Podcasts about Equivalents

DynastyDadFF & FFSnoog do a 2027 Trade Value Equivalents for better trades covering draft values, player tiers, trade opportunities, and winning roster construction to help you dominate your Dynasty Fantasy Football leagues for years to comeIn this episode, we dive into:

Last week Ed Shardlow posted his thoughts about The Hallmarked Man being written in playful but meaningful parallel with Rowling's “political fairy tale,” ‘The Hallmarked Man Meets The Ickabog.' Nick Jeffery and John Granger called him up both to congratulate him on Arsenal winning the Premier League Cup — Go, Gunners! — and to learn as much as they could about the parallels he noted. After acknowledging the correspondences with Casual Vacancy, the trio explored Ed's argument about the Ickabog echoing just beneath the surface of Hallmarked Man, straight up and in inversion.The Ten Questions, Links, and Helpful Notes1. Nick, can you provide some context for this conversation? How did we get to the point that we expected Hallmarked Man to echo in characters, plot points, and themes either Casual Vacancy or The Ickabog? No one thought that was in the cards when Rowling-Galbraith and her publishers locked down the series at ten books.* ‘Parallels Series Idea' Pillar Post* Evan Willis' Tetractys Theory: Part 1, Part 2, Part 32. Open subject for the triumvirate to discuss here: there are a bunch of Casual Vacancy parallels in Strike 8 that have to be acknowledged. Name your favorites; I'll start this ball Rowling…* Ironbridge and Pagford seemed to be sister cities* each book ‘begins' with the sudden and tragic death of a man who haunts the rest of the novel, Barry Obama Fairbrother and Tyler Powell* The peanut allergy that Tyler and Andrew Price have; and* The incest secret in the Longcaster and Wall families3. Having noted those, Ed, why are you so sure that it's The Ickabog which is the parallel text with Hallmarked Man? Is the quantity of the parallels you and others have found, their quality, or the overarching feel of the works?* Ed's Post: ‘The Hallmarked Man Meets The Ickabog'4. I was surprised by your sheep parallel. I know my Ickabog memories are not fresh, but were there a lot of lambs and ewes in Strike 8?* Ed's Post: ‘The Hallmarked Man Meets The Ickabog'5. And the fish?* Ed's Post: ‘The Hallmarked Man Meets The Ickabog'6. Is there something akin to the Freemasonry of Hallmarked Man in The Ickabog?* Inversion of ‘Political Fairy Tale' with modern touches and gritty detective novel and Medieval coloration via Freemasonry symbolism and ritual7. Sandy Hope, our partner in the Group Adventure of charting Hallmarked Man, had a bunch of parallels that she shared in the comment thread to your post:* One of my favorite parallels you mention is the Old Forge and the Ickabog's cave, in which both Robin and the Ickabog tell tragic stories of birth. The Old Forge also reminds me of the transformation of the dungeon once Mrs. Beamish gets a stove installed and starts baking and feeding the prisoners. Mr. Dovetail's broken mind is restored by Mrs. Beamish helping him remember better times, and Robin's own brokenness is soothed by Strike's transformation from a self-serving, manipulative jerk to a selfless, compassionate listener and genuine friend. In both stories the fire is warm and purifying. Comment Url * One of my favorite parallels was “sticking to the game plan,” the ill-fated idea shared by Strike via Uncle Ted and also Lord Spittleworth. RFM reminds me of Ma Grunter, trying to appear sober when they're actually drinking on the sly. Dangerous Dick de Lion is not unlike King Fred the Fearless, who both have to learn about being contrite. Robin's bracelet is rather like Daisy's bandalore: both gifts are initially a hit but end up secretly hidden or stolen. Comment Url8. My favorite parallels were between the incest and ectopic pregnancy in Hallmarked Man and the Ickabog's manner of conceiving children and birthing them. Did you laugh out loud when you figured that out? I did when I read your post -- but it bears some explaining --* Ed's Post: ‘The Hallmarked Man Meets The Ickabog'9. Let's go around the table again and talk about the connection between the two books we haven't talked about yet --* Avenging Ghost of Beamish and Powell* Eslanda/Jolanda* Sandy Hope's Footprint Clue* Image of St George* The monster's cave, the Old Forge on Sark, and an ectopic pregnancy* Woman talking monster into returning to human society* Ed's brilliant parallel Character list10. You discuss in your post that you went through two stages before arriving at your conviction that The Ickabog was the model: first the overarching story and then on re-reading The Ickabog for specific detailed parallels. Do you think we should do a re-read of Casual Vacancy -- Nick is always ready for a trip to Pagford -- to see if there aren't specifics there, too? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit hogwartsprofessor.substack.com/subscribe

Andy discusses the different options for holding cash and cash equivalents (i.e. things that are principal protected, offer some amount of interest and are highly liquid and readily accessible)The options are:Physical bills and coinsChecking accountsSavings accountsCertificates of Deposit, or CD'sMoney Market Mutual Funds or Exchanged Traded Funds that invest like Money Market Mutual FundsMulti-Year Guaranteed Annuities, or MYGA's (but hear why he doesn't fully consider them cash equivalents)Links in this episode:FDIC insurance calculator - https://edie.fdic.gov/calculator.htmlhttps://www.treasurydirect.gov/Tenon Financial's May 2026 Newsletter/blog - Options for holding cash and cash equivalentsTenon Financial monthly e-newsletter - Retirement Planning InsightsFacebook group - Retirement Planning Education (formerly Taxes in Retirement)YouTube channel - Retirement Planning Education (formerly Retirement Planning Demystified)Retirement Planning Education website - www.RetirementPlanningEducation.comTo send Andy questions to be addressed on future Q&A episodes, email andy@andypanko.com

