValentineInTheMorning

General Motors plans to invest $4 billion in its US plants over the next two years in response to President Donald Trump's tariffs, which will expand factories in Michigan, Kansas, and Tennessee. He is joined by Bloomberg's Matt Miller.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dive deep into the untold, jaw-dropping life of Skunk Ape Dave, a legendary figure from the Florida Everglades. In this unfiltered interview, Dave shares his firsthand encounters with the mysterious Skunk Ape (Florida's Bigfoot), intense smuggling runs as a teenager—including a high-speed boat chase with the Coast Guard—and the shocking corruption behind one of America's most ecologically vital regions. You'll hear about:

Chat told Key he's lazy, Stevie Wonder saw it coming, Nate dodging accountability, and dragging narcissists. Funny, honest, and just toxic enough to keep it interesting—this episode pulls no punches. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A special report from the frontline in eastern Ukraine where Russian forces are advancing. Also: remembering the renowned Kenyan author Ngugi wa Thiong'o, and saving lives with a defibrillator on Mount Everest.

What if one of the most famous outlaws in American history wasn't gunned down in 1881 — but lived in secret for nearly 70 years, hiding behind a new name and a stolen grave?Join the DARKNESS SYNDICATE: https://weirddarkness.com/syndicateABOUT WEIRD DARKNESS: Weird Darkness is a true crime and paranormal podcast narrated by professional award-winning voice actor, Darren Marlar. Seven days per week, Weird Darkness focuses on all thing strange and macabre such as haunted locations, unsolved mysteries, true ghost stories, supernatural manifestations, urban legends, unsolved or cold case murders, conspiracy theories, and more. On Thursdays, this scary stories podcast features horror fiction along with the occasional creepypasta. Weird Darkness has been named one of the “Best 20 Storytellers in Podcasting” by Podcast Business Journal. Listeners have described the show as a cross between “Coast to Coast” with Art Bell, “The Twilight Zone” with Rod Serling, “Unsolved Mysteries” with Robert Stack, and “In Search Of” with Leonard Nimoy.DISCLAIMER: Ads heard during the podcast that are not in my voice are placed by third party agencies outside of my control and should not imply an endorsement by Weird Darkness or myself. *** Stories and content in Weird Darkness can be disturbing for some listeners and intended for mature audiences only. Parental discretion is strongly advised.CHAPTERS & TIME STAMPS (All Times Approximate)…00:00:00.000 = Show Open00:00:47.425 = Did Billy The Kid Actually Die in 1950?00:11:28.697 = A Poltergeist Named Lucy01:12:15.013 = Burning at Cuba Road Bridge01:14:39.934 = Bible Study Haunting01:15:58.641 = Blackpool Ghosts01:18:35.668 = Dead Sleep01:36:59.375 = The Haunting of Lilian at the 9th Street Pub01:48:33.752 = In Dreams01:53:01.397 = The Cavalier01:57:43.641 = Ghosts of Christmas02:02:12.286 = Show CloseSOURCES AND RESOURCES FROM THE EPISODE…“Did Billy The Kid Actually Die in 1950?” by Troy Taylor:https://www.facebook.com/authortt/posts/1560179250745722“Ghosts of Christmas” by Charlie Dexter (link no longer valid)“In Dreams” from the book “Tales Too Strange To Be Fiction” by Cindy Parmiter: https://amzn.to/45YWZXj“The Cavalier” from the book “My Haunted Life” by G. Michael Vasey: https://amzn.to/45Vm4Cm“Blackpool Ghosts” by Alan Toner from “100 True Ghost Stories”: https://amzn.to/3Ft80Y3“Dead Sleep” by Annie Wilder, from “House of Spirits and Whispers”: https://amzn.to/4kvU5iI"The Haunting of Lilian At The 9th Street Pub” by Randy Beasley“A Poltergeist Named Lucy” by David Domine from “True Ghost Stories and Eerie Legends from America's Most Haunted Neighborhood” https://amzn.to/4cssuLQ“Burning At Cuba Road Bridge” by Randy BeasleySpecial thanks to MoJo for “Bible Study Haunting”=====(Over time links seen above may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)= = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46= = = = =WeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2025, Weird Darkness.=====Originally aired: December 03, 2017EPISODE PAGE at WeirdDarkness.com (includes list of sources): https://weirddarkness.com/BillyTheKidMystery

