Podcasts about edit there

This week, we're in the midst of a big studio upgrade so we're limited to only two channels to record on. Hailey's come to the rescue by cooking up a neat little challenge where she'll read us the reviews of a few guitars, amps, and pedals, and we'll try to guess what each one is based on the review alone. It's a perfect little challenge while we're in a limited capacity that you can play along to at home! Check out our website here! EDIT: There were some technical issues with this episode, namely a really intense bleed on my mic signal. I had to pull the episode until I got a chance to fix it, so if it cut out during your listen I'm sorry! Go ahead and give me all the shame, I deserve it. It should be fixed now for your listening pleasure.

EDIT: There are a couple places in here where my guest says something and then says he'd prefer it omitted from the recording. We talked more off-mic, and Jamie ultimately decided he was fine with putting out what all is in here. Jolene is joined by Jamie for a discussion that ranges across: cis4pay sex work, agender lesbianism to transfaggotry, radfem dalliances and detours, and the musical stylings of Jordaan Mason, and our fallen sister, Henry Darger. The intro and outro music is by Lynn July. You can listen to more of her music at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://tinytachyon.bandcamp.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow the pod on twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/WhenAGuyHas⁠⁠⁠⁠ Check out our website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://whenaguyhas.neocities.org/⁠⁠⁠⁠ (IN PROGRESS) Subscribe to the patreon for more like this!!! https://www.patreon.com/user?u=85347146 The RSS Feed: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://anchor.fm/s/9877d600/podcast/rss⁠⁠⁠⁠ Donate to our Kofi, if you're so inclined: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://ko-fi.com/whenaguyhas⁠⁠

EDIT: There were some audio issues in the first 6 minutes of this pod. This has now been fixed. If you noticed some weird background music early in the pod, just re-download the episode on your podcast app and you'll get the fixed version. Derrick White pulls off a last-second miracle to force a game sevuuuuuuunnn! Welcome to Celtics Late Night, the new late-night edition of your Boston Celtics postgame entertainment. The show starts immediately after the Garden Report. Join us for a relaxed recap of the game, a spotlight on the best tweets and fan moments from the game, and a look ahead to the rest of the series. ------- Twitter: @First2TheFloor IG/TikTok: @firsttothefloor18 YouTube: @firsttothefloor   Playback Room: https://playback.tv/firsttothefloor ------- First to the Floor is Powered by FanDuel Sportsbook, the exclusive wagering partner of the CLNS Media Network. Get a NO SWEAT FIRST BET up to $1000 DOLLARS when you visit https://FanDuel.com/BOSTON! That's $1000 back in BONUS BETS if your first bet doesn't win.21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. $10 Deposit req. Refund issued as non-withdrawable bonus bets that expire in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See full terms at fanduel.com/sportsbook. FanDuel is offering online sports wagering in Kansas under an agreement with Kansas Star Casino, LLC. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MI, NJ, OH, PA, IL, TN, VA), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), Gamblinghelplinema.org or call (800)-327-5050 for 24/7 support (MA), visit www.mdgamblinghelp.org (MD), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), 1-800-522-4700 (WY), or visit www.1800gambler.net (WV). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Edit: There is a significant issue with Jeff's microphone on this episode. I'm leaving the episode up because while the issue is very bad, it's still “listenable.” I'm going to attempt to see if I can fix it later but at this time, I think this is what it is. My deepest apologies.Welcome back to another edition of the TD podcast with Jeff (not Jefferson) Davis and Travis Roeder. A couple of weeks ago we tackled Baylor's running game primarily discussing their offensive line. This time we dive into the tight ends and running backs. As always, while this podcast is discussed through the lens of Baylor Football, we primarily discuss scheme, organization, player traits, etc. There's something to learn for all football fans.Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit travisroeder.substack.com

Want more from the Ivory Tower Boiler Room and True Crime in Academia? Become a subscriber! Click here, or go to patreon.com/ivorytowerboileroom *Edit* There will be no new episode next week. We will be OFF! Hey, true crime friends! This week on True Crime in Academia, we will be breaking down the murder of Fairfield High School Spanish teacher, Nohema Graber. I will also be discussing the SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe V Wade this past Friday. Follow True Crime in Academia on Instagram. (@truecrimeinacademia) Sources: https://apnews.com/hub/business?utm_source=apnewsnav&utm_medium=navigation https://www.kcci.com/article/iowa-judge-to-determine-if-public-can-view-trial-of-jeremy-goodale-and-willard-miller-charged-in-murder/39488722 https://www.kcci.com/article/iowa-court-documents-reveal-timeline-of-killing-of-fairfield-spanish-teacher-willard-miller-jeremy-goodale/39517350# https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21098744-willard-miller-criminal-complaint-1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21098737-jeremy-goodale-criminal-complaint https://www.thedailybeast.com/iowa-teens-jeremy-goodale-willard-miller-stalked-spanish-teacher-nohema-graber-before-murder-prosecutors-say https://www.kcci.com/article/fairfield-iowa-teens-jeremy-goodale-and-willard-miller-used-baseball-bat-to-kill-spanish-teacher/39512075 https://www.kcci.com/article/2-teens-charged-in-death-of-fairfield-iowa-teacher-nohema-graber/38163329 https://www.oddmurdersandmysteries.com/the-murder-of-nohema-garber/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/ivorytowerboilerroom/support