Unlock the missing link between your thoughts and your results in Week 10 of The Science of Mind Journey: "Mental Equivalents: Why You Don't Have It Yet." In this powerful spiritual teaching, Rev. Lee Wolak breaks down how your subjective mind, subconscious programming, and belief systems determine what shows up in your life. If you've been visualizing, affirming, and "doing the work" but still not seeing results, this talk reveals why. Discover how mental equivalents act as the blueprint for manifestation, and how your subconscious mind accepts, stores, and reproduces beliefs into your outer experience. Learn how to align your thoughts, feelings, and inner expectations with what you truly desire so you can finally experience lasting transformation, abundance, and clarity. This talk blends Science of Mind principles, practical spirituality, subconscious reprogramming, and manifestation techniques to help you stop blocking your own success and start creating with intention. If you're ready to upgrade your inner world and see real change, this is the teaching you've been waiting for. Subscribe for more teachings on self-realization, spiritual growth, inner transformation, universal principles, and awakening to the power within. Sign up for my daily thought and weekly newsletter by clicking this link: https://www.agapespiritualcenter.com/free-affirmations If you find value in what Agape offers—spiritually, emotionally, and in community—consider becoming a supporting member. Your recurring contribution helps us continue to share truth, healing, and transformation with the world. Click here to become a supporter: https://www.agapespiritualcenter.com/recurring-contributions/

DynastyDadFF & FFSnoog take a closer look into the 2026 running back landscape and how to cash in on dynasty trade equivalents for the NFL offseason - we cover each position, the strengths of the class, and who to buy at current Dynasty RB market value0:00 Introduction1:42 Ashton Jeanty5:44 Omarion Hampton9:21 Achane Cook JT Walker13:28 Quinshon Judkins19:35 Christian McCaffrey 23:10 Travis Etienne26:50 Saquon Barkley28:03 Cam Skattebo30:03 Kyren Williams/Josh Jacobs/Dereick Henry If looking for more content we've created a Premium ‪#SmashAccept‬ Discord Community for:

DynastyDadFF & FFSnoog take a closer look into the 2026 rookie class landscape and how to cash in on trade equivalents for the dynasty offseason - we cover each position, the strengths of the class, and who to buy at current Dynasty TE market value0:00 Introduction1:42 Trey McBride4:10 Colston Loveland6:32 Harold Fannin Jr9:05 Tyler Warren12:09 Tucker Kraft14:40 Kyle Pitts17:09 Sam LaPorta19:52 Oronde Gadsden21:44 George Kittle23:55 Dalton Kincaid25:21 Brenton Strange27:11 Free Agent TEsIf looking for more content we've created a Premium ‪#SmashAccept‬ Discord Community for:

Reach out to Cody and Buhler to tell them what's up!If you are #OpenToWork, what else are you open to?On today's episode of False Start, John Buhler (Lead Writer, FanSided) and Cody Williams (Content Director, FanSided.com) prepared for Super Bowl 60.While Cody will be on the ground in Santa Clara, Buhler will be holding down the fort for the foreseeable future.Before Cody gets frisky in Frisco, the guys respected Fernando Mendoza's LinkedIn game, compared all 32 NFL teams to college football ones, and then, things got off the rails just a little bit...The guys proudly inducted a magnificent seven men into the False Start Hall of Fame, including one guy Buhler had no idea made the cut.After that, they did some Guys Remembering Coaches where they finished with a childhood hero of theirs from youth sports.For those of us who go pro in something other than sports, it's gotta be False Start!Support the show

DynastyDadFF & FFSnoog take a closer look into the 2026 rookie class landscape and how to cash in on trade equivalents for the dynasty offseason - we cover each position, the strengths of the class, and who our favorite top names are.0:00 Introduction2:11 Caleb Burrow Herbert5:20 Jaxson Dart8:24 Trevor Lawrence11:40 Brock Purdy14:32 Bo Nix17:11 Cam Ward19:45 Jared Goff22:35 Dak Prescott24:07 Baker Mayfield26:01 Tyler Shough28:50 Kyler Murray31:23 JJ McCarthyIf looking for more content we've created a Premium ‪#SmashAccept‬ Discord Community for:

DynastyDadFF & FFSnoog take a closer look into the 2026 rookie class landscape and how to cash in on trade equivalents for the dynasty offseason - we cover each position, the strengths of the class, and who our favorite top names are.0:00 Introduction2:42 Ceedee Lamb6:50 Tetaioa McMillan10:47 Garrett Wilson13:54 Chris Olave17:33 Tee Higgins 20:12 Luther Burden III23:02 Jameson Williams 27:02 Devonta Smith28:58 Zay Flowers32:26 Jaylen Waddle 35:00 1.11-1.12 ConundrumIf looking for more content we've created a Premium ‪#SmashAccept‬ Discord Community for:

DynastyDadFF & FFSnoog take a closer look into the 2026 rookie class landscape and how to cash in on trade equivalents for the dynasty offseason - we cover each position, the strengths of the class, and who our favorite top names are.0:00 Introduction3.05 Jeremiyah Love 4:50 Omarion Hampton8:21 TreVeyon Henderson10:09 James Cook13:42 Bucky Irving18:01 Quinshon Judkins20:22 Chase Brown24:08 RJ Harvey26:07 Cam Skattebo28:31 Josh Jacobs30:26 Travis Etienne32:33 Javonte WilliamsIf looking for more content we've created a Premium ‪#SmashAccept‬ Discord Community for:

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved. But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you! The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline. US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts. A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state. A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit. In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications. Now let's jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann: The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape. This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy. How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC” Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe. He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023. What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement. UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact. From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer. From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling. China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue. The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles. Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann's view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court's caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years. A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go. Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO's problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability. For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”. A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia). Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions. In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case. This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous. For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold. Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law? A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO's Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity. On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material. On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann's conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC's approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form. The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO's standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test. For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same. Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed. On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures. Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track. There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests. The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch. Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing. A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely. One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system. Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed. This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues. Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant's Perspective The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections. From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good. Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy. This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant's product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice. The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term. Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies. For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously. Conclusion The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO's case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions. For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Rolf Claessen:Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today's interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016. He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you for inviting me, it's an honour. How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC? Rolf Claessen:Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court? Aloys Hüttermann:This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious. I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit. It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it. UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact Rolf Claessen:Before we go deeper into the UPC, let's zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand? Aloys Hüttermann:If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies. One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail. On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely. China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year. On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision. The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US. The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time. When is the UPC the most powerful tool? Rolf Claessen:Let's take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground? Aloys Hüttermann:To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good. The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool. Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on. But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years. A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent) Rolf Claessen:You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare? Aloys Hüttermann:The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC's annual report. It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief. Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC's approach is very close to the EPO's problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough. For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues. We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case. In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up. The CJEU's Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer Rolf Claessen:You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet. One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be. Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact. Rolf Claessen:For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right? Aloys Hüttermann:Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France. The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents. In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions. We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision. This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case. Rolf Claessen:Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough? Aloys Hüttermann:That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group's headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it. Does the UPC follow EPO case law? Rolf Claessen:Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions? Aloys Hüttermann:On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO. If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar. For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach. If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC. There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO. So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out. Rolf Claessen:We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO. You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?” Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same. Rolf Claessen:So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity? Aloys Hüttermann:No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done. Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences Rolf Claessen:If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings? Aloys Hüttermann:If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice. For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine. Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant. At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division. Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests. Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent. Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why. The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves. On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball. Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes Rolf Claessen:If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed? Aloys Hüttermann:You know you do not really want me to answer that question… Rolf Claessen:I do! Aloys Hüttermann:All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem. Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties' behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC. So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential. If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail. Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict. We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack. On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure. Rolf Claessen:I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, that is true. Protective letters, inspections and the defendant's perspective Rolf Claessen:Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China? Aloys Hüttermann:Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger. In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well. Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company's perspective. On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire. If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later. One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end. From the defendant's perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests. And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims? You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant's product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides. How to contact Prof. Hüttermann Rolf Claessen:Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time. What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you? Aloys Hüttermann:The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me. As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step. Rolf Claessen:Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working. Rolf Claessen:I am very happy to have you back on the show.

Delivers largest revenue quarter in company history with 113% year-over-year revenue growth Newton Golf Company (NASDAQ: NWTG) reported Q3 2025 revenue of $2.58 million, up 113 percent year over year, with gross profit rising 115 percent to $1.73 million at a 67 percent margin, nine-month revenue increasing to $5.86 million, and cash totaling $2.55 million as the Company reaffirmed full-year guidance of $7 million to $7.5 million while highlighting accelerating adoption of its Newton shafts across major tours, including more than 60 professionals on the PGA TOUR Champions, LPGA and Korn Ferry Tours, which management says is strengthening consumer demand and supporting continued growth. Third Quarter and Year-to-Date 2025 Financial Highlights Q3 2025 Revenue: $2.58 million, up 113% from $1.21 million in Q3 2024 First Nine Months 2025 Revenue: $5.86 million, up 147% from $2.37 million in the prior year period Q3 2025 Gross Profit: $1.73 million (up 115% over Q3 2024) with 67% gross margin First Nine Months Gross Profit: $3.99 million (up 166% over the prior year period) with 68% gross margin Q3 2025 Net Loss: $1.58 million ($0.34 per share) compared to $1.06 million ($21.79 per share) in Q3 2024 Cash & Equivalents: $2.55 million as of Sept. 30, 2025 Full-Year 2025 Guidance Reaffirmed: $7 million – $7.5 million, representing 100%+ growth year-over-year To view the full press release, visit https://ibn.fm/Z6gZM Conference Call and Webcast Newton Golf conference call and live webcast to discuss results: Date: Thursday, Nov. 13, 2025 Recording available at www.newtongolfir.com. About Newton Golf Company Newton Golf Company (NASDAQ: NWTG) is a pioneering golf technology company redefining performance through physics-based engineering, precision design, and U.S.-based innovation. Its flagship Newton Motion and Fast Motion shafts are trusted by Tour professionals worldwide, delivering measurable improvements in stability, control, and consistency. Newton's mission is to empower golfers of all levels with advanced equipment that is engineered for results. NOTE TO INVESTORS: The latest news and updates relating to NWTG are available in the company's newsroom at https://ibn.fm/NWTG For more information, please visit https://www.InvestorWire.com Please see full terms of use and disclaimers on the InvestorWire website applicable to all content provided by IW, wherever published or re-published: https://www.InvestorWire.com/Disclaimer

