Podcast appearances and mentions of elizabeth rhodes

What are the effects when you give $1,000 a month in unconditional cash transfers to low-income Americans for three years? Our guests this week studied the behavioral and political outcomes of this in a 3,000-person study. Elizabeth Rhodes is the research director for the Unconditional Cash Study at OpenResearch, a nonprofit research lab founded by OpenAI founder Sam Altman. David Broockman is an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley and worked as the principal investigator supporting the unconditional cash study. Together, they co-authored, along with others, a paper: "The Causal Effects of Income on Political Attitudes and Behavior: A Randomized Field Experiment.” Rhodes and Broockman join WITHpod to discuss some of the most surprising finds, why receiving cash overwhelmingly didn't change people's political leanings, how the money changed people's attitudes about work and more.

Read the full transcript here. What have we learned about UBI from recent, large-scale studies? What factors contribute to differential attrition in (especially long-term) studies? How much does it cost to run large UBI studies? Where else in the world have major UBI studies been run? What's the difference between "guaranteed income" and UBI? How do people in cash transfer studies tend to spend their money? Should restrictions be placed on what people can spend their study money on? How long does it take to see various effects of UBI or guaranteed income on a large scale? How does guaranteed income affect the nature of work in recipients' lives? How does guaranteed income affect a person's net worth in the long run? What are the effects on well-being? How does topical knowledge affect prediction accuracy in a given area? How good are subject-matter experts at making predictions about the outcome or utility of a study? How can such predictions in aggregate be used to shape future research? To what extent should reseachers express uncertainty when making proposals to policy-makers? How much of an effect does the publishing of academic papers have on the world? What kind of person should try to build a career in academia? How can non-experts assess the rigor and significance of academic papers?Eva Vivalt is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Toronto. Dr. Vivalt's main research interests are in investigating stumbling blocks to evidence-based policy decisions, including methodological issues, how evidence is interpreted, and the use of forecasting. Dr. Vivalt is also a principal investigator on three guaranteed income RCTs and a co-founder of the Social Science Prediction Platform, a platform to coordinate the collection of forecasts of research results. Find out more about her on her website, evavivalt.com.Further reading:"The Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers on Consumption and Household Balance Sheets: Experimental Evidence from Two US States", by Alexander W. Bartik, Elizabeth Rhodes, David E. Broockman, Patrick K. Krause, Sarah Miller, and Eva Vivalt StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host / DirectorJosh Castle — ProducerRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]

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: On the UBI Paper, published by Zvi on September 4, 2024 on LessWrong. Would a universal basic income (UBI) work? What would it do? Many people agree July's RCT on giving people a guaranteed income, and its paper from Eva Vivalt, Elizabeth Rhodes, Alexander W. Bartik, David E. Broockman and Sarah Miller was, despite whatever flaws it might have, the best data we have so far on the potential impact of UBI. There are many key differences from how UBI would look if applied for real, but this is the best data we have. This study was primarily funded by Sam Altman, so whatever else he may be up to, good job there. I do note that my model of 'Altman several years ago' is more positive than mine of Altman now, and past actions like this are a lot of the reason I give him so much benefit of the doubt. They do not agree on what conclusions we should draw. This is not a simple 'UBI is great' or 'UBI it does nothing.' I see essentially four responses. 1. The first group says this shows UBI doesn't work. That's going too far. I think the paper greatly reduces the plausibility of the best scenarios, but I don't think it rules UBI out as a strategy, especially if it is a substitute for other transfers. 2. The second group says this was a disappointing result for UBI. That UBI could still make sense as a form of progressive redistribution, but likely at a cost of less productivity so long as people impacted are still productive. I agree. 3. The third group did its best to spin this into a positive result. There was a lot of spin here, and use of anecdotes, and arguments as soldiers. Often these people were being very clear they were true believers and advocates, that want UBI now, and were seeking the bright side. Respect? There were some bright spots that they pointed out, and no one study over three years should make you give up, but this was what it was and I wish people wouldn't spin like that. 4. The fourth group was some mix of 'if brute force (aka money) doesn't solve your problem you're not using enough' and also 'but work is bad, actually, and leisure is good.' That if we aren't getting people not to work then the system is not functioning, or that $1k/month wasn't enough to get the good effects, or both. I am willing to take a bold 'people working more is mostly good' stance, for the moment, although AI could change that. And while I do think that a more permanent or larger support amount would do some interesting things, I wouldn't expect to suddenly see polarity reverse. I am so dedicated to actually reading this paper that it cost me $5. Free academia now. RTFP (Read the Paper): Core Design Core design was that there were 1,000 low-income individuals randomized into getting $1k/month for 3 years, or $36k total. A control group of 2,000 others got $50/month, or $1800 total. Average household income in the study before transfers was $29,900. They then studied what happened. Before looking at the results, what are the key differences between this and UBI? Like all studies of UBI, this can only be done for a limited population, and it only lasts a limited amount of time. If you tell me I am getting $1,000/month for life, then that makes me radically richer, and also radically safer. In extremis you can plan to live off that, or it can be a full fallback. Which is a large part of the point, and a lot of the danger as well. If instead you give me that money for only three years, then I am slightly less than $36k richer. Which is nice, but impacts my long term prospects much less. It is still a good test of the 'give people money' hypothesis but less good at testing UBI. The temporary form, and also the limited scope, means that it won't cause a cultural shift and changing of norms. Those changes might be good or bad, and they could overshadow other impacts. Does this move tow...