If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please shoot me a quick 5-star, and a positive review if you're feeling generous. While you're there, don't forget to sub. Michael Jackson - It's the Falling in Love (The Reflex Revision) The Bar-Kays - Holy Ghost (The Reflex Revision) That's Not an Edit - Floor Wax (The dL Edit) That's Not an Edit - Kens Holiday That's Not an Edit - Mighty Love (Downunder Disco DJ Edit) Odyssey - Going Back to My Roots Talking Heads - Burning Down the House (The Reflex Revision) The Eagles - Life in the Fast Lane (The Reflex Revision) Donnie Iris - Ah! Leah! [Pittsburgh, stand up!!!] Madonna - Physical Attraction Madonna - Everybody That's Not an Edit - Sweatin' on the Dancefloor (DJ Bacon) That's Not an Edit - New York Is Red Hot (MO Saxxy ... Cman Edit) That's Not an Edit - There's Talk (Caratgold Edit) Earth Wind & Fire - In the Stone (The Reflex Revision) Pleasure - Joyous (DJ Platurn Extended Uprock Edit) P_ince -

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: A Quick Note on AI Scaling Asymptotes, published by alyssavance on May 25, 2022 on LessWrong. Two months ago, DeepMind announced their new Chinchilla paper. The headline result was that you could get much better performance with the same computational budget, by training a smaller model for longer: However, it seems to have been mostly unnoticed that the "scaling law" they found was generally different from the first one in Kaplan et al. Kaplan shows a "pure" power law: while the law in the Chinchilla paper has a large constant factor and substantially larger overall exponent. Note that N here (parameters) and D (data) are both roughly proportional to the square root of C (compute): This results in similar behavior within a certain range, but very different asymptotic behavior: (Graph produced by plotting L(c) = 26.387 / 10^0.05c for Kaplan and L(c) = 1.69 + 514.5/10^0.156c + 560.2/10^0.1512c for Chinchilla, where c is log10(FLOPs) and L is loss; I juggled a few terms around so the two curves could be compared directly.) This curve shape appears to be confirmed by their empirical results: This isn't a super-surprising result IMO - page 17 of Kaplan predicts that a pure power law can't continue indefinitely, and it's not clear how loss translates into practical performance anyway - but it seemed worth noting explicitly.EDIT: There was an earlier followup to the Kaplan paper, by many of the same authors, that also tried to break down scaling into "reducible loss" (that improved with model size) vs. "irreducible loss" (a constant factor) across several different AI domains; although unlike the Chinchilla paper, they don't seem to estimate the "irreducible loss" for language models specifically. The paper discussion on LW didn't mention this and I had missed it, thanks to Celestia for pointing it out! Here's a video discussing the results: Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: A Quick Note on AI Scaling Asymptotes, published by alyssavance on May 25, 2022 on LessWrong. Two months ago, DeepMind announced their new Chinchilla paper. The headline result was that you could get much better performance with the same computational budget, by training a smaller model for longer: However, it seems to have been mostly unnoticed that the "scaling law" they found was generally different from the first one in Kaplan et al. Kaplan shows a "pure" power law: while the law in the Chinchilla paper has a large constant factor and substantially larger overall exponent. Note that N here (parameters) and D (data) are both roughly proportional to the square root of C (compute): This results in similar behavior within a certain range, but very different asymptotic behavior: (Graph produced by plotting L(c) = 26.387 / 10^0.05c for Kaplan and L(c) = 1.69 + 514.5/10^0.156c + 560.2/10^0.1512c for Chinchilla, where c is log10(FLOPs) and L is loss; I juggled a few terms around so the two curves could be compared directly.) This curve shape appears to be confirmed by their empirical results: This isn't a super-surprising result IMO - page 17 of Kaplan predicts that a pure power law can't continue indefinitely, and it's not clear how loss translates into practical performance anyway - but it seemed worth noting explicitly.EDIT: There was an earlier followup to the Kaplan paper, by many of the same authors, that also tried to break down scaling into "reducible loss" (that improved with model size) vs. "irreducible loss" (a constant factor) across several different AI domains; although unlike the Chinchilla paper, they don't seem to estimate the "irreducible loss" for language models specifically. The paper discussion on LW didn't mention this and I had missed it, thanks to Celestia for pointing it out! Here's a video discussing the results: Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

A movie so forgettable that we forgot the title of the movie as we were watching it. 2014's The Prince is an embarrassing power fantasy and not much more.  And truthfully, I'm trying to remember what it was about a week later while writing this and I honest to god cannot remember. 13 more to go.  EDIT: There's some sound issues from 27min-30min, sorry about that.