Delivers largest revenue quarter in company history with 113% year-over-year revenue growth Newton Golf Company (NASDAQ: NWTG) reported Q3 2025 revenue of $2.58 million, up 113 percent year over year, with gross profit rising 115 percent to $1.73 million at a 67 percent margin, nine-month revenue increasing to $5.86 million, and cash totaling $2.55 million as the Company reaffirmed full-year guidance of $7 million to $7.5 million while highlighting accelerating adoption of its Newton shafts across major tours, including more than 60 professionals on the PGA TOUR Champions, LPGA and Korn Ferry Tours, which management says is strengthening consumer demand and supporting continued growth. Third Quarter and Year-to-Date 2025 Financial Highlights Q3 2025 Revenue: $2.58 million, up 113% from $1.21 million in Q3 2024 First Nine Months 2025 Revenue: $5.86 million, up 147% from $2.37 million in the prior year period Q3 2025 Gross Profit: $1.73 million (up 115% over Q3 2024) with 67% gross margin First Nine Months Gross Profit: $3.99 million (up 166% over the prior year period) with 68% gross margin Q3 2025 Net Loss: $1.58 million ($0.34 per share) compared to $1.06 million ($21.79 per share) in Q3 2024 Cash & Equivalents: $2.55 million as of Sept. 30, 2025 Full-Year 2025 Guidance Reaffirmed: $7 million – $7.5 million, representing 100%+ growth year-over-year To view the full press release, visit https://ibn.fm/Z6gZM Conference Call and Webcast Newton Golf conference call and live webcast to discuss results: Date: Thursday, Nov. 13, 2025 Recording available at www.newtongolfir.com. About Newton Golf Company Newton Golf Company (NASDAQ: NWTG) is a pioneering golf technology company redefining performance through physics-based engineering, precision design, and U.S.-based innovation. Its flagship Newton Motion and Fast Motion shafts are trusted by Tour professionals worldwide, delivering measurable improvements in stability, control, and consistency. Newton's mission is to empower golfers of all levels with advanced equipment that is engineered for results. NOTE TO INVESTORS: The latest news and updates relating to NWTG are available in the company's newsroom at https://ibn.fm/NWTG For more information, please visit https://www.InvestorWire.com Please see full terms of use and disclaimers on the InvestorWire website applicable to all content provided by IW, wherever published or re-published: https://www.InvestorWire.com/Disclaimer

Welcome to the "Saturday Morning Golf Stat" from the Hack it Out Golf Podcast. Greg is back! In today's episode, the question is how much rough matters. At 20, 90, and 250 yards in the rough: at what yardages in the fairway will a 10-index shoot equivalent scores? Lou asks, Mark and Greg answer, and the guys talk about the difficulty of layups and the reward for big misses off the tee. Each of these will be a mini-episode (10-15 minutes long) about an interesting golf stat. We will discuss what you can learn, and most importantly, how you can apply this on the golf course to lower your scores and lower your handicap. Listen on your drive to the golf course or over your Saturday morning coffee! Data is sourced from Arccos Golf. They have over 1 BILLION shots in their database.  Check them out at: https://www.arccosgolf.com/  Use code DATALOU15 for 15% off! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome to the "Saturday Morning Golf Stat" from the Hack it Out Golf Podcast. Greg is back! In today's episode, the question is how much rough matters. At 20, 90, and 250 yards in the rough: at what yardages in the fairway will a 10-index shoot equivalent scores? Lou asks, Mark and Greg answer, and the guys talk about the difficulty of layups and the reward for big misses off the tee. Each of these will be a mini-episode (10-15 minutes long) about an interesting golf stat. We will discuss what you can learn, and most importantly, how you can apply this on the golf course to lower your scores and lower your handicap. Listen on your drive to the golf course or over your Saturday morning coffee! Data is sourced from Arccos Golf. They have over 1 BILLION shots in their database.  Check them out at: https://www.arccosgolf.com/  Use code DATALOU15 for 15% off! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Patrick talks about a poll where people listed the adult version of getting picked last in gym class when you were a kid

FFSnoog & Dynasty Dad break down the top 12 consensus picks and trade equivalents0:00 Introduction4:20 1.01 Jeanty or Nico5:01 1.02 Hampton or JSN, London, Saquon, McBride8:43 1.03 Tetairoa McMillan or Ladd Garret AJB Love10:50 1.04 Cam Ward or Laporta Rice Tee Achane Bucky12:58 1.05 Travis Hunter or Baker, Hall, Rome, McCarthy14:55 1.06 Treyveon Henderson or Goff, Lawrence, JT, Devonta17:52 1.07 Tyler Warren - Tua Olave Kryen Cook Worthy19:04 1.08 Quinshon Judkins - Dak Moore Walker Worthy221:04 1.09 Emerka Egbuka - Flowers, CMC, Hockenson, Addison22:37 1.10 Sheduer Sanders - Metcalf waddle Jamo fields24:47 1.11 Kaleb Johnson - Kittle, AR, Mclaurin tyreek chuba26:18 1.12 Luther Burden III - Henry Darnold Aiyuk Pearsall Pickens

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NBA Playoffs - Timberwolves force game 7, Pacers look to bounce back from poor performance in game 5 Scottie Scheffler updates Best and Worst of the week