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: On the UBI Paper, published by Zvi on September 4, 2024 on LessWrong. Would a universal basic income (UBI) work? What would it do? Many people agree July's RCT on giving people a guaranteed income, and its paper from Eva Vivalt, Elizabeth Rhodes, Alexander W. Bartik, David E. Broockman and Sarah Miller was, despite whatever flaws it might have, the best data we have so far on the potential impact of UBI. There are many key differences from how UBI would look if applied for real, but this is the best data we have. This study was primarily funded by Sam Altman, so whatever else he may be up to, good job there. I do note that my model of 'Altman several years ago' is more positive than mine of Altman now, and past actions like this are a lot of the reason I give him so much benefit of the doubt. They do not agree on what conclusions we should draw. This is not a simple 'UBI is great' or 'UBI it does nothing.' I see essentially four responses. 1. The first group says this shows UBI doesn't work. That's going too far. I think the paper greatly reduces the plausibility of the best scenarios, but I don't think it rules UBI out as a strategy, especially if it is a substitute for other transfers. 2. The second group says this was a disappointing result for UBI. That UBI could still make sense as a form of progressive redistribution, but likely at a cost of less productivity so long as people impacted are still productive. I agree. 3. The third group did its best to spin this into a positive result. There was a lot of spin here, and use of anecdotes, and arguments as soldiers. Often these people were being very clear they were true believers and advocates, that want UBI now, and were seeking the bright side. Respect? There were some bright spots that they pointed out, and no one study over three years should make you give up, but this was what it was and I wish people wouldn't spin like that. 4. The fourth group was some mix of 'if brute force (aka money) doesn't solve your problem you're not using enough' and also 'but work is bad, actually, and leisure is good.' That if we aren't getting people not to work then the system is not functioning, or that $1k/month wasn't enough to get the good effects, or both. I am willing to take a bold 'people working more is mostly good' stance, for the moment, although AI could change that. And while I do think that a more permanent or larger support amount would do some interesting things, I wouldn't expect to suddenly see polarity reverse. I am so dedicated to actually reading this paper that it cost me $5. Free academia now. RTFP (Read the Paper): Core Design Core design was that there were 1,000 low-income individuals randomized into getting $1k/month for 3 years, or $36k total. A control group of 2,000 others got $50/month, or $1800 total. Average household income in the study before transfers was $29,900. They then studied what happened. Before looking at the results, what are the key differences between this and UBI? Like all studies of UBI, this can only be done for a limited population, and it only lasts a limited amount of time. If you tell me I am getting $1,000/month for life, then that makes me radically richer, and also radically safer. In extremis you can plan to live off that, or it can be a full fallback. Which is a large part of the point, and a lot of the danger as well. If instead you give me that money for only three years, then I am slightly less than $36k richer. Which is nice, but impacts my long term prospects much less. It is still a good test of the 'give people money' hypothesis but less good at testing UBI. The temporary form, and also the limited scope, means that it won't cause a cultural shift and changing of norms. Those changes might be good or bad, and they could overshadow other impacts. Does this move tow...