There are a lot of... interesting personalities in politics. Edit: There are some historical errors in the Andrew Jackson entry which I am working on revising

EDIT: There was an error in the upload which meant the multi-cut version was uploaded. All corrected now, so you can enjoy the flow of banter from your two favourite film geeks. There's no time to waste as we tackle the Bond franchise for our deep dive this week, before Andy takes on a special mission to review two Melissa McCarthy films - The Starling and Superintelligence - as well as David Lowry's The Green Knight. Lee goes all gangster with a look at Many Saints of Newark, and we chat about last week's What If...? With the usual neat things and news to round things off. Another fun show from your favourite film geeks! Contact us: Twitter @FilmFileUK Instagram FilmFileUK Email podcast@filmfile.uk Leave a message and maybe be included on the show via https://anchor.fm/filmfileuk/message --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/filmfileuk/message

On today's episode we discuss the roots of the holiday classic: eggnog. As well as share a few recipes. Edit: There was a volume issue with the original posting so this is a reupload. IG: https://www.instagram.com/funkytipples/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/funkytipples/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Physical Fitness and Bushcraft, do you need to be fit to bushcraft? EDIT: There seemed to be some feedback in the audio of this video, not sure what that was all about but I apologize for the annoyance. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/atlantic-bushcraft-adventures/message

 John Esplen has been involved in punk since the 70s and while not the vocalist in a name band he is always busy behind the scenes. There is definitely a reason Henry Rollins goes around to John's house whenever he is in Newcastle. He's been buying and selling records for decades now with vinylonthe.net being the home to his massive second hand business. He also began the Overground label in 1988 which continues to this day putting out many previously unreleased  archive recordings. He also ran the One Louder label in the 1990s who were responsible for exposing Man or Astro Man? within Europe.If this doesn't sound like enough John runs Wipeout music publishing whose top clients would be Sleaford Mods. Also to mention here is his relationship to the story of the Dickies. Top bloke!Edit: There are some problems with the audio in places that I just cannot account for unfortunately? All I can think is that it was the height of Summer and the bandwidth was actually melting before our ears...Follow on Instagram for related pictures @destroybeforelisteninghttps://www.instagram.com/destroybeforelistening/Music:IntroSolanki - 'Bureaucracy'Outro Man or Astro Man? - 'Mission Into Chaos!' You can listen via any usual podcast platforms like iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, Deezer or directly through  Simplecast. Alternatively you can use the RSS feed if needed. Just copy it into your podcast platform search:https://feeds.simplecast.com/UIIQ6J3NlPlease subscribe and share this to anyone who may be interested. Thanks!

We had a blast guesting on the Riverdale podcast Milkshakes and Mimosas with host Andrew Roebuck. We talked all about Don Bluth's time at Filmation working on Archie and His New Pals, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Fantastic Voyage, Will the Real Jerry Lewis Please Sit Down, and of course, the Groovie Goolies! Since we never extensively covered Don's Filmation years on TBTWBANBTB, we're excited for you all to listen. Find Milkshakes and Mimosas in Riverdale and everywhere you get your podcasts! **Edit: There was a snafu previously where the few most recent Milkshakes and Mimosas episodes weren't distributing properly beyond just Anchor and Spotify. The issue is fixed now, so here's the iTunes link for the reupload as well. Link to the episode on iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/don-bluths-filmation-years/id1457861122?i=1000488375501 Link to the episode on Anchor: https://anchor.fm/andrew-roebuck/episodes/Don-Bluths-Filmation-Years-ehqumu

Basically like the invisible things with Danny D but with me instead. This episode I talk about supporting others and give some more info on the bracelets. Edit: There has been a couple changes with my friends' podcast. The new name is A Duo and A Microphone, you can now follow them here https://www.instagram.com/duo.microphone/

Hello everyone!! Welcome back to the channel and I hope you enjoy this deep dive on the Cowboys!!Edit (There is a buzzing sound on the audio for a good portion of the episode which i apologise for and has never happened before!! I will make sure it is sorted in future!!)Tim from the full 10 yards podcast and website is here to discuss his favorite team on all manner of different subjects from the draft to free agency and from Dak's contract to division standings!!Join us on social media - Twitter - @shutdowncoverInstagram - shutdowncoverageFacebook - Shut Down CoverMusic by www.bensound.com

EDIT: There was an issue with the upload, if you're into getting one sided audio, delete the episode and redownload it, it is fixed now!Abdul is joined by Seamus Malekafzali to look at Saudi Arabia's first, inexplicable, insane animated film, MASAMEER.You can find Seamus' fantastic writing hereReComradations:Abdul:The Mosquito: A Human History of our Deadliest Predator Seamus: The Battle for Saudi Arabia: Royalty, Fundamentalism, and Global PowerJoin the DiscordAccess Primo Lefter, our weekly premium show, for just $3/month through Patreon

Boots, Boots and Boots. A chat with filth regarding her boots fetish. ::Edit: There is a reference to a move that should actually be Wayne's world! ::

This episode’s mostly about Garfield!On a scheduling note — our traditional recording night of Thursday has become inconvenient for most of the hosts, so we’re shifting to recording Fridays or Saturdays.Edit: There was an audio issue with this episode which I fixed, so apologies if it shows up twice in your feed! Sorry! Fuck! – alexFeaturing: Sam and Roy Edited by alex leafcrunchMusic used: Evil Men – The Taxpayers Ready to Party – Desirée Goyette