02nd May: Crypto & Coffee at 8

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: Why Yudkowsky is wrong about "covalently bonded equivalents of biology", published by titotal on December 6, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. confidence level: I am a physicist, not a biologist, so don't take this the account of a domain level expert. But this is really basic stuff, and is very easy to verify. Recently I encountered a scientific claim about biology, made by Eliezer Yudkowsky. I searched around for the source of the claim, and found that he has been repeating versions of the claim for over a decade and a half, including in "the sequences" and his TED talk. In recent years, this claim has primarily been used as an argument for why an AGI attack would be extremely deadly. I believe this claim is factually incorrect. The quotes: I'm going to show the various versions of the claim I found below, with the relevant sentences bolded: To plausibly argue that "humans" were intelligently designed, you'd have to lie about the design of the human retina, the architecture of the human brain, the proteins bound together by weak van der Waals forces instead of strong covalent bonds Yudkowsky discussing the flaws of evolutionary design, in "the sequences" blog post "dark side epistemology". It was obvious years before Nanosystems that molecular nanomachines would in fact be possible and have much higher power densities than biology. I could say, "Because proteins are held together by van der Waals forces that are much weaker than covalent bonds," to point to a reason how you could realize that after just reading Engines of Creation and before Nanosytems existed. Yudkowsky discussing AI interventions on the alignment forum. A lot of the advantage of human technology is due to human technology figuring out how to use covalent bonds and metallic bonds, where biology sticks to ionic bonds and proteins held together by van der Waals forces (static cling, basically) Comment on a post discussing technology and AI. Algae are tiny microns-wide solar-powered fully self-replicating factories that run on general assemblers, "ribosomes", that can replicate most other products of biology given digital instructions. This, even though the proteins are held together by van der Waals forces rather than covalent bonds, which is why algae are far less tough than diamond (as you can also make from carbon). It should not be very hard for a superintelligence to repurpose ribosomes to build better, more strongly bonded, more energy-dense tiny things that can then have a quite easy time killing everyone. Yudkowsky's example scenario for how an AI could extinct humanity, on twitter Can you build your own synthetic biology, synthetic cyborgs? Can you blow straight past that to covalently bonded equivalents of biology where instead of proteins that fold together and are held together by static cling, you have things that go down much sharper potential energy gradients and are bundled together, people have done advanced design work about this sort of thing. Yudkowksy's Ted talk, again discussing AI capabilities, during the Q&A section. I broadly endorse this reply and have mostly shifted to trying to talk about "covalently bonded" bacteria, since using the term "diamondoid" (tightly covalently bonded CHON) causes people to panic about the lack of currently known mechanosynthesis pathways for tetrahedral carbon lattices. Yudkowsky's response to my recent article a few weeks ago, talking about how to refer to potential advanced nanotechnologies. Summarising the claim As you can see, Yudkowsky has repeated this claim several time over a time period spanning 15 years to just a few weeks ago, in very high profile contexts. These quotes all make roughly the same argument, which I will sum up as follows: Proteins are held together by weak van-der-waals forces, which are weak forces, akin to static...

Carol points out that, sometimes, we're just having "one of those days". She and Rev. Bill discuss the metaphysical perspective on it, and how that experience of having "one of those days" - and other ways our experience of life is unfolding - has a Mental Equivalent in our belief system.Thank you for listening to the Practical Prayer podcast - please invite your friends to listen!There's more information about the podcast, and the classes and resources to bring Practical Prayer, more fully into your life at be-the-light.com. This podcast is supported by listeners like you. We're grateful for your tax-deductible donation at newthoughtphilly.org or donate using PayPal . ★ Support this podcast ★

The likelihood of these teams making it, in terms that are crazy to comprehend

Investors have regained interest in investing in bonds in this higher interest rate environment. In this episode of the PFP Section podcast, Bob Keebler, CPA/PFS, interviews expert Mark Fichtenbaum, JD, LLM, to guide CPA financial planners on how to give rise to interest like income while paying long term capital gain rates. They discuss: ·        How to create the economic equivalent of interest income using option strategies ·        The after-tax benefits of using option strategies versus investing in assets that create ordinary interest income ·        How to structure the option transaction to create a higher after-tax return in a safe and low risk way ·        The best scenario of using this strategy when you have clients with capital loss carry forwards ·        When this strategy may not make sense   For more resources related to this episode, access: ·        Use the slide deck to follow along with the discussion. The Proactive Planning Toolkit, exclusive to PFP Section members.        Join Bob Keebler for his year-end planning webcast on October 30th and November 13th. CPE for this webcast is included with your PFP Section membership.   This episode is brought to you by the AICPA's Personal Financial Planning Section, the premier provider of information, tools, advocacy, and guidance for professionals who specialize in providing tax, estate, retirement, risk management and investment planning advice. Also, by the CPA/PFS credential program, which allows CPAs to demonstrate competence and confidence in providing these services to their clients. Visit us online at www.aicpa.org/pfp to join our community, gain access to valuable member-only benefits or learn about our PFP certificate program.   Subscribe to the PFP Podcast channel at Libsyn to find all the latest episodes or search “AICPA Personal Financial Planning” on your favorite podcast app.

In this 2-minute episode Brian discusses client concerns about cash and cash equivalents. 

In this session, Ajahn Kovilo will touch on the "five desires" mentioned in Mahāyāna Buddhism (desire for sex, food, fame, sleep, and wealth) and 10 Theravāda Equivalents - whether or not one needs to give them up, why, and how.

Did you know that you can learn to use and tap into the creative power of your mind by understanding mental equivalents? Pete Adams is an Author, and serial entrepreneur, and has been a real-estate guru for 2 decades. Pete will teach you about the principle of Mental equivalents and The Law of Attraction. He will share the process, techniques, and pathway to using mental equivalents and having success in manifesting your dream life. Get ready to manifest miracles. https://www.loaradionetwork.com/constance-arnold

Did you know that you can learn to use and tap into the creative power of your mind by understanding mental equivalents? Pete Adams is an Author, and serial entrepreneur, and has been a real-estate guru for 2 decades. Pete will teach you about the principle of Mental equivalents and The Law of Attraction. He will share the process, techniques, and pathway to using mental equivalents and having success in manifesting your dream life. Get ready to manifest miracles. https://www.loaradionetwork.com/constance-arnold

In this 2-minute episode Brian discusses cash and cash equivalents. 

