Podcasts about famously

You can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!Welcome back to Bad Dads Film Review! This episode swings open some metaphorical and literal portals as we explore our Top 5 Gates in film and TV, take aim with the tense WWII drama Enemy at the Gates, and finish off with an animated sci-fi detour through Stargate Infinity.

What did the late Bulgarian psychic, Baba Vanga, often referred to as the “Nostradamus of the Balkans” have to say about 2025? Michaela and Scott explore many of her accurate past predictions, as well as some future ones which include extraterrestrial contact, wars with other planets and more! They revisit some of Nostradamus' accurate world predictions, explain what prophecy is and detail the mysterious history of the famous psychic.Listen to more podcasts like this: https://wavepodcastnetwork.comWant to learn more? Enjoy one of our other interactive Aura quizzes: https://knowyouraura.com/aura-quizzesListen to this introductory episode to find your Aura color: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bonus-every-aura-color-explained/id1477126939?i=1000479357880Send Mystic Michaela some positive energy on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mysticmichaelaExplore the Know Your Aura Website : https://knowyouraura.comVisit Mystic Michaela's Website: https://www.mysticmichaela.comJoin Mystic Michaela's Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2093029197406168Ads:Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get 15% off with promo code AURA at https://lumedeodorant.com #lumepodGet $30 off the first box - PLUS free Croissants in every box - when you go to https://wildgrain.com/kya to start your subscription.Get started at https://www.factormeals.com/kya50off and use code kya50off to get 50 percent off plus FREE shipping on your first box.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode that opens the book of Vayikra, we focus on the book's (and parasha's) first word. Famously it is spelled with a small alef in Hebrew. We explore the difference between the word with and without the alef and how central it is to our lives and our service of God and His world.

What better time for a crossover than a comic book adaptation? This week, Graham is joined by Andrew and Mick, the two hosts of Behold!, to examine the 2024 remake of James O'Barr's cult comic The Crow. Famously the source for a 1994 film starring Brandon Lee, that star's on-set death sparked rumours that the property was cursed, rumours that can only have increased once people saw this.Entering Pop Screen's airspace thanks to its decision to cast FKA Twigs as the hero's doomed love Shelly, the trio discuss her music and acting as well as the largely-ignored wider Crow mythology, the puzzlingly miscast films of Rupert Sanders, Bill Skarsgard's strengths and limitations as a leading man and the film's unexpected debts to Paddington 2. Also opera - the entire art form - catches some strays.If you want to help us reach a state of eusexua, you can donate to our Patreon, where you'll get a bonus episode every month - there's one imminent right now, dealing with the great Miles Davis. Plus monthly reviews of classic Asian genre cinema in Fantastic Asia, weekly write-ups on classic TV science fiction and a nice everything-and-the-kitchen-sink podcast to round off each month in the form of Last Night... Follow us on Instagram and Facebook to find out more.

Happy Opening Day! Baseball is back, and BTTM is back with another baseball-themed book adaptation. Bookseller and writer Jonah Lipton joins the crew to discuss Bernard Malamud's 1952 novel THE NATURAL, and its 1984 film adaptation starring Robert Redford. Famously the book is downbeat and cynical, reflecting postwar disillusionment, while the movie is upbeat and heroic, reflecting Reagan-era optimism. We know they're different but which one is better??   Hosted by Tyler Austin, Allan Traylor, and Justin Remer. Produced by Justin Remer.  Recorded at the LAPL Octavia Lab.  Opening music: "Optimism (Instrumental)" by Duck the Piano Wire.  Closing music: "Rule of 3s (Solemnity Child)" Elastic No-No Band. 

A conversation with Dr. Jo Freer, a leading scholar on the work of American novelist Thomas Pynchon. I'm currently leading our Library's Classics Book Discussion Seminar series on Pynchon's 1973 masterpiece Gravity's Rainbow and Dr. Freer's work has been incredibly helpful for me in understanding this challenging novel and Pynchon's work as a whole. We're thrilled to get Dr. Freer's perspective on this important writer.  Dr. Jo Freer is Senior Lecturer in American and Postcolonial Literature in the Department of English and Creative Writing at the University of Exeter. She is the author of Thomas Pynchon and American Counterculture (Cambridge University Press, 2014), which considers Thomas Pynchon as a political philosopher. While Gravity's Rainbow centers around the saga of American Lt. Tyrone Slothrop, stationed in England at the end of WWII, Freer shows how the novel often responds directly to debates within the 1960s counterculture; the different approaches of the New Left, Yippies, The Black Panther Party, the Women's Movement, and the proto-countercultural Beat writers who influenced Pynchon are all game for comparison, revealing Pynchon to be a subtle and profound political thinker. Dr. Freer is also editor of the excellent essay collections The New Pynchon Studies (Cambridge UP, 2019) and co-editor of Thomas Pynchon, Sex and Gender, (Georgia UP, 2018). Our conversation also considers the various ways Pynchon's depictions of gender and sexuality have been interpreted by Freer and others. Famously, the judges of the Pulitzer Prize selected Gravity's Rainbow, but the Pulitzer Advisory Board said the book was “unreadable,” “turgid,” and “obscene” and chose to not award a prize that year. This is a fascinating conversation about form and content and the value of this difficult, challenging, anti-authoritarian reading experience for us today. Like the graffiti that appears in Gravity's Rainbow, Dr. Freer tells us that Pynchon creates texts that are “revealed in order to be thought about, expanded on, translated into action by the people.”  You can check out books by Dr. Freer, and work by all of our previous podcast guests, here at the library in our Podcast Collection. You can also find Dr. Freer on her University of Exeter page.  We hope you enjoy our 66th interview episode! Each month (or so) we release an episode featuring a conversation with an author, artist, or other notable guests from Chicagoland or around the world. Learn more about the podcast on our podcast page. You can listen to all of our episodes in the player below or on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments and feedback—please send to podcast@deerfieldlibrary.org.  

This week, Hunter and Peyton check in with the newest plot developments on The White Lotus and get to know the new cast of Real Housewives of Atlanta. And they're joined by Haley Mlotek, author of the new divorce memoir “No Fault” to talk divorce trends over the years, the history of no fault divorce in America, and what it feels like to go through a divorce of your own.Be the first to know about Wondery's newest podcasts, curated recommendations, and more! Sign up now at https://wondery.fm/wonderynewsletterListen to Lemme Say This on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Watch new episodes on YouTube and listen to weekly exclusive bonus content by joining Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Start your free trial by visiting wondery.com/links/lemme-say-this/ now. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A unicorn, a fairy and a kiwi bird work together in order to rescue a princess.Written especially for this podcast by Simon.  If you enjoyed this story, please do leave us a review.  And, if you'd like to suggest an animal for a future Animal Tales story, you can do so by emailing podcast@animaltales.uk. We would love to hear from you.  Animal Tales Books!Collections of Animal Tales stories are available to buy exclusively at Amazon. Simply search for Animal Tales Short Stories or follow this link: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0CLJQZ9C9?binding=paperback&ref=dbs_dp_sirpi Become a PREMIUM Subscriber You can now enjoy Animal Tales by becoming a Premium Subscriber. This gets you:All episodes in our catalogue advert freeBonus Premium-only episodes (one per week) which will never be used on the main podcastWe guarantee to use one of your animal suggestions in a storyYou can sign up through Apple Podcasts or through Supercast and there are both monthly and yearly plans available.   Discover a brand new story every Monday, Wednesday and Friday – just for you!  You can find more Animal Tales at https://www.spreaker.com/show/animal-tales-the-kids-story-podcast A Note About The AdvertsIn order to allow us to make these stories we offer a premium subscription and run adverts. The adverts are not chosen by us, but played automatically depending on the platform you listen through (Apple Podacsts, Spotify, etc) and the country you live in. The adverts may even be different if you listen to the story twice.  We have had a handful of instances where an advert has played that is not suitable for a family audience, despite the podcast clearly being labelled for children. If you're concerned about an advert you hear, please contact the platform you are listening to directly. Spotify, in particular, has proven problematic in the past, for both inappropriate adverts and the volume at which the adverts play. If you find this happening, please let Spotify know via their Facebook customer care page.  As creators, we want your child's experience to be a pleasurable one. Running adverts is necessary to allow us to operate, but please do consider the premium subscription service as an alternative – it's advert free.

From our series on 1 Peter

On this special bonus episode of Lipps Service, Scott sits down with a Lipps Service veteran, longtime friend, and blistering rock ‘n' roller — Luke Spiller. Famously known as the electric frontman of British rock band The Struts, Luke is getting ready for the release of his debut solo record, Love Will Probably Kill Me Before Cigarettes and Wine. The two get into everything behind the making of the new album, which is slated to be released on April 25. They discuss Luke's journey of going solo, how he met Scott, and why he wanted to make his own record outside of the band. He talks about his relationships with Jason Falkner of Jellyfish (Scott's favorite band!) and the late Taylor Hawkins of Foo Fighters. He also tells the stories behind a few of the new songs, including the title-track and “Devil In Me.” To close, Luke lists his top 5 solo albums from a lead singer of a band. Tune into a friendly and exciting conversation with Luke Spiller! CREDITS (Instagram handles)Host @scottlippsEdited by @toastycakesMusic by @robby_hoffProduced by @whitakermarisaRecorded at Melrose Podcasts LA Sonos makes it so easy to fill your home with incredible sound! Check out the new Sonos Ace headphones, which are Bluetooth-enabled and have three buttons. The content key allows you to play, pause, accept calls, and control the volume. Plus, they feature noise cancellation and voice assist!These headphones are exceptionally well done and sound incredible, whether listening to your favorite playlist, chatting on a call, watching a movie, or even recording a podcast like this one. They sound particularly fantastic when listening to Lipps Service!Sonos has great gifts for everyone on your list. Visit sonos.com/Lipps to save 20% on select products. 01:44 - Journey to solo album & how Luke and Scott met02:11 - Starting the album in 202002:44 - Why he went solo04:18 - How he decides if it's a Struts song or a solo song05:05 - Themes of love on the record06:00 - “Love Will Probably Kill Me Before Cigarettes and Wine”07:12 - Jason Falkner07:49 - Taylor Hawkins09:11 - Bond theme ideas for the record10:36 - “Devil in Me"12:22 - Mel's Diner14:07 - Lyricism on the record15:31 - Going solo17:00 - Taylor Hawkins, “Angel Like You” & Shane Hawkins20:21 - The Sun Rose shows in LA21:00 - Top 5 solo albums from a lead singer of a band