Today we’re going to be going to Pandora’s labyrinth of Deceit! Wanna give some credits here to some awesome Youtubers: Maskedmetaknight4, TheSunGodPyrrhon and AngelPrincess2421. EDIT: There was an odd hiccup in the audio that had dead air for a good minute. Should be fixed now --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/optionz/message

[EDIT: There was a problem with the audio for the Remake-A-Palooza section, this version has fixed that.]So apparently the LAMB celebrated it's 10th birthday a few weeks ago (October 31st to be exact) but what with all the hubbub around other areas of life it somehow got forgotten. Worry not dear flock, for though it was not technically intended for that celebration we have decided to mark the occasion with what is easily the most ambitious, and ultimately most time-consuming to edit Lambcast show in the history of the LAMB, it's our 400th Show Spectacular!We couldn't decide on just one topic for this show, so we opted to commemorate the occasion by discussing pretty much everything in our worlds of film. So this show isn't just a Movie of the Month, it's not simply a Draft, it's not limited to just being a game of Lambpardy, no it's everything, all packed into one show. And because it's the 400th episode, each segment is tackled for exactly 400 seconds, or 6 minutes 40 seconds. If you think that doesn't sound like enough time to talk about a movie, well after recording the show I'm more than inclined to agree. We were joined by a cornucopia of Lambcast regulars - and a few unfamiliar voices too - all of whose credits can be found down the bottom. For now though, clear your schedule, you've got some listening to do.00:00 Intros06:40 Rebecca and Howard helped Jay solve the Murder on the Orient Express13:20 Audrey, Rob and Rebecca go head-to-head-to-head in Lambpardy!20:00 Jay spends a moment with Heather26:40 Jason Soto returns with Dylan and Jay to Ask The LAMB33:20 Dylan, Robert and Jay talk time travel tech, home town hate and the new game that's sweeping the nation, Spacey Replacey40:00 Rob joins Jay and Dylan for an extreme discussion on what's better, Point Break or Point Break?46:40 Kristen, Audrey and Jay self-diagnose My Girl53:20 Grab your sorting and/or thinking caps for a LIVE Harry Potter trivia fight60:00 Richard, Tony and Jay chat about some new films they've seen recently66:40 Richard, Dylan and Jay attempt to earn their licences to kill in a James Bond Draft73:20 Sean Connery hosts a Celebrity Lambpardy, with reigning champion Swedish Chef taking on Sam Elliott and Batman80:00 Audrey, Dylan and Jay look ahead to their most anticipated movies for the rest of 201786:40 Nick, Dylan and Jay roll a bunch of top 5s, on films missing from Criterion, good films starring bad actors and the number 40093:20 Lindsay joins Dylan and Jay in a bare-knuckle underground fight over David Fincher's filmography100:00 Bubbawheat, Dylan and Jay have a Marvellous time during their Franchise Lookback106:40 Why not take a break and listen to some ads?113:20 Everyone's ranting and raving!120:00 Is this the most epic game of Last Lamb Standing in history? No, but ti's definitely the most tense126:40 Gotta plug them plugs133:20 Out-takes!The show can be found on iTunes, but the Lambcast archivesare now also available on YourListen.com, so head over there to find all the past shows available for downloading and listening too! If you're interested, you too can be a LAMBcaster - we love new blood! For more information on the LAMBcast, check out the topic at the LAMB Forums. Music provided royalty-free by Kevin MacLeod's Incompetech website. Big thanks to Kevin for providing this service. Opening song by Cake. The LAMBcast loves feedback, too, so if you've got any suggestions for the show, leave it in the comments section at the LAMB or contact us on Twitter, @lambcast. Please visit and like our Facebook page, and finally, we're on iTunes, and would still love a review, even if it's a bad one. Thanks for listening!

Pauline Hanson wore a burqa into parliament last week, and Attorney-General George Brandis slapped her down, which saw a standing ovation from The Greens and The Labor Party. Sarah Hanson-Young had some things to say to Pauline Hanson on Channel 7's Sunrise, including blaming Pauline for potentially threatening the national security of the country. And the Same Sex Marriage debate is still dominating media coverage, we give our latest thoughts. EDIT: There was an audio clip that was left over from the previous episode that has now been removed :-)