First Démar and Adriel discuss The Grammys allowing for AI music to win awards. Then the real juice, NBA players-rapper comps! It's free agency in the NBA so we thought it be fun to find NBA star equivalents to some of hip hop's best rappers today.Here's the variety article mentioned in the pod.TIMECODES:05:08 - purist music, computer music 06:22 - Artist on artist crime, bring back bullying09:05 - NBA & rapper comps11:22 - Lebron x Drake16:53 - Ben Simmons x Chance the rapper19:38 - Meg x Ja20:14 - Gun crossover21:48 - klay x 2123:44 - Jason Tatum x Denzel Curry 26:22 - Tyler The Creator x Jimmy Butler29:57 - Vince Staples x Iman Shumpert31:46 - Luka X Lil Baby35:20 - Kdot x Jokic/Steph CurryFollow us:YOUTUBE:https://www.youtube.com/@AlbumModeTikTok:Album Mode: https://www.tiktok.com/@albummodepod Adriel: https://www.tiktok.com/@adrielsmileydotcom Démar: https://www.tiktok.com/@godkingdemi Instagram:Album Mode: https://www.instagram.com/albummodepod/ Adriel: https://www.instagram.com/adrielsmileydotcom/ Démar: https://www.instagram.com/demarjgrant/ Twitter:Album Mode: https://twitter.com/AlbumModepod Adriel: https://twitter.com/AdrielSmiley_ Démar: https://twitter.com/DemarJGrant

In this episode, I review some common mistakes English speakers make due to the similarity of some phrases. They are similar but different! For my listeners on this platform: Transcripts: If you want to learn through podcasts, not only listen and understand something but REALLY LEARN, you can purchase transcripts of these episodes + English translations. Learning frequent expressions through parallel English translation is a helpful technique. Otherwise, how do you know where to pay your attention to? Until June 30th, seize the opportunity to practice with episodes 61-70 by using the exclusive promo code PODCAST40. Enjoy a generous 40% discount on your purchase, which includes transcription, translation, and bonus Quizlet sets! buy transcripts For the PayPal option, please send me an email to rusconnection.course@gmail.com Learning new vocabulary through space repetition with Quizlet sets is a MUST to progress fast. Quizlet sets are ready to use and come as a BONUS! Join my community on Telegram https://t.me/podcastrussianconnection.

In this 2-minute episode Brian discusses client's concerns about cash and cash equivalents. 

This week's guest is a longtime friend, Mark Leslie (Lefevbre) who I have had on as a guest a few times already discussing his Canadian Werewolf series, which I really enjoy! I've never discussed book ratings and what makes something children vs YA vs Christian vs all the other categories. How sex and violence are handled in the different categories. And what is the equivalent of a Motion Picture Rating System for books to let an audience know what they are getting? I've not addressed this in any of my past interviews. I will also do some research into different categories of romance vs erotica. Also what target audiences/ages would an author write for to reach the different audiences?

Today we discussed nutrition in between competitive, or sporting events. In the world of finance, we discussed the current economic landscape. We also discussed balance sheets. Specifically cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities. Follow me on Instagram @leonbenson2. Download, Rate, Comment, & Subscribe to the Podcast for more episodes. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/passionpurposeperspective/support

"So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they whore. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations. " - Leviticus 17:7 "Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm." - Ephesians 6:10-13 This Episode's Links: Woman Loves ‘Ultra-Conservative' Tradwife Trend Inspired by 1950s—Called ‘Alt-Right Extremist' by Some - Epoch Inspired Staff, The Epoch Times China Flies 38 Fighter Jets, 6 Navy Vessels Near Taiwan - Mimi Nguyen Ly, The Epoch Times 2 killed, 10 wounded as Russian forces hit Ukrainian museum - Hanna Arhirova, AP, Billings Gazette Report of the National Independent Panel on Military Service and Readiness - The Heritage Foundation IN-DEPTH: First Smart Gun With Fingerprint Unlocking Hits the Market - Emily Miller, The Epoch Times UN climate report: 2022 was nasty, deadly, costly and hot - Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer, Billings Gazette ABC Refuses to Air RFK Jr. Comments About COVID-19 Vaccines - Zachary Stieber, The Epoch Times Here's why conservatives should be very supportive of RFK Jr. running against Biden - Harris Rigby, NTB Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Blasts Fox News for Ousting Tucker Carlson and Presents an Interesting Theory... - Cullen Linebarger, Gateway Pundit 'The Office' actor says he agrees with 'almost everything' Tucker Carlson said in Twitter video - Alex Nitzberg, The Blaze Video: Megyn Kelly says Tucker Carlson is not yet fired, claims Fox News 'bought his silence' and is 'determined to destroy him' - Paul Sacca, The Blaze --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/garrett-ashley-mullet/message