In this final yarn with GT champ Ricky Collard, the stories hit top gear. From almost making it to F1, to wild parties in paddocks and burnouts with Sebastian Vettel in Christian Horner's driveway – Ricky lets loose like never before. He unpacks why he'd still take on an F1 seat today, the reality of missing out due to money, and his dream of racing full-time in Australia. Oh, and there's also cow stampedes, bear-hunting dogs, and a few yarns we probably can't legally print. Buckle up, it's proper.#propertrueyarn Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Transport for Ireland is losing €20 million a year to fare evasion. Nearly 7% of Dart passengers do not have a valid ticket, and fare evasion rates jump to 15% on the Dublin to Drogheda and Dublin to Longford routes.What is going on? And are you a fare dodger?Newstalk's Henry McKean joins Kieran to discuss.

The screw turns as the industry heads to Nashville for its annual spring jamboree.  NCFA Distributor Social attendees, Gary Graham, Justine Urban, Morgan Wilson speak with the lovely and talented Lynn Dempsey. On the Fastener Training Minute, thread guru Carmen Vertullo explains new structural bolt standard changes that could impact hydrogen embrittlement. PLUS: Who actually won the FTR award at this year's MWFA Still Screwed Up Open?  Run time: 34:30

For the growing numbers of affluent Chinese mainlanders, Hong Kong is a shopping paradise. That is, until this year, when some new tax policies kicked in. In this lesson, learn about the difficulties of buying an iPad cheap in Hong Kong, as well as a rather sneaky (if legally questionable) little plot to avoid those taxes. Episode link: https://www.chinesepod.com/1593

Democrats are the champions of lying to the American people and the media backs them up, even when it is far to late to admit their mistake. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, meet Corinne, a teen who makes "Final Destination" look like a chill day out. After a car packed like a clown car met a tree at high speed, she was launched out the window (note to self: wear your seatbelt, kids ), broke a laundry list of bones, and then casually had a stroke in the ambulance for an encore. The paramedic? Looked "terrified". Corinne spills on surviving the unsurvivable, relearning to talk (with a little help from Taylor Swift ) at the amazing IWK Health Centre, and why graduating high school is her biggest flex – mostly because she's "done with science and math". It's a story of insane resilience and why you should support the IWK Telethon.For more info on the IWK Telethon.You can watch this entire episode over on YouTube.Follow Sickboy: Instagram,Tiktok & Discord.

This week, meet Corinne, a teen who makes "Final Destination" look like a chill day out. After a car packed like a clown car met a tree at high speed, she was launched out the window (note to self: wear your seatbelt, kids ), broke a laundry list of bones, and then casually had a stroke in the ambulance for an encore. The paramedic? Looked "terrified". Corinne spills on surviving the unsurvivable, relearning to talk (with a little help from Taylor Swift ) at the amazing IWK Health Centre, and why graduating high school is her biggest flex – mostly because she's "done with science and math". It's a story of insane resilience and why you should support the IWK Telethon.For more info on the IWK Telethon.You can watch this entire episode over on YouTube.Follow Sickboy: Instagram,Tiktok & Discord.