My goal for this episode is to answer two questions. Is editing a podcast really worth the time? If so, what kind of things should I edit out of my podcast? Key Takeaways: Don’t wait till your podcast is popular before you start editing your show. Do the editing now for all your future listeners. Editing shows your listener that you respect their most valuable asset, which is their time. Everyone is fighting in the attention war. You have to keep your audience’s attention by giving them what they want. If you prepare more, you’ll end up having to do less editing. Raw recordings are ok if all the people on the show are great speakers. If they’re not, then you need to do some editing. If your guest is funny or providing a lot of value, a few filler words won’t ruin the experience. When people think about podcast editing, a topic that comes up is audio quality. Audio quality is important, but that's a topic for another episode. Just think about this: The top shows in iTunes all sound good. Think About the Long Game One of the reasons editing is so important is that your show (depending on your content and dedication) might be around for a very long time. Your audience might be small when you’re just starting out, but it will grow over time, and some people will go back and start from the beginning. You might think that your show will never be that popular, but you can’t know for sure. Is it worth putting your future podcast listeners through a bunch of mistakes just so you can save a couple hours every week? I don’t think it is. Spend the time doing a little bit of cleaning up and your future listeners will thank you. Don’t wait till your podcast is popular before you start editing your show. Do the editing now for all your future listeners. Editing Shows You Respect Your Audience’s Time Editing shows your listener that you respect their most valuable asset; their time. You might spend two hours cleaning up and polishing your audio, but think about how many people are in your audience and how much time you’ll be saving them collectively. Let’s say you have an audience of 1,000 people who download and listen to your podcast. You spend 2 hours editing your podcast and cut 5 minutes of junk and mistakes from the total running time. You just saved each of your 1000 audience members 5 minutes of time, but collectively you saved them 83 hours (1000 x 5 min = 5000 mins / 60 = 83 hours). You invested 2 hours and freed up 83 hours of time for other people. Editing shows your listener that you respect their most valuable asset, which is their time. If You Are a Podcast Creator, You Are Participating in the Attention War I first heard this term (attention war) in an audio book I was listening to called Ted Talks. As someone producing content, you’re competing with so many other forms of entertainment, including: Every other podcast Every music album created ever Audiobooks (Audible) Everyone is fighting in the attention war. You have to keep your audience’s attention by giving them what they want. You might be wondering, “Ok Aaron, so there’s an attention war. How do I make sure I create something great that people will want to listen to?” If You Prepare More, You'll Have to Edit Less Benjamin Franklin (smart dude) said, “An ounce of preparation is worth a pound of cure.” Note: The quote is actually, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Thanks to Daniel Glaze for pointing out my mistake! I still think it works though. If you want to make a great podcast, preparation is essential. Prepare an outline, know the point of your episode. Think about the journey that you want to take your listener on. Think about the main takeaways that you want people to remember when they’re done listening to your podcast. To prepare effectively, you need to know what your audience and what they’re interested in. You need to know what they want to hear and you need to be paying attention to what kinds of questions they’re asking. If you prepare more, you’ll end up having to do less editing. What About “Live to Tape” or “Raw” Conversations? There’s nothing wrong with “doing it live”, but live listeners will put up with stuff that podcast listeners won’t. They understand that it’s a live experience and whatever happens, happens. That’s part of the fun. But if you’re new to podcasting, chances are your “live to tape” recordings are going to be pretty shaky. Over time, with practice, you’ll get more natural and you’ll need to do less editing in post, but even the pros edit their podcasts. I’ve gotten way better at podcasting in the past year, but I’m going to continue editing my podcast because I’ll never be 100% perfect. Raw recordings are ok if all the people on the show are great speakers. If they’re not, then you need to do some editing. Ok, So What Do I Need to Edit Out of My Podcast? Think about what gets on your nerves in a podcast. The most obvious things to edit out are filler words. Ummms, long pauses and other verbal “mistakes”. This is especially important if you or your guest use a lot of filler words. People will get annoyed if there are a ton of ummms and not much “meat” or good content. You (as the editor) have to make the call about what to cut out and what to leave in. I have a pretty simple rule about what gets cut: If it makes me laugh, it will probably stay. If it doesn’t serve the purpose of the episode or if it’s not interesting, then it gets cut. Does this mean that you have to edit out every single pause or ummm or filler word? Not necessarily. If your guest is funny or providing a lot of value, a few filler words won’t ruin the experience. However, if your guest is not very good at speaking and it takes a long time for them to get to or make a point and if they’re using a ton of filler words and pausing a lot, you’ve got some editing to do. Otherwise, you’re going to lose listeners. They will turn the show off. Imagine if I left a 5 second pause after every few sentences. How long would you put up with that? Not long, I’d guess. Also, how many of you skip ads or long, extended intros? You don’t care about that stuff, you just want the interesting content. Your listeners feel the same way. What If I Don’t Know How to Edit? There are free and affordable editing programs like Audacity and Garageband. Get familiar with them. There are video tutorials for almost everything. If you can’t find a free tutorial on Google or Youtube, buy a Lynda.com subscription or look on a tutorial site like Udemy. Of course, you could also just try to figure it out for yourself. That’s not always the fastest way to learn new software, but it works for some people. If your time is just too valuable to spend an hour or three every week polishing/editing your podcast, hire a podcast editor. And I talked about this more in episode 8: Ten Things to Know Before You Hire a Podcast Editor. If you have to edit a show with multiple co-hosts every week, I suggest investing in professional editing software that allows you to do multi-track editing. I love Logic Pro X because I can quickly highlight and edit sections out of multiple tracks at the same time, and also because there are some great keyboard shortcuts and features that make the editing process much quicker than a program like Garageband. If you’re on a Windows PC, check out Adobe Audition. Recap: In closing, editing your podcast is important, but preparing the message or story or key points of your podcast episode is even more important. Remember, you are participating in the attention war. You’re competing against a ton of other people for your listeners attention. Bring your A game. If you don’t have time to invest in editing your podcast, hire a podcast editor for you. A good editor will know what to cut out and what to leave in. Q&A: Jordan Newhouse asked: I’m curious: On average, how much time do you cut from the podcasts you edit? How much shorter is the finished product than the original recording? Depends on the show, but for shows I'm just doing a quick cleanup for, it’s usually between two and five minutes. Occasionally there will be longer sections that need to be cut. Fillippe asked: How long does it take you to edit podcasts? It depends on the length of the show, how many people are on it, and how good they are at talking. In general, it usually takes me 2-3 times as long as the episode is. So if the episode is an hour long and there are two tracks, it’ll take me two to three hours to edit it. If there are very few mistakes, sometimes I can get a show edited in 1.5x the length of the show. You also have to remember that I’ve been editing podcast professionally for three years now, so I’m really fast. It’ll take longer when you’re just starting out, but hang in there and you’ll get faster. Scotty Russell asked: When just starting off, is making sure you’re editing a lot and polishing important or is just getting started and putting it out there best? Perfectionism is holding me back. Dude: Start your podcast already, man. I know you’re going to do a great job. Just think about your podcast episodes as mini talks; prepare an outline, hit a couple of points, record it, clean up any huge mistakes, and get it published. You’re going to make some small mistakes, that’s fine. Get started and iterate as you go. 2018 update: Scotty did start that show: https://www.perspective-collective.com/perspectivepodcast/ Jordan asked: I’ve been thinking about interview-type podcasts, as that’s what dominates my niche. I’ve read that for some of these an informally formatted interview chat is recorded in advance, then afterward the highlights and best stories are edited and a narrative is crafted to pull it all together. The narration is recorded after the fact. I guess my question is: What are your thoughts on this type of highly-edited podcast? (highly edited shows versus conversational shows) This is a question that comes up a lot. I did a poll on Twitter, asking if people preferred listening to highly edited podcasts, raw conversations, or somewhere in between. The majority voted for somewhere in between. I think people do like listening to conversations, but having structure helps the show stay valuable. I love raw conversations but I appreciate when podcasters edit out filler words or tangents. I also think the highly edited shows feel a little less personal, but they can still be very valuable if you take the time to craft a great story. They do take more time to produce, though. Keep that in mind when deciding what kind of show you want to make. Cool Stuff to Check Out: Recommended Gear: https://kit.com/thepodcastdude Podcast: https://thepodcastdude.simplecast.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/thepodcastdude Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/thepodcastdude Successful Podcasting: http://successfulpodcasting.com Simplecast Blog: http://blog.simplecast.com/