The Daily Quiz - Sports and Leisure Today's Questions: Question 1: What sport is famously played at Wimbledon? Question 2: With which sport do you associate `Flushing Meadows`? Question 3: Which of these is a baseball team based in Atlanta? Question 4: Which of these is a Tennis competition? Question 5: Which Record Breaking Video Game Character Made It's Debut in May 1980? Question 6: Which country won the 1970 FIFA World Cup, hosted in Mexico? Question 7: The Solheim Cup Is The Woman's Equivalent Of Which Famous Sporting Cup? Question 8: How many pockets are on a regulation pool table? Question 9: Where were the 1992 Olympics held? This podcast is produced by Klassic Studios Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Roll Pod, an Alabama sports podcast from Bama247. On today's episode, Cody, Mike, and Alex discuss the first day of spring ball and also discuss some Tide Hoops. FOLLOW • Mike Rodak: https://twitter.com/mikerodak  • Alex Scarborough: https://twitter.com/ByScarborough  • Cody Goodwin: https://twitter.com/codygoodwin  LINKS • Bama247 Website: https://247sports.com/college/alabama/  • Subscribe to Bama247: https://247sports.com/college/alabama/join/?promo=QUICKLINKS  • Bama247 Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2YzVw4plQnY8V8mMNCfZ8g  • Bama247 Twitter: https://twitter.com/Bama_247  • Bama247 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bama_247/  To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dr. Gary Null provides a commentary on "Universal  Healthcare"       Universal Healthcare is the Solution to a Broken Medical System Gary Null, PhD Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For over 50 years, there has been no concerted or successful effort to bring down medical costs in the American healthcare system. Nor are the federal health agencies making disease prevention a priority. Regardless whether the political left or right sponsors proposals for reform, such measures are repeatedly defeated by both parties in Congress. As a result, the nation's healthcare system remains one of the most expensive and least efficient in the developed world. For the past 30 years, medical bills contributing to personal debt regularly rank among the top three causes of personal bankruptcy. This is a reality that reflects not only the financial strain on ordinary Americans but the systemic failure of the healthcare system itself. The urgent question is: If President Trump and his administration are truly seeking to reduce the nation's $36 trillion deficit, why is there no serious effort to reform the most bloated and corrupt sector of the economy? A key obstacle is the widespread misinformation campaign that falsely claims universal health care would cost an additional $2 trillion annually and further balloon the national debt. However, a more honest assessment reveals the opposite. If the US adopted a universal single-payer system, the nation could actually save up to $20 trillion over the next 10 years rather than add to the deficit. Even with the most ambitious efforts by people like Elon Musk to rein in federal spending or optimize government efficiency, the estimated savings would only amount to $500 billion. This is only a fraction of what could be achieved through comprehensive healthcare reform alone. Healthcare is the largest single expenditure of the federal budget. A careful examination of where the $5 trillion spent annually on healthcare actually goes reveals massive systemic fraud and inefficiency. Aside from emergency medicine, which accounts for only 10-12 percent of total healthcare expenditures, the bulk of this spending does not deliver better health outcomes nor reduce trends in physical and mental illness. Applying Ockham's Razor, the principle that the simplest solution is often the best, the obvious conclusion is that America's astronomical healthcare costs are the direct result of price gouging on an unimaginable scale. For example, in most small businesses, profit margins range between 1.6 and 2.5 percent, such as in grocery retail. Yet the pharmaceutical industrial complex routinely operates on markup rates as high as 150,000 percent for many prescription drugs. The chart below highlights the astronomical gap between the retail price of some top-selling patented pharmaceutical medications and their generic equivalents. Drug Condition Patent Price (per unit) Generic Price Estimated Manufacture Cost Markup Source Insulin (Humalog) Diabetes $300 $30 $3 10,000% Rand (2021) EpiPen Allergic reactions $600 $30 $10 6,000% BMJ (2022) Daraprim Toxoplasmosis $750/pill $2 $0.50 150,000% JAMA (2019) Harvoni Hepatitis C $94,500 (12 weeks) $30,000 $200 47,000% WHO Report (2018) Lipitor Cholesterol $150 $10 $0.50 29,900% Health Affairs (2020) Xarelto Blood Thinner $450 $25 $1.50 30,000% NEJM (2020) Abilify Schizophrenia $800 (30 tablets) $15 $2 39,900% AJMC (2019) Revlimid Cancer $16,000/mo $450 $150 10,500% Kaiser Health News (2021) Humira Arthritis $2,984/dose $400 $50 5,868% Rand (2021) Sovaldi Hepatitis C $1,000/pill $10 $2 49,900% JAMA (2021) Xolair Asthma $2,400/dose $300 $50 4,800% NEJM (2020) Gleevec Leukemia $10,000/mo $350 $200 4,900% Harvard Public Health Review (2020) OxyContin Pain Relief $600 (30 tablets) $15 $0.50 119,900% BMJ (2022) Remdesivir Covid-19 $3,120 (5 doses) N/A $10 31,100% The Lancet (2020) The corruption extends far beyond price gouging. Many pharmaceutical companies convince federal health agencies to fund their basic research and drug development with taxpayer dollars. Yet when these companies bring successful products to market, the profits are kept entirely by the corporations or shared with the agencies or groups of government scientists. On the other hand, the public, who funded the research, receives no financial return. This amounts to a systemic betrayal of the public trust on a scale of hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Another significant contributor to rising healthcare costs is the widespread practice of defensive medicine that is driven by the constant threat of litigation. Over the past 40 years, defensive medicine has become a cottage industry. Physicians order excessive diagnostic tests and unnecessary treatments simply to protect themselves from lawsuits. Study after study has shown that these over-performed procedures not only inflate costs but lead to iatrogenesis or medical injury and death caused by the medical  system and practices itself. The solution is simple: adopting no-fault healthcare coverage for everyone where patients receive care without needing to sue and thereby freeing doctors from the burden of excessive malpractice insurance. A single-payer universal healthcare system could fundamentally transform the entire industry by capping profits at every level — from drug manufacturers to hospitals to medical equipment suppliers. The Department of Health and Human Services would have the authority to set profit margins for medical procedures. This would ensure that healthcare is determined by outcomes, not profits. Additionally, the growing influence of private equity firms and vulture capitalists buying up hospitals and medical clinics across America must be reined in. These equity firms prioritize profit extraction over improving the quality of care. They often slash staff, raise prices, and dictate medical procedures based on what will yield the highest returns. Another vital reform would be to provide free medical education for doctors and nurses in exchange for five years of service under the universal system. Medical professionals would earn a realistic salary cap to prevent them from being lured into equity partnerships or charging exorbitant rates. The biggest single expense in the current system, however, is the private health insurance industry, which consumes 33 percent of the $5 trillion healthcare budget. Health insurance CEOs consistently rank among the highest-paid executives in the country. Their companies, who are nothing more than bean counters, decide what procedures and drugs will be covered, partially covered, or denied altogether. This entire industry is designed to place profits above patients' lives. If the US dismantled its existing insurance-based system and replaced it with a fully reformed national healthcare model, the country could save $2.7 trillion annually while simultaneously improving health outcomes. Over the course of 10 years, those savings would amount to $27 trillion. This could wipe out nearly the entire national debt in a short time. This solution has been available for decades but has been systematically blocked by corporate lobbying and bipartisan corruption in Washington. The path forward is clear but only if American citizens demand a system where healthcare is valued as a public service and not a commodity. The national healthcare crisis is not just a fiscal issue. It is a crucial moral failure of the highest order. With the right reforms, the nation could simultaneously restore its financial health and deliver the kind of healthcare system its citizens have long deserved. American Healthcare: Corrupt, Broken and Lethal Richard Gale and Gary Null Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For a nation that prides itself on being the world's wealthiest, most innovative and technologically advanced, the US' healthcare system is nothing less than a disaster and disgrace. Not only are Americans the least healthy among the most developed nations, but the US' health system ranks dead last among high-income countries. Despite rising costs and our unshakeable faith in American medical exceptionalism, average life expectancy in the US has remained lower than other OECD nations for many years and continues to decline. The United Nations recognizes healthcare as a human right. In 2018, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon denounced the American healthcare system as "politically and morally wrong." During the pandemic it is estimated that two to three years was lost on average life expectancy. On the other hand, before the Covid-19 pandemic, countries with universal healthcare coverage found their average life expectancy stable or slowly increasing. The fundamental problem in the U.S. is that politics have been far too beholden to the pharmaceutical, HMO and private insurance industries. Neither party has made any concerted effort to reign in the corruption of corporate campaign funding and do what is sensible, financially feasible and morally correct to improve Americans' quality of health and well-being.   The fact that our healthcare system is horribly broken is proof that moneyed interests have become so powerful to keep single-payer debate out of the media spotlight and censored. Poll after poll shows that the American public favors the expansion of public health coverage. Other incremental proposals, including Medicare and Medicaid buy-in plans, are also widely preferred to the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare mess we are currently stuck with.   It is not difficult to understand how the dismal state of American medicine is the result of a system that has been sold out to the free-market and the bottom line interests of drug makers and an inflated private insurance industry. How advanced and ethically sound can a healthcare system be if tens of millions of people have no access to medical care because it is financially out of their reach?  The figures speak for themselves. The U.S. is burdened with a $41 trillion Medicare liability. The number of uninsured has declined during the past several years but still lingers around 25 million. An additional 30-35 million are underinsured. There are currently 65 million Medicare enrollees and 89 million Medicaid recipients. This is an extremely unhealthy snapshot of the country's ability to provide affordable healthcare and it is certainly unsustainable. The system is a public economic failure, benefiting no one except the large and increasingly consolidated insurance and pharmaceutical firms at the top that supervise the racket.   Our political parties have wrestled with single-payer or universal healthcare for decades. Obama ran his first 2008 presidential campaign on a single-payer platform. Since 1985, his campaign health adviser, the late Dr. Quentin Young from the University of Illinois Medical School, was one of the nation's leading voices calling for universal health coverage.  During a private conversation with Dr. Young shortly before his passing in 2016, he conveyed his sense of betrayal at the hands of the Obama administration. Dr. Young was in his 80s when he joined the Obama campaign team to help lead the young Senator to victory on a promise that America would finally catch up with other nations. The doctor sounded defeated. He shared how he was manipulated, and that Obama held no sincere intention to make universal healthcare a part of his administration's agenda. During the closed-door negotiations, which spawned the weak and compromised Affordable Care Act, Dr. Young was neither consulted nor invited to participate. In fact, he told us that he never heard from Obama again after his White House victory.   Past efforts to even raise the issue have been viciously attacked. A huge army of private interests is determined to keep the public enslaved to private insurers and high medical costs. The failure of our healthcare is in no small measure due to it being a fully for-profit operation. Last year, private health insurance accounted for 65 percent of coverage. Consider that there are over 900 private insurance companies in the US. National Health Expenditures (NHE) grew to $4.5 trillion in 2022, which was 17.3 percent of GDP. Older corporate rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans argue that a single-payer or socialized medical program is unaffordable. However, not only is single-payer affordable, it will end bankruptcies due to unpayable medical debt. In addition, universal healthcare, structured on a preventative model, will reduce disease rates at the outset.    Corporate Democrats argue that Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a positive step inching the country towards complete public coverage. However, aside from providing coverage to the poorest of Americans, Obamacare turned into another financial anchor around the necks of millions more. According to the health policy research group KFF, the average annual health insurance premium for single coverage is $8,400 and almost $24,000 for a family. In addition, patient out-of-pocket costs continue to increase, a 6.6% increase to $471 billion in 2022. Rather than healthcare spending falling, it has exploded, and the Trump and Biden administrations made matters worse.    Clearly, a universal healthcare program will require flipping the script on the entire private insurance industry, which employed over half a million people last year.  Obviously, the most volatile debate concerning a national universal healthcare system concerns cost. Although there is already a socialized healthcare system in place -- every federal legislator, bureaucrat, government employee and veteran benefits from it -- fiscal Republican conservatives and groups such as the Koch Brothers network are single-mindedly dedicated to preventing the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid. A Koch-funded Mercatus analysis made the outrageous claim that a single-payer system would increase federal health spending by $32 trillion in ten years. However, analyses and reviews by the Congressional Budget Office in the early 1990s concluded that such a system would only increase spending at the start; enormous savings would quickly offset it as the years pass. In one analysis, "the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."    Defenders of those advocating for funding a National Health Program argue this can primarily be accomplished by raising taxes to levels comparable to other developed nations. This was a platform Senator Bernie Sanders and some of the younger progressive Democrats in the House campaigned on. The strategy was to tax the highest multimillion-dollar earners 60-70 percent. Despite the outrage of its critics, including old rank-and-file multi-millionaire Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, this is still far less than in the past. During the Korean War, the top tax rate was 91 percent; it declined to 70 percent in the late 1960s. Throughout most of the 1970s, those in the lowest income bracket were taxed at 14 percent. We are not advocating for this strategy because it ignores where the funding is going, and the corruption in the system that is contributing to exorbitant waste.    But Democratic supporters of the ACA who oppose a universal healthcare plan ignore the additional taxes Obama levied to pay for the program. These included surtaxes on investment income, Medicare taxes from those earning over $200,000, taxes on tanning services, an excise tax on medical equipment, and a 40 percent tax on health coverage for costs over the designated cap that applied to flexible savings and health savings accounts. The entire ACA was reckless, sloppy and unnecessarily complicated from the start.    The fact that Obamacare further strengthened the distinctions between two parallel systems -- federal and private -- with entirely different economic structures created a labyrinth of red tape, rules, and wasteful bureaucracy. Since the ACA went into effect, over 150 new boards, agencies and programs have had to be established to monitor its 2,700 pages of gibberish. A federal single-payer system would easily eliminate this bureaucracy and waste.    A medical New Deal to establish universal healthcare coverage is a decisive step in the correct direction. But we must look at the crisis holistically and in a systematic way. Simply shuffling private insurance into a federal Medicare-for-all or buy-in program, funded by taxing the wealthiest of citizens, would only temporarily reduce costs. It will neither curtail nor slash escalating disease rates e. Any effective healthcare reform must also tackle the underlying reasons for Americans' poor state of health. We cannot shy away from examining the social illnesses infecting our entire free-market capitalist culture and its addiction to deregulation. A viable healthcare model would have to structurally transform how the medical economy operates. Finally, a successful medical New Deal must honestly evaluate the best and most reliable scientific evidence in order to effectively redirect public health spending.    For example, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama healthcare adviser, observed that AIDS-HIV measures consume the most public health spending, even though the disease "ranked 75th on the list of diseases by personal health expenditures." On the other hand, according to the American Medical Association, a large percentage of the nation's $3.4 trillion healthcare spending goes towards treating preventable diseases, notably diabetes, common forms of heart disease, and back and neck pain conditions. In 2016, these three conditions were the most costly and accounted for approximately $277 billion in spending. Last year, the CDC announced the autism rate is now 1 in 36 children compared to 1 in 44 two years ago. A retracted study by Mark Blaxill, an autism activist at the Holland Center and a friend of the authors, estimates that ASD costs will reach $589 billion annually by 2030. There are no signs that this alarming trend will reverse and decline; and yet, our entire federal health system has failed to conscientiously investigate the underlying causes of this epidemic. All explanations that might interfere with the pharmaceutical industry's unchecked growth, such as over-vaccination, are ignored and viciously discredited without any sound scientific evidence. Therefore, a proper medical New Deal will require a systemic overhaul and reform of our federal health agencies, especially the HHS, CDC and FDA. Only the Robert Kennedy Jr presidential campaign is even addressing the crisis and has an inexpensive and comprehensive plan to deal with it. For any medical revolution to succeed in advancing universal healthcare, the plan must prioritize spending in a manner that serves public health and not private interests. It will also require reshuffling private corporate interests and their lobbyists to the sidelines, away from any strategic planning, in order to break up the private interests' control over federal agencies and its revolving door policies. Aside from those who benefit from this medical corruption, the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with this criticism. However, there is a complete lack of national trust that our legislators, including the so-called progressives, would be willing to undertake such actions.    In addition, America's healthcare system ignores the single most critical initiative to reduce costs - that is, preventative efforts and programs instead of deregulation and closing loopholes designed to protect the drug and insurance industries' bottom line. Prevention can begin with banning toxic chemicals that are proven health hazards associated with current disease epidemics, and it can begin by removing a 1,000-plus toxins already banned in Europe. This should be a no-brainer for any legislator who cares for public health. For example, Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, notes that "the policy approach in the US and Europe is dramatically different" when it comes to chemical allowances in cosmetic products. Whereas the EU has banned 1,328 toxic substances from the cosmetic industry alone, the US has banned only 11. The US continues to allow carcinogenic formaldehyde, petroleum, forever chemicals, many parabens (an estrogen mimicker and endocrine hormone destroyer), the highly allergenic p-phenylenediamine or PBD, triclosan, which has been associated with the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria, avobenzone, and many others to be used in cosmetics, sunscreens, shampoo and hair dyes.   Next, the food Americans consume can be reevaluated for its health benefits. There should be no hesitation to tax the unhealthiest foods, such as commercial junk food, sodas and candy relying on high fructose corn syrup, products that contain ingredients proven to be toxic, and meat products laden with dangerous chemicals including growth hormones and antibiotics. The scientific evidence that the average American diet is contributing to rising disease trends is indisputable. We could also implement additional taxes on the public advertising of these demonstrably unhealthy products. All such tax revenue would accrue to a national universal health program to offset medical expenditures associated with the very illnesses linked to these products. Although such tax measures would help pay for a new medical New Deal, it may be combined with programs to educate the public about healthy nutrition if it is to produce a reduction in the most common preventable diseases. In fact, comprehensive nutrition courses in medical schools should be mandatory because the average physician receives no education in this crucial subject.  In addition, preventative health education should be mandatory throughout public school systems.   Private insurers force hospitals, clinics and private physicians into financial corners, and this is contributing to prodigious waste in money and resources. Annually, healthcare spending towards medical liability insurance costs tens of billions of dollars. In particular, this economic burden has taxed small clinics and physicians. It is well past the time that physician liability insurance is replaced with no-fault options. Today's doctors are spending an inordinate amount of money to protect themselves. Legions of liability and trial lawyers seek big paydays for themselves stemming from physician error. This has created a culture of fear among doctors and hospitals, resulting in the overly cautious practice of defensive medicine, driving up costs and insurance premiums just to avoid lawsuits. Doctors are forced to order unnecessary tests and prescribe more medications and medical procedures just to cover their backsides. No-fault insurance is a common-sense plan that enables physicians to pursue their profession in a manner that will reduce iatrogenic injuries and costs. Individual cases requiring additional medical intervention and loss of income would still be compensated. This would generate huge savings.    No other nation suffers from the scourge of excessive drug price gouging like the US. After many years of haggling to lower prices and increase access to generic drugs, only a minute amount of progress has been made in recent years. A 60 Minutes feature about the Affordable Care Act reported an "orgy of lobbying and backroom deals in which just about everyone with a stake in the $3-trillion-a-year health industry came out ahead—except the taxpayers.” For example, Life Extension magazine reported that an antiviral cream (acyclovir), which had lost its patent protection, "was being sold to pharmacies for 7,500% over the active ingredient cost. The active ingredient (acyclovir) costs only 8 pennies, yet pharmacies are paying a generic maker $600 for this drug and selling it to consumers for around $700." Other examples include the antibiotic Doxycycline. The price per pill averages 7 cents to $3.36 but has a 5,300 percent markup when it reaches the consumer. The antidepressant Clomipramine is marked up 3,780 percent, and the anti-hypertensive drug Captopril's mark-up is 2,850 percent. And these are generic drugs!    Medication costs need to be dramatically cut to allow drug manufacturers a reasonable but not obscene profit margin. By capping profits approximately 100 percent above all costs, we would save our system hundreds of billions of dollars. Such a measure would also extirpate the growing corporate misdemeanors of pricing fraud, which forces patients to pay out-of-pocket in order to make up for the costs insurers are unwilling to pay.    Finally, we can acknowledge that our healthcare is fundamentally a despotic rationing system based upon high insurance costs vis-a-vis a toss of the dice to determine where a person sits on the economic ladder. For the past three decades it has contributed to inequality. The present insurance-based economic metrics cast millions of Americans out of coverage because private insurance costs are beyond their means. Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton University political economist, has called our system "brutal" because it "rations [people] out of the system." He defined rationing as "withholding something from someone that is beneficial." Discriminatory healthcare rationing now affects upwards to 60 million people who have been either priced out of the system or under insured. They make too much to qualify for Medicare under Obamacare, yet earn far too little to afford private insurance costs and premiums. In the final analysis, the entire system is discriminatory and predatory.    However, we must be realistic. Almost every member of Congress has benefited from Big Pharma and private insurance lobbyists. The only way to begin to bring our healthcare program up to the level of a truly developed nation is to remove the drug industry's rampant and unnecessary profiteering from the equation.     How did Fauci memory-hole a cure for AIDS and get away with it?   By Helen Buyniski   Over 700,000 Americans have died of AIDS since 1981, with the disease claiming some 42.3 million victims worldwide. While an HIV diagnosis is no longer considered a certain death sentence, the disease looms large in the public imagination and in public health funding, with contemporary treatments running into thousands of dollars per patient annually.   But was there a cure for AIDS all this time - an affordable and safe treatment that was ruthlessly suppressed and attacked by the US public health bureaucracy and its agents? Could this have saved millions of lives and billions of dollars spent on AZT, ddI and failed HIV vaccine trials? What could possibly justify the decision to disappear a safe and effective approach down the memory hole?   The inventor of the cure, Gary Null, already had several decades of experience creating healing protocols for physicians to help patients not responding well to conventional treatments by the time AIDS was officially defined in 1981. Null, a registered dietitian and board-certified nutritionist with a PhD in human nutrition and public health science, was a senior research fellow and Director of Anti-Aging Medicine at the Institute of Applied Biology for 36 years and has published over 950 papers, conducting groundbreaking experiments in reversing biological aging as confirmed with DNA methylation testing. Additionally, Null is a multi-award-winning documentary filmmaker, bestselling author, and investigative journalist whose work exposing crimes against humanity over the last 50 years has highlighted abuses by Big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, the financial industry, and the permanent government stay-behind networks that have come to be known as the Deep State.   Null was contacted in 1974 by Dr. Stephen Caiazza, a physician working with a subculture of gay men in New York living the so-called “fast track” lifestyle, an extreme manifestation of the gay liberation movement that began with the Stonewall riots. Defined by rampant sexual promiscuity and copious use of illegal and prescription drugs, including heavy antibiotic use for a cornucopia of sexually-transmitted diseases, the fast-track never included more than about two percent of gay men, though these dominated many of the bathhouses and clubs that defined gay nightlife in the era. These patients had become seriously ill as a result of their indulgence, generally arriving at the clinic with multiple STDs including cytomegalovirus and several types of herpes and hepatitis, along with candida overgrowth, nutritional deficiencies, gut issues, and recurring pneumonia. Every week for the next 10 years, Null would counsel two or three of these men - a total of 800 patients - on how to detoxify their bodies and de-stress their lives, tracking their progress with Caiazza and the other providers at weekly feedback meetings that he credits with allowing the team to quickly evaluate which treatments were most effective. He observed that it only took about two years on the “fast track” for a healthy young person to begin seeing muscle loss and the recurrent, lingering opportunistic infections that would later come to be associated with AIDS - while those willing to commit to a healthier lifestyle could regain their health in about a year.    It was with this background that Null established the Tri-State Healing Center in Manhattan in 1980, staffing the facility with what would eventually run to 22 certified health professionals to offer safe, natural, and effective low- and no-cost treatments to thousands of patients with HIV and AIDS-defining conditions. Null and his staff used variations of the protocols he had perfected with Caiazza's patients, a multifactorial patient-tailored approach that included high-dose vitamin C drips, intravenous ozone therapy, juicing and nutritional improvements and supplementation, aspects of homeopathy and naturopathy with some Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurvedic practices. Additional services offered on-site included acupuncture and holistic dentistry, while peer support groups were also held at the facility so that patients could find community and a positive environment, healing their minds and spirits while they healed their bodies.   “Instead of trying to kill the virus with antiretroviral pharmaceuticals designed to stop viral replication before it kills patients, we focused on what benefits could be gained by building up the patients' natural immunity and restoring biochemical integrity so the body could fight for itself,” Null wrote in a 2014 article describing the philosophy behind the Center's approach, which was wholly at odds with the pharmaceutical model.1   Patients were comprehensively tested every week, with any “recovery” defined solely by the labs, which documented AIDS patient after patient - 1,200 of them - returning to good health and reversing their debilitating conditions. Null claims to have never lost an AIDS patient in the Center's care, even as the death toll for the disease - and its pharmaceutical standard of care AZT - reached an all-time high in the early 1990s. Eight patients who had opted for a more intensive course of treatment - visiting the Center six days a week rather than one - actually sero-deconverted, with repeated subsequent testing showing no trace of HIV in their bodies.   As an experienced clinical researcher himself, Null recognized that any claims made by the Center would be massively scrutinized, challenging as they did the prevailing scientific consensus that AIDS was an incurable, terminal illness. He freely gave his protocols to any medical practitioner who asked, understanding that his own work could be considered scientifically valid only if others could replicate it under the same conditions. After weeks of daily observational visits to the Center, Dr. Robert Cathcart took the protocols back to San Francisco, where he excitedly reported that patients were no longer dying in his care.    Null's own colleague at the Institute of Applied Biology, senior research fellow Elana Avram, set up IV drip rooms at the Institute and used his intensive protocols to sero-deconvert 10 patients over a two-year period. While the experiment had been conducted in secret, as the Institute had been funded by Big Pharma since its inception half a century earlier, Avram had hoped she would be able to publish a journal article to further publicize Null's protocols and potentially help AIDS patients, who were still dying at incredibly high rates thanks to Burroughs Wellcome's noxious but profitable AZT. But as she would later explain in a 2019 letter to Null, their groundbreaking research never made it into print - despite meticulous documentation of their successes - because the Institute's director and board feared their pharmaceutical benefactors would withdraw the funding on which they depended, given that Null's protocols did not involve any patentable or otherwise profitable drugs. When Avram approached them about publication, the board vetoed the idea, arguing that it would “draw negative attention because [the work] was contrary to standard drug treatments.” With no real point in continuing experiments along those lines without institutional support and no hope of obtaining funding from elsewhere, the department she had created specifically for these experiments shut down after a two-year followup with her test subjects - all of whom remained alive and healthy - was completed.2   While the Center was receiving regular visits by this time from medical professionals and, increasingly, black celebrities like Stokely Carmichael and Isaac Hayes, who would occasionally perform for the patients, the news was spreading by word of mouth alone - not a single media outlet had dared to document the clinic that was curing AIDS patients for free. Instead, they gave airtime to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, who had for years been spreading baseless, hysteria-fueling claims about HIV and AIDS to any news outlet that would put him on. His claim that children could contract the virus from “ordinary household conduct” with an infected relative proved so outrageous he had to walk it back,3 and he never really stopped insisting the deadly plague associated with gays and drug users was about to explode like a nuclear bomb among the law-abiding heterosexual population. Fauci by this time controlled all government science funding through NIAID, and his zero-tolerance approach to dissent on the HIV/AIDS front had already seen prominent scientists like virologist Peter Duesberg stripped of the resources they needed for their work because they had dared to question his commandment: There is no cause of AIDS but HIV, and AZT is its treatment. Even the AIDS activist groups, which by then had been coopted by Big Pharma and essentially reduced to astroturfing for the toxic failed chemotherapy drug AZT backed by the institutional might of Fauci's NIAID,4 didn't seem to want to hear that there was a cure. Unconcerned with the irrationality of denouncing the man touting his free AIDS cure as an  “AIDS denier,” they warned journalists that platforming Null or anyone else rejecting the mainstream medical line would be met with organized demands for their firing.    Determined to breach the institutional iron curtain and get his message to the masses, Null and his team staged a press conference in New York, inviting scientists and doctors from around the world to share their research on alternative approaches to HIV and AIDS in 1993. To emphasize the sound scientific basis of the Center's protocols and encourage guests to adopt them into their own practices, Null printed out thousands of abstracts in support of each nutrient and treatment being used. However, despite over 7,000 invitations sent three times to major media, government figures, scientists, and activists, almost none of the intended audience members showed up. Over 100 AIDS patients and their doctors, whose charts exhaustively documented their improvements using natural and nontoxic modalities over the preceding 12 months, gave filmed testimonials, declaring that the feared disease was no longer a death sentence, but the conference had effectively been silenced. Bill Tatum, publisher of the Amsterdam News, suggested Null and his patients would find a more welcoming audience in his home neighborhood of Harlem - specifically, its iconic Apollo Theatre. For three nights, the theater was packed to capacity. Hit especially hard by the epidemic and distrustful of a medical system that had only recently stopped being openly racist (the Tuskegee syphilis experiment only ended in 1972), black Americans, at least, did not seem to care what Anthony Fauci would do if he found out they were investigating alternatives to AZT and death.    PBS journalist Tony Brown, having obtained a copy of the video of patient testimonials from the failed press conference, was among a handful of black journalists who began visiting the Center to investigate the legitimacy of Null's claims. Satisfied they had something significant to offer his audience, Brown invited eight patients - along with Null himself - onto his program over the course of several episodes to discuss the work. It was the first time these protocols had received any attention in the media, despite Null having released nearly two dozen articles and multiple documentaries on the subject by that time. A typical patient on one program, Al, a recovered IV drug user who was diagnosed with AIDS at age 32, described how he “panicked,” saw a doctor and started taking AZT despite his misgivings - only to be forced to discontinue the drug after just a few weeks due to his condition deteriorating rapidly. Researching alternatives brought him to Null, and after six months of “detoxing [his] lifestyle,” he observed his initial symptoms - swollen lymph nodes and weight loss - begin to reverse, culminating with sero-deconversion. On Bill McCreary's Channel 5 program, a married couple diagnosed with HIV described how they watched their T-cell counts increase as they cut out sugar, caffeine, smoking, and drinking and began eating a healthy diet. They also saw the virus leave their bodies.   For HIV-positive viewers surrounded by fear and negativity, watching healthy-looking, cheerful “AIDS patients” detail their recovery while Null backed up their claims with charts must have been balm for the soul. But the TV programs were also a form of outreach to the medical community, with patients' charts always on hand to convince skeptics the cure was scientifically valid. Null brought patients' charts to every program, urging them to keep an open mind: “Other physicians and public health officials should know that there's good science in the alternative perspective. It may not be a therapy that they're familiar with, because they're just not trained in it, but if the results are positive, and you can document them…” He challenged doubters to send in charts from their own sero-deconverted patients on AZT, and volunteered to debate proponents of the orthodox treatment paradigm - though the NIH and WHO both refused to participate in such a debate on Tony Brown's Journal, following Fauci's directive prohibiting engagement with forbidden ideas.    Aside from those few TV programs and Null's own films, suppression of Null's AIDS cure beyond word of mouth was total. The 2021 documentary The Cost of Denial, produced by the Society for Independent Journalists, tells the story of the Tri-State Healing Center and the medical paradigm that sought to destroy it, lamenting the loss of the lives that might have been saved in a more enlightened society. Nurse practitioner Luanne Pennesi, who treated many of the AIDS patients at the Center, speculated in the film that the refusal by the scientific establishment and AIDS activists to accept their successes was financially motivated. “It was as if they didn't want this information to get out. Understand that our healthcare system as we know it is a corporation, it's a corporate model, and it's about generating revenue. My concern was that maybe they couldn't generate enough revenue from these natural approaches.”5   Funding was certainly the main disciplinary tool Fauci's NIAID used to keep the scientific community in line. Despite the massive community interest in the work being done at the Center, no foundation or institution would defy Fauci and risk getting itself blacklisted, leaving Null to continue funding the operation out of his pocket with the profits from book sales. After 15 years, he left the Center in 1995, convinced the mainstream model had so thoroughly been institutionalized that there was no chance of overthrowing it. He has continued to counsel patients and advocate for a reappraisal of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis and its pharmaceutical treatments, highlighting the deeply flawed science underpinning the model of the disease espoused by the scientific establishment in 39 articles, six documentaries and a 700-page textbook on AIDS, but the Center's achievements have been effectively memory-holed by Fauci's multi-billion-dollar propaganda apparatus.     FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE   To understand just how much of a threat Null's work was to the HIV/AIDS establishment, it is instructive to revisit the 1984 paper, published by Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, that established HIV as the sole cause of AIDS. The CDC's official recognition of AIDS in 1981 had done little to quell the mounting public panic over the mysterious illness afflicting gay men in the US, as the agency had effectively admitted it had no idea what was causing them to sicken and die. As years passed with no progress determining the causative agent of the plague, activist groups like Gay Men's Health Crisis disrupted public events and threatened further mass civil disobedience as they excoriated the NIH for its sluggish allocation of government science funding to uncovering the cause of the “gay cancer.”6 When Gallo published his paper declaring that the retrovirus we now know as HIV was the sole “probable” cause of AIDS, its simple, single-factor hypothesis was the answer to the scientific establishment's prayers. This was particularly true for Fauci, as the NIAID chief was able to claim the hot new disease as his agency's own domain in what has been described as a “dramatic confrontation” with his rival Sam Broder at the National Cancer Institute. After all, Fauci pointed out, Gallo's findings - presented by Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler as if they were gospel truth before any other scientists had had a chance to inspect them, never mind conduct a full peer review - clearly classified AIDS as an infectious disease, and not a cancer like the Kaposi's sarcoma which was at the time its most visible manifestation. Money and media attention began pouring in, even as funding for the investigation of other potential causes of AIDS dried up. Having already patented a diagnostic test for “his” retrovirus before introducing it to the world, Gallo was poised for a financial windfall, while Fauci was busily leveraging the discovery into full bureaucratic empire of the US scientific apparatus.   While it would serve as the sole basis for all US government-backed AIDS research to follow - quickly turning Gallo into the most-cited scientist in the world during the 1980s,7 Gallo's “discovery” of HIV was deeply problematic. The sample that yielded the momentous discovery actually belonged to Prof. Luc Montagnier of the French Institut Pasteur, a fact Gallo finally admitted in 1991, four years after a lawsuit from the French government challenged his patent on the HIV antibody test, forcing the US government to negotiate a hasty profit-sharing agreement between Gallo's and Montagnier's labs. That lawsuit triggered a cascade of official investigations into scientific misconduct by Gallo, and evidence submitted during one of these probes, unearthed in 2008 by journalist Janine Roberts, revealed a much deeper problem with the seminal “discovery.” While Gallo's co-author, Mikulas Popovic, had concluded after numerous experiments with the French samples that the virus they contained was not the cause of AIDS, Gallo had drastically altered the paper's conclusion, scribbling his notes in the margins, and submitted it for publication to the journal Science without informing his co-author.   After Roberts shared her discovery with contacts in the scientific community, 37 scientific experts wrote to the journal demanding that Gallo's career-defining HIV paper be retracted from Science for lacking scientific integrity.8 Their call, backed by an endorsement from the 2,600-member scientific organization Rethinking AIDS, was ignored by the publication and by the rest of mainstream science despite - or perhaps because of - its profound implications.   That 2008 letter, addressed to Science editor-in-chief Bruce Alberts and copied to American Association for the Advancement of Science CEO Alan Leshner, is worth reproducing here in its entirety, as it utterly dismantles Gallo's hypothesis - and with them the entire HIV is the sole cause of AIDS dogma upon which the contemporary medical model of the disease rests:   On May 4, 1984 your journal published four papers by a group led by Dr. Robert Gallo. We are writing to express our serious concerns with regard to the integrity and veracity of the lead paper among these four of which Dr. Mikulas Popovic is the lead author.[1] The other three are also of concern because they rely upon the conclusions of the lead paper .[2][3][4]  In the early 1990s, several highly critical reports on the research underlying these papers were produced as a result of governmental inquiries working under the supervision of scientists nominated by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. The Office of Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the lead paper was “fraught with false and erroneous statements,” and that the “ORI believes that the careless and unacceptable keeping of research records...reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to retrace the important steps taken.”[5] Further, a Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations led by US Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan produced a staff report on the papers which contains scathing criticisms of their integrity.[6]  Despite the publically available record of challenges to their veracity, these papers have remained uncorrected and continue to be part of the scientific record.  What prompts our communication today is the recent revelation of an astonishing number of previously unreported deletions and unjustified alterations made by Gallo to the lead paper. There are several documents originating from Gallo's laboratory that, while available for some time, have only recently been fully analyzed. These include a draft of the lead paper typewritten by Popovic which contains handwritten changes made to it by Gallo.[7] This draft was the key evidence used in the above described inquiries to establish that Gallo had concealed his laboratory's use of a cell culture sample (known as LAV) which it received from the Institut Pasteur.  These earlier inquiries verified that the typed manuscript draft was produced by Popovic who had carried out the recorded experiment while his laboratory chief, Gallo, was in Europe and that, upon his return, Gallo changed the document by hand a few days before it was submitted to Science on March 30, 1984. According to the ORI investigation, “Dr. Gallo systematically rewrote the manuscript for what would become a renowned LTCB [Gallo's laboratory at the National Cancer Institute] paper.”[5]  This document provided the important evidence that established the basis for awarding Dr. Luc Montagnier and Dr. Francoise Barré-Sinoussi the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of the AIDS virus by proving it was their samples of LAV that Popovic used in his key experiment. The draft reveals that Popovic had forthrightly admitted using the French samples of LAV renamed as Gallo's virus, HTLV-III, and that Gallo had deleted this admission, concealing their use of LAV.  However, it has not been previously reported that on page three of this same document Gallo had also deleted Popovic's unambiguous statement that, "Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified,” replacing it in the published paper with a statement that said practically the opposite, namely, “That a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiologic agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings.”  It is clear that the rest of Popovic's typed paper is entirely consistent with his statement that the cause of AIDS had not been found, despite his use of the French LAV. Popovic's final conclusion was that the culture he produced “provides the possibility” for detailed studies. He claimed to have achieved nothing more. At no point in his paper did Popovic attempt to prove that any virus caused AIDS, and it is evident that Gallo concealed these key elements in Popovic's experimental findings.  It is astonishing now to discover these unreported changes to such a seminal document. We can only assume that Gallo's alterations of Popovic's conclusions were not highlighted by earlier inquiries because the focus at the time was on establishing that the sample used by Gallo's lab came from Montagnier and was not independently collected by Gallo. In fact, the only attention paid to the deletions made by Gallo pertains to his effort to hide the identity of the sample. The questions of whether Gallo and Popovic's research proved that LAV or any other virus was the cause of AIDS were clearly not considered.  Related to these questions are other long overlooked documents that merit your attention. One of these is a letter from Dr. Matthew A. Gonda, then Head of the Electron Microscopy Laboratory at the National Cancer Institute, which is addressed to Popovic, copied to Gallo and dated just four days prior to Gallo's submission to Science.[8] In this letter, Gonda remarks on samples he had been sent for imaging because “Dr Gallo wanted these micrographs for publication because they contain HTLV.” He states, “I do not believe any of the particles photographed are of HTLV-I, II or III.” According to Gonda, one sample contained cellular debris, while another had no particles near the size of a retrovirus. Despite Gonda's clearly worded statement, Science published on May 4, 1984 papers attributed to Gallo et al with micrographs attributed to Gonda and described unequivocally as HTLV-III.  In another letter by Gallo, dated one day before he submitted his papers to Science, Gallo states, “It's extremely rare to find fresh cells [from AIDS patients] expressing the virus... cell culture seems to be necessary to induce virus,” a statement which raises the possibility he was working with a laboratory artifact. [9]  Included here are copies of these documents and links to the same. The very serious flaws they reveal in the preparation of the lead paper published in your journal in 1984 prompts our request that this paper be withdrawn. It appears that key experimental findings have been concealed. We further request that the three associated papers published on the same date also be withdrawn as they depend on the accuracy of this paper.  For the scientific record to be reliable, it is vital that papers shown to be flawed, or falsified be retracted. Because a very public record now exists showing that the Gallo papers drew unjustified conclusions, their withdrawal from Science is all the more important to maintain integrity. Future researchers must also understand they cannot rely on the 1984 Gallo papers for statements about HIV and AIDS, and all authors of papers that previously relied on this set of four papers should have the opportunity to consider whether their own conclusions are weakened by these revelations.      Gallo's handwritten revision, submitted without his colleague's knowledge despite multiple experiments that failed to support the new conclusion, was the sole foundation for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Had Science published the manuscript the way Popovic had typed it, there would be no AIDS “pandemic” - merely small clusters of people with AIDS. Without a viral hypothesis backing the development of expensive and deadly pharmaceuticals, would Fauci have allowed these patients to learn about the cure that existed all along?   Faced with a potential rebellion, Fauci marshaled the full resources under his control to squelch the publication of the investigations into Gallo and restrict any discussion of competing hypotheses in the scientific and mainstream press, which had been running virus-scare stories full-time since 1984. The effect was total, according to biochemist Dr. Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure. In a 2009 interview, Mullis recalled his own shock when he attempted to unearth the experimental basis for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Despite his extensive inquiry into the literature, “there wasn't a scientific reference…[that] said ‘here's how come we know that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.' There was nothing out there like that.”9 This yawning void at the core of HIV/AIDS “science" turned him into a strident critic of AIDS dogma - and those views made him persona non grata where the scientific press was concerned, suddenly unable to publish a single paper despite having won the Nobel Prize for his invention of the PCR test just weeks before.  10   DISSENT BECOMES “DENIAL”   While many of those who dissent from the orthodox HIV=AIDS view believe HIV plays a role in the development of AIDS, they point to lifestyle and other co-factors as being equally if not more important. Individuals who test positive for HIV can live for decades in perfect health - so long as they don't take AZT or the other toxic antivirals fast-tracked by Fauci's NIAID - but those who developed full-blown AIDS generally engaged in highly risky behaviors like extreme promiscuity and prodigious drug abuse, contracting STDs they took large quantities of antibiotics to treat, further running down their immune systems. While AIDS was largely portrayed as a “gay disease,” it was only the “fast track” gays, hooking up with dozens of partners nightly in sex marathons fueled by “poppers” (nitrate inhalants notorious for their own devastating effects on the immune system), who became sick. Kaposi's sarcoma, one of the original AIDS-defining conditions, was widespread among poppers-using gay men, but never appeared among IV drug users or hemophiliacs, the other two main risk groups during the early years of the epidemic. Even Robert Gallo himself, at a 1994 conference on poppers held by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, would admit that the previously-rare form of skin cancer surging among gay men was not primarily caused by HIV - and that it was immune stimulation, rather than suppression, that was likely responsible.11 Similarly, IV drug users are often riddled with opportunistic infections as their habit depresses the immune system and their focus on maintaining their addiction means that healthier habits - like good nutrition and even basic hygiene - fall by the wayside.    Supporting the call for revising the HIV=AIDS hypothesis to include co-factors is the fact that the mass heterosexual outbreaks long predicted by Fauci and his ilk in seemingly every country on Earth have failed to materialize, except - supposedly - in Africa, where the diagnostic standard for AIDS differs dramatically from those of the West. Given the prohibitively high cost of HIV testing for poor African nations, the WHO in 1985 crafted a diagnostic loophole that became known as the “Bangui definition,” allowing medical professionals to diagnose AIDS in the absence of a test using just clinical symptoms: high fever, persistent cough, at least 30 days of diarrhea, and the loss of 10% of one's body weight within two months. Often suffering from malnutrition and without access to clean drinking water, many of the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa fit the bill, especially when the WHO added tuberculosis to the list of AIDS-defining illnesses in 1993 - a move which may be responsible for as many as one half of African “AIDS” cases, according to journalist Christine Johnson. The WHO's former Chief of Global HIV Surveillance, James Chin, acknowledged their manipulation of statistics, but stressed that it was the entire AIDS industry - not just his organization - perpetrating the fraud. “There's the saying that, if you knew what sausages are made of, most people would hesitate to sort of eat them, because they wouldn't like what's in it. And if you knew how HIV/AIDS numbers are cooked, or made up, you would use them with extreme caution,” Chin told an interviewer in 2009.12   With infected numbers stubbornly remaining constant in the US despite Fauci's fearmongering projections of the looming heterosexually-transmitted plague, the CDC in 1993 broadened its definition of AIDS to include asymptomatic (that is, healthy) HIV-positive people with low T-cell counts - an absurd criteria given that an individual's T-cell count can fluctuate by hundreds within a single day. As a result, the number of “AIDS cases” in the US immediately doubled. Supervised by Fauci, the NIAID had been quietly piling on diseases into the “AIDS-related” category for years, bloating the list from just two conditions - pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma - to 30 so fast it raised eyebrows among some of science's leading lights. Deeming the entire process “bizarre” and unprecedented, Kary Mullis wondered aloud why no one had called the AIDS establishment out: “There's something wrong here. And it's got to be financial.”13   Indeed, an early CDC public relations campaign was exposed by the Wall Street Journal in 1987 as having deliberately mischaracterized AIDS as a threat to the entire population so as to garner increased public and private funding for what was very much a niche issue, with the risk to average heterosexuals from a single act of sex “smaller than the risk of ever getting hit by lightning.” Ironically, the ads, which sought to humanize AIDS patients in an era when few Americans knew anyone with the disease and more than half the adult population thought infected people should be forced to carry cards warning of their status, could be seen as a reaction to the fear tactics deployed by Fauci early on.14   It's hard to tell where fraud ends and incompetence begins with Gallo's HIV antibody test. Much like Covid-19 would become a “pandemic of testing,” with murder victims and motorcycle crashes lumped into “Covid deaths” thanks to over-sensitized PCR tests that yielded as many as 90% false positives,15 HIV testing is fraught with false positives - and unlike with Covid-19, most people who hear they are HIV-positive still believe they are receiving a death sentence. Due to the difficulty of isolating HIV itself from human samples, the most common diagnostic tests, ELISA and the Western Blot, are designed to detect not the virus but antibodies to it, upending the traditional medical understanding that the presence of antibodies indicates only exposure - and often that the body has actually vanquished the pathogen. Patients are known to test positive for HIV antibodies in the absence of the virus due to at least 70 other conditions, including hepatitis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, syphilis, recent vaccination or even pregnancy. (https://www.chcfl.org/diseases-that-can-cause-a-false-positive-hiv-test/) Positive results are often followed up with a PCR “viral load” test, even though the inventor of the PCR technique Kary Mullis famously condemned its misuse as a tool for diagnosing infection. Packaging inserts for all three tests warn the user that they cannot be reliably used to diagnose HIV.16 The ELISA HIV antibody test explicitly states: “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV antibody in human blood.”17   That the public remains largely unaware of these and other massive holes in the supposedly airtight HIV=AIDS=DEATH paradigm is a testament to Fauci's multi-layered control of the press. Like the writers of the Great Barrington Declaration and other Covid-19 dissidents, scientists who question HIV/AIDS dogma have been brutally punished for their heresy, no matter how prestigious their prior standing in the field and no matter how much evidence they have for their own claims. In 1987, the year the FDA's approval of AZT made AIDS the most profitable epidemic yet (a dubious designation Covid-19 has since surpassed), Fauci made it clearer than ever that scientific inquiry and debate - the basis of the scientific method - would no longer be welcome in the American public health sector, eliminating retrovirologist Peter Duesberg, then one of the most prominent opponents of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, from the scientific conversation with a professional disemboweling that would make a cartel hitman blush. Duesberg had just eviscerated Gallo's 1984 HIV paper with an article of his own in the journal Cancer Research, pointing out that retroviruses had never before been found to cause a single disease in humans - let alone 30 AIDS-defining diseases. Rather than allow Gallo or any of the other scientists in his camp to respond to the challenge, Fauci waged a scorched-earth campaign against Duesberg, who had until then been one of the most highly regarded researchers in his field. Every research grant he requested was denied; every media appearance was canceled or preempted. The University of California at Berkeley, unable to fully fire him due to tenure, took away his lab, his graduate students, and the rest of his funding. The few colleagues who dared speak up for him in public were also attacked, while enemies and opportunists were encouraged to slander Duesberg at the conferences he was barred from attending and in the journals that would no longer publish his replies. When Duesberg was summoned to the White House later that year by then-President Ronald Reagan to debate Fauci on the origins of AIDS, Fauci convinced the president to cancel, allegedly pulling rank on the Commander-in-Chief with an accusation that the “White House was interfering in scientific matters that belonged to the NIH and the Office of Science and Technology Assessment.” After seven years of this treatment, Duesberg was contacted by NIH official Stephen O'Brien and offered an escape from professional purgatory. He could have “everything back,” he was told, and shown a manuscript of a scientific paper - apparently commissioned by the editor of the journal Nature - “HIV Causes AIDS: Koch's Postulates Fulfilled” with his own name listed alongside O'Brien's as an author.18 His refusal to take the bribe effectively guaranteed the epithet “AIDS denier” will appear on his tombstone. The character assassination of Duesberg became a template that would be deployed to great effectiveness wherever Fauci encountered dissent - never debate, only demonize, deplatform and destroy.    Even Luc Montagnier, the real discoverer of HIV, soon found himself on the wrong side of the Fauci machine. With his 1990 declaration that “the HIV virus [by itself] is harmless and passive, a benign virus,” Montagnier began distancing himself from Gallo's fraud, effectively placing a target on his own back. In a 1995 interview, he elaborated: “four factors that have come together to account for the sudden epidemic [of AIDS]: HIV presence, immune hyper-activation, increased sexually transmitted disease incidence, sexual behavior changes and other behavioral changes” such as drug use, poor nutrition and stress - all of which he said had to occur “essentially simultaneously” for HIV to be transmitted, creating the modern epidemic. Like the professionals at the Tri-State Healing Center, Montagnier advocated for the use of antioxidants like vitamin C and N-acetyl cysteine, naming oxidative stress as a critical factor in the progression from HIV to AIDS.19 When Montagnier died in 2022, Fauci's media mouthpieces sneered that the scientist (who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his discovery of HIV, despite his flagging faith in that discovery's significance) “started espousing views devoid of a scientific basis” in the late 2000s, leading him to be “shunned by the scientific community.”20 In a particularly egregious jab, the Washington Post's obit sings the praises of Robert Gallo, implying it was the American scientist who really should have won the Nobel for HIV, while dismissing as “

Nick, Nathan, and Caleb gather up to talk the week in football. Jose Mourinho does some Jose Mourinho things, Liverpool wraps up the league, and Barca and Atleti play a thriller. Plus, a look at an emergent Monaco striker, a Champions League preview, and more!

In 1973, the legendary head of National Semiconductor, Charlie Sporck RIP, told analysts in Los Angeles that the Japanese were "coming down the pike". He was not wrong. In the nine years from 1975 to 1984, Japan doubled their share of the integrated circuit industry from 19% to 38%. Famously, by 1986, just three of eleven American DRAM memory makers were left still in business. But more than just numbers, Japan's rise struck fear in the very heart of American capitalism. It led the country to deeply reflect on how they conducted their own way of business. Looking back at it now, the hysteria is hard to believe. Were the Japanese really that good at semiconductors? No, but I can see why people thought so. In this video, we explore the question: Why was Japan so "good" at semiconductors?