This week, the memes didn't just fall out of coconut trees — a rundown of the social media reaction to Kamala Harris's election campaign, and an exploration of what her tech platform might look like. Then we discuss a major new study on universal basic income with Elizabeth Rhodes, research director at OpenResearch, and ask whether it could be a solution to job losses to A.I. And finally, Kate Conger, a New York Times reporter, joins us to break down how the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike crashed the global IT infrastructure. Guests:Elizabeth Rhodes, Research Director at OpenResearchKate Conger, New York Times reporter Additional Reading: What is the KHive?Is It Silicon Valley's Job to Make Guaranteed Income a Reality?OpenResearch Unconditional Cash StudyWhen Tech Fails, It Is Usually With a Whimper Instead of a Bang  We want to hear from you. Email us at hardfork@nytimes.com. Find “Hard Fork” on YouTube and TikTok.

Pepe and Lucía: the guerrilla lovers who became the leaders of UruguayWhen they were younger, José Pepe Mujica and Lucía Topolansky separately joined a left-wing insurgency set on overthrowing the country's government. They wouldn't meet for years but they were on the same mission. Each went underground, cutting ties to friends and family while their group, the Tupamaros, carried out bank heists to fund the uprising. The law soon caught up with them both, but neither were prepared to stay behind bars for long.    Presenter: Andrea Kennedy Producer: Louise MorrisDubbers were Elizabeth Rhodes and Fede di Lorenzo