How do we respond to challenges? How do you respond when you’re faced with a dilemma where you are faced with a difficult decision to make? On the one hand, if you stand for God you will suffer at the hands of those challenging you. On the other hand, if you don’t stand for God, you will avoid the imminent consequences, but have denied the Lord in some way. When Jesus was being tried before his execution on the cross, when challenged, Peter denied him twice (Luke 22:54-62). Yet, he was later forgiven and restored by the Lord (John 21:15-19). Christians often face challenges, whether large or small, with the threat of ostracism on the one hand to death on the other hand (moreso in other countries around the world than here in Ireland). How do we respond? If a Christian, what question do we want to be asked least? What situation do we want avoid most? Are we more afraid of upsetting other people than God? The Lord is with his followers in the middle of their trials In Daniel 3:1-30, Daniel’s three friends face a life-threatening question. But they refuse to compromise on their faith in the Lord God, even when threatened with death. In the end, God eventually saves them from death, and they are strengthened in their faith, to God’s glory. Yet, even during the trial that they endured, the Lord was present with them in a very real way. And when they came through it, they were not injured from their experience at all. Yet, are we prepared for the ultimate sacrifice? But not everyone can come through it the same way. Sometimes the Lord doesn’t rescue us, and we have to face suffering or even death. Are we prepared to stand for the Lord even when we know it means facing death? Here is an (edited) extract from an account of the death of Rachel Scott, who died because she refused to deny Jesus. Rachel Scott, one of the martyrs killed at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, would be 31 today, if she were alive. Though Rachel’s life was tragically cut short at the age of 17, her story continues to inspire people today, more than a decade after her death. Rachel’s faith in Christ was no secret to her peers in Littleton, Colorado, which made her a target that fateful day when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold opened fire at their high school. Rachel was asked by the gunmen if she believed in Christ, and when she answered in the affirmative, she was shot. She was the first person shot that day, including 12 students, one teacher (and the two gunmen later on committed suicide). Minutes later, they returned to her, as she was lying on the ground wounded, asking her a second time if she still believed. On answering yes again, she was shot in the head. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Rachel’s journey was the premonition she had a year before she was killed. On May 2, 1998, she wrote in her journal: “This will be my last year, Lord. I have gotten what I can. Thank you.” She knew that her faith could cost her. Shortly after her conversion, it began costing her friends that no longer wanted to associate with her. Rachel took it hard, as any teenage girl would, but she didn’t reconsider her commitment to Jesus. “I am not going to apologize for speaking the Name of Jesus,” she wrote in a letter to her friend one year to the day before her death. “I am not going to justify my faith to them, and I am not going to hide the light that God has put into me. If I have to sacrifice everything…I will.” Rachels’ funeral, which was broadcast on CNN, reportedly was the most widely watched programme in CNN’s history [funeral in television history]. The funeral consisted of, among other things, testimonies from her friends concerning her strong commitment to Christ. In her death, Rachel was able to spread the gospel via CNN, to people who may have otherwise gone unreached. Pastor Bruce Porter spoke at Rachel’s funeral, addressing the young people in the crowd: “Rachel carried a torch, the torch of truth, the torch of compassion, the torch of love, the torch of the good news of Jesus Christ, her Savior and Lord, whom she was not ashamed of even in her hour of death. I want to lay a challenge before each and every one of you young people here today. The torch has fallen from Rachel’s hand. Who will pick it up again? Who will pick up the torch again.” When we are faced with difficult choices like this, it helps if we are already prepared in our minds beforehand as to how we will respond. If we suffer, the Lord is with us in the midst of our trials. If we are faithful to him and are spared, our faith is strengthened. If as believers we suffer the ultimate sacrifice, death, we go to be with the Lord which is far better (Phil 1:21-23). Edit: There is another girl, Cassie Bernall, who was also killed at Columbine as well as Rachel. she was reported to have said something similar to Rachel before being shot. However, since posting this, I have learned of the conflicting accounts of what is believed to have been said, or not said. It appears that neither may have actually been questioned about their faith. However, as another post similarly concludes; “Rachel’s parents maintain their daughter was targeted because she was a Christian and that videos which were part of the investigation prove that she was harassed by the gunmen for her faith.” Regardless of what was said or not, Rachel’s diary shows that she was prepared to give up her life for her Lord and Saviour. She is with him now.