Hear the entire episode by subscribing to the show at DumbZone.com or Patreon.com/TheDumbZoneWe want to talk to someone who has received reward money and a new TV show on the way could make you a U.S. citizen! ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

In this special episode Sam, Lex, and Vivien discuss the difference in quality between sourced and applied candidates.Loxo is currenlty hiring for several roles, so we've learned some some lessons and noticed some trends — and are sharing the wealth. The conversation also delves into identifying red and green flags during interviews, the benefits of proactive sourcing, personal branding, the pros & cons of putting the salary in the job description, and the integration of AI in the interview process.In short: we cover a lot of ground — sharing our own experience, anecdotes, and tips in hopes that they'll help you refine your own recruitment & hiring processes. Chapters:00:00 - Hiring intelligence: Unpacking today's top recruiting challenges02:11 - Sourced talent vs. applied candidates: Decoding the quality divide10:38 - Candidate differentiation: What makes an applicant memorable?11:50 - Referral strategies that actually work for recruiting agencies19:43 - Raising hiring standards: How to identify exceptional talent24:13 - Dodging bad hires: Key red flags throughout the application journey27:49 - AI in recruitment: How candidates are using AI and what it means for you37:50 - Salary transparency in job ads: Pros, cons, and best practices for recruiters40:48 - Recruiting career pivoters: How they enrich your talent pool44:38 - Final insights: Elevating your agency's recruitment successExplore all our episodes and catch the full video experience at loxo.co/podcastBecoming a Hiring Machine is brought to you by Loxo. To discover more about us, just visit loxo.co

Buy a round! Become a Patron! Links The Last of Us (TV Series) (Wikipedia) The Last of Us (video game) (Wikipedia) The Last of Us – Part 1 – 11 hour Video Game Walkthrough (YouTube) Alfredo alla Scrofa Fettuccine Alfredo: original recipe from the Alfredo alla Scrofa Restaurant in Rome (YouTube) Buy a round! Become a Patron!

Fraudology is presented by Sardine. Get your tickets to Sardine[Con] and end the scamedmicIn this episode of Fraudology Karisse Hendrick provides important updates on Visa's Acquirer Monitoring Program (VAMP) and explores how recent tariffs are impacting e-commerce fraud. Hendrick explains that VAMP implementation has been delayed until October 1st, with fines not taking effect until January 2024. She clarifies that acquirers will likely pass VAMP fees onto merchants exceeding certain fraud ratios. Notably, Visa is expected to announce that alerts from Ethoca, CDRN, and RDR will now count towards reducing merchants' fraud ratios - a significant change from previous announcements. Hendrick also discusses how post-authorization systems may be negatively impacted by VAMP and Visa's new enumeration program.The episode then delves into the fascinating ripple effects of recent tariffs on e-commerce fraud patterns. Karisse shares insights from conversations with retail executives, revealing how tariffs are leading to customs delays, increased chargebacks, electronic stockpiling that triggers fraud systems, and the creation of "straw merchants" to avoid fees. She explains how fraudsters are exploiting Canadian accounts for cross-border schemes and how freight forwarding services are surging. Throughout, Hendrick emphasizes how these trends are straining fraud departments and forcing them to re-evaluate what constitutes suspicious behavior.Don't miss the eye-opening insights - tune in now to stay ahead of the latest fraud trends and regulatory changes!Fraudology is hosted by Karisse Hendrick, a fraud fighter with decades of experience advising hundreds of the biggest ecommerce companies in the world on fraud, chargebacks, and other forms of abuse impacting a company's bottom line. Connect with her on LinkedIn She brings her experience, expertise, and extensive network of experts to this podcast semi weekly, on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

This FOF features a dude angry with his girl he bailed out of jail, and Mark, who's not a fan of cleaning up what falls off your truck The FOF HOTLINE is open 24/7, call now, 864-241-4318

The Morning Show questions if Trea Turner should move to the outfield due to defensive struggles. He's not the guy they signed for $300 million. Howie Roseman avoided discussing Dallas Goedert's situation, as the Eagles didn't draft a tight end and his contract ends after this season. They wonder if Goedert will be traded or finish his contract with the team.