What you'll learn in this episode: How the jewelry industry has changed over the last 50 years How the Women's Jewelry Association helped women jewelry professionals get the recognition they deserved What it was like to work with Elizabeth Taylor and Hilary Clinton to design iconic jewels for them Linda's advice for young jewelry designers About Linda Orlick Linda Orlick is a longtime public relations expert in the jewelry industry as well as an accomplished business executive with experience branding high-end products, people and companies. She is co-founder of the influential Women's Jewelry Association, a volunteer organization founded in 1984 that began with 10 women in an apartment in Manhattan and blossomed to become a formidable entity and powerful voice for women in the jewelry industry worldwide. Linda served as its President for a four- year term. Additional Resources: Instagram LinkedIn Photos available on ThejewelryJourney.com Transcript: Linda Orlick entered the jewelry industry when gold was $35 an ounce and jewelry designers were unknowns who worked behind the scenes. Due in no small part to Linda's passion for the industry and her work to brand and promote emerging designers, retailers and shows, jewelry is now a respected part of the American fashion scene. She joined the Jewelry Journey Podcast to talk about the history of the Women's Jewelry Association; why it's so hard for people to leave the jewelry industry once they enter it; and how she helped facilitate the design of the 4.25 carat canary yellow diamond ring Hilary Clinton wore to the 1993 inauguration. Read the episode transcript here. Sharon: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Jewelry Journey Podcast. This is the second part of a two-part episode. If you haven't heard part one, please head to TheJewelryJourney.com. My guest is Linda Orlick. Linda has spent her whole career in jewelry. She has been very successful as a retailer and a consultant to retailers. She's one of the cofounders of the Women's Jewelry Association, and she helped build it into a powerhouse. Welcome back. Linda: I think I was also instrumental in launching the American Jewelry Design Council. That was founded by Jose Hess and Jean Francois Albert, with a lot of wonderful designers. As a matter of fact, I'll tell you a story. We used to meet once a year and have a retreat. I must include Michael Van Danzer. as one of the outstanding designers. One year, we had an appointment to meet at De Beers in London to talk about jewelry design and diamonds. There were 30 of us. I have to mention Susan Helmich, Susan Fabric as well. They were also women that were very much a part of the American Jewelry Design Council. Those were the women that stood out. That morning, one of my good friends called me and said, “You can't go to London,” and I said, “Why?” They said, “Princess Diana just died.” Well, too late, we were all on our way to London. We arrived in London and were walking to Kensington Palace, not knowing if we were going to have our meeting De Beers. Everything was up in the air. It was the most sorrowful experience that we all shared together. My group did meet at De Beers. It was a very short meeting. Chairs were abundant, but there was just no stopping them. Although we had time enough to meet, there was also the trip home at Heathrow Airport, when the funeral procession was going on. Every person in that airport was hysterically crying and cried all the way home. It was such a personal tragedy for so many of us, but we carried on as best we could. Another retreat we went to was in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. We went there in September, when the aspen trees were golden in their bloom. These retreats really gave the designers a chance to talk about how they were going to continue their designs and how they were going to keep building, how they were going to invite new designers to come in, and how they were going to expand the world of jewelry design. One of the things they did was pick a theme, whether it be a wheel or a teardrop, and every designer that was part of the American Jewelry Design Council would a create piece with this theme. Then one of us had the idea to display them in different museum settings as an exhibit. It was also at the JA Show and eventually the JCK Show. Now, I had been on the board of Kent State University School of Design for 18 years. When I first joined the board, I fell in love with the school, and Henry and I were invited to be guest speakers. It was then called the Shannon Rogers and Jerry Silverman School of Design. We were invited to their fashionomics course that happened every Friday. So, we would get on a plane from New York to Cleveland, which is an hour flight, and spend the day at the school speaking to the students, answering questions, having a lovely dinner, and then getting on a flight that night and going back to New York. I continued that for 18 years. Every Friday in the fall semester, I would bring different designers or an editor from Vogue Magazine or another magazine and then come back the same day. I loved it. One day, the amazing president—her name was Elizabeth Rhodes—said to me, “We'd like to rebrand the school. Jerry Silverman is such a big name. How can we do that?” I said, “I have an idea. Come to my office in New York, and let's have a branding session. Let's talk about a strategy to rename the school, since it's more about design.” My dear colleague Michael Carter sat with the deans and the professors. Every one of the teaching professionals of Kent State was in a New York conference room, and we renamed the Kent State School of Design. It was that simple, and it's been that way ever since. For many years after that, I continued to travel to the school, bringing other guest speakers to their fashionomics course. It was very rewarding. I also helped them develop a New York program, where students worked in a studio in New York in the garment district. They housed students, and they had students come to FIT or be assigned to different designers, like Donna Karan or Diane von Furstenberg, to work with them so they could increase their skills as designers. That was an exceptional time to see the emergence of this wonderful talent come to life. Sharon: Wow! It sounds like you have quite a history. What is your connection to jewelry today? Do you have a connection? Linda: I will always have a connection. When I went to school and studied to be a medical technician, I worked for an amazing doctor on Park Avenue and 78th Street until I was almost nine months pregnant. I had the privilege of having patients like Neil Simon, Mel Brooks, Anne Bancroft. I once gave flu shots to all the cast of a Broadway show. I never in a million years thought I would be in the jewelry industry. My uncle, my mom's brother, had a company called Raquel and Landy. He was one of the first jewelry manufacturing companies to make high jewelry in platinum