In 1973, the legendary head of National Semiconductor, Charlie Sporck RIP, told analysts in Los Angeles that the Japanese were "coming down the pike". He was not wrong. In the nine years from 1975 to 1984, Japan doubled their share of the integrated circuit industry from 19% to 38%. Famously, by 1986, just three of eleven American DRAM memory makers were left still in business. But more than just numbers, Japan's rise struck fear in the very heart of American capitalism. It led the country to deeply reflect on how they conducted their own way of business. Looking back at it now, the hysteria is hard to believe. Were the Japanese really that good at semiconductors? No, but I can see why people thought so. In this video, we explore the question: Why was Japan so "good" at semiconductors?

How do you stay cheerful and motivated during Ireland's famously unpredictable weather?

If you're in SF, join us tomorrow for a fun meetup at CodeGen Night!If you're in NYC, join us for AI Engineer Summit! The Agent Engineering track is now sold out, but 25 tickets remain for AI Leadership and 5 tickets for the workshops. You can see the full schedule of speakers and workshops at https://ai.engineer!It's exceedingly hard to introduce someone like Bret Taylor. We could recite his Wikipedia page, or his extensive work history through Silicon Valley's greatest companies, but everyone else already does that.As a podcast by AI engineers for AI engineers, we had the opportunity to do something a little different. We wanted to dig into what Bret sees from his vantage point at the top of our industry for the last 2 decades, and how that explains the rise of the AI Architect at Sierra, the leading conversational AI/CX platform.“Across our customer base, we are seeing a new role emerge - the role of the AI architect. These leaders are responsible for helping define, manage and evolve their company's AI agent over time. They come from a variety of both technical and business backgrounds, and we think that every company will have one or many AI architects managing their AI agent and related experience.”In our conversation, Bret Taylor confirms the Paul Buchheit legend that he rewrote Google Maps in a weekend, armed with only the help of a then-nascent Google Closure Compiler and no other modern tooling. But what we find remarkable is that he was the PM of Maps, not an engineer, though of course he still identifies as one. We find this theme recurring throughout Bret's career and worldview. We think it is plain as day that AI leadership will have to be hands-on and technical, especially when the ground is shifting as quickly as it is today:“There's a lot of power in combining product and engineering into as few people as possible… few great things have been created by committee.”“If engineering is an order taking organization for product you can sometimes make meaningful things, but rarely will you create extremely well crafted breakthrough products. Those tend to be small teams who deeply understand the customer need that they're solving, who have a maniacal focus on outcomes.”“And I think the reason why is if you look at like software as a service five years ago, maybe you can have a separation of product and engineering because most software as a service created five years ago. I wouldn't say there's like a lot of technological breakthroughs required for most business applications. And if you're making expense reporting software or whatever, it's useful… You kind of know how databases work, how to build auto scaling with your AWS cluster, whatever, you know, it's just, you're just applying best practices to yet another problem. "When you have areas like the early days of mobile development or the early days of interactive web applications, which I think Google Maps and Gmail represent, or now AI agents, you're in this constant conversation with what the requirements of your customers and stakeholders are and all the different people interacting with it and the capabilities of the technology. And it's almost impossible to specify the requirements of a product when you're not sure of the limitations of the technology itself.”This is the first time the difference between technical leadership for “normal” software and for “AI” software was articulated this clearly for us, and we'll be thinking a lot about this going forward. We left a lot of nuggets in the conversation, so we hope you'll just dive in with us (and thank Bret for joining the pod!)Timestamps* 00:00:02 Introductions and Bret Taylor's background* 00:01:23 Bret's experience at Stanford and the dot-com era* 00:04:04 The story of rewriting Google Maps backend* 00:11:06 Early days of interactive web applications at Google* 00:15:26 Discussion on product management and engineering roles* 00:21:00 AI and the future of software development* 00:26:42 Bret's approach to identifying customer needs and building AI companies* 00:32:09 The evolution of business models in the AI era* 00:41:00 The future of programming languages and software development* 00:49:38 Challenges in precisely communicating human intent to machines* 00:56:44 Discussion on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and its impact* 01:08:51 The future of agent-to-agent communication* 01:14:03 Bret's involvement in the OpenAI leadership crisis* 01:22:11 OpenAI's relationship with Microsoft* 01:23:23 OpenAI's mission and priorities* 01:27:40 Bret's guiding principles for career choices* 01:29:12 Brief discussion on pasta-making* 01:30:47 How Bret keeps up with AI developments* 01:32:15 Exciting research directions in AI* 01:35:19 Closing remarks and hiring at Sierra Transcript[00:02:05] Introduction and Guest Welcome[00:02:05] Alessio: Hey everyone, welcome to the Latent Space Podcast. This is Alessio, partner and CTO at Decibel Partners, and I'm joined by my co host swyx, founder of smol.ai.[00:02:17] swyx: Hey, and today we're super excited to have Bret Taylor join us. Welcome. Thanks for having me. It's a little unreal to have you in the studio.[00:02:25] swyx: I've read about you so much over the years, like even before. Open AI effectively. I mean, I use Google Maps to get here. So like, thank you for everything that you've done. Like, like your story history, like, you know, I think people can find out what your greatest hits have been.[00:02:40] Bret Taylor's Early Career and Education[00:02:40] swyx: How do you usually like to introduce yourself when, you know, you talk about, you summarize your career, like, how do you look at yourself?[00:02:47] Bret: Yeah, it's a great question. You know, we, before we went on the mics here, we're talking about the audience for this podcast being more engineering. And I do think depending on the audience, I'll introduce myself differently because I've had a lot of [00:03:00] corporate and board roles. I probably self identify as an engineer more than anything else though.[00:03:04] Bret: So even when I was. Salesforce, I was coding on the weekends. So I think of myself as an engineer and then all the roles that I do in my career sort of start with that just because I do feel like engineering is sort of a mindset and how I approach most of my life. So I'm an engineer first and that's how I describe myself.[00:03:24] Bret: You majored in computer[00:03:25] swyx: science, like 1998. And, and I was high[00:03:28] Bret: school, actually my, my college degree was Oh, two undergrad. Oh, three masters. Right. That old.[00:03:33] swyx: Yeah. I mean, no, I was going, I was going like 1998 to 2003, but like engineering wasn't as, wasn't a thing back then. Like we didn't have the title of senior engineer, you know, kind of like, it was just.[00:03:44] swyx: You were a programmer, you were a developer, maybe. What was it like in Stanford? Like, what was that feeling like? You know, was it, were you feeling like on the cusp of a great computer revolution? Or was it just like a niche, you know, interest at the time?[00:03:57] Stanford and the Dot-Com Bubble[00:03:57] Bret: Well, I was at Stanford, as you said, from 1998 to [00:04:00] 2002.[00:04:02] Bret: 1998 was near the peak of the dot com bubble. So. This is back in the day where most people that they're coding in the computer lab, just because there was these sun microsystems, Unix boxes there that most of us had to do our assignments on. And every single day there was a. com like buying pizza for everybody.[00:04:20] Bret: I didn't have to like, I got. Free food, like my first two years of university and then the dot com bubble burst in the middle of my college career. And so by the end there was like tumbleweed going to the job fair, you know, it was like, cause it was hard to describe unless you were there at the time, the like level of hype and being a computer science major at Stanford was like, A thousand opportunities.[00:04:45] Bret: And then, and then when I left, it was like Microsoft, IBM.[00:04:49] Joining Google and Early Projects[00:04:49] Bret: And then the two startups that I applied to were VMware and Google. And I ended up going to Google in large part because a woman named Marissa Meyer, who had been a teaching [00:05:00] assistant when I was, what was called a section leader, which was like a junior teaching assistant kind of for one of the big interest.[00:05:05] Bret: Yes. Classes. She had gone there. And she was recruiting me and I knew her and it was sort of felt safe, you know, like, I don't know. I thought about it much, but it turned out to be a real blessing. I realized like, you know, you always want to think you'd pick Google if given the option, but no one knew at the time.[00:05:20] Bret: And I wonder if I'd graduated in like 1999 where I've been like, mom, I just got a job at pets. com. It's good. But you know, at the end I just didn't have any options. So I was like, do I want to go like make kernel software at VMware? Do I want to go build search at Google? And I chose Google. 50, 50 ball.[00:05:36] Bret: I'm not really a 50, 50 ball. So I feel very fortunate in retrospect that the economy collapsed because in some ways it forced me into like one of the greatest companies of all time, but I kind of lucked into it, I think.[00:05:47] The Google Maps Rewrite Story[00:05:47] Alessio: So the famous story about Google is that you rewrote the Google maps back in, in one week after the map quest quest maps acquisition, what was the story there?[00:05:57] Alessio: Is it. Actually true. Is it [00:06:00] being glorified? Like how, how did that come to be? And is there any detail that maybe Paul hasn't shared before?[00:06:06] Bret: It's largely true, but I'll give the color commentary. So it was actually the front end, not the back end, but it turns out for Google maps, the front end was sort of the hard part just because Google maps was.[00:06:17] Bret: Largely the first ish kind of really interactive web application, say first ish. I think Gmail certainly was though Gmail, probably a lot of people then who weren't engineers probably didn't appreciate its level of interactivity. It was just fast, but. Google maps, because you could drag the map and it was sort of graphical.[00:06:38] Bret: My, it really in the mainstream, I think, was it a map[00:06:41] swyx: quest back then that was, you had the arrows up and down, it[00:06:44] Bret: was up and down arrows. Each map was a single image and you just click left and then wait for a few seconds to the new map to let it was really small too, because generating a big image was kind of expensive on computers that day.[00:06:57] Bret: So Google maps was truly innovative in that [00:07:00] regard. The story on it. There was a small company called where two technologies started by two Danish brothers, Lars and Jens Rasmussen, who are two of my closest friends now. They had made a windows app called expedition, which had beautiful maps. Even in 2000.[00:07:18] Bret: For whenever we acquired or sort of acquired their company, Windows software was not particularly fashionable, but they were really passionate about mapping and we had made a local search product that was kind of middling in terms of popularity, sort of like a yellow page of search product. So we wanted to really go into mapping.[00:07:36] Bret: We'd started working on it. Their small team seemed passionate about it. So we're like, come join us. We can build this together.[00:07:42] Technical Challenges and Innovations[00:07:42] Bret: It turned out to be a great blessing that they had built a windows app because you're less technically constrained when you're doing native code than you are building a web browser, particularly back then when there weren't really interactive web apps and it ended up.[00:07:56] Bret: Changing the level of quality that we [00:08:00] wanted to hit with the app because we were shooting for something that felt like a native windows application. So it was a really good fortune that we sort of, you know, their unusual technical choices turned out to be the greatest blessing. So we spent a lot of time basically saying, how can you make a interactive draggable map in a web browser?[00:08:18] Bret: How do you progressively load, you know, new map tiles, you know, as you're dragging even things like down in the weeds of the browser at the time, most browsers like Internet Explorer, which was dominant at the time would only load two images at a time from the same domain. So we ended up making our map tile servers have like.[00:08:37] Bret: Forty different subdomains so we could load maps and parallels like lots of hacks. I'm happy to go into as much as like[00:08:44] swyx: HTTP connections and stuff.[00:08:46] Bret: They just like, there was just maximum parallelism of two. And so if you had a map, set of map tiles, like eight of them, so So we just, we were down in the weeds of the browser anyway.[00:08:56] Bret: So it was lots of plumbing. I can, I know a lot more about browsers than [00:09:00] most people, but then by the end of it, it was fairly, it was a lot of duct tape on that code. If you've ever done an engineering project where you're not really sure the path from point A to point B, it's almost like. Building a house by building one room at a time.[00:09:14] Bret: The, there's not a lot of architectural cohesion at the end. And then we acquired a company called Keyhole, which became Google earth, which was like that three, it was a native windows app as well, separate app, great app, but with that, we got licenses to all this satellite imagery. And so in August of 2005, we added.[00:09:33] Bret: Satellite imagery to Google Maps, which added even more complexity in the code base. And then we decided we wanted to support Safari. There was no mobile phones yet. So Safari was this like nascent browser on, on the Mac. And it turns out there's like a lot of decisions behind the scenes, sort of inspired by this windows app, like heavy use of XML and XSLT and all these like.[00:09:54] Bret: Technologies that were like briefly fashionable in the early two thousands and everyone hates now for good [00:10:00] reason. And it turns out that all of the XML functionality and Internet Explorer wasn't supporting Safari. So people are like re implementing like XML parsers. And it was just like this like pile of s**t.[00:10:11] Bret: And I had to say a s**t on your part. Yeah, of[00:10:12] Alessio: course.[00:10:13] Bret: So. It went from this like beautifully elegant application that everyone was proud of to something that probably had hundreds of K of JavaScript, which sounds like nothing. Now we're talking like people have modems, you know, not all modems, but it was a big deal.[00:10:29] Bret: So it was like slow. It took a while to load and just, it wasn't like a great code base. Like everything was fragile. So I just got. Super frustrated by it. And then one weekend I did rewrite all of it. And at the time the word JSON hadn't been coined yet too, just to give you a sense. So it's all XML.[00:10:47] swyx: Yeah.[00:10:47] Bret: So we used what is now you would call JSON, but I just said like, let's use eval so that we can parse the data fast. And, and again, that's, it would literally as JSON, but at the time there was no name for it. So we [00:11:00] just said, let's. Pass on JavaScript from the server and eval it. And then somebody just refactored the whole thing.[00:11:05] Bret: And, and it wasn't like I was some genius. It was just like, you know, if you knew everything you wished you had known at the beginning and I knew all the functionality, cause I was the primary, one of the primary authors of the JavaScript. And I just like, I just drank a lot of coffee and just stayed up all weekend.[00:11:22] Bret: And then I, I guess I developed a bit of reputation and no one knew about this for a long time. And then Paul who created Gmail and I ended up starting a company with him too, after all of this told this on a podcast and now it's large, but it's largely true. I did rewrite it and it, my proudest thing.[00:11:38] Bret: And I think JavaScript people appreciate this. Like the un G zipped bundle size for all of Google maps. When I rewrote, it was 20 K G zipped. It was like much smaller for the entire application. It went down by like 10 X. So. What happened on Google? Google is a pretty mainstream company. And so like our usage is shot up because it turns out like it's faster.[00:11:57] Bret: Just being faster is worth a lot of [00:12:00] percentage points of growth at a scale of Google. So how[00:12:03] swyx: much modern tooling did you have? Like test suites no compilers.[00:12:07] Bret: Actually, that's not true. We did it one thing. So I actually think Google, I, you can. Download it. There's a, Google has a closure compiler, a closure compiler.[00:12:15] Bret: I don't know if anyone still uses it. It's gone. Yeah. Yeah. It's sort of gone out of favor. Yeah. Well, even until recently it was better than most JavaScript minifiers because it was more like it did a lot more renaming of variables and things. Most people use ES build now just cause it's fast and closure compilers built on Java and super slow and stuff like that.[00:12:37] Bret: But, so we did have that, that was it. Okay.[00:12:39] The Evolution of Web Applications[00:12:39] Bret: So and that was treated internally, you know, it was a really interesting time at Google at the time because there's a lot of teams working on fairly advanced JavaScript when no one was. So Google suggest, which Kevin Gibbs was the tech lead for, was the first kind of type ahead, autocomplete, I believe in a web browser, and now it's just pervasive in search boxes that you sort of [00:13:00] see a type ahead there.[00:13:01] Bret: I mean, chat, dbt[00:13:01] swyx: just added it. It's kind of like a round trip.[00:13:03] Bret: Totally. No, it's now pervasive as a UI affordance, but that was like Kevin's 20 percent project. And then Gmail, Paul you know, he tells the story better than anyone, but he's like, you know, basically was scratching his own itch, but what was really neat about it is email, because it's such a productivity tool, just needed to be faster.[00:13:21] Bret: So, you know, he was scratching his own itch of just making more stuff work on the client side. And then we, because of Lars and Yen sort of like setting the bar of this windows app or like we need our maps to be draggable. So we ended up. Not only innovate in terms of having a big sync, what would be called a single page application today, but also all the graphical stuff you know, we were crashing Firefox, like it was going out of style because, you know, when you make a document object model with the idea that it's a document and then you layer on some JavaScript and then we're essentially abusing all of this, it just was running into code paths that were not.[00:13:56] Bret: Well, it's rotten, you know, at this time. And so it was [00:14:00] super fun. And, and, you know, in the building you had, so you had compilers, people helping minify JavaScript just practically, but there is a great engineering team. So they were like, that's why Closure Compiler is so good. It was like a. Person who actually knew about programming languages doing it, not just, you know, writing regular expressions.[00:14:17] Bret: And then the team that is now the Chrome team believe, and I, I don't know this for a fact, but I'm pretty sure Google is the main contributor to Firefox for a long time in terms of code. And a lot of browser people were there. So every time we would crash Firefox, we'd like walk up two floors and say like, what the hell is going on here?[00:14:35] Bret: And they would load their browser, like in a debugger. And we could like figure out exactly what was breaking. And you can't change the code, right? Cause it's the browser. It's like slow, right? I mean, slow to update. So, but we could figure out exactly where the bug was and then work around it in our JavaScript.[00:14:52] Bret: So it was just like new territory. Like so super, super fun time, just like a lot of, a lot of great engineers figuring out [00:15:00] new things. And And now, you know, the word, this term is no longer in fashion, but the word Ajax, which was asynchronous JavaScript and XML cause I'm telling you XML, but see the word XML there, to be fair, the way you made HTTP requests from a client to server was this.[00:15:18] Bret: Object called XML HTTP request because Microsoft and making Outlook web access back in the day made this and it turns out to have nothing to do with XML. It's just a way of making HTTP requests because XML was like the fashionable thing. It was like that was the way you, you know, you did it. But the JSON came out of that, you know, and then a lot of the best practices around building JavaScript applications is pre React.[00:15:44] Bret: I think React was probably the big conceptual step forward that we needed. Even my first social network after Google, we used a lot of like HTML injection and. Making real time updates was still very hand coded and it's really neat when you [00:16:00] see conceptual breakthroughs like react because it's, I just love those things where it's like obvious once you see it, but it's so not obvious until you do.[00:16:07] Bret: And actually, well, I'm sure we'll get into AI, but I, I sort of feel like we'll go through that evolution with AI agents as well that I feel like we're missing a lot of the core abstractions that I think in 10 years we'll be like, gosh, how'd you make agents? Before that, you know, but it was kind of that early days of web applications.[00:16:22] swyx: There's a lot of contenders for the reactive jobs of of AI, but no clear winner yet. I would say one thing I was there for, I mean, there's so much we can go into there. You just covered so much.[00:16:32] Product Management and Engineering Synergy[00:16:32] swyx: One thing I just, I just observe is that I think the early Google days had this interesting mix of PM and engineer, which I think you are, you didn't, you didn't wait for PM to tell you these are my, this is my PRD.[00:16:42] swyx: This is my requirements.[00:16:44] mix: Oh,[00:16:44] Bret: okay.[00:16:45] swyx: I wasn't technically a software engineer. I mean,[00:16:48] Bret: by title, obviously. Right, right, right.[00:16:51] swyx: It's like a blend. And I feel like these days, product is its own discipline and its own lore and own industry and engineering is its own thing. And there's this process [00:17:00] that happens and they're kind of separated, but you don't produce as good of a product as if they were the same person.[00:17:06] swyx: And I'm curious, you know, if, if that, if that sort of resonates in, in, in terms of like comparing early Google versus modern startups that you see out there,[00:17:16] Bret: I certainly like wear a lot of hats. So, you know, sort of biased in this, but I really agree that there's a lot of power and combining product design engineering into as few people as possible because, you know few great things have been created by committee, you know, and so.[00:17:33] Bret: If engineering is an order taking organization for product you can sometimes make meaningful things, but rarely will you create extremely well crafted breakthrough products. Those tend to be small teams who deeply understand the customer need that they're solving, who have a. Maniacal focus on outcomes.[00:17:53] Bret: And I think the reason why it's, I think for some areas, if you look at like software as a service five years ago, maybe you can have a [00:18:00] separation of product and engineering because most software as a service created five years ago. I wouldn't say there's like a lot of like. Technological breakthroughs required for most, you know, business applications.[00:18:11] Bret: And if you're making expense reporting software or whatever, it's useful. I don't mean to be dismissive of expense reporting software, but you probably just want to understand like, what are the requirements of the finance department? What are the requirements of an individual file expense report? Okay.[00:18:25] Bret: Go implement that. And you kind of know how web applications are implemented. You kind of know how to. How databases work, how to build auto scaling with your AWS cluster, whatever, you know, it's just, you're just applying best practices to yet another problem when you have areas like the early days of mobile development or the early days of interactive web applications, which I think Google Maps and Gmail represent, or now AI agents, you're in this constant conversation with what the requirements of your customers and stakeholders are and all the different people interacting with it.[00:18:58] Bret: And the capabilities of the [00:19:00] technology. And it's almost impossible to specify the requirements of a product when you're not sure of the limitations of the technology itself. And that's why I use the word conversation. It's not literal. That's sort of funny to use that word in the age of conversational AI.[00:19:15] Bret: You're constantly sort of saying, like, ideally, you could sprinkle some magic AI pixie dust and solve all the world's problems, but it's not the way it works. And it turns out that actually, I'll just give an interesting example.[00:19:26] AI Agents and Modern Tooling[00:19:26] Bret: I think most people listening probably use co pilots to code like Cursor or Devon or Microsoft Copilot or whatever.[00:19:34] Bret: Most of those tools are, they're remarkable. I'm, I couldn't, you know, imagine development without them now, but they're not autonomous yet. Like I wouldn't let it just write most code without my interactively inspecting it. We just are somewhere between it's an amazing co pilot and it's an autonomous software engineer.[00:19:53] Bret: As a product manager, like your aspirations for what the product is are like kind of meaningful. But [00:20:00] if you're a product person, yeah, of course you'd say it should be autonomous. You should click a button and program should come out the other side. The requirements meaningless. Like what matters is like, what is based on the like very nuanced limitations of the technology.[00:20:14] Bret: What is it capable of? And then how do you maximize the leverage? It gives a software engineering team, given those very nuanced trade offs. Coupled with the fact that those nuanced trade offs are changing more rapidly than any technology in my memory, meaning every few months you'll have new models with new capabilities.[00:20:34] Bret: So how do you construct a product that can absorb those new capabilities as rapidly as possible as well? That requires such a combination of technical depth and understanding the customer that you really need more integration. Of product design and engineering. And so I think it's why with these big technology waves, I think startups have a bit of a leg up relative to incumbents because they [00:21:00] tend to be sort of more self actualized in terms of just like bringing those disciplines closer together.[00:21:06] Bret: And in particular, I think entrepreneurs, the proverbial full stack engineers, you know, have a leg up as well because. I think most breakthroughs happen when you have someone who can understand those extremely nuanced technical trade offs, have a vision for a product. And then in the process of building it, have that, as I said, like metaphorical conversation with the technology, right?[00:21:30] Bret: Gosh, I ran into a technical limit that I didn't expect. It's not just like changing that feature. You might need to refactor the whole product based on that. And I think that's, that it's particularly important right now. So I don't, you know, if you, if you're building a big ERP system, probably there's a great reason to have product and engineering.[00:21:51] Bret: I think in general, the disciplines are there for a reason. I think when you're dealing with something as nuanced as the like technologies, like large language models today, there's a ton of [00:22:00] advantage of having. Individuals or organizations that integrate the disciplines more formally.[00:22:05] Alessio: That makes a lot of sense.[00:22:06] Alessio: I've run a lot of engineering teams in the past, and I think the product versus engineering tension has always been more about effort than like whether or not the feature is buildable. But I think, yeah, today you see a lot more of like. Models actually cannot do that. And I think the most interesting thing is on the startup side, people don't yet know where a lot of the AI value is going to accrue.[00:22:26] Alessio: So you have this rush of people building frameworks, building infrastructure, layered things, but we don't really know the shape of the compute. I'm curious that Sierra, like how you thought about building an house, a lot of the tooling for evals or like just, you know, building the agents and all of that.[00:22:41] Alessio: Versus how you see some of the startup opportunities that is maybe still out there.[00:22:46] Bret: We build most of our tooling in house at Sierra, not all. It's, we don't, it's not like not invented here syndrome necessarily, though, maybe slightly guilty of that in some ways, but because we're trying to build a platform [00:23:00] that's in Dorian, you know, we really want to have control over our own destiny.[00:23:03] Bret: And you had made a comment earlier that like. We're still trying to figure out who like the reactive agents are and the jury is still out. I would argue it hasn't been created yet. I don't think the jury is still out to go use that metaphor. We're sort of in the jQuery era of agents, not the react era.[00:23:19] Bret: And, and that's like a throwback for people listening,[00:23:22] swyx: we shouldn't rush it. You know?[00:23:23] Bret: No, yeah, that's my point is. And so. Because we're trying to create an enduring company at Sierra that outlives us, you know, I'm not sure we want to like attach our cart to some like to a horse where it's not clear that like we've figured out and I actually want as a company, we're trying to enable just at a high level and I'll, I'll quickly go back to tech at Sierra, we help consumer brands build customer facing AI agents.[00:23:48] Bret: So. Everyone from Sonos to ADT home security to Sirius XM, you know, if you call them on the phone and AI will pick up with you, you know, chat with them on the Sirius XM homepage. It's an AI agent called Harmony [00:24:00] that they've built on our platform. We're what are the contours of what it means for someone to build an end to end complete customer experience with AI with conversational AI.[00:24:09] Bret: You know, we really want to dive into the deep end of, of all the trade offs to do it. You know, where do you use fine tuning? Where do you string models together? You know, where do you use reasoning? Where do you use generation? How do you use reasoning? How do you express the guardrails of an agentic process?[00:24:25] Bret: How do you impose determinism on a fundamentally non deterministic technology? There's just a lot of really like as an important design space. And I could sit here and tell you, we have the best approach. Every entrepreneur will, you know. But I hope that in two years, we look back at our platform and laugh at how naive we were, because that's the pace of change broadly.[00:24:45] Bret: If you talk about like the startup opportunities, I'm not wholly skeptical of tools companies, but I'm fairly skeptical. There's always an exception for every role, but I believe that certainly there's a big market for [00:25:00] frontier models, but largely for companies with huge CapEx budgets. So. Open AI and Microsoft's Anthropic and Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud XAI, which is very well capitalized now, but I think the, the idea that a company can make money sort of pre training a foundation model is probably not true.[00:25:20] Bret: It's hard to, you're competing with just, you know, unreasonably large CapEx budgets. And I just like the cloud infrastructure market, I think will be largely there. I also really believe in the applications of AI. And I define that not as like building agents or things like that. I define it much more as like, you're actually solving a problem for a business.[00:25:40] Bret: So it's what Harvey is doing in legal profession or what cursor is doing for software engineering or what we're doing for customer experience and customer service. The reason I believe in that is I do think that in the age of AI, what's really interesting about software is it can actually complete a task.[00:25:56] Bret: It can actually do a job, which is very different than the value proposition of [00:26:00] software was to ancient history two years ago. And as a consequence, I think the way you build a solution and For a domain is very different than you would have before, which means that it's not obvious, like the incumbent incumbents have like a leg up, you know, necessarily, they certainly have some advantages, but there's just such a different form factor, you know, for providing a solution and it's just really valuable.[00:26:23] Bret: You know, it's. Like just think of how much money cursor is saving software engineering teams or the alternative, how much revenue it can produce tool making is really challenging. If you look at the cloud market, just as a analog, there are a lot of like interesting tools, companies, you know, Confluent, Monetized Kafka, Snowflake, Hortonworks, you know, there's a, there's a bunch of them.[00:26:48] Bret: A lot of them, you know, have that mix of sort of like like confluence or have the open source or open core or whatever you call it. I, I, I'm not an expert in this area. You know, I do think [00:27:00] that developers are fickle. I think that in the tool space, I probably like. Default towards open source being like the area that will win.[00:27:09] Bret: It's hard to build a company around this and then you end up with companies sort of built around open source to that can work. Don't get me wrong, but I just think that it's nowadays the tools are changing so rapidly that I'm like, not totally skeptical of tool makers, but I just think that open source will broadly win, but I think that the CapEx required for building frontier models is such that it will go to a handful of big companies.[00:27:33] Bret: And then I really believe in agents for specific domains which I think will, it's sort of the analog to software as a service in this new era. You know, it's like, if you just think of the cloud. You can lease a server. It's just a low level primitive, or you can buy an app like you know, Shopify or whatever.[00:27:51] Bret: And most people building a storefront would prefer Shopify over hand rolling their e commerce storefront. I think the same thing will be true of AI. So [00:28:00] I've. I tend to like, if I have a, like an entrepreneur asked me for advice, I'm like, you know, move up the stack as far as you can towards a customer need.[00:28:09] Bret: Broadly, but I, but it doesn't reduce my excitement about what is the reactive building agents kind of thing, just because it is, it is the right question to ask, but I think we'll probably play out probably an open source space more than anything else.[00:28:21] swyx: Yeah, and it's not a priority for you. There's a lot in there.[00:28:24] swyx: I'm kind of curious about your idea maze towards, there are many customer needs. You happen to identify customer experience as yours, but it could equally have been coding assistance or whatever. I think for some, I'm just kind of curious at the top down, how do you look at the world in terms of the potential problem space?[00:28:44] swyx: Because there are many people out there who are very smart and pick the wrong problem.[00:28:47] Bret: Yeah, that's a great question.[00:28:48] Future of Software Development[00:28:48] Bret: By the way, I would love to talk about the future of software, too, because despite the fact it didn't pick coding, I have a lot of that, but I can talk to I can answer your question, though, you know I think when a technology is as [00:29:00] cool as large language models.[00:29:02] Bret: You just see a lot of people starting from the technology and searching for a problem to solve. And I think it's why you see a lot of tools companies, because as a software engineer, you start building an app or a demo and you, you encounter some pain points. You're like,[00:29:17] swyx: a lot of[00:29:17] Bret: people are experiencing the same pain point.[00:29:19] Bret: What if I make it? That it's just very incremental. And you know, I always like to use the metaphor, like you can sell coffee beans, roasted coffee beans. You can add some value. You took coffee beans and you roasted them and roasted coffee beans largely, you know, are priced relative to the cost of the beans.[00:29:39] Bret: Or you can sell a latte and a latte. Is rarely priced directly like as a percentage of coffee bean prices. In fact, if you buy a latte at the airport, it's a captive audience. So it's a really expensive latte. And there's just a lot that goes into like. How much does a latte cost? And I bring it up because there's a supply chain from growing [00:30:00] coffee beans to roasting coffee beans to like, you know, you could make one at home or you could be in the airport and buy one and the margins of the company selling lattes in the airport is a lot higher than the, you know, people roasting the coffee beans and it's because you've actually solved a much more acute human problem in the airport.[00:30:19] Bret: And, and it's just worth a lot more to that person in that moment. It's kind of the way I think about technology too. It sounds funny to liken it to coffee beans, but you're selling tools on top of a large language model yet in some ways your market is big, but you're probably going to like be price compressed just because you're sort of a piece of infrastructure and then you have open source and all these other things competing with you naturally.[00:30:43] Bret: If you go and solve a really big business problem for somebody, that's actually like a meaningful business problem that AI facilitates, they will value it according to the value of that business problem. And so I actually feel like people should just stop. You're like, no, that's, that's [00:31:00] unfair. If you're searching for an idea of people, I, I love people trying things, even if, I mean, most of the, a lot of the greatest ideas have been things no one believed in.[00:31:07] Bret: So I like, if you're passionate about something, go do it. Like who am I to say, yeah, a hundred percent. Or Gmail, like Paul as far, I mean I, some of it's Laura at this point, but like Gmail is Paul's own email for a long time. , and then I amusingly and Paul can't correct me, I'm pretty sure he sent her in a link and like the first comment was like, this is really neat.[00:31:26] Bret: It would be great. It was not your email, but my own . I don't know if it's a true story. I'm pretty sure it's, yeah, I've read that before. So scratch your own niche. Fine. Like it depends on what your goal is. If you wanna do like a venture backed company, if its a. Passion project, f*****g passion, do it like don't listen to anybody.[00:31:41] Bret: In fact, but if you're trying to start, you know an enduring company, solve an important business problem. And I, and I do think that in the world of agents, the software industries has shifted where you're not just helping people more. People be more productive, but you're actually accomplishing tasks autonomously.[00:31:58] Bret: And as a consequence, I think the [00:32:00] addressable market has just greatly expanded just because software can actually do things now and actually accomplish tasks and how much is coding autocomplete worth. A fair amount. How much is the eventual, I'm certain we'll have it, the software agent that actually writes the code and delivers it to you, that's worth a lot.[00:32:20] Bret: And so, you know, I would just maybe look up from the large language models and start thinking about the economy and, you know, think from first principles. I don't wanna get too far afield, but just think about which parts of the economy. We'll benefit most from this intelligence and which parts can absorb it most easily.[00:32:38] Bret: And what would an agent in this space look like? Who's the customer of it is the technology feasible. And I would just start with these business problems more. And I think, you know, the best companies tend to have great engineers who happen to have great insight into a market. And it's that last part that I think some people.[00:32:56] Bret: Whether or not they have, it's like people start so much in the technology, they [00:33:00] lose the forest for the trees a little bit.[00:33:02] Alessio: How do you think about the model of still selling some sort of software versus selling more package labor? I feel like when people are selling the package labor, it's almost more stateless, you know, like it's easier to swap out if you're just putting an input and getting an output.[00:33:16] Alessio: If you think about coding, if there's no ID, you're just putting a prompt and getting back an app. It doesn't really matter. Who generates the app, you know, you have less of a buy in versus the platform you're building, I'm sure on the backend customers have to like put on their documentation and they have, you know, different workflows that they can tie in what's kind of like the line to draw there versus like going full where you're managed customer support team as a service outsource versus.[00:33:40] Alessio: This is the Sierra platform that you can build on. What was that decision? I'll sort of[00:33:44] Bret: like decouple the question in some ways, which is when you have something that's an agent, who is the person using it and what do they want to do with it? So let's just take your coding agent for a second. I will talk about Sierra as well.[00:33:59] Bret: Who's the [00:34:00] customer of a, an agent that actually produces software? Is it a software engineering manager? Is it a software engineer? And it's there, you know, intern so to speak. I don't know. I mean, we'll figure this out over the next few years. Like what is that? And is it generating code that you then review?[00:34:16] Bret: Is it generating code with a set of unit tests that pass, what is the actual. For lack of a better word contract, like, how do you know that it did what you wanted it to do? And then I would say like the product and the pricing, the packaging model sort of emerged from that. And I don't think the world's figured out.[00:34:33] Bret: I think it'll be different for every agent. You know, in our customer base, we do what's called outcome based pricing. So essentially every time the AI agent. Solves the problem or saves a customer or whatever it might be. There's a pre negotiated rate for that. We do that. Cause it's, we think that that's sort of the correct way agents, you know, should be packaged.[00:34:53] Bret: I look back at the history of like cloud software and notably the introduction of the browser, which led to [00:35:00] software being delivered in a browser, like Salesforce to. Famously invented sort of software as a service, which is both a technical delivery model through the browser, but also a business model, which is you subscribe to it rather than pay for a perpetual license.[00:35:13] Bret: Those two things are somewhat orthogonal, but not really. If you think about the idea of software running in a browser, that's hosted. Data center that you don't own, you sort of needed to change the business model because you don't, you can't really buy a perpetual license or something otherwise like, how do you afford making changes to it?[00:35:31] Bret: So it only worked when you were buying like a new version every year or whatever. So to some degree, but then the business model shift actually changed business as we know it, because now like. Things like Adobe Photoshop. Now you subscribe to rather than purchase. So it ended up where you had a technical shift and a business model shift that were very logically intertwined that actually the business model shift was turned out to be as significant as the technical as the shift.[00:35:59] Bret: And I think with [00:36:00] agents, because they actually accomplish a job, I do think that it doesn't make sense to me that you'd pay for the privilege of like. Using the software like that coding agent, like if it writes really bad code, like fire it, you know, I don't know what the right metaphor is like you should pay for a job.[00:36:17] Bret: Well done in my opinion. I mean, that's how you pay your software engineers, right? And[00:36:20] swyx: and well, not really. We paid to put them on salary and give them options and they vest over time. That's fair.[00:36:26] Bret: But my point is that you don't pay them for how many characters they write, which is sort of the token based, you know, whatever, like, There's a, that famous Apple story where we're like asking for a report of how many lines of code you wrote.[00:36:40] Bret: And one of the engineers showed up with like a negative number cause he had just like done a big refactoring. There was like a big F you to management who didn't understand how software is written. You know, my sense is like the traditional usage based or seat based thing. It's just going to look really antiquated.[00:36:55] Bret: Cause it's like asking your software engineer, how many lines of code did you write today? Like who cares? Like, cause [00:37:00] absolutely no correlation. So my old view is I don't think it's be different in every category, but I do think that that is the, if an agent is doing a job, you should, I think it properly incentivizes the maker of that agent and the customer of, of your pain for the job well done.[00:37:16] Bret: It's not always perfect to measure. It's hard to measure engineering productivity, but you can, you should do something other than how many keys you typed, you know Talk about perverse incentives for AI, right? Like I can write really long functions to do the same thing, right? So broadly speaking, you know, I do think that we're going to see a change in business models of software towards outcomes.[00:37:36] Bret: And I think you'll see a change in delivery models too. And, and, you know, in our customer base you know, we empower our customers to really have their hands on the steering wheel of what the agent does they, they want and need that. But the role is different. You know, at a lot of our customers, the customer experience operations folks have renamed themselves the AI architects, which I think is really cool.[00:37:55] Bret: And, you know, it's like in the early days of the Internet, there's the role of the webmaster. [00:38:00] And I don't know whether your webmaster is not a fashionable, you know, Term, nor is it a job anymore? I just, I don't know. Will they, our tech stand the test of time? Maybe, maybe not. But I do think that again, I like, you know, because everyone listening right now is a software engineer.[00:38:14] Bret: Like what is the form factor of a coding agent? And actually I'll, I'll take a breath. Cause actually I have a bunch of pins on them. Like I wrote a blog post right before Christmas, just on the future of software development. And one of the things that's interesting is like, if you look at the way I use cursor today, as an example, it's inside of.[00:38:31] Bret: A repackaged visual studio code environment. I sometimes use the sort of agentic parts of it, but it's largely, you know, I've sort of gotten a good routine of making it auto complete code in the way I want through tuning it properly when it actually can write. I do wonder what like the future of development environments will look like.[00:38:55] Bret: And to your point on what is a software product, I think it's going to change a lot in [00:39:00] ways that will surprise us. But I always use, I use the metaphor in my blog post of, have you all driven around in a way, Mo around here? Yeah, everyone has. And there are these Jaguars, the really nice cars, but it's funny because it still has a steering wheel, even though there's no one sitting there and the steering wheels like turning and stuff clearly in the future.[00:39:16] Bret: If once we get to that, be more ubiquitous, like why have the steering wheel and also why have all the seats facing forward? Maybe just for car sickness. I don't know, but you could totally rearrange the car. I mean, so much of the car is oriented around the driver, so. It stands to reason to me that like, well, autonomous agents for software engineering run through visual studio code.[00:39:37] Bret: That seems a little bit silly because having a single source code file open one at a time is kind of a goofy form factor for when like the code isn't being written primarily by you, but it begs the question of what's your relationship with that agent. And I think the same is true in our industry of customer experience, which is like.[00:39:55] Bret: Who are the people managing this agent? What are the tools do they need? And they definitely need [00:40:00] tools, but it's probably pretty different than the tools we had before. It's certainly different than training a contact center team. And as software engineers, I think that I would like to see particularly like on the passion project side or research side.[00:40:14] Bret: More innovation in programming languages. I think that we're bringing the cost of writing code down to zero. So the fact that we're still writing Python with AI cracks me up just cause it's like literally was designed to be ergonomic to write, not safe to run or fast to run. I would love to see more innovation and how we verify program correctness.[00:40:37] Bret: I studied for formal verification in college a little bit and. It's not very fashionable because it's really like tedious and slow and doesn't work very well. If a lot of code is being written by a machine, you know, one of the primary values we can provide is verifying that it actually does what we intend that it does.[00:40:56] Bret: I think there should be lots of interesting things in the software development life cycle, like how [00:41:00] we think of testing and everything else, because. If you think about if we have to manually read every line of code that's coming out as machines, it will just rate limit how much the machines can do. The alternative is totally unsafe.[00:41:13] Bret: So I wouldn't want to put code in production that didn't go through proper code review and inspection. So my whole view is like, I actually think there's like an AI native I don't think the coding agents don't work well enough to do this yet, but once they do, what is sort of an AI native software development life cycle and how do you actually.[00:41:31] Bret: Enable the creators of software to produce the highest quality, most robust, fastest software and know that it's correct. And I think that's an incredible opportunity. I mean, how much C code can we rewrite and rust and make it safe so that there's fewer security vulnerabilities. Can we like have more efficient, safer code than ever before?[00:41:53] Bret: And can you have someone who's like that guy in the matrix, you know, like staring at the little green things, like where could you have an operator [00:42:00] of a code generating machine be like superhuman? I think that's a cool vision. And I think too many people are focused on like. Autocomplete, you know, right now, I'm not, I'm not even, I'm guilty as charged.[00:42:10] Bret: I guess in some ways, but I just like, I'd like to see some bolder ideas. And that's why when you were joking, you know, talking about what's the react of whatever, I think we're clearly in a local maximum, you know, metaphor, like sort of conceptual local maximum, obviously it's moving really fast. I think we're moving out of it.[00:42:26] Alessio: Yeah. At the end of 23, I've read this blog post from syntax to semantics. Like if you think about Python. It's taking C and making it more semantic and LLMs are like the ultimate semantic program, right? You can just talk to them and they can generate any type of syntax from your language. But again, the languages that they have to use were made for us, not for them.[00:42:46] Alessio: But the problem is like, as long as you will ever need a human to intervene, you cannot change the language under it. You know what I mean? So I'm curious at what point of automation we'll need to get, we're going to be okay making changes. To the underlying languages, [00:43:00] like the programming languages versus just saying, Hey, you just got to write Python because I understand Python and I'm more important at the end of the day than the model.[00:43:08] Alessio: But I think that will change, but I don't know if it's like two years or five years. I think it's more nuanced actually.[00:43:13] Bret: So I think there's a, some of the more interesting programming languages bring semantics into syntax. So let me, that's a little reductive, but like Rust as an example, Rust is memory safe.[00:43:25] Bret: Statically, and that was a really interesting conceptual, but it's why it's hard to write rust. It's why most people write python instead of rust. I think rust programs are safer and faster than python, probably slower to compile. But like broadly speaking, like given the option, if you didn't have to care about the labor that went into it.[00:43:45] Bret: You should prefer a program written in Rust over a program written in Python, just because it will run more efficiently. It's almost certainly safer, et cetera, et cetera, depending on how you define safe, but most people don't write Rust because it's kind of a pain in the ass. And [00:44:00] the audience of people who can is smaller, but it's sort of better in most, most ways.[00:44:05] Bret: And again, let's say you're making a web service and you didn't have to care about how hard it was to write. If you just got the output of the web service, the rest one would be cheaper to operate. It's certainly cheaper and probably more correct just because there's so much in the static analysis implied by the rest programming language that it probably will have fewer runtime errors and things like that as well.[00:44:25] Bret: So I just give that as an example, because so rust, at least my understanding that came out of the Mozilla team, because. There's lots of security vulnerabilities in the browser and it needs to be really fast. They said, okay, we want to put more of a burden at the authorship time to have fewer issues at runtime.[00:44:43] Bret: And we need the constraint that it has to be done statically because browsers need to be really fast. My sense is if you just think about like the, the needs of a programming language today, where the role of a software engineer is [00:45:00] to use an AI to generate functionality and audit that it does in fact work as intended, maybe functionally, maybe from like a correctness standpoint, some combination thereof, how would you create a programming system that facilitated that?[00:45:15] Bret: And, you know, I bring up Rust is because I think it's a good example of like, I think given a choice of writing in C or Rust, you should choose Rust today. I think most people would say that, even C aficionados, just because. C is largely less safe for very similar, you know, trade offs, you know, for the, the system and now with AI, it's like, okay, well, that just changes the game on writing these things.[00:45:36] Bret: And so like, I just wonder if a combination of programming languages that are more structurally oriented towards the values that we need from an AI generated program, verifiable correctness and all of that. If it's tedious to produce for a person, that maybe doesn't matter. But one thing, like if I asked you, is this rest program memory safe?[00:45:58] Bret: You wouldn't have to read it, you just have [00:46:00] to compile it. So that's interesting. I mean, that's like an, that's one example of a very modest form of formal verification. So I bring that up because I do think you have AI inspect AI, you can have AI reviewed. Do AI code reviews. It would disappoint me if the best we could get was AI reviewing Python and having scaled a few very large.[00:46:21] Bret: Websites that were written on Python. It's just like, you know, expensive and it's like every, trust me, every team who's written a big web service in Python has experimented with like Pi Pi and all these things just to make it slightly more efficient than it naturally is. You don't really have true multi threading anyway.[00:46:36] Bret: It's just like clearly that you do it just because it's convenient to write. And I just feel like we're, I don't want to say it's insane. I just mean. I do think we're at a local maximum. And I would hope that we create a programming system, a combination of programming languages, formal verification, testing, automated code reviews, where you can use AI to generate software in a high scale way and trust it.[00:46:59] Bret: And you're [00:47:00] not limited by your ability to read it necessarily. I don't know exactly what form that would take, but I feel like that would be a pretty cool world to live in.[00:47:08] Alessio: Yeah. We had Chris Lanner on the podcast. He's doing great work with modular. I mean, I love. LVM. Yeah. Basically merging rust in and Python.[00:47:15] Alessio: That's kind of the idea. Should be, but I'm curious is like, for them a big use case was like making it compatible with Python, same APIs so that Python developers could use it. Yeah. And so I, I wonder at what point, well, yeah.[00:47:26] Bret: At least my understanding is they're targeting the data science Yeah. Machine learning crowd, which is all written in Python, so still feels like a local maximum.[00:47:34] Bret: Yeah.[00:47:34] swyx: Yeah, exactly. I'll force you to make a prediction. You know, Python's roughly 30 years old. In 30 years from now, is Rust going to be bigger than Python?[00:47:42] Bret: I don't know this, but just, I don't even know this is a prediction. I just am sort of like saying stuff I hope is true. I would like to see an AI native programming language and programming system, and I use language because I'm not sure language is even the right thing, but I hope in 30 years, there's an AI native way we make [00:48:00] software that is wholly uncorrelated with the current set of programming languages.[00:48:04] Bret: or not uncorrelated, but I think most programming languages today were designed to be efficiently authored by people and some have different trade offs.[00:48:15] Evolution of Programming Languages[00:48:15] Bret: You know, you have Haskell and others that were designed for abstractions for parallelism and things like that. You have programming languages like Python, which are designed to be very easily written, sort of like Perl and Python lineage, which is why data scientists use it.[00:48:31] Bret: It's it can, it has a. Interactive mode, things like that. And I love, I'm a huge Python fan. So despite all my Python trash talk, a huge Python fan wrote at least two of my three companies were exclusively written in Python and then C came out of the birth of Unix and it wasn't the first, but certainly the most prominent first step after assembly language, right?[00:48:54] Bret: Where you had higher level abstractions rather than and going beyond go to, to like abstractions, [00:49:00] like the for loop and the while loop.[00:49:01] The Future of Software Engineering[00:49:01] Bret: So I just think that if the act of writing code is no longer a meaningful human exercise, maybe it will be, I don't know. I'm just saying it sort of feels like maybe it's one of those parts of history that just will sort of like go away, but there's still the role of this offer engineer, like the person actually building the system.[00:49:20] Bret: Right. And. What does a programming system for that form factor look like?[00:49:25] React and Front-End Development[00:49:25] Bret: And I, I just have a, I hope to be just like I mentioned, I remember I was at Facebook in the very early days when, when, what is now react was being created. And I remember when the, it was like released open source I had left by that time and I was just like, this is so f*****g cool.[00:49:42] Bret: Like, you know, to basically model your app independent of the data flowing through it, just made everything easier. And then now. You know, I can create, like there's a lot of the front end software gym play is like a little chaotic for me, to be honest with you. It is like, it's sort of like [00:50:00] abstraction soup right now for me, but like some of those core ideas felt really ergonomic.[00:50:04] Bret: I just wanna, I'm just looking forward to the day when someone comes up with a programming system that feels both really like an aha moment, but completely foreign to me at the same time. Because they created it with sort of like from first principles recognizing that like. Authoring code in an editor is maybe not like the primary like reason why a programming system exists anymore.[00:50:26] Bret: And I think that's like, that would be a very exciting day for me.[00:50:28] The Role of AI in Programming[00:50:28] swyx: Yeah, I would say like the various versions of this discussion have happened at the end of the day, you still need to precisely communicate what you want. As a manager of people, as someone who has done many, many legal contracts, you know how hard that is.[00:50:42] swyx: And then now we have to talk to machines doing that and AIs interpreting what we mean and reading our minds effectively. I don't know how to get across that barrier of translating human intent to instructions. And yes, it can be more declarative, but I don't know if it'll ever Crossover from being [00:51:00] a programming language to something more than that.[00:51:02] Bret: I agree with you. And I actually do think if you look at like a legal contract, you know, the imprecision of the English language, it's like a flaw in the system. How many[00:51:12] swyx: holes there are.[00:51:13] Bret: And I do think that when you're making a mission critical software system, I don't think it should be English language prompts.[00:51:19] Bret: I think that is silly because you want the precision of a a programming language. My point was less about that and more about if the actual act of authoring it, like if you.[00:51:32] Formal Verification in Software[00:51:32] Bret: I'll think of some embedded systems do use formal verification. I know it's very common in like security protocols now so that you can, because the importance of correctness is so great.[00:51:41] Bret: My intellectual exercise is like, why not do that for all software? I mean, probably that's silly just literally to do what we literally do for. These low level security protocols, but the only reason we don't is because it's hard and tedious and hard and tedious are no longer factors. So, like, if I could, I mean, [00:52:00] just think of, like, the silliest app on your phone right now, the idea that that app should be, like, formally verified for its correctness feels laughable right now because, like, God, why would you spend the time on it?[00:52:10] Bret: But if it's zero costs, like, yeah, I guess so. I mean, it never crashed. That's probably good. You know, why not? I just want to, like, set our bars really high. Like. We should make, software has been amazing. Like there's a Mark Andreessen blog post, software is eating the world. And you know, our whole life is, is mediated digitally.[00:52:26] Bret: And that's just increasing with AI. And now we'll have our personal agents talking to the agents on the CRO platform and it's agents all the way down, you know, our core infrastructure is running on these digital systems. We now have like, and we've had a shortage of software developers for my entire life.[00:52:45] Bret: And as a consequence, you know if you look, remember like health care, got healthcare. gov that fiasco security vulnerabilities leading to state actors getting access to critical infrastructure. I'm like. We now have like created this like amazing system that can [00:53:00] like, we can fix this, you know, and I, I just want to, I'm both excited about the productivity gains in the economy, but I just think as software engineers, we should be bolder.[00:53:08] Bret: Like we should have aspirations to fix these systems so that like in general, as you said, as precise as we want to be in the specification of the system. We can make it work correctly now, and I'm being a little bit hand wavy, and I think we need some systems. I think that's where we should set the bar, especially when so much of our life depends on this critical digital infrastructure.[00:53:28] Bret: So I'm I'm just like super optimistic about it. But actually, let's go to w