Chris Scullion and Pokepal Jordan Middler give you another week in gaming news filled with rising prices and some seriously talented writers looking for work once again.Support great journalism and some of the best fizzy drink opinions here: https://www.patreon.com/cw/VideoGamesChronicle Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dan's back home, so we wanted an easy episode... why not see what the Degens have been watching lately?You already know Tyler's knee-deep in 20+ seasonal anime. Dan's on that Initial D & MF Ghost grind, and Nom's got the rundown shows on lock. Yep, it's a good ole fashioned Bullshit Hour!! What Anime are yall watching right now?To join the Discord, follow us on our socials (we're on Threads / Insta, Twitter (X), Bluesky / Hive and Tumblr): https://Linktree.com/animedegensInterested in watch parties? We're going to start hosting some in our Discord! So join up and join us! The Degen Videos are on YouTube & Spotify now! So, Make sure you follow and like the videos over there at https://Linktree.com/animedegensPlease Rate us on your listening platforms and don't forget to tell your anime friends about us! its the best way to support us and we really do appreciate y'all! Thanks for listening!!If you have any Feedback that you'd like to share or have Topics that you'd like for us to discuss on the Degen Episode, Please reach out to us on any of our Socials, Discord or click here! Interested in being a guest? Reach out to Tyler on Discord or Twitter / Threads! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hall of Mirrors (Pegasus Crime 2025) was selected as a New York Times Crime Novel of the Year. It opens with a fire – it's May 1954 and Lionel Kane is watching his apartment go up in flames with his lover and writing partner Roger Raymond trapped inside. The police are sure that it's a suicide. A couple of months earlier, Judy and Philippa attend a lecture by Ray Kane, one of their favorite mystery authors, and help him when he starts to look unwell. He's a little off, newly fired from his State Department job because of Senator Joseph McCarthy's purge of communists and homosexuals. A few months earlier, with hopes that he'd write about it, Judy and Philippa sent Ray Kane an anonymous packet of details about Adrian Bogdan, the spy and serial killer they'd been hunting for years, but they don't know that Adrian was responsible for Ray Kane's firing. After the lecture, they learn that “Ray Kane” is the pen name for Roger and Lionel, and Roger is the author's public face because Lionel is Black. Lionel has two strikes against him; gay and Black, and Judy also has a few challenges; she's mixed race, also gay, she has a personal connection to the serial killer, and the FBI is trying to stop her from learning the truth. John Copenhaver's debut novel, Dodging and Burning, won the 2019 Macavity Award for Best First Mystery, and The Savage Kind earned the 2021 Lambda Literary Award for Best LGBTQ Mystery. A passionate advocate for queer voices in crime fiction, Copenhaver is a founding member of Queer Crime Writers and currently serves on the board of International Thriller Writers. He mentors aspiring writers in the Low-Residency MFA program at the University of Nebraska and teaches creative writing and literature at Virginia Commonwealth University. He lives in Richmond, Virginia, with his husband, artist Jeffery Paul Herrity. When he's not writing or teaching, he's watching movies—and listening to them. Copenhaver has a passion for film scores and a collection of rare scores he's been curating since high school. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature

Join us as Michael Grooms delivers his lesson titled, "Dodging the Devil's Darts."