and diamonds. He said to me, “Your great uncle was the founder of the first jewelry boutique on the Bowery of New York. He used to make jewelry for the Duchess of Windsor.” I said, “Hm. Jewelry, my great uncle, my uncle, my cousins.” It was meant to be for me. Most people who go into the jewelry industry, especially in the beginning, if you ask them, “Did you study to be in the industry?” they would say, “It just happened. I happened to fall into it.” Once you fall into it, you love it. I can call anybody I met back in the 70s as if I was with them yesterday. The jewelry industry has a special bond. Once they love you, once you give them your integrity and your honesty, you have friends for life. I worked with the well-known Mark Hanna, who is now with Warren Buffet's company. In the very beginning, he and I worked for a company and developed jewelry. We have maintained our friendship throughout the years. There isn't a person I've met that I'm not still in touch with. When I moved to Florida in August of 2019, purely by accident, we were about to have a hurricane, which never happened. My best friend said to me, “Come on, we're going to the mall. I'm going to show you what it's all about.” This is the first time I ever lived outside of New York City. We walked into the mall and into Neiman Marcus. Keep in mind that Henry Dunay was the most important jewelry designer at Neiman Marcus for probably close to 50 years, and along with him I used to make personal appearances. I used to help them with many of their promotional campaigns. I helped them with their events. In fact, there were times when they hired me to create in-store promotions for them or tie-ins with other designers. We used to have in-store events and try to bring the store together, which I was very involved with. I can't remember what I was thinking about. Sharon: Neiman Marcus. Linda: We walked into Neiman's, and I walked straight into the fine jewelry department. Neal Acartio, who was one of the managers in another store was there, and he looked at me and said, “What are you doing here?” I said, “Well, I just moved to Florida. There's no hurricane, so my girlfriend took me shopping.” He said, “You know, there's a position open as a sales associate.” I said, “But I never did retail,” and he said, “It doesn't matter. They're interviewing tomorrow.” I got the job. I was working the next week just like that. I had so much fun. It wasn't easy being on your feet for eight hours, but I met childhood friends. I immediately made strong relationships with beautiful clients that had me shopping for them. I absolutely loved it, and I probably would still be there, but on March 17, 2020, everything closed down, the store, the mall, the country. The pandemic was here. Everything closed. There was no place to go. I stayed in the house for 18 months. Neiman's started to hire very slowly afterwards, but it took a very long time. I can happily say I'm still very involved in the industry. I most recently volunteered to work with my friends and colleagues at the Women's Jewelry Association, which is coming up on our 40th anniversary, which I can't believe. The Women's Jewelry Association is going to be 40 years old next year, so I'm going to be actively involved and will attend the 40th anniversary of the Women's Jewelry Association. Through my Facebook connections, through my social media connections, I would say I am as involved in the industry as I could be. Living here in Florida, I have a deep love for it, a deep respect for the way it's grown. I watched these designers, who tried to lead with all the different and beautiful works they put out, getting better and better each year. To any young designer coming in, do it. Embrace it with both hands. One of the schools that stands out is FIT. Their jewelry department has expanded dramatically. I used to guest lecture. We started the Women in the Know Conferences at FIT through the Women's Jewelry Association. That's something that happens every year. The other design schools out there are very good, like Parsons. USC has a very important program. Kent State, when we went back, expanded their jewelry department. It was very impressive. It's exciting to have seen it from the 1970s. It's now close to 2023. I have another story I'd love to tell you about. My dear colleague at the Diamond Information Council called me one day and said, “Linda, Elizabeth Taylor needs a mask to wear for an event in honor of AIDS, to raise funds for AIDS research.” I said, “O.K., let me think about this for a second.” I went to Henry and said, “Henry, Elizabeth Taylor needs a mask.” When you say that to somebody with a wealth of designer possibilities like Henry Dunay, you can't image what's coming next. You'll see by the picture of Elizabeth holding the mask that he didn't just create a little pin and mask. It was a life-size mask with 936 diamonds supplied by dear friends at William Goldberg Diamonds and platinum from the Platinum Guild. The Gold Council donated the gold. This extraordinary mask, which was valued at over $1 million, was supposed to be carried by Elizabeth the day of the event. She wanted to auction it off at Christie's. The night before, she got the flu, so she couldn't attend the event. A model was the one who wound up carrying it, but Elizabeth's connection with the mask was strong. We had beautiful photography that shows her with the mask. Henry designed mini mask pins for her and several of the guests, like Anna Wintour, so they would always have a keepsake from that evening. The mask went all over the world. It went to Wichita, Kansas, to raise funds for pediatric AIDS. In about two hours, it raised over $88,000 for AIDS. It was absolutely breathtaking, as you will see in the pictures. Sadly, the mask was pulled apart because the diamonds had to given back. Though Henry's intention was to replace it with other diamonds, I don't think it ever happened. Everybody used to say, “Oh, Elizabeth Taylor, she's such a diva. You're going to have such a hard time working with her.” I couldn't tell you how absolutely wonderful and genuine she was. The few times we met her, when we presented the mask to her and at another event, where Henry designed a special necklace for her, she was as loving and generous and warm and friendly as anyone could imagine. Her dedication to raising awareness for AIDS was like none other. I will never forget those moments I had with her. It was very exciting. Sharon: It must have been. Linda, thank you for sharing all the history and different perspectives you have. You've seen a lot, and you'll see a lot more, I'm sure. Thank you so much for being here today. Linda: Thank you so much. It's been a wonderful journey to share with you. Sharon: We will have photos posted on the website. Please head to TheJewelryJourney.com to check them out. Thank you again for listening. Please leave us a rating and review so we can help others start their own jewelry journey.