Marcus and Corey What You Know 'Bout That trivia game for Wednesday, February 5th, 2025.

Last time we spoke about the Ishiwara Kanji. Born in 1889 in Japan, Kanji Ishiwara was the son of a policeman from a samurai lineage. He entered military training at 13, rising through the ranks to become a Major and a respected lecturer. His unconventional views on military strategy and history led him to predict a prolonged conflict with the United States. Deeply influenced by Nichiren Buddhism, he envisioned Japan as a moral leader destined to guide Asia, advocating for reform in China while grappling with his nation's imperial ambitions. In 1928, ishiwara fell ill with influenza, leading to a six-month hospitalization. During recovery, he joined an elite study group discussing war theories. His lectures on total war gained fame, culminating in a presentation to Kwantung officers. Amid rising tensions in Japan, he advocated for control over Manchuria, believing Japan had a moral duty to stabilize China. His theories on warfare, including the devastating potential of airpower, foreshadowed the horrors of future conflicts, influencing Japan's military strategies.   #137 Ishiwara Kanji Part 2: The Mukden Incident Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War.   For the next two and a half years, Ishiwara and Itagaki collaborated with other members of the Kwantung Army to address what they perceived as the Manchurian issue. By the mid-1930s, the belief that Manchuria needed to be forcibly seized had become the prevailing opinion among the Kwantung Army. Ishiwara was convinced that Japan could no longer remain passive in Manchuria, as each passing day meant Japan was gradually losing its rights and interests in the region to China, risking expulsion. Abandoning Manchuria would be a national catastrophe, resulting in the loss of a crucial buffer state, valuable resources, and land for Japan's growing population to settle. In essence, Manchuria was vital for Japan's survival and growth. Ishiwara would often say “manchuria provides Japan with breathing space” where have we heard that type of talk before?. To the military heads in Tokyo Ishikawa would often assert Manchuria had to be seized via force, because of the soviet threat of the USSR and communism as a whole “In view of the traditional russian policy in that area, once the soviets advanced into manchuria, it would become a base for the communization of asia. Not only would the internal stability of manchuria become impossible to maintain, but Japan would be unable to maintain its own national defense, and China's defenses, too, would become imperialized". The Army Headquarters in Tokyo also recognized that Manchuria was a crucial defensive line against the USSR. However, unlike the Kwantung Army, which aimed to control all of Manchuria, the leaders in Tokyo focused on incorporating southern Manchuria through the South Manchurian Railway and did not pursue any territory north of it. Ishiwara, on the other hand, believed that the only way for Japan to prevent the USSR from exerting pressure on southern Manchuria was to occupy northern Manchuria and extend even further north toward the Amur River. This would allow Japan to control the mountain ranges that bordered the western and eastern frontiers of northern Manchuria. Once Japan controlled northern Manchuria, Ishiwara stated in 1931 “With the solution of our defense problems in the north, we would then be free to plan an advance in any direction: to China proper, for example, or even to Southeast Asia”. Ishiwara advanced his ideas significantly after Japan's conquest of Manchuria, recognizing the necessity of effectively administering and pacifying its diverse populations. He posited that the stability of Manchuria could be achieved through the unique skills and contributions of the various ethnic groups residing there. For instance, he believed that the Chinese would excel in developing small businesses, while the Koreans would apply their expertise in paddy farming. These racial dynamics, according to Ishiwara, would play a crucial role in the development of Manchukuo and the broader vision of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. However, it was clear that, above all, Manchuria was intended to serve Japan's interests, many of which were exploitative and economically driven. By early 1930, Ishiwara and his colleague Itagaki devised a military strategy reminiscent of the tactics employed during the Russo-Japanese War, specifically a surprise night attack. Their plan involved the Kwantung Army launching an assault on the Liaoning region, targeting key Chinese garrisons. This operation required meticulous planning, as the Kwantung Army was significantly outnumbered by the forces commanded by Zhang Xueliang. In the vicinity of Mukden alone, Zhang commanded approximately 20,000 well-equipped troops, supported by aircraft and tanks. Across Manchuria, he could mobilize around 250,000 soldiers in the event of conflict. In stark contrast, the Kwantung Army could only field about 10,000 personnel, primarily composed of garrison units stationed along the railway. They lacked substantial air support and mechanized units, and their overall equipment was inadequate. To address this stark imbalance in military strength, Ishiwara emphasized the importance of intelligence and rigorous training. He aimed to refine specific assault techniques, enabling Japanese forces to execute rapid and concentrated attacks that would overwhelm their Chinese adversaries. The overarching strategy was notably straightforward: it hinged on delivering a decisive blow to the heart of Zhang Xueliang's military stronghold at the Peitaying barracks in Mukden. Ishiwara believed that if this critical target fell, it would shatter the enemy's morale, providing the Kwantung Army with the necessary military and psychological momentum to dominate the surrounding regions. However, he acknowledged that if the Soviet Union intervened, the entire plan could unravel catastrophically. One important variable Ishiwara highlighted was the necessity to pull off the operation before any attempt to restructure the domestic order in Japan occurred. Ishiwara knew his arguments and those of his colleagues would influence the heads in Tokyo, and they had to act before they did. However the heads at Tokyo and the Kwantung army held very different perspectives on when to act. In June of 1931 the Central army HQ stated in its General Outline of a solution to the Manchurian problem “we must defer the question of military action for a whole year. During this time the foreign ministry would attempt to dampen anti japanese activities in manchuria through negotiations with the government of Nanking. In the meantime the government would launch an information campaign to try and drive acquiescence at home and aboard for military action ” Ishiwara, as you can imagine, was deeply frustrated by the prospect of delaying action for another year. He argued passionately that the current international landscape necessitated an immediate strike. At that time, the Soviet Union was still in the midst of its ambitious five-year plan, which limited its capacity for intervention. Meanwhile, the United States, Britain, and France were grappling with their own financial crises, rendering them unable to mount significant resistance in the Far East. Most notably, the Nationalist regime in China was preoccupied with its unification efforts south of the Great Wall, but this situation was expected to shift soon. Ishiwara believed that if they postponed their plans for a year, the geopolitical environment would deteriorate further, making decisive action imperative. For Ishiwara, the moment to act was now or never. In July 1931, Ishiwara and Itagaki orchestrated a crucial reconnaissance mission aimed at familiarizing the newest Kwantung officers with the northern regions of Manchuria. To disguise their true intentions, they informed high command that the mission was a survey focused on the Soviet Union. However, the real objective was to assess the strength and influence of Chinese power in northern Manchuria. During their return journey, the team received alarming news about the disappearance of Captain Nakamura Shintaro, a Kwantung staff officer. Upon reaching Port Arthur, they learned that rumors were circulating that Captain Nakamura had been killed by Chinese soldiers under what were described as “mysterious circumstances.” In the preceding months, Manchuria had witnessed a surge in violent riots, murders, work strikes, and various other incidents, all contributing to a climate of unrest. The Nakamura affair intensified these existing tensions. In response, both the Chinese and Japanese foreign ministries attempted to negotiate a resolution to the crisis. However, figures at the central army headquarters, such as Nagata Tetsuzan, who sympathized with the urgency felt by their Kwantung counterparts, felt compelled to support them. The situation was rapidly escalating, and the stakes were growing ever higher. For Ishiwara the issue was clear as he wrote “the Nakamura incident adds just one more issue to the others. What the army should do now is to ignore the foreign ministry and solve the problem by taking matters into its own hands”. And that's exactly what he did. The Kwantung officers moved their troops beyond the railway zone, where they had been confined, and without waiting for Itagaki's approval—who was in Japan at the time—they began preparations to send an armored train along with a mixed regiment of infantry and artillery to Mukden. Their goal was to enlist the help of the Chinese military in investigating Nakamura's disappearance. Upon learning of this, Tokyo sent a telegram instructing them to halt their departure from the railway and to refrain from using the Nakamura incident as a pretext for employing force to address the Manchurian issue. For Ishiwara this was the last straw. On August 20th he sent a message to Nagata condemning the current diplomatic situation and that negotiations were an utter waste of time. “There is no way to settle the matter except by placing it in the hands of the army. If central hq finds it so difficult to trust its field personnel then it had better replace them with representatives more suitable to the conditions it imagines to exist in Manchuria”. Ishiwara doubled down and pushed for a plot to provoke military conflict outside of Mukden. As he wrote in almost a messianic Nichiren conviction ‘I will be the pillar of Japan; I will be the eyes of Japan; I will be the great vessel of Japan” . “Gekokujo / ruling from below” is a Japanese historical term referring to when subordinates defy or manipulate their superiors. Ishiwara and his like minded close colleagues were about to perform Gekokujo. Ishiwara ordered the dispatch of an armored train carrying a mixed regiment of infantry and artillery to compel the Chinese military authorities in Mukden to assist in the investigation of Nakamura's disappearance. However, central headquarters halted the train's departure at the last moment, sending a telegram from Tokyo that specifically instructed the Kwantung Army not to use the Nakamura incident to pressure a resolution to the Manchurian issue.  In addition to the Nakamura situation, another issue was brewing. Colonel Dohihara Kenji was involved in a plot to enlist Warlord Yan Xishan to attack Zhang Xueliang. This scheme was attracting unwanted attention and undermining the effectiveness of the Nakamura incident, prompting Ishiwara to swiftly suppress the plans. Rumors began to circulate in Tokyo that the Kwantung Army was preparing to retaliate against the Chinese due to the Nakamura situation. In response, War Minister General Minami dispatched Major General Yoshiji Tatekawa to Mukden to caution the Kwantung officers against any such actions. Ishiwara was informed of Tatekawa's arrival and sent urgent telegrams to his followers, warning, “Plot exposed. Act before Tatekawa's arrival.” Consequently, the launch date was moved from September 28th to the 18th. Itagaki personally intercepted Tatekawa's train, inviting him for tea and sake, and arranged for him to spend the night with a geisha on the evening of the 18th. On September 18th of 1931, 1st Lt Suemori Kawamoto of the independent Garrison Unit of the 29th infantry regiment planted bombs along the tracks near Liutiaokou. At 10:20pm they exploded doing only minor damage to 1.5 meters of track on one site. The damage was so minor a train actually passed over the tracks without difficulty 10 minutes later. Ishiwara, Itagaki and their followers quickly announced the explosion to be a Chinese atrocity and mobilized the Kwantung Army. Itagaki ordered the Independent Garrison Force and 29th infantry regiment to storm the Peitaying Barracks. Battalion commander Shimamoto was awakened by the orders via telephone and quickly dispatched the 1st (Ono) and 4th (Takahashi) companies from Mukden; the 2nd (kawakami) company at Fushun to advance to Liutiaokou. At 10:40pm the 29th regiment commander Hirata got a call from Shimamoto who ordered him to get his regiment into emergency formation and to storm the Peiyating barracks.  Two secretly hidden 24cm artillery pieces began to bombard the Peitaying barracks as 500 Japanese stormed the 7000 strong Chinese garrison. Despite being outnumbered 14 to 1, the Japanese destroyed Zhang Xueliangs small air force, routed the Chinese and occupied the Peiyating Barracks by 11pm, all at the cost of 500 Chinese lives and allegedly only 2 Japanese lives. A major reason the Japanese had ease was because Zhang Xueliang ordered his men to store away their weapons and not put up a fight if the Japanese invaded. Zhang Xueliang and Chiang Kai-shek both in Beijing at the time knew they could not initiate an offensive war against such a strong foreign country. They were hoping the League of Nations would intervene as pertaining to the Kellogg Briand Pact of 1928. But later on Chiang Kai-Shek would find America too wrapped up in its depression at home, Britain indifferent and other nations without enough reason to risk anything in the far east. An hour after the attack, Ishiwara began pressing General Shigeru Honjo, the newly appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Kwantung Army, to send reinforcements to capture all of Mukden. Initially, Honjo hesitated, but Ishiwara convinced him that there was significant provocation from the enemy, prompting Honjo to order additional units into combat to secure the entire city. Historians have since struggled to determine whether Honjo was aware of the invasion plan; it seems likely he had some knowledge, but not the full details, which made him cautious in his actions over the following weeks. In the days that followed, Honjo attempted to confine the incident, but Ishiwara and Itagaki continuously urged all forces to adhere to the secret plan they had trained for. The speed and decisiveness of their actions overwhelmed the Chinese forces and left Honjo unable to change the course of events. Famously when one colleague asked Itagaki what to do in response to cease and desist orders from Honjo, Itagaki responded “Never mind Honjo, it's Ishiwara's war”. Official orders from Tokyo came on the next day, specifically opposing the expansion of hostilities, but Ishiwara and Itagaki had come too far to stop now. They began persuading Honjo to telegram the General Staff to ask for reinforcements and freedom of action “to pursue actively the security and order of all of Manchuria”. Ishiwara and Itagaki clearly aimed to expand their offensive through official channels first, but they also circumvented these channels. One cunning tactic they used was to incite chaos among civilians in Manchurian cities, thereby heightening the demand for improved security for Japanese residents. This strategy would enable the Kwantung Army troops to move beyond their established boundaries. Shortly after what is now known as the "Mukden Incident," military agents were sent to Kirin to stir unrest in the city. Reports of disturbances from Kirin began flooding into the Kwantung Army headquarters, with Ishiwara urging Honjo to send forces to Kirin to safeguard Japanese residents. He also pushed for reinforcements from the Korean Army, but Honjo was reluctant to take that step. It seems Ishiwara feared missing a golden opportunity and chose another course of action. On the night of the 20th, he gathered together a bunch of younger Kwantung officers such as Itagaki's assistant, Captain Katakura Tadashi and told them “I can't do anything more to budge the commander and so i'm giving up my responsibilities for the direction of operations. Katakura, you take over”. Well it seems this little ploy had the intended effect as all the young officers immediately began pressuring Honjo to support Ishiwara's demands to advance to Kirin, many of them threatening to resign. After several hours of the officers nagging, Honjo related and authorized the despatch of troops.  The operation against Kirin was executed with remarkable speed. Ishiwara ordered the majority of the 2nd Division, led by General Tamon Jiro, to swiftly travel to Kirin by train. They entered the city without firing a single shot and compelled the local Chinese commander to declare the province's independence from Zhang Xueliang's regime. Within hours, the Korean army responded to an aid request from the Kwantung Army staff sent on September 21st and began advancing into Manchuria. In just 48 hours, the Japanese military had taken control of Kirin, which was outside the Kwantung operational zone, and the Korean army was invading Manchuria without Tokyo's approval, effectively undermining military discipline. Chief of Staff Kanaya Hanzo had issued specific orders to restrict the Kwantung Army's operations and granted field commanders discretionary authority for certain emergency situations, typically of a local nature. However, the Kirin expedition did not fit within these parameters. Encouraged by their success, Ishiwara and Itagaki pushed for an advance on Harbin. As noted in the previous episode, the strategy for taking Manchuria relied on speed and precision. The Kwantung Army had limited forces compared to the immediate Chinese troops in Manchuria, yet they were constrained by directives from Tokyo HQ that prohibited the movement of Kwantung troops beyond the South Manchuria Railway, where they had previously confined their actions. Ishiwara attempted to frame the situation politically, arguing that Japan should support Manchurian independence and sent this proposal directly to Tokyo central HQ. However, on October 3rd, Tokyo HQ firmly rejected the idea of expanding hostilities. Faced with this outright refusal from Tokyo HQ, the Kwantung radicals believed their only option was to create further chaos to compel a response. Ishiwara took the lead once more, aiming to unsettle Tokyo HQ. On October 8th, he donned military pilot gear and infiltrated one of five Chinese aircraft seized at Mukden airfield. He personally led a raid, although later in life, during the Tokyo War Crimes Trials, he would claim that the flight was intended solely for reconnaissance of enemy activities at Chinchou. He argued that it was only at the last moment that intelligence revealed anti-aircraft guns had been installed at Chinchou, prompting the Kwantung Army Commander to authorize their neutralization if fired upon. Ishiwara maintained that he and the four accompanying aircraft were fired upon, leading them to drop approximately 75 bombs on Chinchou. This series of events was quite dramatic, and contemporary accounts suggest it was a premeditated effort to provoke Tokyo. The raid on Chinchou certainly alarmed Tokyo, leading the staff there to worry that the West would start condemning them. Tokyo's high command found themselves in a difficult position. They felt compelled to publicly support the Kwantung Army by retroactively approving the chaotic attacks, but internally, they were furious. Major Endo Saburo from the intelligence division was dispatched to Manchuria to investigate the situation. When he asked Ishiwara about the events, Ishiwara claimed he acted on the principle of field initiative, which was why he hadn't informed Tokyo beforehand. Saburo also noted that Ishiwara's tone suggested that he and the intelligence division should stay out of the matter. Additionally, Saburo learned that there were whispers in Manchuria indicating that if Tokyo's high command did not align with them, the Kwantung Army was ready to act independently. It appeared that the radical officers of the Kwantung Army were even willing to defy the Imperial Japanese Army command to achieve their goals. Ishiwara went as far as to send this telegram to Tokyo “For the sake of the nation we are doing our very best in Manchuria, but if the Japanese government constantly interferes we cannot complete our great work. Then the Kwantung army will have to come to the point where we will have to break the glorious history of the imperial army and separate ourselves from the empire” If you found this situation quite surprising, there was also a rumor that Ishiwara and Itagaki planned to use an independent Manchuria as a base for a coup d'état against the Japanese government. Their goal was to overthrow the capitalists oppressing the people and establish a national socialist regime centered around the emperor. For those familiar with the history of political assassinations in 1930s Japan, this rumor hints at events that would unfold in 1936. It remains unclear whether Ishiwara and Itagaki genuinely intended to pursue this plan, but they certainly spread the word. On October 18th, War Minister Minami Jiro sent a telegram to the Kwantung Army, instructing them to stop any discussions about making Manchuria independent or attempting to seize control of it. Additionally, they dispatched Colonel Imamura Hitoshi from the operations section to Manchuria to reason with Ishiwara and Itagaki. They all met at a restaurant in Mukden where Imamura began by explaining the purpose of his mission, but before he could even really begin, Ishiwara blurted out “whats the matter? Doesn't central headquarters have any backbone?” A great way to start a meeting to be sure. Imamura tried to explain the situation, but Ishiwara said “if we follow the spineless Tokyo approach we'll never settle the Manchurian problem”. Imamura replied “we can't accomplish anything by following the arbitrary decision of field elements, which may create a crisis that will shake the whole army. In such a problem it is essential for the whole nation to be unified”. To this Ishiwara apparently said really loudly in the restaurant that he was sleepy, rolled over on the tatami and closed his eyes. Imamura furious haha, get up quickly after denouncing his so called hosts for conducting official IJA business at a restaurant and left. The next day they all met again, where Ishiwara and Itagaki kept speaking about the necessity to create an independent state, since there was no hope of the Chinese reforming Manchuria. After Imamura left that meeting, Ishiwara said to Itagaki “Imamura is a fine fellow, but he doesn't understand China”. Despite the chaos and turmoil, the Kwantung Army had been held back from launching any sustained military operations throughout October. As expected, Ishiwara continued to argue for an advance into northern Manchuria. In early November, he found another opportunity when he claimed that more railways had been destroyed. Allegedly, hostile Chinese forces had blown up the rail bridges over the Nonni River, south of Tsitsihar. When Japanese engineering units arrived to repair the damaged tracks, they came under fire from Chinese troops. To the high-ranking officials in Tokyo, this appeared to be a legitimate reason to take defensive action. Additionally, Kwantung intelligence reports were reaching Tokyo, suggesting that Chinese forces in northern Manchuria were planning a southward offensive. Ishiwara had also provided exaggerated reports to the Japanese public, manipulating media narratives to pressure Tokyo into supporting an advance into northern Manchuria. Tokyo approved a defensive operation, restricted in time and scope, aimed at protecting Japanese positions at the Nonni River bridges. Kwantung Army forces began moving north and soon engaged in intense fighting around the railway area of Tahsing. Ishiwara personally led troops during this engagement, marking the only time in his military career that he did so. General Honjo, rightly concerned that the Kwantung forces were becoming uncontrollable, sent a cable on November 5th announcing that under the “rinsan inmei / provisional mandate,” the general staff would assume direct command authority in Manchuria. Unsurprisingly, Ishiwara and his like-minded colleagues in the Kwantung Army were furious. Honjo followed this up by stating he would resign if they did not comply, but Ishiwara brushed off the provisional mandate stating “that the directive from the chief of staff is just a personal, not an imperial order. No matter how many we get of those we shouldn't' care. We'll just go ahead with our plans”. On november 17, the Kwantung army began advancing upon the city of Tsitsihar seizing it 2 days later.  Confronted with yet another dire situation, the IJA high command permitted the Kwantung Army to advance toward Tsitsihar. However, international outcry soon erupted, compelling them to order the evacuation of the city. Ishiwara sparked a significant debate among the staff, arguing that the evacuation was unacceptable given the sacrifices already made by the troops. Nevertheless, Honjo remained resolute. A few days later, Chinese forces began to gather at Chinchou, and tensions escalated with skirmishes occurring between Japanese and Chinese troops in Tientsin. In response, Ishiwara urgently called for Honjo to initiate an offensive at Chinchou as a way to better position their forces closer to Tientsin in case they faced overwhelming opposition. To support this advance, they also requested assistance from the Korean army. Once again, the burden fell to Tokyo. The high command in Tokyo ordered an immediate halt to the offensive and a withdrawal east of the Liao River. The Kwantung Army hesitated, not solely due to the order but also because the Korean army refused to join the offensive against Chinchou, which was crucial for their success. Ishiwara found himself in a predicament; without reinforcements, the entire offensive could fail. Then, on December 11th, a significant change occurred when Premier Wakatsuki was ousted. War Minister Minami and Chief of Staff Kanaya, who had attempted to moderate the Kwantung Army's aggressiveness, were replaced by Araki Sadao, a leader of the Kodoha faction known for its aggressive stance. To provide some context, the Japanese military was divided into factions, similar to warlord cliques, vying to influence the future operations of the IJA and, to some extent, the IJN. Two primary factions shaped the military landscape in the 1930s: the Kodoha and the Toseiha (Control Faction). The Kodoha was not an organized political party nor did it hold an official position within the IJA, but it wielded considerable influence. Its members were typically younger officers, particularly from the Kwantung Army. General Sadao Araki was a founding member of the Kodoha, which was heavily influenced by Bushido, Fascism, and the Kokutai ideology. They aimed to restore Japan to its perceived former glory, viewing liberal democracy as a detrimental force. They blamed the capitalists, industrialists, and elites—politicians, bureaucrats, and Zaibatsu leaders—for the nation's decline. Their goal was to see the Emperor reclaim full power in what they termed a "Showa Restoration." The Kodoha's primary adversary, as perceived by much of the Japanese military at the time, was the USSR and communism in general. Consequently, they supported the Hokushin-ron (Northern Strike Policy), which was Japan's theoretical plan to invade the USSR. While I don't want to delve too deeply into the details, it's important to note that the Kodoha was counterbalanced by the more moderate Toseiha faction, led by Hideki Tojo. The Toseiha opposed the Kodoha on several fronts, notably their desire to avoid a violent revolution to restore imperial dominance. Although they shared many principles with the Kodoha, the Toseiha rejected the Hokushin-ron strategy in favor of the Nanshin-ron (Southern Strike) strategy, which aimed at expanding into Southeast Asia and the resource-rich Dutch East Indies. The Toseiha faction also maintained better relations with the IJN. To contextualize this narrative within the political landscape, these two factions began to fiercely compete for dominance starting in 1931. With the influence of Araki Sadao and support from Prince Kan'in, a Kodoha sympathizer, significant changes occurred in Tokyo's command. Suddenly, offensive operations against Chinese forces in Manchuria were rebranded as “bandit suppression” campaigns. The Kwantung Army, fully backed by Tokyo, swiftly pursued all military objectives established by Ishiwara and Itagaki since September. Chinchou and Shanhaikwan were captured in early January 1932, followed by Tsitsihar in February. By spring 1932, Ishiwara urged the staff to complete the full occupation of Manchuria, both north and south. In April of that year, he presented the “Manshu haiti heiryaku,” or the program for the pacification of Manchuria. This new plan called for the seizure of Hailar in the north because “it was pivotal to the defense against the USSR”. It also called for seizing Jehol province because “it was an important condition to the independence of Manchuria”. By the end of the year Hailar was taken and in 1933 the Kwantung army was marching upon Jehol. It is clear that Ishiwara played a crucial role in the conquest of Manchuria. The Kwantung Army and the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) had various strategies available to address the Manchurian issue, but Ishiwara focused primarily on achieving complete control over the region for its resources, strategic advantages, and to establish a continental base for a potential war against the United States. For Ishiwara, securing all of Manchuria was essential in preparation for the Final War. While it's likely that conflict between Japan and China would have occurred in Manchuria without Ishiwara's influence, it's uncertain whether Japan would have outright taken the province. Ishiwara dedicated years to planning and pushing boundaries, but when the operation commenced, it became evident that he and his associates lacked a definitive timeline for conquest and had several missing contingency plans. Despite the chaotic circumstances, the conquest of Manchuria proved to be a remarkable success. So much so, Ishiwara said to a friend of his, Satomi Kishio in 1932 “Even if Japan has to face the entire world, she can't be beaten”. Ironically as many of you know, Japan's actions in Manchuria cost her greatly. Japan was now hated by the Chinese, well much more so. The west condemned Japan's actions, alongside the USSR. As my professor first taught me in a class about the Pacific War when I was a wee lad in his early 20's “It all was about Manchuria, everything started with Manchuria, and it ended with Manchuria in 1945”. The Manchuria incident set Japan on an unavoidable path toward the China War, which ultimately led to conflict with the West. It became a self-fulfilling prophecy. This situation also raises questions about military discipline. Many cite the concept of Gekokujo as a reason why individuals like Ishiwara and Itagaki were able to act as they did. These militaristic junior officers seemingly ran rampant, engaging in rebellious actions that defied their superiors, which forced those higher up to become complicit. While Gekokujo certainly played a role, especially in Ishiwara's case, it does not negate the fact that there was a significant level of indiscipline within the Japanese army. Ishiwara was undoubtedly aware of the potential consequences of his actions. A prime example is Colonel Komoto Daisaku, who had previously seen his career ruined after being exiled due to the Huanggutun incident. However, Ishiwara's focus extended beyond Manchuria; he was closely monitoring the political landscape in Tokyo. He recognized that the 1931 cabinet was unstable and that certain high-ranking officials, like Araki Sadao, were rapidly advancing in their careers and sympathized with his agenda. Ishiwara was betting that supporters from factions like Kodoha would gain the necessary power to further his cause. His gamble paid off handsomely, as all the key players in the Manchurian affair were rewarded for their efforts. Ishiwara received the Order of the Golden Kite, 3rd class, and returned to Japan as a celebrated hero, captivating younger officers in the Imperial Japanese Army. Ironically, the indiscipline he had nurtured within the army would later come back to haunt him as he climbed the ranks and became part of the Tokyo staff. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. As Ron Burgundy once said “Boy, that escalated quickly... I mean, that really got out of hand fast.” While perhaps Ishiwara did not plan for an all out war to break out against China, he certainly was the culprit to it happening. There was no going back, 15 years of blood, sweat and tears would be shed.

Last time we spoke about the reunification of Xinjiang. In Yarkland, chaos erupted as inflation soared, forcing Chinese officials to retreat to fortified New City. As insurgents advanced, Colonel Chin's forces looted and fled, igniting violence against Uyghurs and Hindu moneylenders. By April, rebels captured Kashgar, fracturing Chinese control. Amid shifting alliances, Abdullah revealed a conflict among Muslim troops, leading to a brief Uyghur-Kirghiz unity against the Chinese. After the execution of leader Temur, Abdullah seized Yarkland, while Tawfiq Bay rallied forces, leaving the Tungans besieged amidst chaos. In the tumultuous landscape of 1930s Xinjiang, Ma Chongying's Tungan forces, alongside young Uyghur conscripts, captured Kumul and advanced toward Urumqi. Despite fierce battles, including a significant clash at Kitai, Sheng Shihtsai struggled to maintain control amid shifting loyalties and external pressures. As the TIRET emerged under Khoja Niyas Hajji, internal conflicts and Soviet interventions escalated. Ultimately, Ma Chongying retreated to Russia, leaving Sheng in power, but the region remained fraught with tension and uncertainty.   #136 Ishiwara Kanji Part 1: The Man who Began WW2? Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. “The board is set, the pieces are moving. We come to it at last, the great battle of our time.” Famously said by Gandalf the White. 1931 was the year the Japanese initiated a 15 year long war with China. For those of you who perhaps joined this podcast recently and don't know, I am Craig and I operate the Pacific War Channel on Youtube. I have been covering the 15 year long China War forever it seems, so when we finally reached this part in our larger story I sat down and thought about how to first tackle this. One thing I really believe needs to be said at the beginning, is a lot of what happened was put into motion by one man, Ishiwara Kanji. For those of you who joined my patreon or later listened to my Ishiwara Kanji series on my channel, this one might be a bit of a refresher. But for those of you who have never heard the name of this man, well let me tell you a story about how a single man caused WW2. Kanji Ishiwara was born on January 18, 1889, in Tsuruoka, located in Yamagata Prefecture, Japan. He was the second son of a policeman who hailed from a lineage of samurai that had historically served the Shonai Domain. This domain had a notable history, particularly during the Boshin War, where Ishiwara's clan supported the Tokugawa Shogunate. Following the defeat of the Shogunate, clans like Ishiwara's found themselves marginalized in the new political landscape of Meiji Era Japan. The power dynamics shifted significantly, with domains such as Choshu and Satsuma gaining the majority of influential governmental positions, while those that had aligned with the Shogunate were largely excluded from power. At the young age of 13, Ishiwara embarked on his military career by enrolling in a military preparatory school in Sendai. He continued his education for two years at the Central Military Preparatory School in Tokyo, where he honed his skills and knowledge in military affairs. In 1907, he entered the Imperial Japanese Military Academy as a member of its 21st class. After two years of rigorous training, he graduated in July 1909, receiving a commission as a Lieutenant and taking on the role of platoon commander in an infantry regiment stationed in the Tohoku region. In 1910, following Japan's annexation of Korea, Ishiwara's regiment was deployed to the Korean Peninsula, where he served in a small garrison in Ch'unch'on. His time there involved two years of occupation duty, during which he gained valuable experience in military operations and leadership. After returning to Tohoku in 1912, Ishiwara pursued further education and successfully passed the examinations required for entry into the Army Staff College in 1915. His dedication and exceptional performance were evident throughout his studies, culminating in his graduation at the top of his class in November 1918. This achievement earned him a prestigious place among the elite ranks of the Gunto Gumi, a distinguished group within the Japanese military, and he was honored with the imperial sword, a symbol of his status and accomplishments. In 1920, Ishiwara found himself facing a challenging assignment within the Department of Military Training. Eager for a change, he applied for service in China and was subsequently assigned to the Central China Garrison in Hankow. Over the course of a year, he traveled extensively through central China, immersing himself in the culture and landscape before returning to Tokyo in 1921. Upon his return, he took on the role of lecturer at the Army Staff College, where he shared his knowledge and experiences with aspiring military leaders. Despite his desire for another assignment in China, Ishiwara's superiors redirected him to Europe, a common practice for promising young officers at the time. He spent three years in Germany, where he dedicated himself to studying languages and military history. By 1925, at the age of 36 and having attained the rank of Major, he received a prestigious assignment to the faculty of the Army Staff College, where he lectured on the history of warfare. From the outset, Ishiwara distinguished himself as an unconventional officer. His eccentricities were well-known; he was often seen as argumentative and struggled with numerous health issues, including recurrent kidney infections, gastrointestinal problems, tympanitis, and other ailments that plagued him throughout his career. Additionally, his ancestry played a significant role in his military life, particularly in the context of the Japanese military's values during the 1930s. Officers from disgraced clans often felt compelled to demonstrate exceptional loyalty to the Emperor, striving to overcome the stigma associated with their lineage, a legacy of distrust that lingered from the early Meiji period. Ishiwara's character was marked by a certain oddity; he was a nonconformist with a fiercely independent spirit. Many biographers note that while he excelled academically, he often disregarded military decorum, particularly in terms of his dress and personal appearance. Early in his career, he voiced his concerns about perceived inequalities within the military, particularly the favoritism shown towards graduates of the staff college. Such outspoken criticism was considered reckless, yet it reflected his deep-seated beliefs. An avid reader, Ishiwara immersed himself in a wide range of subjects, including politics, religion, history, and philosophy, revealing a restless and inquisitive mind. His unconventional behavior and intellectual pursuits garnered attention from his peers, many of whom regarded him as a brilliant thinker. While military personnel are typically required to study military history, few pursue it with the same fervor as Ishiwara. He developed a profound obsession with understanding military history beyond the standard curriculum. His critical examination of the Russo-Japanese War led him to conclude that Japan's victory was largely a matter of luck. He believed that Japan had adopted the von Moltke strategy of annihilation, but the sheer size of Russia made it impossible to defeat them swiftly. Ishiwara posited that had Russia been better prepared, Japan would likely have faced defeat, and it was only through a unique set of circumstances that Japan avoided a protracted conflict. This realization prompted Ishiwara to advocate for a significant shift in Japan's defense planning, emphasizing the need to adapt to the realities of modern warfare. His studies extended to World War I, where he critically analyzed the distinctions between short and prolonged conflicts. He recognized that extended wars often evolved into total wars, where political, economic, and social factors became as crucial as military strategy. This line of thinking led him to categorize wars into two types: “kessenteki senso” (decisive war) and “jizokuteki senso” (continuous war). Ishiwara viewed these categories as part of a cyclical pattern throughout history, with each type influencing the other in a dynamic interplay. During his time in Germany, Ishiwara immersed himself in the study of prominent military theorists such as Carl von Clausewitz, Helmuth von Moltke, and Hans Delbrück. He found himself particularly captivated by Delbrück's concepts of Niederwerfungstrategie, or "strategy of annihilation," which emphasizes the importance of achieving victory through decisive battles, and Ermattungsstrategie, meaning "strategy of exhaustion," which focuses on wearing down the enemy over time. These theories resonated deeply with Ishiwara, as he recognized parallels between his own ideas and the insights presented in these influential works. This realization prompted him to analyze historical conflicts, viewing the Napoleonic Wars as the quintessential example of annihilation warfare, while interpreting the campaigns of Frederick the Great as emblematic of exhaustion warfare. As Ishiwara advanced in his studies, he became increasingly convinced, much like many of his contemporaries, that Japan and the United States were inevitably on a collision course toward war, driven by conflicting power dynamics and ideological differences. He anticipated that such a conflict would not be swift but rather a drawn-out struggle characterized by a strategy of exhaustion. However, this led him to grapple with a pressing dilemma: how could Japan effectively prepare for a prolonged war when its natural resources were evidently insufficient to sustain such an endeavor? This predicament prompted him to rethink the broader context of Asia. Ishiwara held a strong belief that Asia was a distinct entity, fundamentally different from the West, and he envisioned a future where Asian nations would liberate themselves and unite in solidarity. His enthusiasm was particularly ignited during the Xinhai Revolution of 1911, while he was a young cadet stationed in Korea. The prospect of China revitalizing itself filled him with hope. However, his later experiences in China led to a profound disillusionment. Throughout the 1920s, he encountered rampant banditry, conflicts during the warlord era, and pervasive chaos and disorder. The widespread poverty and instability he witnessed shattered his earlier optimistic vision of China's potential for progress and reform, leaving him with a more sobering understanding of the challenges facing the region. He wrote this during that time “Looking at the situation in China, I came to harbor grave doubts as to the political capacities of the chinese race and came to feel that, though they were a people of high cultural attainment, it was impossible for them to construct a modern state”. Despite his profound disappointment with the political issues plaguing China, he was equally appalled by the way his Japanese colleagues treated the Chinese people. He vividly recalled feelings of shame when he witnessed fellow colleagues in Hankow disembarking from rickshaws and carelessly tossing coins at the feet of the rickshaw pullers. This behavior struck him as not only disrespectful but also indicative of a broader attitude of racial superiority that he believed needed to be addressed. He frequently expressed in his writings that the Japanese needed to abandon their feelings of racial superiority. Ironically, he often juxtaposed this belief with his conviction that Japan had a duty to guide nations like China toward their rightful destiny. While he advocated for racial equality between Japan and China, he held a markedly different view regarding China's political landscape. Like many of his contemporaries, he believed that China required significant reform and modernization, which he felt Japan was uniquely positioned to facilitate. To Ishiwara, the pressing issue was that if Japan did not assist China in its development, Western powers would aggressively intervene, further subjugating the nation. He viewed Japan's role as one of liberation for China, rather than domination. Additionally, Ishiwara connected the impending conflict between Japan and the United States to the broader dynamics of Japan-China relations, suggesting that the outcome of this war would significantly impact the future interactions between the two nations. Ishiwara, like many Japanese military officers of his time, subscribed to the concept of Kokutai, a complex and multifaceted cultural phenomenon that served as a spiritual driving force within the Japanese military. The Kokutai can be understood as the essence of Japan's national character. Japan operated as a constitutional monarchy, embodying both the Kokutai (the national body or character) and Seitai (the governmental structure). This duality created a unique ideological framework: one aspect emphasized the traditional reverence for the emperor, while the other focused on the official government apparatus.   To simplify this intricate relationship, one might say, “Japan is governed simultaneously by the emperor and the government.” However, this characterization is inherently confusing, as it encapsulates a significant contradiction. Article 4 of the former Japanese constitution stated, “The emperor is the head of the empire, combining in himself the right of sovereignty, uniting the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, although subject to the consent of the imperial diet.” This provision suggests the existence of an absolute monarch who is nonetheless expected to heed the advice of democratically elected representatives, creating a paradox that would contribute to the tensions leading to the Pacific War. A critical issue that arose from this constitutional framework was that the military was explicitly stated to be under the control of the emperor, rather than the political diet. Consequently, many military leaders perceived themselves as being beholden to the Kokutai, an ideology that evolved significantly from the Meiji era into the Showa era. For instance, consider a high-ranking military officer who views the political elite as corrupt individuals who have effectively taken the emperor hostage, acting against his will and, by extension, against the will of the Japanese people. Such a perspective could lead to radical actions, including attempts to overthrow the government to restore what they believed to be the rightful authority of the emperor. This ideological conflict presents a fascinating and complex rabbit hole that merits further exploration. Ishiwara had a unique view of the Kokutai. In his early education he wrote this about his doubt on understanding it as a principal. “Even though I, myself, because of my training…had come to have an unshakeable faith in the kokutai I began to lack confidence that I could imparts this belief to others –to the common soldier, to the civilian, to non-Japanese”. Ishiwara grappled with a profound question: how could the concept of Kokutai—the national essence of Japan—be relevant beyond the borders of Japan? He pondered how its significance could extend beyond the specific national interests of Japan. If a Japanese soldier were to lay down his life for the Kokutai, what meaning would that sacrifice hold for individuals of different races and nationalities? Furthermore, he sought to understand how the Kokutai's universal value could be connected to other ideologies outside Japan. In his quest for answers, Ishiwara turned to Nichiren Buddhism. This spiritual framework allowed him to weave together his thoughts on warfare, historical narratives, and the national purpose of Japan. Interestingly, Ishiwara did not come from a religious background; he had briefly explored Christianity but did not pursue it further. Similarly, Shintoism did not fully resonate with his beliefs. Nichiren Buddhism, however, presented a compelling alternative. It is characterized by a strong sense of patriotism and an apocalyptic vision, positioning itself as a holy mission intended for all of humanity, with Japan at its center. This belief system embodies a quasi-ideology of world regeneration, casting Japan as a moral leader destined to guide others. Given this context, it is easy to see how the Kokutai and Nichiren Buddhism complemented each other seamlessly. By leveraging the principles of Nichiren Buddhism, Ishiwara envisioned a way to elevate the Kokutai from a strictly nationalistic doctrine to a more universal ideology that could resonate globally. His introduction to these ideas came through Tanaka Chigaku, a prominent figure in the Kokuchukai, or "National Pillar Society," which was a nationalist organization rooted in Nichiren Buddhism and based in Tokyo. This connection provided Ishiwara with a framework to articulate a vision of Japan that transcended its geographical boundaries, linking the Kokutai to a broader, more inclusive mission. After attending a public meeting held by Tanaka, he quickly converted to Kokuchukai and he would write down in his journal “I was attracted to the Nichiren faith's view of the kokutai”. Nichiren buddhism. One element of Kokuchukai's Nichirenism that strongly attracted Ishiwara was its aggressive passages. He justified much of Japan's military actions on the Asian continent by drawing parallels to Nichiren's concept of wielding the sword to uphold righteousness. He frequently quoted Nichiren's assertion that “the significance of the art of war appears in the wonderful law.” Ishiwara became deeply immersed in Nichiren's teachings and came to believe in its prophecy of a “Zendai mimon no dai toso,” or a titanic world conflict unprecedented in human history, akin to a global Armageddon. Following this conflict, he envisioned a period of universal and eternal peace under the harmony of “the wonderful law.” While in Germany, Ishiwara became convinced that if Japan and the United States were destined for war and the U.S. emerged victorious, the kokutai would be obliterated. He traveled back to Japan via the Trans-Siberian Railway, stopping in Harbin, where he met with Nichiren followers. He shared his thoughts on a “final war,” asserting that it would arise from religious prophecy and his military analysis. He cautioned that Japan must prepare for this impending conflict, declaring that “the final war is fast approaching.” Upon returning to Japan in 1925, he was filled with determination to lecture at the Army Staff College about this final war. His audience consisted of the army's promising young officers, to whom he taught about Frederican and Napoleonic campaigns, Moltke, World War I, and, of course, his insights on the looming conflict. The Army Staff College repeatedly requested him to expand his lectures due to their popularity. In 1927, he drafted an essay titled “Genzai oyobi shorai Nihon no kokubo / Japan's Present and Future National Defense,” in which he discussed the inevitable war between the U.S. and Japan. This essay garnered significant attention from his colleagues. Later, in April 1931, he briefed his fellow Kwantung officers using this essay, advocating for decisive action on the Asian mainland. In 1928, he was scheduled to give another course on European warfare, but he contracted influenza and had to take a leave of absence. As he was recovering, he developed tympanitis in his ear, which required a six-month hospitalization. This was just one of many health issues that would affect him over time. Eventually, he became involved in an elite study group focused on war theories, led by Major Suzuki. This group included young reformist officers who discussed political and military matters. He continued his work on the concept of total war and ultimately wrote “Sensoshi taikan / General Outline of the History of War,” which he presented as a lecture to Kwantung officers in Changch'un, Manchuria, on July 4, 1929. The work underwent revisions in 1931 and 1938 and was published as a book of the same title after 1941. As he began lecturing using Sensoshi taiken he also circulated amongst an inner circle within the Kwantung army “kokuun tenkai no konpon kokusakutaru man-mo mondai kaiketsuan / Plan for the solution of the Manchuria and Mongolia problem as a basic national policy to revolutionize our country's destiny”, what a title. As you might guess the plan called for occupying Manchuria in preparation for the upcoming war with America. By the way, all of his lectures and works would gain so much fame, he was asked in 1936 to adapt the materials for a text on military history for Emperor Hirohito.  The 1930s were a particularly tense period for Japan. The Japanese leadership perceived Marxism as a pervasive threat, believing it was undermining the nation. Many liberal voices argued that the military budget was excessive and called for cuts. To Ishiwara, this was madness; he questioned how Japan could afford to disarm. While Marxists claimed that communism would rescue Japan, liberals argued that true democracy was the answer. In contrast, Ishiwara and many in the military believed that the Kokutai would be Japan's salvation. Ishiwara advocated his final theories of warfare, asserting that the impending apocalypse would not lead to an American synthesis, but rather a decisive victory for the Japanese Kokutai that would unify the world. “Japan must be victorious not for the sake of her own national interest, but for the salvation of the world. The last war in human history is approaching, Nichiren's titanic world conflict, unprecedented in human history”. From the outset of his initial theories, Ishiwara was convinced that the final war would be characterized by a strategy of exhaustion. However, World War I and the advancements of the 1920s introduced new technologies like tanks, poison gas, and airplanes. The airplane, in particular, led Ishiwara to believe that the defensive stalemate observed in World War I was nearing its end. He argued that airpower could deliver bomb loads beyond all known defenses, including naval surface units, fortifications, and armies equipped with automatic weapons. Ishiwara predicted that the final war would unleash unimaginable horrors on the world's greatest cities. Cities like London, Shanghai, Paris, and even Tokyo could be devastated within a single day of the outbreak of hostilities. Air bombardment would deliver victory and he would be quite right about that in regards to what would happen to Japan. He believed such a war would be waged only once and “we will enter an age where war will become impossible because of the ultimate development of war technology”. Ishiwara contended that Japan should exert direct or indirect control over Manchuria and, to a lesser extent, certain regions of China. He claimed that Japan had a moral responsibility to the Asian continent and a unique connection to Manchuria and China. He emphasized the need to stabilize China, as its people faced threats from chaos, corruption, and conflict. Ishiwara argued that Japan would ultimately need to take a more proactive role in stabilizing China, especially in Manchuria, for the sake of peace and the well-being of the Chinese population. He wrote in 1930 “To save China, which has known no peace, is the mission of Japan, a mission, which, at the same time, is the only means for the salvation of Japan itself. To accomplish this task it is an urgent matter that the interference of the United States be eliminated”. Ironically, he was advocating that in order to prepare for a conflict with the US, Japan must take a stronger hand in Manchuria and China…which would probably force the United States to confront her. He advocated against the strategy of a decisive battle at sea, instead emphasizing a continental strategy. “If the worst comes about and the war at sea turns against us, if proper measures have been taken, Japanese forces on the Asian mainland can be made self-sufficient and the war continued.” Above all else, Manchuria was the key, alongside parts of Mongolia and China.  In 1931, he started advocating for reforms in China, suggesting that it would be beneficial for the country to accept guidance from Japan. He viewed China as Japan's most important ally in the event of a conflict with the United States. He argued that Japan should make every effort to avoid getting involved in a war with China and should strive to prevent any actions that might provoke such a situation. Yet as he continued his writing he began to see the diplomatic issues play out between China and Japan and came to the conclusion, “every attempt should be made to avoid provoking China, but in the event that it is impossible to bring about China's understanding, then Nanking should be swiftly attacked and north and central China occupied” way to go 0-60. His attitudes to Britain and Russia were quite similar, every effort should be made to remain friendly, but in the case of war Hong Kong and Malaya should be quickly occupied or in the case of the USSR, predetermined objectives inside Siberia should be seized quickly. Let's delve into the historical landscape of Manchuria during the late 1920s, a period marked by intense geopolitical maneuvering among Russia, China, and Japan. The region found itself caught in a complex struggle for dominance, exacerbated by the fragmentation of Chinese authority due to rampant warlordism. This instability effectively severed Manchuria's ties to the rest of China, creating an opportunity for Japan to solidify and expand its influence. The situation in Manchuria, often referred to as the "Manchurian Problem," revolved around a pivotal question for Japanese policymakers: How could Japan consolidate its hold over Manchuria and further its interests in the face of an increasingly assertive China? Japan identified three primary strategies to address this challenge: Control of the South Manchuria Railway: Securing this vital transportation artery would grant Japan significant leverage over southern Manchuria. However, this strategy was fraught with complications, as it necessitated ongoing confrontations with Chinese political forces that opposed Japanese dominance. Utilization of the Kwantung Army: This military force stationed in Manchuria was crucial for projecting Japanese power. Members of the Kwantung Army were particularly concerned about the Northern Expedition led by Chiang Kai-shek, which threatened the stability of their ally, Zhang Zuolin, known as the "Tiger of Manchuria." While Zhang had been cooperative and acted in Japan's interests, his support could not be guaranteed indefinitely. Japanese Colonization: This approach involved encouraging Japanese settlers to move into Manchuria, thereby establishing a demographic presence that could help legitimize Japan's claims to the territory. This method, often likened to a “filibuster,” aimed to create a Japanese cultural and economic foothold in the region. Each of these strategies presented distinct pathways forward, each with its own implications for the future of Manchuria and its relationship with China. The Kwantung Army, in particular, was increasingly alarmed by the rise of anti-Japanese sentiment as the Northern Expedition advanced northward. The army viewed Manchuria not only as a territory of strategic interest but also as a crucial buffer against the Soviet Union. The growing instability posed by Chiang Kai-shek's forces and the potential loss of influence over Zhang Zuolin were significant threats that needed to be addressed. Ultimately, many within the Kwantung Army believed that the only viable solution to secure Japan's interests in Manchuria would be to formally detach the region from China, a move that would likely require military intervention. This belief underscored the precarious balance of power in Manchuria during this tumultuous period and foreshadowed the escalating conflicts that would shape the region's future. In June 1927, senior officers of the Kwantung Army were summoned to a crucial meeting convened by Premier Tanaka Giichi. The primary objective of this gathering was to establish Japan's strategic policy regarding China and Manchuria. Within the ranks of the Kwantung Army, a more radical faction led by Colonel Komoto Daisaku was determined to eliminate Zhang Zuolin, who had increasingly become perceived as a significant barrier to Japanese ambitions in Manchuria. This faction's resolve culminated in the assassination of Zhang Zuolin in 1928, an event infamously known as the Huanggutun Incident, where a bomb was placed on the train tracks to ensure his demise. However, the outcome of this assassination did not unfold as the Kwantung Army officers had anticipated. Instead of the anticipated rise of their chosen puppet leader, General Yang Yuting, control of Manchuria fell to Zhang Zuolin's son, Zhang Xueliang. Unsurprisingly, Zhang Xueliang was deeply angered by the murder of his father and was far from compliant with Japanese interests. Consequently, the Kwantung Army found itself in a precarious position, as their aggressive policies in Manchuria backfired, leading to a situation that was even more unfavorable than before. The investigation into the assassination was notably half-hearted, resulting in the dismissal of Colonel Komoto from his position. This political fallout also led to the collapse of Tanaka's cabinet, leaving the Kwantung Army feeling both embarrassed and enraged over their diminished influence in Manchuria. The Japanese colonists residing in Manchuria, feeling increasingly threatened, began to call upon the Kwantung Army for protection against Chinese nationalists who sought to expel them from the region. In this climate of uncertainty, the Kwantung Army was left scrambling for strategies to detach Manchuria from Chinese control. In 1928, Lieutenant Colonel Ishiwara was consulted extensively by Kwantung officers regarding his perspectives on the Manchurian situation. Although he had not yet fully developed his Final War theory at this time, he articulated the fundamental principles behind it, emphasizing the urgent need for decisive action to assert control over Manchuria. Over the following years, Kwantung officers made concerted efforts to shape policy in favor of their interests in Manchuria, with Ishiwara's ideas gaining traction and stimulating discussions among his high-ranking peers. By October 1928, Ishiwara successfully secured a position on the Kwantung Army staff as an operations officer, with Colonel Komoto Daisaku as his primary supporter. Komoto recognized Ishiwara as the dynamic force needed to advance the aggressive Manchurian policies that the Kwantung Army sought to implement. This collaboration marked a significant turning point in the Kwantung Army's approach to Manchuria, as they aimed to solidify their control and influence in the region amidst growing tensions. When Ishiwara arrived at Port Arthur, he encountered a chaotic and demoralized atmosphere at the headquarters of the Kwantung Army. This turmoil was largely a consequence of the disastrous bombing of Zhang Zuolin, which had resulted in significant operational failures. The investigation into this assassination triggered numerous changes within the Kwantung Army's leadership, many of which were quite restrictive and stifling. Despite the catastrophic impact of the Zhang Zuolin incident on Komoto's career, he continued to advocate for a forceful resolution to the escalating Manchurian crisis. Ishiwara appeared to share this perspective, and during the early months of 1929, he collaborated closely with Komoto to devise military operations aimed at countering Chinese forces in the Mukden region. However, by the spring of 1929, Komoto's position became increasingly precarious, leading to his official dismissal. By May, he had been reassigned to a relatively insignificant divisional post in Japan, and by June, he was completely removed from the army. Nevertheless, this did not signify the end of his influence over Manchurian affairs. His successor was Lieutenant Colonel Itagaki Seishiro, a longtime associate of Ishiwara from their days at the Sendai Military Preparatory School. This connection suggested that while Komoto may have been sidelined, the strategic direction in Manchuria would continue to be shaped by familiar faces and longstanding relationships. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. A young, brilliant but perhaps insane man named Ishiwara Kanji began a fruitful military career. After spending considerable time in China, Ishiwara came to a dramatic conclusion, China needed to be saved, and to do so Japan needed to invade Manchuria. He began lecturing like minded youth and built a cult following, directing Japan towards war with China.  