Sign the petition: https://www.change.org/p/give-mister-ed-his-rightful-spot-on-the-hollywood-walk-of-fame?source_location=psf_petitions NEW HATS ARE LIVE: https://store.barstoolsports.com/collections/mostly-sports Mark Titus and Brandon Walker talking sports... mostly. Thanks to our sponsors: Jägermeister: Check Jägermeister out at https://us.jagermeister.com/. Drink Responsibly, Jägermeister Liqueur 35% alcohol by volume. Imported by Mast Jägermeister US, White Plains. NY. DraftKings: Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. Help is available for problem gambling. Call (888) 789-7777 or visit ccpg.org (CT). 18+ in most eligible jurisdictions, but other age and eligibility restrictions may apply. Valid only in jurisdictions where DraftKings Pick6 operates. Pick6 not available everywhere, including, but not limited to NY, and CA-ONT (for up-to-date list of jurisdictions please visit pick6.draftkings.com/where-is-pick6-available). Void where prohibited. 1 per new Pick6 customer. $5+ first Pick Set to receive $50 issued as non-withdrawable Pick6 Credits that expire in 14 days (336 hours). Ends 5/4/25 at 11:59 PM ET. Terms: pick6.draftkings.com/promos Sponsored by DraftKings. Steven Singer Jewelers: Order now online at https://ihatestevensinger.com or from Steven Singer Jewelers in Philly Twin Peaks: Find your local lodge, visit https://TwinPeaksRestaurant.com Nutrafol: Get $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to https://Nutrafol.com/men and enter the promo code MOSTLY. GoldBelly: Go to https://GOLDBELLY.com and get free shipping and 20% off your first order with promo code SPORTS. Subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@MostlySportsTitusandWalker?sub_confirmation=1. Follow Mostly Sports on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MostlySports Follow Mark on Twitter: https://twitter.com/clubtrillion Follow Brandon on Twitter: https://twitter.com/bfw Follow Mostly Sports on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mostlysportsshow/ Follow Mark on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/marktheshark34/ Follow Brandon on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bwalkersec/ Follow Mostly Sports on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mostlysportsshow?lang=en Follow Brandon on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@brandonfwalker?lang=en Follow Mark on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@marktituspod?lang=en

This week, the guys talk about a lawsuit against Tesla that claims odometers are being inflated to dodge warranty repairs. Plus, a fight that was bad even by NASCAR standards, the promising next generations of the GTR and Miata, and how Subaru ruined the new Outback. Help us plan the Donut Podcast Tour by filling out this quick survey at https://tinyurl.com/mvdny6jc and you'll get a code for 10% off at our online store!  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On this brand new edition of Cubs On Tap, Rich and Joey are back following the Chicago Cubs' epic extra-inning comeback over the Los Angeles Dodgers. The guys recap and walk through the rollercoaster of a game that fans witnessed on Tuesday night. Despite a classic just four days before, the guys discuss if Tuesday's game is the game of the season. In addition, the duo focuses on the defensive inefficiencies of Gage Workman, and what his future with the Cubs might look like. From there, discussion of PCA's stardom, the Cubs' catching tandem, and much more are discussed before wrapping up the episode! Cubs On Tap is presented by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠OnTapSportsNet.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, your go-to source for Cubs news⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, analysis, and updates.Follow us on social media: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@CubbiesOnTap⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@OnTapSportsNet⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Panelists: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@JoeyKnowsNothin | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@TeddyFreddy270 | @JuiceOnTap | @LuceOnTap | @Nick_OnTap | @SilentBob_2 | @Rich_Ebs

Chad opens the hour talking about a piece Larry David wrote for the NY Times ripping Bill Maher. Later, we talk about Tom Emmer repeatedly dodging a question during an interview with Dana Bash on CNN before an interview with local attorney Chris Madel.