"Generally, what we're talking about here is unregulated (or lightly regulated), uninsured investors, LLCs, Funds and privately controlled “Shadow Banking” assets. In 2021, these OFI Assets scattered around the planet amounted to $152.0 Trillion (Again, not including China's non reported OFI) or roughly 172 x JP Morgan's relatively miniscule $884 Billion of Cash and Equivalents immediately available to liquidate/sell/wire-out without generating a FASB 115 loss. I hope this simple calculation puts the JP Morgan/Chase “fortress like” Balance Sheet in perspective. JP Morgan/Chase, America's biggest bank, through our own, expansive, monetary policy, has become but a pimple on the global financial system's buttocks." – DTIPO Today we dive into a really fascinating thought experiment on the Western Financial System from an adversarial position. Has the West become too arrogant to assume that no one would attack them? That because of their sheer size, they are protected? That they are "indispensable" in such a way that no wealthy nation could or would attack them, even as they use their monetary system explicitly as a weapon against competitor nations? Nations, in fact, that may have a large interest in seeing the Western system implode? What if we run the numbers and see what that risk really is... Check out the original to follow the links to verify or check out the data yourself. I'd be eager to see further discussion of this possibility and what, if anything, can truly be done to secure such a levered and bloated financial system from attack. And check out the many other things they cover below: http://www.deepthroatipo.com/how-to-wreck-a-big-old-gsib-bank/ Guy's Nostr Pubkey: npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev Don't forget to check out our amazing sponsors: • The Swan IRA is live! Follow the link to find out how to get your tax free retirement funds, securely allocated to Bitcoin! The best place to onboard a true Bitcoiner - Stack sats automatically, withdraw automatically, and learn or get help from the best team of Bitcoiners out there with Swan Bitcoin. (https://swanbitcoin.com/guy) • Gets sats back every time you dump fiat at a store, to pay your bills, everything in your fiat life pays you sats with the Fold Debit Card and FoldApp. 20,000 FREE SATS! at (https://bitcoinaudible.com/fold) • Dive into the Bitcoin only wallet, the cypherpunk calculator, with the NEW Coldcard Q1! A company that has built secure Bitcoin products for nearly a decade. Code BITCOINAUDIBLE gets 9% off the ColdCard! (https://bitcoinaudible.com/coldcard) ------------------------------- "I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."   — Thomas Jefferson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

"Generally, what we're talking about here is unregulated (or lightly regulated), uninsured investors, LLCs, Funds and privately controlled “Shadow Banking” assets. In 2021, these OFI Assets scattered around the planet amounted to $152.0 Trillion (Again, not including China's non reported OFI) or roughly 172 x JP Morgan's relatively miniscule $884 Billion of Cash and Equivalents immediately available to liquidate/sell/wire-out without generating a FASB 115 loss. I hope this simple calculation puts the JP Morgan/Chase “fortress like” Balance Sheet in perspective. JP Morgan/Chase, America's biggest bank, through our own, expansive, monetary policy, has become but a pimple on the global financial system's buttocks." – DTIPO Today we dive into a really fascinating thought experiment on the Western Financial System from an adversarial position. Has the West become too arrogant to assume that no one would attack them? That because of their sheer size, they are protected? That they are "indispensable" in such a way that no wealthy nation could or would attack them, even as they use their monetary system explicitly as a weapon against competitor nations? Nations, in fact, that may have a large interest in seeing the Western system implode? What if we run the numbers and see what that risk really is... Check out the original to follow the links to verify or check out the data yourself. I'd be eager to see further discussion of this possibility and what, if anything, can truly be done to secure such a levered and bloated financial system from attack. And check out the many other things they cover below: http://www.deepthroatipo.com/how-to-wreck-a-big-old-gsib-bank/ Guy's Nostr Pubkey: npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpev Don't forget to check out our amazing sponsors: • The Swan IRA is live! Follow the link to find out how to get your tax free retirement funds, securely allocated to Bitcoin! The best place to onboard a true Bitcoiner - Stack sats automatically, withdraw automatically, and learn or get help from the best team of Bitcoiners out there with Swan Bitcoin. (https://swanbitcoin.com/guy) • Gets sats back every time you dump fiat at a store, to pay your bills, everything in your fiat life pays you sats with the Fold Debit Card and FoldApp. 20,000 FREE SATS! at (https://bitcoinaudible.com/fold) • Dive into the Bitcoin only wallet, the cypherpunk calculator, with the NEW Coldcard Q1! A company that has built secure Bitcoin products for nearly a decade. Code BITCOINAUDIBLE gets 9% off the ColdCard! (https://bitcoinaudible.com/coldcard) ------------------------------- "I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."   — Thomas Jefferson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bitcoinaudible/message

In this 2-minute episode, Brian discusses cash and cash equivalents. 

On this episode of DIY Money, Daniel and Logan talk through different cash equivalents like treasuries, CDs, and money market funds.

Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist Mollie Hemingway joins Fox Across America With Jimmy Failla to discuss the investigation into President Biden's handling of classified documents, and why she believes the Justice Department is being protective of him. Jimmy slams Al Gore and John Kerry for preaching about the need to fight climate change, when all they're really interested in is making more money. Comedian Dave Landau reacts to actor Alec Baldwin being charged over his role in the 2021 shooting on the set of the move “Rust”. PLUS, retired NYPD inspector Paul Mauro check in to preview his debut appearance on “Gutfeld”.   [00:00:00] Al Gore and John Kerry beg for money to help the planet [00:36:46] WH Reporters have finally turned on KJP and Biden [00:55:10] Mollie Hemingway [01:13:45] Flyers player gets criticized for not participating in pride night [01:32:30] Dave Landau [01:46:20] Paul Mauro  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode Brian discusses safe money such as cash and cash equivalents.