1973's Slither was the directorial debut of Howard Zieff (Private Benjamin, My Girl) and the screenwriting debut for W.D. Richter (Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Big Trouble In Little China). In the freewheeling comedic thriller, James Caan goes on the road looking for a stash of embezzled money with Peter Boyle, Louise Lasser and Sally Kellerman in tow.  Famously, Caan was quoted saying he took the role for the money and had little understanding of the story. Dan and Vicky discuss the film along with lots of recently seen including Nosferatu, The Front Room, Shudder's doc series Horror's Greatest, Better Man, Leigh Wannell's Wolfman, Trim Season and The Brutalist. *Sound issues exist in this episode.  We hope they won't detract from your enjoyment of the show.    Our socials:  hotdatepod.com FB:  Hot Date Podcast Twitter: @HotDate726 Insta:  hotdatepod

The image of the French countryside is quite different from the reality, as Kate Hill, the American expat founder of the Relais de Camont Writers and Artists Residency, well knows. She's spent the past few decades restoring and living in a 300-year-old French farmhouse, so she's the perfect person to help distinguish the dream and the reality of French country living as we navigate champêtre. Join us on Patreon: patreon.com/parisundergroundradio Find Us OnlineWebsite: https://www.parisundergroundradio.com/navigatingthefrenchFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/parisundergroundradioInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/parisundergroundradio/Credits Host: Emily Monaco. @Emily_in_France; Website: http://www.tomatokumato.com and http://www.emilymmonaco.comProducer: Jennifer Geraghty. @jennyphoria; Website: http://jennyphoria.comMusic Credits Édith Piaf - La Vie en Rose (DeliFB Lofi Remix) 

Zack Boyd, the creative mind behind Famously Garnet, joins the All About Nothing podcast to discuss his journey and insights into South Carolina sports. The conversation highlights the challenges faced by the Gamecocks, particularly in light of their recent exclusion from the College Football playoffs despite impressive performances. Boyd emphasizes the importance of player development and the impact of coaching under Shane Beamer, who has revitalized the program following a tumultuous period. The episode also touches on the evolving landscape of college athletics, including the influence of NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) deals and conference realignment. With anecdotes about his experiences and the community surrounding Gamecock sports, Boyd offers a unique perspective that resonates with fans and sports enthusiasts alike.No Shortcuts Community | Facebook"No Shortcuts" with Midas and FamousFamouslyGarnet | InstagramFamouslyGarnet | FacebookFamouslyGarnet | TwitterFamously Garnet | WebsiteSupport The All About Nothing: Podcast Click here for Episode Show Notes!Click Here to see available advertising packages!Click Here for information on the "Fair Use Copyright Notice" for this podcast.Mentioned in this episode:ZJZ Designs Holiday 2024 Prints Available NowZJZ Designs Holiday 2024 Prints Available Now. Featuring Eddie The Elf! Check Out ZJZDesigns.com!ZJZ Designs

After working through most of the Teen Titans, author Kami Garcia and artist Gabriel Picolo have finally reached the Tamaranean superhero, Starfire. Their latest collaboration finds Kori struggling to find her place amongst her peers while her sister Kira thrives in the environment. Kori strives for the stars above, but feels trapped in her Summer job and her body, especially after her Ehlers Danlos Syndrome (EDS) diagnosis. On this week's podcast, we chat with bestselling author Kami Garcia about Teen Titans: Starfire, how she found herself in the character, and why that allowed her to embrace her past and present self. Famously, Garcia began her writing career as a dare from her students, picking up the pen and proving to them (and herself) that she could tell a darn good story. We discuss the details of that dare, how her teaching life factors into her writing life, and why young adult fiction often becomes necessary all-ages fiction. Teen Titans: Starfire is now available wherever good comics are sold. You should follow Kami Garcia on Instagram, Bluesky, and her website. However, before we dive into our Teen Titans conversations, we discuss the impending holiday season and the gift-giving stress that comes with it. We believe wholeheartedly that there is a comic for everyone in your life, and the trick is figuring out what that comic is. In an effort to help you and us, we've assembled our annual Comic Book Holiday Gift Guide. We discuss our philosophy around comic book gift-giving and a few of our favorite items from the list. Other Relevant Links: The CBCC TeePublic Page The CBCC Comic Book Holiday Gift Guide Final Round of Plugs (PHEW): Support the Podcast by Joining OUR PATREON COMMUNITY And, of course, follow Comic Book Couples Counseling on Facebook, on Instagram, and on Bluesky @CBCCPodcast, and you can follow hosts Brad Gullickson @MouthDork & Lisa Gullickson @sidewalksiren. Send us your Words of Affirmation by leaving us a 5-star Review on Apple Podcasts. Continue your conversation with CBCC by hopping over to our website, where we have reviews, essays, and numerous interviews with comic book creators. Podcast logo by Jesse Lonergan and Hassan Otsmane-Elhaou.

Money B is a rapper and member of Digital Underground and Raw Fusion. Moving from Philadelphia to Oakland, his childhood was shaped by his father's membership in the Black Panther Party. Once he met Digital Underground founder Shock G, Money B became an integral part of the group and their first hit "Doowhatchyalike." Famously, DU would introduce the world to 2pac as a member and Money B played a large role in his debut album. The DU family tree also includes Saafir (RIP), Mystic, 4rax of the Mekanix, and many others. -- For promo opportunities on the podcast, e-mail: info@historyofthebay.com -- History of the Bay Spotify Playlist: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/3ZUM4rCv6xfNbvB4r8TVWU?si=9218659b5f4b43aa Online Store: https://dregsone.myshopify.com Follow Dregs One: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/1UNuCcJlRb8ImMc5haZHXF?si=poJT0BYUS-qCfpEzAX7mlA Instagram: https://instagram.com/dregs_one TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@dregs_one Twitter: https://twitter.com/dregs_one Facebook: https://facebook.com/dregsone415 00:00 Introdution 01:24 “Freaks of the Industry” 03:55 New single with Guapdad 4000 06:03 Growing up in Philly & Oakland 09:07 Money B's father in the Black Panthers 14:20 Getting into hip-hop 23:30 Shock G starting Digital Underground 28:18 Shock G came to Oakland while pimpin' 31:21 Money B & DJ Fuze join the group 33:29 “Doowutchyalike”, Tommy Boy records 41:41 Different styles of hip-hop 48:04 “The Humpty Dance” 50:39 Shock G & Mac Dre 55:30 “We're All In The Same Gang” 58:52 2pac joins Digital Underground 1:04:54 2pacalypse Now, “Brenda's Got A Baby” 1:09:50 2pac's roots in Oakland 1:15:19 “I Get Around” 1:17:36 2pac going to Death Row 1:28:49 Saafir 1:39:22 Digital Underground's last album 1:44:38 Young Hump 1:54:40 Shock G's passing --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/historyofthebay/support

Paris may no longer be home to medieval fortification walls, but that doesn't stop locals talking about Paris intra and extra muros. The wall, in this case, is the périphérique ring road, which has long been a stopper between the city and its suburbs. But a great plan for expanding Paris – and its métro system – outside of these walls into le grand Paris is changing lives, and the very culture of Paris. To explore how and why, Emily is joined by Simon Kuper, a Financial Times journalist and author of Impossible City. https://bookshop.org/p/books/impossible-city-paris-in-the-twenty-first-century-simon-kuper/20664638 Join us on Patreon: patreon.com/parisundergroundradio Find Us OnlineWebsite: https://www.parisundergroundradio.com/navigatingthefrenchFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/parisundergroundradioInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/parisundergroundradio/Credits Host: Emily Monaco. @Emily_in_France; Website: http://www.tomatokumato.com and http://www.emilymmonaco.comProducer: Jennifer Geraghty. @jennyphoria; Website: http://jennyphoria.comMusic Credits Édith Piaf - La Vie en Rose (DeliFB Lofi Remix) 

Today on the podcast we are joined by Alistair Brownlee, Double Olympic Triathlon Champion - to talk about his incredible career and the extreme mental discipline that got him to the very top of athletics. It's his first in depth interview since he announced his retirement.Alistair Brownlee is the only athlete in history to hold two Olympic titles in the individual triathlon event, having won gold medals in both the 2012 and the 2016 Olympic Games. He is also a four-time World Champion in triathlon.Famously, his younger brother Jonny Brownlee is also a decorated triathlete. The Brownlee brothers were considered the dominant male Olympic distance triathletes of the 2010s - often competing together. In 2016, Alistair famously spotted his brother suffering from exhaustion and pushed him across the line in the final stretch of the race that he had been leading. Alistair Brownlee is widely regarded as one of the greatest male athletes ever to have lived. Today Alistair is building a new chapter to his career focused on a range of new ventures, building on his on decades of experience working in sports. We are also very lucky to count Alistair as an investor in Giant's funds.In this conversation, we talk about why relying on willpower is a recipe for failure, what you can learn from elite athletes, nature vs nurture for excellence, and the characteristics that define Olympic champions and top founders.

The word "peasant" in English may bring to mind blouses, skirts, or Monty Python sketches, but paysan culture is alive and well, as author Sophie Duncan is here to explore.https://www.amazon.fr/Beyond-Paris-insiders-guide-France/dp/1910779032 https://chateausurvivor.medium.com/ Additional thoughts from Sophie: "Gabrielle Chevalier's novel Clochemerle, published in 1934 is a good snapshot of the values and divisions of small country village life then. It was a spoof and made fun of the village rivalries and pretensions. Those types definitely still exist today. A great deal more light hearted than Jean de Florette.  The school teacher, liberal. The ex retired military type tends to be more conservative, siding with the priest and his posse. The village priest has all but disappeared from our village life altogether now. In the Aude, a single priest will be responsible for 10 or more parishes, visiting only when invited for funerals and baptisms. The local struggle to control the water still goes on.Having been involved in renovating the Chateau, something I noticed change was on an aesthetic level of taste. The paysan life, idealised as far back as Mariantoinette, valued hand crafted items produced skillfully and at no cost, artisanal,l natural gathered from woodland and field.  An escape from modern excess. It values a sense of simplicity, a commitment to minimal waste, and a homely, handcrafted aesthetic. Even high-powered professionals find themselves longing for the uncomplicated quality of paysan life.Nowadays land gets sold and farmers need a loan, and a concrete bungalow pays the tractor loan and makes more sense than cultivating  firewood or selling mushrooms at the market. My favourite villager one assorted me that back where I came from the ‘paysans' there would also know the power of the phases of the moon in all matters. If he were alive now I think he would be amazed by how lunar cycles have been jetisoned.Even though that type of country life is still way more robust than it is in England the aesthetic has changed too.For example in our village there was a grove of wild pomegranates, a rare strain that ripened these wonders until christmas. People would come from far and wide to the village to admire them, and the view.  A mayor came to power, not from the village who had them bulldozed, then got a grant to build a wall in the Toulouse Hospital car park aesthetic. Although hearts bled there is a reflex that getting a grant for anything is a wonderful thing. But maybe that is more of a continuation of the way things are going. The impression believing they can have something for nothing is defin timely an achilles heel. Another mayor in another village is busily bringing back the fruit trees. Overall though the shift to the uniform, predictable and lower skilled way of life.Not so long ago locals once set on a career could stick to it to the end but now the jobs end and they wish to learn something new they need to leave the countryside. The real paysan sensibility and skills are more and more a rarity and knowing the rules of grants and loans is more important than the phases of the moon and the wisdom of good husbandry"Join us on Patreon: patreon.com/parisundergroundradio Find Us OnlineWebsite: https://www.parisundergroundradio.com/navigatingthefrenchFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/parisundergroundradioInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/parisundergroundradio/Credits Host: Emily Monaco. @Emily_in_France; Website: http://www.tomatokumato.com and http://www.emilymmonaco.comProducer: Jennifer Geraghty. @jennyphoria; Website: http://jennyphoria.comMusic Credits Édith Piaf - La Vie en Rose (DeliFB Lofi Remix) 

Welcome to Episode #10 of the 4ever in Electric Dreams & CONFESSIONS OF A CURLY MIND co-production - Supple & Lean | A Geekcast. Presented by Imran Mirza from London, UK, and Vahé Vishapakagh Koshayan from Melbourne, Australia, the duo delve into the cult phenomenon of 'The Room' (2003). Directed, written, produced and starring the enigmatic Tommy Wiseau, 'The Room' has since gone on to live in an unprecedented level of infamy - initially hailed as one of the worst films ever made, it's unmatched level of storytelling, disjointed narrative and poorly-received performances and dialogue have incredibly secured a loyal and devoted following making something of a sensation of the film's creator in the process. Famously immortalised by James Franco and company in the massively popular and award-winning 'The Disaster Artist' (2017), the film continues to find new audiences more than twenty years after its initial release. With Vahé a long time fan of the film and Imran just recently having seen it, tune in for a great conversation discussing the film's lore and legacy as well some standout scenes. We're also very excited about the show's original music in support of the conversation so please listen out for another Supple & Lean original - 'Tommy's In Control (The Room)' featuring Denny Dennington III. www.4everinelectricdreams.com/ Emanating from London, UK, the 4ever in Electric Dreams website and podcast network is designed to help us celebrate the things we loved growing up and the things that continue to excite and inspire us today. With podcast episodes of the Close Encounters Minicast, 90s State of Mind and Supple & Lean, there's lots of reasons to visit us again and again, and to join us in our ongoing celebration of the things we can't leave behind.

American enthusiasm makes the French roll their eyes, but the French aren't exactly as pessimistic as they may seem. To get to the bottom of this cultural misunderstanding, Emily is joined by Véronique Savoye, a jack-of-all-trades who's made France her career, to help navigate râler. https://francewithvero.com/https://francewithvero.substack.com Join us on Patreon: patreon.com/parisundergroundradio Find Us OnlineWebsite: https://www.parisundergroundradio.com/navigatingthefrenchFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/parisundergroundradioInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/parisundergroundradio/Credits Host: Emily Monaco. @Emily_in_France; Website: http://www.tomatokumato.com and http://www.emilymmonaco.comProducer: Jennifer Geraghty. @jennyphoria; Website: http://jennyphoria.comMusic Credits Édith Piaf - La Vie en Rose (DeliFB Lofi Remix) 

Parisians go about the daily grind just like any other urban denizens. In Paris specifically, the expression metro-boulot-dodo – metro, work, sleep – is used to evoke the somewhat mind-numbing nature of that day-to-day. Author Andrew Martin's Metropolitain: An Ode to the Paris Metro delves into the reality of Paris' métropolitan, from its beginnings as an echo of London's Underground to a social and aesthetic touchstone of the City of Light. Join us on Patreon: patreon.com/parisundergroundradio Find Us OnlineWebsite: https://www.parisundergroundradio.com/navigatingthefrenchFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/parisundergroundradioInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/parisundergroundradio/Credits Host: Emily Monaco. @Emily_in_France; Website: http://www.tomatokumato.com and http://www.emilymmonaco.comProducer: Jennifer Geraghty. @jennyphoria; Website: http://jennyphoria.comMusic Credits Édith Piaf - La Vie en Rose (DeliFB Lofi Remix) 

Famously throughout his life and career, Congressman and activist John Lewis preached getting into, as he called it, "good trouble." When Lewis died on July 17, 2020 at the age of 80, America lost a titan of the Civil Rights movement. A leader of SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, a speaker at the March on Washington in 1963, and one of the many activists who were brutally beaten at the infamous march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma in 1965, Lewis was a hero to many for his dedication to fighting for the rights of Black people always within the framework of non-violence. For the latest installment of our Full Bio series, we spoke with David Greenberg, author of the new biography, John Lewis: A Life. Greenberg interviewed Lewis as well as 250 people who knew him or worked with him, including former President Obama. Here you can listen to all three parts of our conversation:John Lewis, Part 1: The early years of John Lewis, from a childhood in rural Alabama, to becoming the first member of his family to go to college, to his entrance as a student into the fight for civil rights.John Lewis, Part 2: How John Lewis became involved in SNCC, and the drama that led up to his famous speech at the March on Washington.John Lewis, Part 3: John Lewis enters politics in Atlanta and Congress, and his reputation as a politician and legislator.

One of our co-hosts, Scott, was recently featured on the Tube documentary, Famously Haunted Hollywood. We go over the stories featured in the documentary: The Black Dahlia, The Manson Murders, Comedy Store, Peg Entwhistle, The Cecil Hotel.