Thus saith ChatGPT "The person refusing public conversation by labeling the other as demon-possessed and non-Christian—rather than dealing with the actual content of what was said—is engaging in:- Ad hominem- Poisoning the wellAnd possibly public shaming as a manipulative tactic to avoid accountability or real dialogue." Ways to Support the Ministry My Amazon Affiliate Linkhttps://amzn.to/4iDvok5Apple AirPods Pro 2 Wireless Earbuds, Active Noise Cancellation, Hearing Aid Feature, Bluetooth Headphones, Transparency, Personalized Spatial Audio, High-Fidelity Sound, H2 Chip, USB-C ChargingAffiliate Link for AirPods Pro2 https://amzn.to/4c4nTQQMerch On TeeSpring - https://teespring.com/stores/the-proverbial-lifePatreon-https://www.patreon.com/ProverbialLifePayPal- paypal.me/teameramirez (Teameramirez@gmail.com) CashApp- $teameramirezVenmo- Edwin-Ramirez-75Instagram- https://www.instagram.com/fanintoflamee/Twitter- https://twitter.com/homeYouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCS3anibvIPQc0bzc2trIEGQMy Music- https://soundcloud.com/the-proverbial-lifeMy wife's book on Poetry (Sold on Amazon): Framed for His Portrait (Poetry Book) https://www.amazon.com/Framed-His-Portrait-Collection-Poetry/dp/B08BDT92ZN/ref=sxts_sxwds-bia-wc-p13n1_0?crid=18G8PZII8VHAP&cv_ct_cx=framed+for+his+portrait+a+collection+of+poetry&dchild=1&keywords=framed+for+his+portrait+a+collection+of+poetry&pd_rd_i=B08BDT92ZN&pd_rd_r=702821ef-8aa8-4937-99fc-000504efc7e7&pd_rd_w=n1hE8&pd_rd_wg=6QpAT&pf_rd_p=1da5beeb-8f71-435c-b5c5-3279a6171294&pf_rd_r=MDWWMJA2X33Z6QYMQBAN&psc=1&qid=1594465391&sprefix=Framed+for+his+%2Caps%2C174&sr=1-1-70f7c15d-07d8-466a-b325-4be35d7258cc

Imagine a game so successful that during the making of it, you actually end up coming up with three games. That's what Capcom did when they were prototyping Resident Evil 4. They got that, they got Devil May Cry and they also got the game we're talking about on this podcast. We're going back to 2005 to take a look at a survival horror that didn't get quite as many sequels as those other series just mentioned. We're talking Haunting Ground.On this episode of Stealth Boom Boom, we chat a little bit about the much better Japanese name of DEMENTO, as well as a tagline that Josh likes and doesn't like at all. We also look at a trailer with a lot of slobbering and panting, their reasons for including a dog, and mo-capping said dog.Here are some of the things you're gonna hear us chat about in our review: being reactive after you are definitely spotted by one of your pursuers; hiding under beds, inside wardrobes, and behind doors; Alien: Isolation; a distinct lack of fear; special hiding spots; Hewie the attack dog; fairy earrings; the sound of vase-breaking vs dog-barking; how much your bond with your pooch; German Shepherd-sized holes; some real headscratchers of puzzles; some of the flattest boss fights; shoddy glowing fireflies; Resi 4 comparisons; nice-looking maps that are a bit hard to read; a story with some heavy sexual themes, delivered through some ludicrous characters and dialogue; Manhunt; the strangely calm Fiona Belli; setting the scene via static camera angles; the looks of a late PS2 game; and a wonderful lack of loading screens. After all that, we take you through what some of the critics were saying about the game around the time it came out, and then we give you our final verdicts on whether Haunting Ground is a Pass, a Play, or an Espionage Explosion.For those who would like to play along at home, we'll be discussing, reviewing and dissecting Batman Begins on the next episode of Stealth Boom Boom.IMPORTANT LINKS TO THINGS