In SEASON 2, EPISODE 2, GHOSTS 2, I talk with Jacob Stewart and Nick Mero about those spooky, chill-inducing, sometimes transparent things lazy people dress as for Halloween: Ghosts. Got a message for us? You can record a message by following the link below and you might end up on the show! https://anchor.fm/conspiracymind/message Works Cited Ballard, Jamie. “Many Americans Believe Ghosts and Demons Exist | YouGov.” YouGov | What the World Thinks, YouGov, 21 Oct. 2019, https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2019/10/21/paranormal-beliefs-ghosts-demons-poll. BarbKatz1973. “[Serious] What's Your Ghost Story? : AskReddit.” Reddit, 22 Dec. 2019, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/eaden0/serious_whats_your_ghost_story/fbnb5zf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3. Contributors to Wikimedia projects. “Ghost - Wikipedia.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 30 Aug. 2001, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost. ---. “Haunted House - Wikipedia.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., 8 Sept. 2003, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunted_house. Enten, Harry. “What Statistics Can Tell Us about Americans' Skyrocketing Belief in Ghosts - CNNPolitics.” CNN, CNN, 21 Sept. 2021, https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/21/politics/harry-enten-podcast-margins-of-error-ghosts/index.html. Felson, Sabrina. “Stages of Sleep: REM and Non-REM Sleep Cycles.” WebMD, https://www.facebook.com/WebMD, 8AD, https://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/sleep-101. Jalal, Baland. “Seeing Ghosts? Wake Up.” Bostonglobe.Com, Boston Globe, 6 Aug. 2021, https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/08/06/opinion/seeing-ghosts-wake-up/. Kambhampaty, Anna P. “Many Americans Say They Believe in Ghosts. Do You? - The New York Times.” The New York Times - Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos, 28 Oct. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/style/do-you-believe-in-ghosts.html. King, Noel. “Ahead of Halloween, a Survey Shows More Americans Believe in Ghosts : NPR.” NPR.Org, NPR, 27 Oct. 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/10/27/1049546393/ahead-of-halloween-a-survey-shows-more-americans-believe-in-ghosts. Miranda, Gabriela. “Do Ghosts Exist? 2 in 5 Americans Say so, Some Say They've Seen One.” USA TODAY, USA TODAY, 28 Oct. 2021, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/28/do-ghosts-exist-41-percent-americans-say-yes/8580577002/. Orenstein, Alan. “Religion and Paranormal Belief.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, no. 2, Wiley, June 2002, pp. 301–11. Crossref, doi:10.1111/1468-5906.00118. Romano, Andrea, and Elizabeth Rhodes. “30 Most Haunted Places in the World | Travel + Leisure.” Travel + Leisure, Travel + Leisure, 30 Sept. 2017, https://www.travelandleisure.com/holiday-travel/halloween/most-haunted-places-in-the-world?slide=49a8909f-adf3-480d-84f8-b974c535044b#49a8909f-adf3-480d-84f8-b974c535044b. Roybal, Beth. “Sleep Paralysis - Causes, Symptoms, Treatment, and Prevention.” WebMD, https://www.facebook.com/WebMD, 7AD, https://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/sleep-paralysis#:~:text=Sleep%20paralysis%20is%20a%20feeling,or%20a%20sense%20of%20choking. Staff, People. “Over 50 Percent of Americans Believe in Ghosts | PEOPLE.Com.” PEOPLE.Com, PEOPLE.com, 26 Oct. 2021, https://people.com/human-interest/over-50-percent-of-americans-believe-in-ghosts-and-35-think-theres-paranormal-activity-in-their-home/. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/conspiracymind/support