How do we respond to challenges? How do you respond when you’re faced with a dilemma where you are faced with a difficult decision to make? On the one hand, if you stand for God you will suffer at the hands of those challenging you. On the other hand, if you don’t stand for God, you will avoid the imminent consequences, but have denied the Lord in some way. When Jesus was being tried before his execution on the cross, when challenged, Peter denied him twice (Luke 22:54-62). Yet, he was later forgiven and restored by the Lord (John 21:15-19). Christians often face challenges, whether large or small, with the threat of ostracism on the one hand to death on the other hand (moreso in other countries around the world than here in Ireland). How do we respond? If a Christian, what question do we want to be asked least? What situation do we want avoid most? Are we more afraid of upsetting other people than God? The Lord is with his followers in the middle of their trials In Daniel 3:1-30, Daniel’s three friends face a life-threatening question. But they refuse to compromise on their faith in the Lord God, even when threatened with death. In the end, God eventually saves them from death, and they are strengthened in their faith, to God’s glory. Yet, even during the trial that they endured, the Lord was present with them in a very real way. And when they came through it, they were not injured from their experience at all. Yet, are we prepared for the ultimate sacrifice? But not everyone can come through it the same way. Sometimes the Lord doesn’t rescue us, and we have to face suffering or even death. Are we prepared to stand for the Lord even when we know it means facing death? Here is an (edited) extract from an account of the death of Rachel Scott, who died because she refused to deny Jesus. Rachel Scott, one of the martyrs killed at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, would be 31 today, if she were alive. Though Rachel’s life was tragically cut short at the age of 17, her story continues to inspire people today, more than a decade after her death. Rachel’s faith in Christ was no secret to her peers in Littleton, Colorado, which made her a target that fateful day when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold opened fire at their high school. Rachel was asked by the gunmen if she believed in Christ, and when she answered in the affirmative, she was shot. She was the first person shot that day, including 12 students, one teacher (and the two gunmen later on committed suicide). Minutes later, they returned to her, as she was lying on the ground wounded, asking her a second time if she still believed. On answering yes again, she was shot in the head. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Rachel’s journey was the premonition she had a year before she was killed. On May 2, 1998, she wrote in her journal: “This will be my last year, Lord. I have gotten what I can. Thank you.” She knew that her faith could cost her. Shortly after her conversion, it began costing her friends that no longer wanted to associate with her. Rachel took it hard, as any teenage girl would, but she didn’t reconsider her commitment to Jesus. “I am not going to apologize for speaking the Name of Jesus,” she wrote in a letter to her friend one year to the day before her death. “I am not going to justify my faith to them, and I am not going to hide the light that God has put into me. If I have to sacrifice everything…I will.” Rachels’ funeral, which was broadcast on CNN, reportedly was the most widely watched programme in CNN’s history [funeral in television history]. The funeral consisted of, among other things, testimonies from her friends concerning her strong commitment to Christ. In her death, Rachel was able to spread the gospel via CNN, to people who may have otherwise gone unreached. Pastor Bruce Porter spoke at Rachel’s funeral, addressing the young people in the crowd: “Rachel carried a torch, the torch of truth, the torch of compassion, the torch of love, the torch of the good news of Jesus Christ, her Savior and Lord, whom she was not ashamed of even in her hour of death. I want to lay a challenge before each and every one of you young people here today. The torch has fallen from Rachel’s hand. Who will pick it up again? Who will pick up the torch again.” When we are faced with difficult choices like this, it helps if we are already prepared in our minds beforehand as to how we will respond. If we suffer, the Lord is with us in the midst of our trials. If we are faithful to him and are spared, our faith is strengthened. If as believers we suffer the ultimate sacrifice, death, we go to be with the Lord which is far better (Phil 1:21-23). Edit: There is another girl, Cassie Bernall, who was also killed at Columbine as well as Rachel. she was reported to have said something similar to Rachel before being shot. However, since posting this, I have learned of the conflicting accounts of what is believed to have been said, or not said. It appears that neither may have actually been questioned about their faith. However, as another post similarly concludes; “Rachel’s parents maintain their daughter was targeted because she was a Christian and that videos which were part of the investigation prove that she was harassed by the gunmen for her faith.” Regardless of what was said or not, Rachel’s diary shows that she was prepared to give up her life for her Lord and Saviour. She is with him now.