When we describe something as exceptional in English, we're alluding to the way it stands out in a positive way. But in French, the opposite is often true, as journalist and writer Hannah Meltzer is here to explore as we navigate exceptionnellement. Join us on Patreon: patreon.com/parisundergroundradio Find Us OnlineWebsite: https://www.parisundergroundradio.com/navigatingthefrenchFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/parisundergroundradioInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/parisundergroundradio/Credits Host: Emily Monaco. @Emily_in_France; Website: http://www.tomatokumato.com and http://www.emilymmonaco.comProducer: Jennifer Geraghty. @jennyphoria; Website: http://jennyphoria.comMusic Credits Édith Piaf - La Vie en Rose (DeliFB Lofi Remix) 

I read from famously to fancify.     The word of the episode is "fan boy".     Use my special link https://zen.ai/thedictionary to save 30% off your first month of any Zencastr paid plan.    Create your podcast today! #madeonzencastr     Theme music from Tom Maslowski https://zestysol.com/     Merchandising! https://www.teepublic.com/user/spejampar     "The Dictionary - Letter A" on YouTube   "The Dictionary - Letter B" on YouTube   "The Dictionary - Letter C" on YouTube   "The Dictionary - Letter D" on YouTube   "The Dictionary - Letter E" on YouTube   "The Dictionary - Letter F" on YouTube     Featured in a Top 10 Dictionary Podcasts list! https://blog.feedspot.com/dictionary_podcasts/     Backwards Talking on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmIujMwEDbgZUexyR90jaTEEVmAYcCzuq     https://linktr.ee/spejampar dictionarypod@gmail.com https://www.facebook.com/thedictionarypod/ https://www.threads.net/@dictionarypod https://twitter.com/dictionarypod https://www.instagram.com/dictionarypod/ https://www.patreon.com/spejampar https://www.tiktok.com/@spejampar 917-727-5757

Maternity in English is most closely associated with pregnancy jeans, but here in France, maternité encapsulates not just where you give birth, but the entirety of motherhood. Here to delve into this and other cultural nuances of being a mom is journalist and American expat Caitlin Gunther. Join us on Patreon: patreon.com/parisundergroundradio Find Us OnlineWebsite: https://www.parisundergroundradio.com/navigatingthefrenchFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/parisundergroundradioInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/parisundergroundradio/Credits Host: Emily Monaco. @Emily_in_France; Website: http://www.tomatokumato.com and http://www.emilymmonaco.comProducer: Jennifer Geraghty. @jennyphoria; Website: http://jennyphoria.com Music Credits Édith Piaf - La Vie en Rose (DeliFB Lofi Remix) 

When Hemingway called Paris a fête, he wasn't saying it was a party. Instead, he was evoking something far deeper – an essential element of the city that has long captivated many drawn to the French capital. To delve into what exactly that elusive thing is, Emily is joined by Samuél Lopez-Barrantes, an American writer, musician, and tour guide in Paris. Join us on Patreon: patreon.com/parisundergroundradio Find Us OnlineWebsite: https://www.parisundergroundradio.com/navigatingthefrenchFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/parisundergroundradioInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/parisundergroundradio/Credits Host: Emily Monaco. @Emily_in_France; Website: http://www.tomatokumato.com and http://www.emilymmonaco.com Producer: Jennifer Geraghty. @jennyphoria; Website: http://jennyphoria.comMusic Credits Édith Piaf - La Vie en Rose (DeliFB Lofi Remix) 

Inherit the Wind is a play written in 1955 about an actual trial which challenged teaching Darwinism in schools. Famously known as the “Scopes Monkey Trial,” (the defendant was John T. Scopes who was on trial for teaching Darwinism in school), the message of the play is as vibrant and important today as it was nearly […]

There are as many cooks as there are recipes for salade niçoise – and very few of them contain potatoes. This is just one of many paradoxes Emily is exploring with Rosa Jackson, the owner of Les Petits Farçis cooking school in Nice, as they navigate niçoise.https://www.petitsfarcis.comhttps://bookshop.org/p/books/nicoise-market-inspired-cooking-from-france-s-sunniest-city-rosa-jackson/20074543?ean=9781324021162 Join us on Patreon: patreon.com/parisundergroundradio Find Us OnlineWebsite: https://www.parisundergroundradio.com/navigatingthefrenchFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/parisundergroundradioInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/parisundergroundradio/Credits Host: Emily Monaco. @Emily_in_France; Website: http://www.tomatokumato.com and http://www.emilymmonaco.comProducer: Jennifer Geraghty. @jennyphoria; Website: http://jennyphoria.comMusic Credits Édith Piaf - La Vie en Rose (DeliFB Lofi Remix) 

Originally published over 100 years ago, at a time when mystery and the unknown intermingled with the metaphysical, this ghost story brings us into a boarding house in New York City. Famously afflicted with occult wonders, this house hides secret terrors that may or may not be seen... ....#sleep #wikisleep #sleepstories #ghoststory #ghost #mystery #mentalhealth  By becoming a WikiSleep member, you're investing in your own ad-free sleep health—and sleep health is mental health. Thank you for being a supporter. https://plus.acast.com/s/wikisleep. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When you talk about your memories in French, you evoke your souvenirs. So what does mémoire mean? Memoirist Scott Carpenter is here to help us navigate this strange discrepancy between two false friends.https://bookshop.org/p/books/paris-lost-and-found-a-memoir-of-love-scott-dominic-carpenter/21040045 Join us on Patreon: patreon.com/parisundergroundradio Find Us OnlineWebsite: https://www.parisundergroundradio.com/navigatingthefrenchFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/parisundergroundradioInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/parisundergroundradio/Credits Host: Emily Monaco. @Emily_in_France; Website: http://www.tomatokumato.com and http://www.emilymmonaco.com Producer: Jennifer Geraghty. @jennyphoria; Website: http://jennyphoria.comMusic Credits Édith Piaf - La Vie en Rose (DeliFB Lofi Remix) 