Enjoy this "double header" Father's Day message from Pastor Bruce Rhodes and daughter, Elizabeth Rhodes as they discuss manhood, fatherhood and the all out attack on masculinity in today's culture. It's time for boys, men, fathers and the church in general to stand up and call up men to their God-Appointed calling to be strong, bold, courageous, brave leaders. In this message Elizabeth Rhodes will break down the Biblical calling of manhood and Pastor Bruce Rhodes will break down the Biblical calling of Fatherhood and what the church must do to call Fathers up and out. __________ Subscribe to receive our latest messages.  To support our ministry and help us continue to reach people: www.lifeway.church/give Become solid disciple. Build strong families. Bridge cultural gaps. Bring in the lost. This is the vision of Lifeway Church, led by Pastors Bruce and Sheila Rhodes and based in Dacula, GA within the metro Atlanta, Georgia area.   __________ Stay Connected Facebook: www.facebook.com/lifewaychurch    Instagram: www.instagram.com/lifewaychurch Website: www.lifeway.church #lifeisbettertogether #lifewaychurch #daculaga #churchonline #onlinechurch

A major problem with growing regenerative agriculture in Minnesota is the lack of infrastructure to support farmers throughout the industrial food chain. And despite lots of buzz words to make consumers think they're buying a quality product, the truth is finding food that meets our health and ethics standards is really hard to find. In today's episode of Nourish by MN350, host Eli Crain talks to Jack McCann of TC Farm about his cooperative-style food group that directly connects local producers with consumers who demand transparency in their food system. Elizabeth Rhodes of Auntie Annie's Fields shares how working with TC Farm allows her to meet the demands of producing food, and return to what she loves about the job: tending to the land and the animals she loves so dearly. 

In our final installment of the Hayek Program’s 2019 Future of Work Conference, we hear from Elizabeth Rhodes, research director for the Basic Income Project at Y Combinator Research. In her talk, she shares her research experiences in projects relating to a guaranteed basic income, including research on how she believes recent economic growth has been unevenly distributed and how intergenerational mobility has decreased. She also focuses on how the nature of modern jobs has changed and what can be done to address these changes while also addressing deficiencies in the current social safety net.

Join us for an interesting discussion with Elizabeth Rhodes, writer, designer, and author of the children's book, Feminism is for Boys (for ages 0-3). Elizabeth is an advocate for women’s rights and a self-proclaimed feminist. She believes feminism is for all genders, including boys. Elizabeth hopes parents will find this book useful in helping inspire boys to connect with the word feminist, as well as show all children a book representing diverse boys that are proud of their interests, express emotions confidently, seek friendships outside of their similarities, and believe unapologetically in true equality. Elizabeth is a mother to Alora - a loud, strong, fierce human. Her partner Russell was a huge inspiration for the creation of this book. Russell identifies as a feminist and proudly teaches Alora to expect equality. We delved into - - Common prejudgements about feminism, and her journey into feminist thinking. Elizabeth says: "It has been a common misconception in our culture that feminism is reserved for women, and is pursued at the detriment of men. In fact, when feminism is truly successful, all genders will benefit." - Understanding social media as a tool to speak across differences, learn about various lived experiences, and build community, online and off line. - How the Feminism is for Boys book empowers parents to have discussions around gender equality and the diverse beauty of differences at a young age. - How we can all begin to build bridges in everyday life: listening deeply, connecting across generational divides with conversations that acknowledge our lived experiences differ (and that's OK). - How we can create change: speak up when you see something happening that marginalizes others, be honest about your own mistakes along this journey, acknowledge them and then share those lessons with others and honor the value of others lives daily. Connect with Elizabeth via her website: https://www.feminismisforboys.com (where you will find links to all her social media pages).    Stay Connected with Pray with our Feet: IG: @praywithourfeet  Twitter: @praywithourfeet  This podcast is generously edited by my hubby, Kes, a talented videographer / photographer / editor at www.keston.online. 

In this episode Will sits down with Elizabeth Rhodes, who created the childrens book "Feminism is For Boys".  Topics discussed include the fluid definition of "Feminism", why certain privileges take precedence over others, male emotional expression, Transgendered athletes, complex nature of parenting, and more.

Portland author Elizabeth Rhodes tells us about her new children’s book, “Feminism Is For Boys.” It talks about challenging gender roles and young boys’ role in feminism.

This week I chat with Elizabeth & Russell Rhodes of Portland Oregon. We talk about feminist parenting, engaging boys and men in the fight for equality, life in the US during the Trump administration and of course, Elizabeth's new book, "Feminism is For Boys". 

What's the latest with the basic income study piloted by Y Combinator Research? Jim and Owen sat down with Research Director Elizabeth Rhodes to find out. Rhodes shares insights from the initial pilot in Oakland and the much larger upcoming experiment. Rhodes details the goals and methods of these exciting, important studies.