How do we respond to challenges? How do you respond when you’re faced with a dilemma where you are faced with a difficult decision to make? On the one hand, if you stand for God you will suffer at the hands of those challenging you. On the other hand, if you don’t stand for God, you will avoid the imminent consequences, but have denied the Lord in some way. When Jesus was being tried before his execution on the cross, when challenged, Peter denied him twice (Luke 22:54-62). Yet, he was later forgiven and restored by the Lord (John 21:15-19). Christians often face challenges, whether large or small, with the threat of ostracism on the one hand to death on the other hand (moreso in other countries around the world than here in Ireland). How do we respond? If a Christian, what question do we want to be asked least? What situation do we want avoid most? Are we more afraid of upsetting other people than God? The Lord is with his followers in the middle of their trials In Daniel 3:1-30, Daniel’s three friends face a life-threatening question. But they refuse to compromise on their faith in the Lord God, even when threatened with death. In the end, God eventually saves them from death, and they are strengthened in their faith, to God’s glory. Yet, even during the trial that they endured, the Lord was present with them in a very real way. And when they came through it, they were not injured from their experience at all. Yet, are we prepared for the ultimate sacrifice? But not everyone can come through it the same way. Sometimes the Lord doesn’t rescue us, and we have to face suffering or even death. Are we prepared to stand for the Lord even when we know it means facing death? Here is an (edited) extract from an account of the death of Rachel Scott, who died because she refused to deny Jesus. Rachel Scott, one of the martyrs killed at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, would be 31 today, if she were alive. Though Rachel’s life was tragically cut short at the age of 17, her story continues to inspire people today, more than a decade after her death. Rachel’s faith in Christ was no secret to her peers in Littleton, Colorado, which made her a target that fateful day when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold opened fire at their high school. Rachel was asked by the gunmen if she believed in Christ, and when she answered in the affirmative, she was shot. She was the first person shot that day, including 12 students, one teacher (and the two gunmen later on committed suicide). Minutes later, they returned to her, as she was lying on the ground wounded, asking her a second time if she still believed. On answering yes again, she was shot in the head. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Rachel’s journey was the premonition she had a year before she was killed. On May 2, 1998, she wrote in her journal: “This will be my last year, Lord. I have gotten what I can. Thank you.” She knew that her faith could cost her. Shortly after her conversion, it began costing her friends that no longer wanted to associate with her. Rachel took it hard, as any teenage girl would, but she didn’t reconsider her commitment to Jesus. “I am not going to apologize for speaking the Name of Jesus,” she wrote in a letter to her friend one year to the day before her death. “I am not going to justify my faith to them, and I am not going to hide the light that God has put into me. If I have to sacrifice everything…I will.” Rachels’ funeral, which was broadcast on CNN, reportedly was the most widely watched programme in CNN’s history [funeral in television history]. The funeral consisted of, among other things, testimonies from her friends concerning her strong commitment to Christ. In her death, Rachel was able to spread the gospel via CNN, to people who may have otherwise gone unreached. Pastor Bruce Porter spoke at Rachel’s funeral, addressing the young people in the crowd: “Rachel carried a torch, the torch of truth, the torch of compassion, the torch of love, the torch of the good news of Jesus Christ, her Savior and Lord, whom she was not ashamed of even in her hour of death. I want to lay a challenge before each and every one of you young people here today. The torch has fallen from Rachel’s hand. Who will pick it up again? Who will pick up the torch again.” When we are faced with difficult choices like this, it helps if we are already prepared in our minds beforehand as to how we will respond. If we suffer, the Lord is with us in the midst of our trials. If we are faithful to him and are spared, our faith is strengthened. If as believers we suffer the ultimate sacrifice, death, we go to be with the Lord which is far better (Phil 1:21-23). Edit: There is another girl, Cassie Bernall, who was also killed at Columbine as well as Rachel. she was reported to have said something similar to Rachel before being shot. However, since posting this, I have learned of the conflicting accounts of what is believed to have been said, or not said. It appears that neither may have actually been questioned about their faith. However, as another post similarly concludes; “Rachel’s parents maintain their daughter was targeted because she was a Christian and that videos which were part of the investigation prove that she was harassed by the gunmen for her faith.” Regardless of what was said or not, Rachel’s diary shows that she was prepared to give up her life for her Lord and Saviour. She is with him now.