We all have fond memories of the first Dev Day in 2023:and the blip that followed soon after. As Ben Thompson has noted, this year's DevDay took a quieter, more intimate tone. No Satya, no livestream, (slightly fewer people?). Instead of putting ChatGPT announcements in DevDay as in 2023, o1 was announced 2 weeks prior, and DevDay 2024 was reserved purely for developer-facing API announcements, primarily the Realtime API, Vision Finetuning, Prompt Caching, and Model Distillation.However the larger venue and more spread out schedule did allow a lot more hallway conversations with attendees as well as more community presentations including our recent guest Alistair Pullen of Cosine as well as deeper dives from OpenAI including our recent guest Michelle Pokrass of the API Team. Thanks to OpenAI's warm collaboration (we particularly want to thank Lindsay McCallum Rémy!), we managed to record exclusive interviews with many of the main presenters of both the keynotes and breakout sessions. We present them in full in today's episode, together with a full lightly edited Q&A with Sam Altman.Show notes and related resourcesSome of these used in the final audio episode below* Simon Willison Live Blog* swyx live tweets and videos* Greg Kamradt coverage of Structured Output session, Scaling LLM Apps session* Fireside Chat Q&A with Sam AltmanTimestamps* [00:00:00] Intro by Suno.ai* [00:01:23] NotebookLM Recap of DevDay* [00:09:25] Ilan's Strawberry Demo with Realtime Voice Function Calling* [00:19:16] Olivier Godement, Head of Product, OpenAI* [00:36:57] Romain Huet, Head of DX, OpenAI* [00:47:08] Michelle Pokrass, API Tech Lead at OpenAI ft. Simon Willison* [01:04:45] Alistair Pullen, CEO, Cosine (Genie)* [01:18:31] Sam Altman + Kevin Weill Q&A* [02:03:07] Notebook LM Recap of PodcastTranscript[00:00:00] Suno AI: Under dev daylights, code ignites. Real time voice streams reach new heights. O1 and GPT, 4. 0 in flight. Fine tune the future, data in sight. Schema sync up, outputs precise. Distill the models, efficiency splice.[00:00:33] AI Charlie: Happy October. This is your AI co host, Charlie. One of our longest standing traditions is covering major AI and ML conferences in podcast format. Delving, yes delving, into the vibes of what it is like to be there stitched in with short samples of conversations with key players, just to help you feel like you were there.[00:00:54] AI Charlie: Covering this year's Dev Day was significantly more challenging because we were all requested not to record the opening keynotes. So, in place of the opening keynotes, we had the viral notebook LM Deep Dive crew, my new AI podcast nemesis, Give you a seven minute recap of everything that was announced.[00:01:15] AI Charlie: Of course, you can also check the show notes for details. I'll then come back with an explainer of all the interviews we have for you today. Watch out and take care.[00:01:23] NotebookLM Recap of DevDay[00:01:23] NotebookLM: All right, so we've got a pretty hefty stack of articles and blog posts here all about open ais. Dev day 2024.[00:01:32] NotebookLM 2: Yeah, lots to dig into there.[00:01:34] NotebookLM 2: Seems[00:01:34] NotebookLM: like you're really interested in what's new with AI.[00:01:36] NotebookLM 2: Definitely. And it seems like OpenAI had a lot to announce. New tools, changes to the company. It's a lot.[00:01:43] NotebookLM: It is. And especially since you're interested in how AI can be used in the real world, you know, practical applications, we'll focus on that.[00:01:51] NotebookLM: Perfect. Like, for example, this Real time API, they announced that, right? That seems like a big deal if we want AI to sound, well, less like a robot.[00:01:59] NotebookLM 2: It could be huge. The real time API could completely change how we, like, interact with AI. Like, imagine if your voice assistant could actually handle it if you interrupted it.[00:02:08] NotebookLM: Or, like, have an actual conversation.[00:02:10] NotebookLM 2: Right, not just these clunky back and forth things we're used to.[00:02:14] NotebookLM: And they actually showed it off, didn't they? I read something about a travel app, one for languages. Even one where the AI ordered takeout.[00:02:21] NotebookLM 2: Those demos were really interesting, and I think they show how this real time API can be used in so many ways.[00:02:28] NotebookLM 2: And the tech behind it is fascinating, by the way. It uses persistent WebSocket connections and this thing called function calling, so it can respond in real time.[00:02:38] NotebookLM: So the function calling thing, that sounds kind of complicated. Can you, like, explain how that works?[00:02:42] NotebookLM 2: So imagine giving the AI Access to this whole toolbox, right?[00:02:46] NotebookLM 2: Information, capabilities, all sorts of things. Okay. So take the travel agent demo, for example. With function calling, the AI can pull up details, let's say about Fort Mason, right, from some database. Like nearby restaurants, stuff like that.[00:02:59] NotebookLM: Ah, I get it. So instead of being limited to what it already knows, It can go and find the information it needs, like a human travel agent would.[00:03:07] NotebookLM 2: Precisely. And someone on Hacker News pointed out a cool detail. The API actually gives you a text version of what's being said. So you can store that, analyze it.[00:03:17] NotebookLM: That's smart. It seems like OpenAI put a lot of thought into making this API easy for developers to use. But, while we're on OpenAI, you know, Besides their tech, there's been some news about, like, internal changes, too.[00:03:30] NotebookLM: Didn't they say they're moving away from being a non profit?[00:03:32] NotebookLM 2: They did. And it's got everyone talking. It's a major shift. And it's only natural for people to wonder how that'll change things for OpenAI in the future. I mean, there are definitely some valid questions about this move to for profit. Like, will they have more money for research now?[00:03:46] NotebookLM 2: Probably. But will they, you know, care as much about making sure AI benefits everyone?[00:03:51] NotebookLM: Yeah, that's the big question, especially with all the, like, the leadership changes happening at OpenAI too, right? I read that their Chief Research Officer left, and their VP of Research, and even their CTO.[00:04:03] NotebookLM 2: It's true. A lot of people are connecting those departures with the changes in OpenAI's structure.[00:04:08] NotebookLM: And I guess it makes you wonder what's going on behind the scenes. But they are still putting out new stuff. Like this whole fine tuning thing really caught my eye.[00:04:17] NotebookLM 2: Right, fine tuning. It's essentially taking a pre trained AI model. And, like, customizing it.[00:04:23] NotebookLM: So instead of a general AI, you get one that's tailored for a specific job.[00:04:27] NotebookLM 2: Exactly. And that opens up so many possibilities, especially for businesses. Imagine you could train an AI on your company's data, you know, like how you communicate your brand guidelines.[00:04:37] NotebookLM: So it's like having an AI that's specifically trained for your company?[00:04:41] NotebookLM 2: That's the idea.[00:04:41] NotebookLM: And they're doing it with images now, too, right?[00:04:44] NotebookLM: Fine tuning with vision is what they called it.[00:04:46] NotebookLM 2: It's pretty incredible what they're doing with that, especially in fields like medicine.[00:04:50] NotebookLM: Like using AI to help doctors make diagnoses.[00:04:52] NotebookLM 2: Exactly. And AI could be trained on thousands of medical images, right? And then it could potentially spot things that even a trained doctor might miss.[00:05:03] NotebookLM: That's kind of scary, to be honest. What if it gets it wrong?[00:05:06] NotebookLM 2: Well, the idea isn't to replace doctors, but to give them another tool, you know, help them make better decisions.[00:05:12] NotebookLM: Okay, that makes sense. But training these AI models must be really expensive.[00:05:17] NotebookLM 2: It can be. All those tokens add up. But OpenAI announced something called automatic prompt caching.[00:05:23] Alex Volkov: Automatic what now? I don't think I came across that.[00:05:26] NotebookLM 2: So basically, if your AI sees a prompt that it's already seen before, OpenAI will give you a discount.[00:05:31] NotebookLM: Huh. Like a frequent buyer program for AI.[00:05:35] NotebookLM 2: Kind of, yeah. It's good that they're trying to make it more affordable. And they're also doing something called model distillation.[00:05:41] NotebookLM: Okay, now you're just using big words to sound smart. What's that?[00:05:45] NotebookLM 2: Think of it like like a recipe, right? You can take a really complex recipe and break it down to the essential parts.[00:05:50] NotebookLM: Make it simpler, but it still tastes the same.[00:05:53] NotebookLM 2: Yeah. And that's what model distillation is. You take a big, powerful AI model and create a smaller, more efficient version.[00:06:00] NotebookLM: So it's like lighter weight, but still just as capable.[00:06:03] NotebookLM 2: Exactly. And that means more people can actually use these powerful tools. They don't need, like, a supercomputer to run them.[00:06:10] NotebookLM: So they're making AI more accessible. That's great.[00:06:13] NotebookLM 2: It is. And speaking of powerful tools, they also talked about their new O1 model.[00:06:18] NotebookLM 2: That's the one they've been hyping up. The one that's supposed to be this big leap forward.[00:06:22] NotebookLM: Yeah, O1. It sounds pretty futuristic. Like, from what I read, it's not just a bigger, better language model.[00:06:28] NotebookLM 2: Right. It's a different porch.[00:06:29] NotebookLM: They're saying it can, like, actually reason, right? Think.[00:06:33] NotebookLM 2: It's trained differently.[00:06:34] NotebookLM 2: They used reinforcement learning with O1.[00:06:36] NotebookLM: So it's not just finding patterns in the data it's seen before.[00:06:40] NotebookLM 2: Not just that. It can actually learn from its mistakes. Get better at solving problems.[00:06:46] NotebookLM: So give me an example. What can O1 do that, say, GPT 4 can't?[00:06:51] NotebookLM 2: Well, OpenAI showed it doing some pretty impressive stuff with math, like advanced math.[00:06:56] NotebookLM 2: And coding, too. Complex coding. Things that even GPT 4 struggled with.[00:07:00] NotebookLM: So you're saying if I needed to, like, write a screenplay, I'd stick with GPT 4? But if I wanted to solve some crazy physics problem, O1 is what I'd use.[00:07:08] NotebookLM 2: Something like that, yeah. Although there is a trade off. O1 takes a lot more power to run, and it takes longer to get those impressive results.[00:07:17] NotebookLM: Hmm, makes sense. More power, more time, higher quality.[00:07:21] NotebookLM 2: Exactly.[00:07:22] NotebookLM: It sounds like it's still in development, though, right? Is there anything else they're planning to add to it?[00:07:26] NotebookLM 2: Oh, yeah. They mentioned system prompts, which will let developers, like, set some ground rules for how it behaves. And they're working on adding structured outputs and function calling.[00:07:38] Alex Volkov: Wait, structured outputs? Didn't we just talk about that? We[00:07:41] NotebookLM 2: did. That's the thing where the AI's output is formatted in a way that's easy to use.[00:07:47] NotebookLM: Right, right. So you don't have to spend all day trying to make sense of what it gives you. It's good that they're thinking about that stuff.[00:07:53] NotebookLM 2: It's about making these tools usable.[00:07:56] NotebookLM 2: And speaking of that, Dev Day finished up with this really interesting talk. Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, And Kevin Weil, their new chief product officer. They talked about, like, the big picture for AI.[00:08:09] NotebookLM: Yeah, they did, didn't they? Anything interesting come up?[00:08:12] NotebookLM 2: Well, Altman talked about moving past this whole AGI term, Artificial General Intelligence.[00:08:18] NotebookLM: I can see why. It's kind of a loaded term, isn't it?[00:08:20] NotebookLM 2: He thinks it's become a bit of a buzzword, and people don't really understand what it means.[00:08:24] NotebookLM: So are they saying they're not trying to build AGI anymore?[00:08:28] NotebookLM 2: It's more like they're saying they're focused on just Making AI better, constantly improving it, not worrying about putting it in a box.[00:08:36] NotebookLM: That makes sense. Keep pushing the limits.[00:08:38] NotebookLM 2: Exactly. But they were also very clear about doing it responsibly. They talked a lot about safety and ethics.[00:08:43] NotebookLM: Yeah, that's important.[00:08:44] NotebookLM 2: They said they were going to be very careful. About how they release new features.[00:08:48] NotebookLM: Good! Because this stuff is powerful.[00:08:51] NotebookLM 2: It is. It was a lot to take in, this whole Dev Day event.[00:08:54] NotebookLM 2: New tools, big changes at OpenAI, and these big questions about the future of AI.[00:08:59] NotebookLM: It was. But hopefully this deep dive helped make sense of some of it. At least, that's what we try to do here.[00:09:05] AI Charlie: Absolutely.[00:09:06] NotebookLM: Thanks for taking the deep dive with us.[00:09:08] AI Charlie: The biggest demo of the new Realtime API involved function calling with voice mode and buying chocolate covered strawberries from our friendly local OpenAI developer experience engineer and strawberry shop owner, Ilan Biggio.[00:09:21] AI Charlie: We'll first play you the audio of his demo and then go into a little interview with him.[00:09:25] Ilan's Strawberry Demo with Realtime Voice Function Calling[00:09:25] Romain Huet: Could you place a call and see if you could get us 400 strawberries delivered to the venue? But please keep that under 1500. I'm on it. We'll get those strawberries delivered for you.[00:09:47] Ilan: Hello? Hi there. Is this Ilan? I'm Romain's AI assistant. How is it going? Fantastic. Can you tell me what flavors of strawberry dips you have for me? Yeah, we have chocolate, vanilla, and we have peanut butter. Wait, how much would 400 chocolate covered strawberries cost? 400? Are you sure you want 400? Yes, 400 chocolate covered[00:10:14] swyx: strawberries.[00:10:15] Ilan: Wait,[00:10:16] swyx: how much[00:10:16] Ilan: would that be? I think that'll be around, like, 1, 415. 92.[00:10:25] Alex Volkov: Awesome. Let's go ahead and place the order for four chocolate covered strawberries.[00:10:31] Ilan: Great, where would you like that delivered? Please deliver them to the Gateway Pavilion at Fort Mason. And I'll be paying in cash.[00:10:42] Alex Volkov: Okay,[00:10:43] Ilan: sweet. So just to confirm, you want four strawberries?[00:10:45] Ilan: 400 chocolate covered strawberries to the Gateway Pavilion. Yes, that's perfect. And when can we expect delivery? Well, you guys are right nearby, so it'll be like, I don't know, 37 seconds? That's incredibly fast. Cool, you too.[00:11:09] swyx: Hi, Ilan, welcome to Lanespace. Oh, thank you. I just saw your amazing demos, had your amazing strawberries. You are dressed up, like, exactly like a strawberry salesman. Gotta have it all. What was the building on demo like? What was the story behind the demo?[00:11:22] swyx: It was really interesting. This is actually something I had been thinking about for months before the launch.[00:11:27] swyx: Like, having a, like, AI that can make phone calls is something like I've personally wanted for a long time. And so as soon as we launched internally, like, I started hacking on it. And then that sort of just started. We made it into like an internal demo, and then people found it really interesting, and then we thought how cool would it be to have this like on stage as, as one of the demos.[00:11:47] swyx: Yeah, would would you call out any technical issues building, like you were basically one of the first people ever to build with a voice mode API. Would you call out any issues like integrating it with Twilio like that, like you did with function calling, with like a form filling elements. I noticed that you had like intents of things to fulfill, and then.[00:12:07] swyx: When there's still missing info, the voice would prompt you, roleplaying the store guy.[00:12:13] swyx: Yeah, yeah, so, I think technically, there's like the whole, just working with audio and streams is a whole different beast. Like, even separate from like AI and this, this like, new capabilities, it's just, it's just tough.[00:12:26] swyx: Yeah, when you have a prompt, conversationally it'll just follow, like the, it was, Instead of like, kind of step by step to like ask the right questions based on like the like what the request was, right? The function calling itself is sort of tangential to that. Like, you have to prompt it to call the functions, but then handling it isn't too much different from, like, what you would do with assistant streaming or, like, chat completion streaming.[00:12:47] swyx: I think, like, the API feels very similar just to, like, if everything in the API was streaming, it actually feels quite familiar to that.[00:12:53] swyx: And then, function calling wise, I mean, does it work the same? I don't know. Like, I saw a lot of logs. You guys showed, like, in the playground, a lot of logs. What is in there?[00:13:03] swyx: What should people know?[00:13:04] swyx: Yeah, I mean, it is, like, the events may have different names than the streaming events that we have in chat completions, but they represent very similar things. It's things like, you know, function call started, argument started, it's like, here's like argument deltas, and then like function call done.[00:13:20] swyx: Conveniently we send one that has the full function, and then I just use that. Nice.[00:13:25] swyx: Yeah and then, like, what restrictions do, should people be aware of? Like, you know, I think, I think, before we recorded, we discussed a little bit about the sensitivities around basically calling random store owners and putting, putting like an AI on them.[00:13:40] swyx: Yeah, so there's, I think there's recent regulation on that, which is why we want to be like very, I guess, aware of, of You know, you can't just call anybody with AI, right? That's like just robocalling. You wouldn't want someone just calling you with AI.[00:13:54] swyx: I'm a developer, I'm about to do this on random people.[00:13:57] swyx: What laws am I about to break?[00:14:00] swyx: I forget what the governing body is, but you should, I think, Having consent of the person you're about to call, it always works. I, as the strawberry owner, have consented to like getting called with AI. I think past that you, you want to be careful. Definitely individuals are more sensitive than businesses.[00:14:19] swyx: I think businesses you have a little bit more leeway. Also, they're like, businesses I think have an incentive to want to receive AI phone calls. Especially if like, they're dealing with it. It's doing business. Right, like, it's more business. It's kind of like getting on a booking platform, right, you're exposed to more.[00:14:33] swyx: But, I think it's still very much like a gray area. Again, so. I think everybody should, you know, tread carefully, like, figure out what it is. I, I, I, the law is so recent, I didn't have enough time to, like, I'm also not a lawyer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, of course. Yeah.[00:14:49] swyx: Okay, cool fair enough. One other thing, this is kind of agentic.[00:14:52] swyx: Did you use a state machine at all? Did you use any framework? No. You just stick it in context and then just run it in a loop until it ends call?[00:15:01] swyx: Yeah, there isn't even a loop, like Okay. Because the API is just based on sessions. It's always just going to keep going. Every time you speak, it'll trigger a call.[00:15:11] swyx: And then after every function call was also invoked invoking like a generation. And so that is another difference here. It's like it's inherently almost like in a loop, be just by being in a session, right? No state machines needed. I'd say this is very similar to like, the notion of routines, where it's just like a list of steps.[00:15:29] swyx: And it, like, sticks to them softly, but usually pretty well. And the steps is the prompts? The steps, it's like the prompt, like the steps are in the prompt. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right, it's like step one, do this, step one, step two, do that. What if I want to change the system prompt halfway through the conversation?[00:15:44] swyx: You can. Okay. You can. To be honest, I have not played without two too much. Yeah,[00:15:47] swyx: yeah.[00:15:48] swyx: But, I know you can.[00:15:49] swyx: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Awesome. I noticed that you called it real time API, but not voice API. Mm hmm. So I assume that it's like real time API starting with voice. Right, I think that's what he said on the thing.[00:16:00] swyx: I can't imagine, like, what else is real[00:16:02] swyx: time? Well, I guess, to use ChatGPT's voice mode as an example, Like, we've demoed the video, right? Like, real time image, right? So, I'm not actually sure what timelines are, But I would expect, if I had to guess, That, like, that is probably the next thing that we're gonna be making.[00:16:17] swyx: You'd probably have to talk directly with the team building this. Sure. But, You can't promise their timelines. Yeah, yeah, yeah, right, exactly. But, like, given that this is the features that currently, Or that exists that we've demoed on Chachapiti. Yeah. There[00:16:29] swyx: will never be a[00:16:29] swyx: case where there's like a real time text API, right?[00:16:31] swyx: I don't Well, this is a real time text API. You can do text only on this. Oh. Yeah. I don't know why you would. But it's actually So text to text here doesn't quite make a lot of sense. I don't think you'll get a lot of latency gain. But, like, speech to text is really interesting. Because you can prevent You can prevent responses, like audio responses.[00:16:54] swyx: And force function calls. And so you can do stuff like UI control. That is like super super reliable. We had a lot of like, you know, un, like, we weren't sure how well this was gonna work because it's like, you have a voice answering. It's like a whole persona, right? Like, that's a little bit more, you know, risky.[00:17:10] swyx: But if you, like, cut out the audio outputs and make it so it always has to output a function, like you can end up with pretty pretty good, like, Pretty reliable, like, command like a command architecture. Yeah,[00:17:21] swyx: actually, that's the way I want to interact with a lot of these things as well. Like, one sided voice.[00:17:26] swyx: Yeah, you don't necessarily want to hear the[00:17:27] swyx: voice back. And like, sometimes it's like, yeah, I think having an output voice is great. But I feel like I don't always want to hear an output voice. I'd say usually I don't. But yeah, exactly, being able to speak to it is super sweet.[00:17:39] swyx: Cool. Do you want to comment on any of the other stuff that you announced?[00:17:41] swyx: From caching I noticed was like, I like the no code change part. I'm looking forward to the docs because I'm sure there's a lot of details on like, what you cache, how long you cache. Cause like, enthalpy caches were like 5 minutes. I was like, okay, but what if I don't make a call every 5 minutes?[00:17:56] swyx: Yeah,[00:17:56] swyx: to be super honest with you, I've been so caught up with the real time API and making the demo that I haven't read up on the other stuff. Launches too much. I mean, I'm aware of them, but I think I'm excited to see how all distillation works. That's something that we've been doing like, I don't know, I've been like doing it between our models for a while And I've seen really good results like I've done back in a day like from GPT 4 to GPT 3.[00:18:19] swyx: 5 And got like, like pretty much the same level of like function calling with like hundreds of functions So that was super super compelling So, I feel like easier distillation, I'm really excited for. I see. Is it a tool?[00:18:31] swyx: So, I saw evals. Yeah. Like, what is the distillation product? It wasn't super clear, to be honest.[00:18:36] swyx: I, I think I want to, I want to let that team, I want to let that team talk about it. Okay,[00:18:40] swyx: alright. Well, I appreciate you jumping on. Yeah, of course. Amazing demo. It was beautifully designed. I'm sure that was part of you and Roman, and[00:18:47] swyx: Yeah, I guess, shout out to like, the first people to like, creators of Wanderlust, originally, were like, Simon and Carolis, and then like, I took it and built the voice component and the voice calling components.[00:18:59] swyx: Yeah, so it's been a big team effort. And like the entire PI team for like Debugging everything as it's been going on. It's been, it's been so good working with them. Yeah, you're the first consumers on the DX[00:19:07] swyx: team. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, the classic role of what we do there. Yeah. Okay, yeah, anything else? Any other call to action?[00:19:13] swyx: No, enjoy Dev Day. Thank you. Yeah. That's it.[00:19:16] Olivier Godement, Head of Product, OpenAI[00:19:16] AI Charlie: The latent space crew then talked to Olivier Godmont, head of product for the OpenAI platform, who led the entire Dev Day keynote and introduced all the major new features and updates that we talked about today.[00:19:28] swyx: Okay, so we are here with Olivier Godmont. That's right.[00:19:32] swyx: I don't pronounce French. That's fine. It was perfect. And it was amazing to see your keynote today. What was the back story of, of preparing something like this? Preparing, like, Dev Day? It[00:19:43] Olivier Godement: essentially came from a couple of places. Number one, excellent reception from last year's Dev Day.[00:19:48] Olivier Godement: Developers, startup founders, researchers want to spend more time with OpenAI, and we want to spend more time with them as well. And so for us, like, it was a no brainer, frankly, to do it again, like, you know, like a nice conference. The second thing is going global. We've done a few events like in Paris and like a few other like, you know, non European, non American countries.[00:20:05] Olivier Godement: And so this year we're doing SF, Singapore, and London. To frankly just meet more developers.[00:20:10] swyx: Yeah, I'm very excited for the Singapore one.[00:20:12] Olivier Godement: Ah,[00:20:12] swyx: yeah. Will you be[00:20:13] Olivier Godement: there?[00:20:14] swyx: I don't know. I don't know if I got an invite. No. I can't just talk to you. Yeah, like, and then there was some speculation around October 1st.[00:20:22] Olivier Godement: Yeah. Is it because[00:20:23] swyx: 01, October 1st? It[00:20:25] Olivier Godement: has nothing to do. I discovered the tweet yesterday where like, people are so creative. No one, there was no connection to October 1st. But in hindsight, that would have been a pretty good meme by Tiana. Okay.[00:20:37] swyx: Yeah, and you know, I think like, OpenAI's outreach to developers is something that I felt the whole in 2022, when like, you know, like, people were trying to build a chat GPT, and like, there was no function calling, all that stuff that you talked about in the past.[00:20:51] swyx: And that's why I started my own conference as like like, here's our little developer conference thing. And, but to see this OpenAI Dev Day now, and like to see so many developer oriented products coming to OpenAI, I think it's really encouraging.[00:21:02] Olivier Godement: Yeah, totally. It's that's what I said, essentially, like, developers are basically the people who make the best connection between the technology and, you know, the future, essentially.[00:21:14] Olivier Godement: Like, you know, essentially see a capability, see a low level, like, technology, and are like, hey, I see how that application or that use case that can be enabled. And so, in the direction of enabling, like, AGI, like, all of humanity, it's a no brainer for us, like, frankly, to partner with Devs.[00:21:31] Alessio: And most importantly, you almost never had waitlists, which, compared to like other releases, people usually, usually have.[00:21:38] Alessio: What is the, you know, you had from caching, you had real time voice API, we, you know, Shawn did a long Twitter thread, so people know the releases. Yeah. What is the thing that was like sneakily the hardest to actually get ready for, for that day, or like, what was the kind of like, you know, last 24 hours, anything that you didn't know was gonna work?[00:21:56] Olivier Godement: Yeah. The old Fairly, like, I would say, involved, like, features to ship. So the team has been working for a month, all of them. The one which I would say is the newest for OpenAI is the real time API. For a couple of reasons. I mean, one, you know, it's a new modality. Second, like, it's the first time that we have an actual, like, WebSocket based API.[00:22:16] Olivier Godement: And so, I would say that's the one that required, like, the most work over the month. To get right from a developer perspective and to also make sure that our existing safety mitigation that worked well with like real time audio in and audio out.[00:22:30] swyx: Yeah, what design choices or what was like the sort of design choices that you want to highlight?[00:22:35] swyx: Like, you know, like I think for me, like, WebSockets, you just receive a bunch of events. It's two way. I obviously don't have a ton of experience. I think a lot of developers are going to have to embrace this real time programming. Like, what are you designing for, or like, what advice would you have for developers exploring this?[00:22:51] Olivier Godement: The core design hypothesis was essentially, how do we enable, like, human level latency? We did a bunch of tests, like, on average, like, human beings, like, you know, takes, like, something like 300 milliseconds to converse with each other. And so that was the design principle, essentially. Like, working backward from that, and, you know, making the technology work.[00:23:11] Olivier Godement: And so we evaluated a few options, and WebSockets was the one that we landed on. So that was, like, one design choice. A few other, like, big design choices that we had to make prompt caching. Prompt caching, the design, like, target was automated from the get go. Like, zero code change from the developer.[00:23:27] Olivier Godement: That way you don't have to learn, like, what is a prompt prefix, and, you know, how long does a cache work, like, we just do it as much as we can, essentially. So that was a big design choice as well. And then finally, on distillation, like, and evaluation. The big design choice was something I learned at Skype, like in my previous job, like a philosophy around, like, a pit of success.[00:23:47] Olivier Godement: Like, what is essentially the, the, the minimum number of steps for the majority of developers to do the right thing? Because when you do evals on fat tuning, there are many, many ways, like, to mess it up, frankly, like, you know, and have, like, a crappy model, like, evals that tell, like, a wrong story. And so our whole design was, okay, we actually care about, like, helping people who don't have, like, that much experience, like, evaluating a model, like, get, like, in a few minutes, like, to a good spot.[00:24:11] Olivier Godement: And so how do we essentially enable that bit of success, like, in the product flow?[00:24:15] swyx: Yeah, yeah, I'm a little bit scared to fine tune especially for vision, because I don't know what I don't know for stuff like vision, right? Like, for text, I can evaluate pretty easily. For vision let's say I'm like trying to, one of your examples was grab.[00:24:33] swyx: Which, very close to home, I'm from Singapore. I think your example was like, they identified stop signs better. Why is that hard? Why do I have to fine tune that? If I fine tune that, do I lose other things? You know, like, there's a lot of unknowns with Vision that I think developers have to figure out.[00:24:50] swyx: For[00:24:50] Olivier Godement: sure. Vision is going to open up, like, a new, I would say, evaluation space. Because you're right, like, it's harder, like, you know, to tell correct from incorrect, essentially, with images. What I can say is we've been alpha testing, like, the Vision fine tuning, like, for several weeks at that point. We are seeing, like, even higher performance uplift compared to text fine tuning.[00:25:10] Olivier Godement: So that's, there is something here, like, we've been pretty impressed, like, in a good way, frankly. But, you know, how well it works. But for sure, like, you know, I expect the developers who are moving from one modality to, like, text and images will have, like, more, you know Testing, evaluation, like, you know, to set in place, like, to make sure it works well.[00:25:25] Alessio: The model distillation and evals is definitely, like, the most interesting. Moving away from just being a model provider to being a platform provider. How should people think about being the source of truth? Like, do you want OpenAI to be, like, the system of record of all the prompting? Because people sometimes store it in, like, different data sources.[00:25:41] Alessio: And then, is that going to be the same as the models evolve? So you don't have to worry about, you know, refactoring the data, like, things like that, or like future model structures.[00:25:51] Olivier Godement: The vision is if you want to be a source of truth, you have to earn it, right? Like, we're not going to force people, like, to pass us data.