Jordan Middler, Andy Robinson and Stephen Totilo venture further into the Switch 2's gooey innards, and scream 'How much for a tutorial?!'If you'd like to hear more from the talented and hardworking Stephen check out his work here: https://www.gamefile.news/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On today's Extra, Dodging bulletts, Pat & Coke, & Chopsticks Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This episode is presented by Create A Video – Former Governor Roy Cooper might not be able to run away from his terrible record on disaster response if he runs for Senate next year. Andrew Dunn is the publisher of Longleaf Politics and a contributing columnist to The Charlotte Observer, and he joins me to discuss. Subscribe to the podcast at: https://ThePetePod.com/ All the links to Pete's Prep are free: https://patreon.com/petekalinershow Media Bias Check: If you choose to subscribe, get 15% off here! Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.com Get exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You've worked so hard to finally achieve FIRE (financial independence, retire early); the last thing you want is your wealth to dwindle or disappear entirely. Unknown to most FIRE-chasers, four financial “horsemen” (of the personal finance apocalypse) could steal your wealth right out from under you, without you even realizing it. What are the four horsemen, and how are we protecting our FIRE portfolios from them? To make sure you not only become wealthy but stay wealthy, we brought Whitney Elkins-Hutten, author of Money for Tomorrow, on the show to share the best ways to keep your portfolio safe from the four horsemen. Whitney scaled her portfolio from almost nothing to life-changing wealth, and she could have lost it all if she hadn't learned how to protect it. Mindy and Scott tag-team to show YOU how to protect your FIRE from these four horsemen, including sharing what they're doing right now to set themselves up for a successful (and safe) financial future. Don't let your wealth get drained before OR during FIRE; take these tips to heart ASAP!  In This Episode We Cover The four “horsemen” that could destroy your FIRE lifestyle and disrupt your generational wealth How Whitney went from accidental house flipper to financially-free investor  The overlooked investing “fees” that could cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars Why you're (probably) paying too much money for insurance (and how to start saving) When (and when not) to pay off debt and which balances to prioritize first And So Much More! Links from the Show Mindy on BiggerPockets Scott on BiggerPockets Listen to All Your Favorite BiggerPockets Podcasts in One Place Join BiggerPockets for FREE Email Mindy: Mindy@biggerpockets.com Email Scott: Scott@biggerpockets.com BiggerPockets Money Facebook Group Follow BiggerPockets Money on Instagram “Like” BiggerPockets Money on Facebook BiggerPockets Money YouTube Channel Grab Whitney's Book “Money for Tomorrow” Save $100 on Real Estate's Biggest Event of the Year, BPCon2025 Sign Up for the BiggerPockets Money Newsletter Find an Investor-Friendly Agent in Your Area The Points Guy's Travel Hacking Tips to Fly for FREE in 2025 Connect with Whitney   (00:00) Intro (06:00) "Ownership" Makes You Rich (10:09) Aggressively Investing in Rentals (11:52) This Could Destroy Your Wealth (19:07) Which Debt to Pay Off (23:14) Save Thousands on Insurance (30:23) This Could Delay Your FIRE (37:08) STOP Being Scared of Taxes! Check out more resources from this show on BiggerPockets.com and https://www.biggerpockets.com/blog/money-617 Interested in learning more about today's sponsors or becoming a BiggerPockets partner yourself? Email advertise@biggerpockets.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

03/10 Hour 4: Is Cooper Flagg Looking To Dodge The Wizards - 1:00 Ryan Dunleavy Joins The Junkies - 18:00 Expect The Unexpected In The NFL Today - 30:00

Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have taken on a contentious role in the new Trump administration, which has affected federal agencies and thousands of workers. But are DOGE's actions legal? Those arguing they aren't worry it is overstepping and violating the Constitution. Those supporting DOGE's actions say it is operating under strict oversight while fulfilling its mandate. Now we debate: Is Musk's DOGE Dodging the Law?    Arguing Yes: Laurence Tribe, University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School  Arguing No: Michael W. McConnell, Former Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; Law Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s out sick, so Amy Earnhardt's best friend Jamie Goddard takes his seat. They go way back, and in this episode, they're spilling all the stories—some heartwarming, some hilarious, and a few that might leave you wondering how they've made it this far. From meeting through Kelley Earnhardt Miller to quickly becoming inseparable, their friendship turned into something more like sisterhood. They lived together, hid from Dale Jr. (not very successfully), and even had a secret name for their house's Wi-Fi.They reminisce about their wildest moments, including a golf cart mishap, a pool noodle fight in a Walgreens parking lot, and the time Jamie just knew Dale and Amy were meant to be. Amy also answers fan questions, including what Dale is really like when he's sick and whether he's ever braved the grocery store alone with their daughters.Pour a glass of champagne and settle in—this one's a trip.