With some 57% of jobs around the world at risk of being displaced by automation, some members of the tech community and beyond think giving people money, for free, no strings attached, might be the only way to keep the economy moving forward. But what do the workers who are at risk of losing their jobs actually think? In this episode, Chip and Caroline connect universal basic income experts with workers across the country to discuss a future where fewer and fewer of us have jobs. Michael Faye, the co-founder of GiveDirectly, discusses his non-profit’s experiments with universal basic income in Africa and Elizabeth Rhodes, the head of universal basic income research for Y Combinator, reveals some details from pilots the startup accelerator is conducting in Oakland, Calif. Caroline and Chip ask Michael and Elizabeth to respond to the strong opinions against universal basic income that they are hearing from workers across industries.  Hosts: Caroline Fairchild and Chip Cutter. Producers: Dave Pond and Florencia Iriondo

Patient and clinician perspectives on living with Sickle Cell disease and the importance of a multidisciplinary approach. An estimated 15,000 people in the UK are living with Sickle Cell disease and at least 250,000 are carriers. Dr Elizabeth Rhodes explains the causes and symptoms of the genetic blood disorder, the areas where it is most prevalent and who is affected. One such patient is Khadijat Jose, who describes her experiences growing up in Nigeria and why being a carrier of the disease is an advantage in countries with Malaria. For those with the condition however, each day can bring severe pain often requiring admission to hospital. Dr Oliver Seyfried highlights the life-limiting effects of this pain, especially on young people, and the challenges it poses in all spheres of life. Self-management is therefore hugely important for those with Sickle cell disease, whether the pain experienced is mild or severe. Paul discusses the different approaches taken by the Red Cell Pain Management team at St George’s Hospital with clinical psychologist Dr Jenna Love and specialist physiotherapist Rebecca McLoughlin. Both emphasize the importance of being able to tackle sickle cell pain from an emotional and psychological perspective as well as a physical one. Thanks to progress in medical training and increased awareness, the quality of life for Sickle Cell patients continues to improve. Dr Oliver Seyried and Dr Jenna Love mention the national sickle cell screening programme and parent education, on which more information can be found here: https://phescreening.blog.gov.uk/category/sct/ For more information about Sickle Cell disease visit the Sickle Cell Society website: http://sicklecellsociety.org Contributors * Dr. Elizabeth Rhodes, consultant haematologist at St. George’s Hospital in London * Khadijat Jose, PhD student at Cardiff University *Dr. Oliver Seyfried, consultant in pain medicine and anaesthesia at St. George’s Hospital in London *Dr Jenna Love, clinical psychologist at St George’s Hospital in London * Rebecca McLoughlin, specialist physiotherapist at St George’s Hospital in London First broadcast 31.01.17 #airingpain #painconcern #audioboom #ableradio

Sometime in the last few weeks, or months, or years, you may have heard about this idea called “universal basic income.” It’s the idea that maybe governments should give a monthly stipend—no questions asked—to everyone who lives there. It’s an idea we’ve covered quite a bit over the years, and it’s one that’s increasingly gaining steam among people on both sides of the political spectrum. Conservatives and libertarians say that it can simplify the bureaucracy associated with things like welfare and food stamps, and liberals like it because it would strengthen the social safety net. Why do we need a basic income now? Well maybe you’ve noticed, but automation is slowly but surely replacing a lot of jobs that humans used to do with ones that robots, drones, software, and artificial intelligence can do. We’re looking at a future where it’s possible that there simply won’t be enough jobs for everyone. Maybe that’s a good thing—in a post scarcity society, do humans really need to do menial jobs? And so basic income has been floated as both a cure to automation and potentially a better way to redistribute wealth. The movement is gaining steam around the world: Switzerland voted this last weekend on whether the country should “guarantee the introduction of an unconditional basic income.” The measure failed, but the fact that it was even on the ballot speaks to its increasing relevancy. In the United States, the startup incubator Y Combinator is doing an experiment that will give 100 people in Oakland between $1,000 and $2,000 per month to see how the “mechanics” of a basic income would work and to see what people do with the money. That project is controversial for reasons we get into the podcast. I called up Matt Krisiloff, who is head of the basic income project at Y Combinator, and Elizabeth Rhodes, the research lead of the project, to talk about how it’ll work and why a Silicon Valley startup accelerator is interested in this idea. Then, we talk to Natalie Foster, who is a cofounder of the Universal Income Project, about why she finds the idea so compelling. Finally, we look at the history of basic income around the world and deconstruct the policy itself. Could it ever work? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.