Contributor: Travis Barlock, MD Educational Pearls: The presence of a STEMI has traditionally been used to determine if a patient with acute chest pain requires urgent cath lab management STEMI indicates an occluded coronary artery, and urgent intervention is needed to restore perfusion to ischemic tissue Patients with occluded coronary arteries can present with EKG findings other than STEMI 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Evaluation and Disposition of Acute Chest Pain in the Emergency Department was recently published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Recognizes STEMI equivalents that necessitate cath lab management ST depression in precordial leads Indicates a posterior infarct/possible RCA occlusion LBBB c ST elevation meeting modified Sgarbossa criteria Hyperacute and/or De Winter T wave First indication of coronary artery occlusion Most beneficial time to initiate cath lab because more tissue is salvageable These recommendations will likely alter clinical practice for ED management of acute chest pain   References Kontos MC, de Lemos JA, Deitelzweig SB, et al. 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Evaluation and Disposition of Acute Chest Pain in the Emergency Department: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee. J Am Coll Cardiol. Oct 6 2022;doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.08.750 Meyers HP, Bracey A, Lee D, et al. Comparison of the ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) vs. NSTEMI and Occlusion MI (OMI) vs. NOMI Paradigms of Acute MI. J Emerg Med. Mar 2021;60(3):273-284. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2020.10.026  Tziakas D, Chalikias G, Al-Lamee R, Kaski JC. Total coronary occlusion in non ST elevation myocardial infarction: Time to change our practice? Int J Cardiol. Apr 15 2021;329:1-8. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.12.082   Summarized by Mark O'Brien, MS4 | Edited by John Spartz, MD, & Erik Verzemnieks, MD In an effort to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in Emergency Medicine, The Emergency Medical Minute is proud to present our 2nd annual Diversity and Inclusion Award. We support increasing the representation of underrepresented groups in medicine and extend this award to individuals applying to emergency medicine residencies during the 2022-2023 cycle. For information on award eligibility and the application process, visit https://emergencymedicalminute.com/edi-award/ Donate to EMM today!

In this 2-minute episode, Brian discusses money markets, CDS, and fixed annuities.

(Bonus) Zaibatsu ("financial clique") is a Japanese term referring to industrial and financial vertically integrated business conglomerates in the Empire of Japan, whose influence and size allowed control over significant parts of the Japanese economy from the Meiji period until the end of World War II. A zaibatsu's general structure included a family owned holding company on top, and a bank which financed the other, mostly industrial subsidiaries within them. Although the zaibatsu played an important role in the Japanese economy from the 1860s to 1945, they increased in number and importance following the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, World War I and Japan's subsequent attempt to conquer East Asia during the inter-war period and World War II. After World War II they were dissolved by the Allied occupation forces and succeeded by the keiretsu (groups of banks, manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors). Equivalents to the zaibatsu can still be found in other countries, such as the chaebol conglomerates of South Korea.

On today's episode we have writer, critic, and lecturer at Harvard University, Maggie Doherty. Maggie's writing has appeared in several places including The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Yale Review, and The Nation. She's also the author of the book The Equivalents: A Story of Art, Female Friendship, and Liberation in the 1960s, which was published by Penguin Random House in 2020, and reviewed to critical acclaim by several writers, including novelist Margaret Atwood. Doherty published a piece in the Yale Review on June 24th that poses important questions about the way Americans tell abortion stories. By comparing present-day narratives, with historical records from the middle of the 20th century, she questions whether Americans today are too apologetic. We spoke in early July, and used this piece as a starting point for our conversation. She alternated between the present and the past to illuminate gaping issues in the way social justice for women's rights is shaping in the public sphere. This is not dissimilar from the subject of her book, The Equivalents which focuses on The Radcliffe Institute for Independent Study in the 60s. Doherty tracks the development of 5 women who were part of the institute, as well as the simultaneous emergence of Second Wave Feminism, in which the institute, and the art being created in it, played an integral part. June 24th Piece in The Yale Review - "The Abortion Stories We Tell" Maggie Doherty's Website The Equivalents Writers Mentioned The Five 'Equivalents' - Anne Sexton - Maxine Kumin - Tillie Olsen - Barbara Swan - Marianna Pineda Other Writers - Betty Friedan - Jacques Derrida Maggie's Recommendations - Cormac McCarthy - Kathy Acker - Mating by Norman Rush - Love's Work by Gillian Rose

In this episode Brian discusses money markets, CDs, and fixed annuities.

Are Christian alternatives helpful or harmful to our walk with Christ?  Join the Pew Babies as we discuss.

Even though we all use the same core principles as tastytraders, there will always be differences from one trader to the next in how we analyze a given situation. While much of this difference stems from varying degrees of risk aversion and utility functions, it's also important to recognize that two different traders might relate to prospect theory in two different ways.  As a result, when volatility is high and we want to allocate more capital, a more risk-averse trader with a lower certainty equivalent might choose to allocate less than a less risk-averse trader with a higher certainty equivalent.

Even though we all use the same core principles as tastytraders, there will always be differences from one trader to the next in how we analyze a given situation. While much of this difference stems from varying degrees of risk aversion and utility functions, it's also important to recognize that two different traders might relate to prospect theory in two different ways.  As a result, when volatility is high and we want to allocate more capital, a more risk-averse trader with a lower certainty equivalent might choose to allocate less than a less risk-averse trader with a higher certainty equivalent.

Now that we know the results of the 49ers-Cowboys playoff game, does Sean regret not nailing down a bet with Ian? Also, are the Cowboys the Maple Leafs of the NFL? Then, with the public clash between Leon Draisaitl and Jim Matheson that occurred this week, they compare it to some all-time battles, and also discuss Sean's piece on midseason goalie trades.Then, in "Granger Things", Jesse Granger joins the show to discuss some betting trends for the Avalanche and Pathers, and it is discovered Sean and Jesse have very different memories of the 1996 Stanley Cup Final.To wrap up, the guys answer your mailbag questions, and in "This Week in Hockey History", they discuss two weather-related game delays, one with an exclusive club that doesn't seem to have great benefits.Have a question for Ian and Sean? Email theathletichockeyshow@gmail.com, or leave a VM at (845) 445-8459! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.