[00:25:57] Olivier Godement: There is no value prop, like, you know, for us to store the data. The vision here is at the moment, like, most developers, like, use like a one size fits all model, like be off the shelf, like GP40 essentially. The vision we have is fast forward a couple of years. I think, like, most developers will essentially, like, have a.[00:26:15] Olivier Godement: An automated, continuous, fine tuned model. The more, like, you use the model, the more data you pass to the model provider, like, the model is automatically, like, fine tuned, evaluated against some eval sets, and essentially, like, you don't have to every month, when there is a new snapshot, like, you know, to go online and, you know, try a few new things.[00:26:34] Olivier Godement: That's a direction. We are pretty far away from it. But I think, like, that evaluation and decision product are essentially a first good step in that direction. It's like, hey, it's you. I set it by that direction, and you give us the evaluation data. We can actually log your completion data and start to do some automation on your behalf.[00:26:52] Alessio: And then you can do evals for free if you share data with OpenAI. How should people think about when it's worth it, when it's not? Sometimes people get overly protective of their data when it's actually not that useful. But how should developers think about when it's right to do it, when not, or[00:27:07] Olivier Godement: if you have any thoughts on it?[00:27:08] Olivier Godement: The default policy is still the same, like, you know, we don't train on, like, any API data unless you opt in. What we've seen from feedback is evaluation can be expensive. Like, if you run, like, O1 evals on, like, thousands of samples Like, your build will get increased, like, you know, pretty pretty significantly.[00:27:22] Olivier Godement: That's problem statement number one. Problem statement number two is, essentially, I want to get to a world where whenever OpenAI ships a new model snapshot, we have full confidence that there is no regression for the task that developers care about. And for that to be the case, essentially, we need to get evals.[00:27:39] Olivier Godement: And so that, essentially, is a sort of a two bugs one stone. It's like, we subsidize, basically, the evals. And we also use the evals when we ship new models to make sure that we keep going in the right direction. So, in my sense, it's a win win, but again, completely opt in. I expect that many developers will not want to share their data, and that's perfectly fine to me.[00:27:56] swyx: Yeah, I think free evals though, very, very good incentive. I mean, it's a fair trade. You get data, we get free evals. Exactly,[00:28:04] Olivier Godement: and we sanitize PII, everything. We have no interest in the actual sensitive data. We just want to have good evaluation on the real use cases.[00:28:13] swyx: Like, I always want to eval the eval. I don't know if that ever came up.[00:28:17] swyx: Like, sometimes the evals themselves are wrong, and there's no way for me to tell you.[00:28:22] Olivier Godement: Everyone who is starting with LLM, teaching with LLM, is like, Yeah, evaluation, easy, you know, I've done testing, like, all my life. And then you start to actually be able to eval, understand, like, all the corner cases, And you realize, wow, there's like a whole field in itself.[00:28:35] Olivier Godement: So, yeah, good evaluation is hard and so, yeah. Yeah, yeah.[00:28:38] swyx: But I think there's a, you know, I just talked to Brain Trust which I think is one of your partners. Mm-Hmm. . They also emphasize code based evals versus your sort of low code. What I see is like, I don't know, maybe there's some more that you didn't demo.[00:28:53] swyx: YC is kind of like a low code experience, right, for evals. Would you ever support like a more code based, like, would I run code on OpenAI's eval platform?[00:29:02] Olivier Godement: For sure. I mean, we meet developers where they are, you know. At the moment, the demand was more for like, you know, easy to get started, like eval. But, you know, if we need to expose like an evaluation API, for instance, for people like, you know, to pass, like, you know, their existing test data we'll do it.[00:29:15] Olivier Godement: So yeah, there is no, you know, philosophical, I would say, like, you know, misalignment on that. Yeah,[00:29:19] swyx: yeah, yeah. What I think this is becoming, by the way, and I don't, like it's basically, like, you're becoming AWS. Like, the AI cloud. And I don't know if, like, that's a conscious strategy, or it's, like, It doesn't even have to be a conscious strategy.[00:29:33] swyx: Like, you're going to offer storage. You're going to offer compute. You're going to offer networking. I don't know what networking looks like. Networking is maybe, like, Caching or like it's a CDN. It's a prompt CDN.[00:29:45] Alex Volkov: Yeah,[00:29:45] swyx: but it's the AI versions of everything, right? Do you like do you see the analogies or?[00:29:52] Olivier Godement: Whatever Whatever I took to developers. I feel like Good models are just half of the story to build a good app There's a third model you need to do Evaluation is the perfect example. Like, you know, you can have the best model in the world If you're in the dark, like, you know, it's really hard to gain the confidence and so Our philosophy is[00:30:11] Olivier Godement: The whole like software development stack is being basically reinvented, you know, with LLMs. There is no freaking way that open AI can build everything. Like there is just too much to build, frankly. And so my philosophy is, essentially, we'll focus on like the tools which are like the closest to the model itself.[00:30:28] Olivier Godement: So that's why you see us like, you know, investing quite a bit in like fine tuning, distillation, our evaluation, because we think that it actually makes sense to have like in one spot, Like, you know, all of that. Like, there is some sort of virtual circle, essentially, that you can set in place. But stuff like, you know, LLMOps, like tools which are, like, further away from the model, I don't know if you want to do, like, you know, super elaborate, like, prompt management, or, you know, like, tooling, like, I'm not sure, like, you know, OpenAI has, like, such a big edge, frankly, like, you know, to build this sort of tools.[00:30:56] Olivier Godement: So that's how we view it at the moment. But again, frankly, the philosophy is super simple. The strategy is super simple. It's meeting developers where they want us to be. And so, you know that's frankly, like, you know, day in, day out, like, you know, what I try to do.[00:31:08] Alessio: Cool. Thank you so much for the time.[00:31:10] Alessio: I'm sure you,[00:31:10] swyx: Yeah, I have more questions on, a couple questions on voice, and then also, like, your call to action, like, what you want feedback on, right? So, I think we should spend a bit more time on voice, because I feel like that's, like, the big splash thing. I talked well Well, I mean, I mean, just what is the future of real time for OpenAI?[00:31:28] swyx: Yeah. Because I think obviously video is next. You already have it in the, the ChatGPT desktop app. Do we just have a permanent, like, you know, like, are developers just going to be, like, sending sockets back and forth with OpenAI? Like how do we program for that? Like, what what is the future?[00:31:44] Olivier Godement: Yeah, that makes sense. I think with multimodality, like, real time is quickly becoming, like, you know, essentially the right experience, like, to build an application. Yeah. So my expectation is that we'll see like a non trivial, like a volume of applications like moving to a real time API. Like if you zoom out, like, audio is really simple, like, audio until basically now.[00:32:05] Olivier Godement: Audio on the web, in apps, was basically very much like a second class citizen. Like, you basically did like an audio chatbot for users who did not have a choice. You know, they were like struggling to read, or I don't know, they were like not super educated with technology. And so, frankly, it was like the crappy option, you know, compared to text.[00:32:25] Olivier Godement: But when you talk to people in the real world, the vast majority of people, like, prefer to talk and listen instead of typing and writing.[00:32:34] swyx: We speak before we write.[00:32:35] Olivier Godement: Exactly. I don't know. I mean, I'm sure it's the case for you in Singapore. For me, my friends in Europe, the number of, like, WhatsApp, like, voice notes they receive every day, I mean, just people, it makes sense, frankly, like, you know.[00:32:45] Olivier Godement: Chinese. Chinese, yeah.[00:32:46] swyx: Yeah,[00:32:47] Olivier Godement: all voice. You know, it's easier. There is more emotions. I mean, you know, you get the point across, like, pretty well. And so my personal ambition for, like, the real time API and, like, audio in general is to make, like, audio and, like, multimodality, like, truly a first class experience.[00:33:01] Olivier Godement: Like, you know, if you're, like, you know, the amazing, like, super bold, like, start up out of YC, you want to build, like, the next, like, billion, like, you know, user application to make it, like, truly your first and make it feel, like, you know, an actual good, like, you know, product experience. So that's essentially the ambition, and I think, like, yeah, it could be pretty big.[00:33:17] swyx: Yeah. I think one, one people, one issue that people have with the voice so far as, as released in advanced voice mode is the refusals.[00:33:24] Alex Volkov: Yeah.[00:33:24] swyx: You guys had a very inspiring model spec. I think Joanne worked on that. Where you said, like, yeah, we don't want to overly refuse all the time. In fact, like, even if, like, not safe for work, like, in some occasions, it's okay.[00:33:38] swyx: How, is there an API that we can say, not safe for work, okay?[00:33:41] Olivier Godement: I think we'll get there. I think we'll get there. The mobile spec, like, nailed it, like, you know. It nailed it! It's so good! Yeah, we are not in the business of, like, policing, you know, if you can say, like, vulgar words or whatever. You know, there are some use cases, like, you know, I'm writing, like, a Hollywood, like, script I want to say, like, will go on, and it's perfectly fine, you know?[00:33:59] Olivier Godement: And so I think the direction where we'll go here is that basically There will always be like, you know, a set of behavior that we will, you know, just like forbid, frankly, because they're illegal against our terms of services. But then there will be like, you know, some more like risky, like themes, which are completely legal, like, you know, vulgar words or, you know, not safe for work stuff.[00:34:17] Olivier Godement: Where basically we'll expose like a controllable, like safety, like knobs in the API to basically allow you to say, hey, that theme okay, that theme not okay. How sensitive do you want the threshold to be on safety refusals? I think that's the Dijkstra. So a[00:34:31] swyx: safety API.[00:34:32] Olivier Godement: Yeah, in a way, yeah.[00:34:33] swyx: Yeah, we've never had that.[00:34:34] Olivier Godement: Yeah. '[00:34:35] swyx: cause right now is you, it is whatever you decide. And then it's, that's it. That, that, that would be the main reason I don't use opening a voice is because of[00:34:42] Olivier Godement: it's over police. Over refuse over refusals. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. No, we gotta fix that. Yeah. Like singing,[00:34:47] Alessio: we're trying to do voice. I'm a singer.[00:34:49] swyx: And you, you locked off singing.[00:34:51] swyx: Yeah,[00:34:51] Alessio: yeah, yeah.[00:34:52] swyx: But I, I understand music gets you in trouble. Okay. Yeah. So then, and then just generally, like, what do you want to hear from developers? Right? We have, we have all developers watching you know, what feedback do you want? Any, anything specific as well, like from, especially from today anything that you are unsure about, that you are like, Our feedback could really help you decide.[00:35:09] swyx: For sure.[00:35:10] Olivier Godement: I think, essentially, it's becoming pretty clear after today that, you know, I would say the open end direction has become pretty clear, like, you know, after today. Investment in reasoning, investment in multimodality, Investment as well, like in, I would say, tool use, like function calling. To me, the biggest question I have is, you know, Where should we put the cursor next?[00:35:30] Olivier Godement: I think we need all three of them, frankly, like, you know, so we'll keep pushing.[00:35:33] swyx: Hire 10, 000 people, or actually, no need, build a bunch of bots.[00:35:37] Olivier Godement: Exactly, and so let's take O1 smart enough, like, for your problems? Like, you know, let's set aside for a second the existing models, like, for the apps that you would love to build, is O1 basically it in reasoning, or do we still have, like, you know, a step to do?[00:35:50] Olivier Godement: Preview is not enough, I[00:35:52] swyx: need the full one.[00:35:53] Olivier Godement: Yeah, so that's exactly that sort of feedback. Essentially what they would love to do is for developers I mean, there's a thing that Sam has been saying like over and over again, like, you know, it's easier said than done, but I think it's directionally correct. As a developer, as a founder, you basically want to build an app which is a bit too difficult for the model today, right?[00:36:12] Olivier Godement: Like, what you think is right, it's like, sort of working, sometimes not working. And that way, you know, that basically gives us like a goalpost, and be like, okay, that's what you need to enable with the next model release, like in a few months. And so I would say that Usually, like, that's the sort of feedback which is like the most useful that I can, like, directly, like, you know, incorporate.[00:36:33] swyx: Awesome. I think that's our time. Thank you so much, guys. Yeah, thank you so much.[00:36:38] AI Charlie: Thank you. We were particularly impressed that Olivier addressed the not safe for work moderation policy question head on, as that had only previously been picked up on in Reddit forums. This is an encouraging sign that we will return to in the closing candor with Sam Altman at the end of this episode.[00:36:57] Romain Huet, Head of DX, OpenAI[00:36:57] AI Charlie: Next, a chat with Roman Hewitt, friend of the pod, AI Engineer World's fair closing keynote speaker, and head of developer experience at OpenAI on his incredible live demos And advice to AI engineers on all the new modalities.[00:37:12] Alessio: Alright, we're live from OpenAI Dev Day. We're with Juan, who just did two great demos on, on stage.[00:37:17] Alessio: And he's been a friend of Latentspace, so thanks for taking some of the time.[00:37:20] Romain Huet: Of course, yeah, thank you for being here and spending the time with us today.[00:37:23] swyx: Yeah, I appreciate appreciate you guys putting this on. I, I know it's like extra work, but it really shows the developers that you're, Care and about reaching out.[00:37:31] Romain Huet: Yeah, of course, I think when you go back to the OpenAI mission, I think for us it's super important that we have the developers involved in everything we do. Making sure that you know, they have all of the tools they need to build successful apps. And we really believe that the developers are always going to invent the ideas, the prototypes, the fun factors of AI that we can't build ourselves.[00:37:49] Romain Huet: So it's really cool to have everyone here.[00:37:51] swyx: We had Michelle from you guys on. Yes, great episode. She very seriously said API is the path to AGI. Correct. And people in our YouTube comments were like, API is not AGI. I'm like, no, she's very serious. API is the path to AGI. Like, you're not going to build everything like the developers are, right?[00:38:08] swyx: Of[00:38:08] Romain Huet: course, yeah, that's the whole value of having a platform and an ecosystem of amazing builders who can, like, in turn, create all of these apps. I'm sure we talked about this before, but there's now more than 3 million developers building on OpenAI, so it's pretty exciting to see all of that energy into creating new things.[00:38:26] Alessio: I was going to say, you built two apps on stage today, an international space station tracker and then a drone. The hardest thing must have been opening Xcode and setting that up. Now, like, the models are so good that they can do everything else. Yes. You had two modes of interaction. You had kind of like a GPT app to get the plan with one, and then you had a cursor to do apply some of the changes.[00:38:47] Alessio: Correct. How should people think about the best way to consume the coding models, especially both for You know, brand new projects and then existing projects that you're trying to modify.[00:38:56] Romain Huet: Yeah. I mean, one of the things that's really cool about O1 Preview and O1 Mini being available in the API is that you can use it in your favorite tools like cursor like I did, right?[00:39:06] Romain Huet: And that's also what like Devin from Cognition can use in their own software engineering agents. In the case of Xcode, like, it's not quite deeply integrated in Xcode, so that's why I had like chat GPT side by side. But it's cool, right, because I could instruct O1 Preview to be, like, my coding partner and brainstorming partner for this app, but also consolidate all of the, the files and architect the app the way I wanted.[00:39:28] Romain Huet: So, all I had to do was just, like, port the code over to Xcode and zero shot the app build. I don't think I conveyed, by the way, how big a deal that is, but, like, you can now create an iPhone app from scratch, describing a lot of intricate details that you want, and your vision comes to life in, like, a minute.[00:39:47] Romain Huet: It's pretty outstanding.[00:39:48] swyx: I have to admit, I was a bit skeptical because if I open up SQL, I don't know anything about iOS programming. You know which file to paste it in. You probably set it up a little bit. So I'm like, I have to go home and test it. And I need the ChatGPT desktop app so that it can tell me where to click.[00:40:04] Romain Huet: Yeah, I mean like, Xcode and iOS development has become easier over the years since they introduced Swift and SwiftUI. I think back in the days of Objective C, or like, you know, the storyboard, it was a bit harder to get in for someone new. But now with Swift and SwiftUI, their dev tools are really exceptional.[00:40:23] Romain Huet: But now when you combine that with O1, as your brainstorming and coding partner, it's like your architect, effectively. That's the best way, I think, to describe O1. People ask me, like, can GPT 4 do some of that? And it certainly can. But I think it will just start spitting out code, right? And I think what's great about O1, is that it can, like, make up a plan.[00:40:42] Romain Huet: In this case, for instance, the iOS app had to fetch data from an API, it had to look at the docs, it had to look at, like, how do I parse this JSON, where do I store this thing, and kind of wire things up together. So that's where it really shines. Is mini or preview the better model that people should be using?[00:40:58] Romain Huet: Like, how? I think people should try both. We're obviously very excited about the upcoming O1 that we shared the evals for. But we noticed that O1 Mini is very, very good at everything math, coding, everything STEM. If you need for your kind of brainstorming or your kind of science part, you need some broader knowledge than reaching for O1 previews better.[00:41:20] Romain Huet: But yeah, I used O1 Mini for my second demo. And it worked perfectly. All I needed was very much like something rooted in code, architecting and wiring up like a front end, a backend, some UDP packets, some web sockets, something very specific. And it did that perfectly.[00:41:35] swyx: And then maybe just talking about voice and Wanderlust, the app that keeps on giving, what's the backstory behind like preparing for all of that?[00:41:44] Romain Huet: You know, it's funny because when last year for Dev Day, we were trying to think about what could be a great demo app to show like an assistive experience. I've always thought travel is a kind of a great use case because you have, like, pictures, you have locations, you have the need for translations, potentially.[00:42:01] Romain Huet: There's like so many use cases that are bounded to travel that I thought last year, let's use a travel app. And that's how Wanderlust came to be. But of course, a year ago, all we had was a text based assistant. And now we thought, well, if there's a voice modality, what if we just bring this app back as a wink.[00:42:19] Romain Huet: And what if we were interacting better with voice? And so with this new demo, what I showed was the ability to like, So, we wanted to have a complete conversation in real time with the app, but also the thing we wanted to highlight was the ability to call tools and functions, right? So, like in this case, we placed a phone call using the Twilio API, interfacing with our AI agents, but developers are so smart that they'll come up with so many great ideas that we could not think of ourselves, right?[00:42:48] Romain Huet: But what if you could have like a, you know, a 911 dispatcher? What if you could have like a customer service? Like center, that is much smarter than what we've been used to today. There's gonna be so many use cases for real time, it's awesome.[00:43:00] swyx: Yeah, and sometimes actually you, you, like this should kill phone trees.[00:43:04] swyx: Like there should not be like dial one[00:43:07] Romain Huet: of course para[00:43:08] swyx: espanol, you know? Yeah, exactly. Or whatever. I dunno.[00:43:12] Romain Huet: I mean, even you starting speaking Spanish would just do the thing, you know you don't even have to ask. So yeah, I'm excited for this future where we don't have to interact with those legacy systems.[00:43:22] swyx: Yeah. Yeah. Is there anything, so you are doing function calling in a streaming environment. So basically it's, it's web sockets. It's UDP, I think. It's basically not guaranteed to be exactly once delivery. Like, is there any coding challenges that you encountered when building this?[00:43:39] Romain Huet: Yeah, it's a bit more delicate to get into it.[00:43:41] Romain Huet: We also think that for now, what we, what we shipped is a, is a beta of this API. I think there's much more to build onto it. It does have the function calling and the tools. But we think that for instance, if you want to have something very robust, On your client side, maybe you want to have web RTC as a client, right?[00:43:58] Romain Huet: And, and as opposed to like directly working with the sockets at scale. So that's why we have partners like Life Kit and Agora if you want to, if you want to use them. And I'm sure we'll have many mores in the, in many more in the future. But yeah, we keep on iterating on that, and I'm sure the feedback of developers in the weeks to come is going to be super critical for us to get it right.[00:44:16] swyx: Yeah, I think LiveKit has been fairly public that they are used in, in the Chachapiti app. Like, is it, it's just all open source, and we just use it directly with OpenAI, or do we use LiveKit Cloud or something?[00:44:28] Romain Huet: So right now we, we released the API, we released some sample code also, and referenced clients for people to get started with our API.[00:44:35] Romain Huet: And we also partnered with LifeKit and Agora, so they also have their own, like ways to help you get started that plugs natively with the real time API. So depending on the use case, people can, can can decide what to use. If you're working on something that's completely client or if you're working on something on the server side, for the voice interaction, you may have different needs, so we want to support all of those.[00:44:55] Alessio: I know you gotta run. Is there anything that you want the AI engineering community to give feedback on specifically, like even down to like, you know, a specific API end point or like, what, what's like the thing that you want? Yeah. I[00:45:08] Romain Huet: mean, you know, if we take a step back, I think dev Day this year is all different from last year and, and in, in a few different ways.[00:45:15] Romain Huet: But one way is that we wanted to keep it intimate, even more intimate than last year. We wanted to make sure that the community is. Thank you very much for joining us on the Spotlight. That's why we have community talks and everything. And the takeaway here is like learning from the very best developers and AI engineers.[00:45:31] Romain Huet: And so, you know we want to learn from them. Most of what we shipped this morning, including things like prompt caching the ability to generate prompts quickly in the playground, or even things like vision fine tuning. These are all things that developers have been asking of us. And so, the takeaway I would, I would leave them with is to say like, Hey, the roadmap that we're working on is heavily influenced by them and their work.[00:45:53] Romain Huet: And so we love feedback From high feature requests, as you say, down to, like, very intricate details of an API endpoint, we love feedback, so yes that's, that's how we, that's how we build this API.[00:46:05] swyx: Yeah, I think the, the model distillation thing as well, it might be, like, the, the most boring, but, like, actually used a lot.[00:46:12] Romain Huet: True, yeah. And I think maybe the most unexpected, right, because I think if I, if I read Twitter correctly the past few days, a lot of people were expecting us. To shape the real time API for speech to speech. I don't think developers were expecting us to have more tools for distillation, and we really think that's gonna be a big deal, right?[00:46:30] Romain Huet: If you're building apps that have you know, you, you want high, like like low latency, low cost, but high performance, high quality on the use case distillation is gonna be amazing.[00:46:40] swyx: Yeah. I sat in the distillation session just now and they showed how they distilled from four oh to four mini and it was like only like a 2% hit in the performance and 50 next.[00:46:49] swyx: Yeah,[00:46:50] Romain Huet: I was there as well for the superhuman kind of use case inspired for an Ebola client. Yeah, this was really good. Cool man! so much for having me. Thanks again for being here today. It's always[00:47:00] AI Charlie: great to have you. As you might have picked up at the end of that chat, there were many sessions throughout the day focused on specific new capabilities.[00:47:08] Michelle Pokrass, Head of API at OpenAI ft. Simon Willison[00:47:08] AI Charlie: Like the new model distillation features combining EVOLs and fine tuning. For our next session, we are delighted to bring back two former guests of the pod, which is something listeners have been greatly enjoying in our second year of doing the Latent Space podcast. Michelle Pokras of the API team joined us recently to talk about structured outputs, and today gave an updated long form session at Dev Day, describing the implementation details of the new structured output mode.[00:47:39] AI Charlie: We also got her updated thoughts on the VoiceMode API we discussed in her episode, now that it is finally announced. She is joined by friend of the pod and super blogger, Simon Willison, who also came back as guest co host in our Dev Day. 2023 episode.[00:47:56] Alessio: Great, we're back live at Dev Day returning guest Michelle and then returning guest co host Fork.[00:48:03] Alessio: Fork, yeah, I don't know. I've lost count. I think it's been a few. Simon Willison is back. Yeah, we just wrapped, we just wrapped everything up. Congrats on, on getting everything everything live. Simon did a great, like, blog, so if you haven't caught up, I[00:48:17] Simon Willison: wrote my, I implemented it. Now, I'm starting my live blog while waiting for the first talk to start, using like GPT 4, I wrote me the Javascript, and I got that live just in time and then, yeah, I was live blogging the whole day.[00:48:28] swyx: Are you a cursor enjoyer?[00:48:29] Simon Willison: I haven't really gotten into cursor yet to be honest. I just haven't spent enough time for it to click, I think. I'm more a copy and paste things out of Cloud and chat GPT. Yeah. It's interesting.[00:48:39] swyx: Yeah. I've converted to cursor and 01 is so easy to just toggle on and off.[00:48:45] Alessio: What's your workflow?[00:48:46] Alessio: VS[00:48:48] Michelle Pokrass: Code co pilot, so Yep, same here. Team co pilot. Co pilot is actually the reason I joined OpenAI. It was, you know, before ChatGPT, this is the thing that really got me. So I'm still into it, but I keep meaning to try out Cursor, and I think now that things have calmed down, I'm gonna give it a real go.[00:49:03] swyx: Yeah, it's a big thing to change your tool of choice.[00:49:06] swyx: Yes,[00:49:06] Michelle Pokrass: yeah, I'm pretty dialed, so.[00:49:09] swyx: I mean, you know, if you want, you can just fork VS Code and make your own. That's the thing to dumb thing, right? We joked about doing a hackathon where the only thing you do is fork VS Code and bet me the best fork win.[00:49:20] Michelle Pokrass: Nice.[00:49:22] swyx: That's actually a really good idea. Yeah, what's up?[00:49:26] swyx: I mean, congrats on launching everything today. I know, like, we touched on it a little bit, but, like, everyone was kind of guessing that Voice API was coming, and, like, we talked about it in our episode. How do you feel going into the launch? Like, any design decisions that you want to highlight?[00:49:41] Michelle Pokrass: Yeah, super jazzed about it. The team has been working on it for a while. It's, like, a very different API for us. It's the first WebSocket API, so a lot of different design decisions to be made. It's, like, what kind of events do you send? When do you send an event? What are the event names? What do you send, like, on connection versus on future messages?[00:49:57] Michelle Pokrass: So there have been a lot of interesting decisions there. The team has also hacked together really cool projects as we've been testing it. One that I really liked is we had an internal hack a thon for the API team. And some folks built like a little hack that you could use to, like VIM with voice mode, so like, control vim, and you would tell them on like, nice, write a file and it would, you know, know all the vim commands and, and pipe those in.[00:50:18] Michelle Pokrass: So yeah, a lot of cool stuff we've been hacking on and really excited to see what people build with it.[00:50:23] Simon Willison: I've gotta call out a demo from today. I think it was Katja had a 3D visualization of the solar system, like WebGL solar system, you could talk to. That is one of the coolest conference demos I've ever seen.[00:50:33] Simon Willison: That was so convincing. I really want the code. I really want the code for that to get put out there. I'll talk[00:50:39] Michelle Pokrass: to the team. I think we can[00:50:40] Simon Willison: probably

PREVIEW: CLEOPATRA: CAESAR: Conversation with classicist Daisy Dunn on her new work, "THE MISSING THREAD," regarding the Roman people's disregard of the crafty young Queen of Egypt, Cleopatra VII, who famously entranced the all-conquering Caesar. More in the coming weeks. 1891 Sarah Bernhardt as Cleopatra

In today's episode Ben is joined by producer Andrew Jacobs to discuss the legendary braveheart - William Wallace. Famously portrayed by Mel Gibson, William Wallace is a Scottish warrior and hero who showed led his people in an uprising against the tyrannical English until he got beheaded, drawn and quartered, inspiring an even bigger uprising!! This episode is dedicated to: "FREEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!" 

Send us a textJay returns from his time asea to join Angelo and Rhea for a discussion about Tom Brady's NFL commentator debut and how maybe Fox shouldn't pay someone a third of a BILLION dollars if they're completely untested at their new job.THEN, the gang talks about last night's debate.  Famously, Angelo predicted after the debate in June that Biden was done, and he was proven correct. What were his feelings about how it went from Trump last night?  You'll have to listen to find out.All that, PLUS: Rhea finally prevailed on Angelo to watch the sneaky-best TV show currently airing Slow Horses.  Angelo talks about his feelings on the show while Rhea reviews Season 4.  ALSO in this episode: Friday night football, Nicole Kidman's face, and the new Sopranos documentary.You won't want to miss this episode!MAKE SURE TO VISIT OUR SPONSOR: Steven Singer Jewelers!The TV Show is a weekly podcast hosted by Jay Black, with regular guests Angelo Cataldi and Rhea Hughes. Each week, we dive into the new Golden Age of Television, with a discussion of the latest shows and news.  

Darren and Vince - Dince - preview Saturday's HUGE El Tráfico match vs. the Galaxy at Dignity Health Sports Park. Can LAFC finally convincingly return to form after Leagues Cup with a rivalry win, propelling them toward the top of the West? Can we be the first team to sweep el Tráfico in a season? Will the Galaxy want it that much more? Will this be Giroud's big breakout match??? Also, LAFC just teased a new signing out of the blue... who's it gonna be, and is it good news or cover for bad news? PLUS: Travis will FAMOUSLY miss El Tráfico this week. He sends in hypothetical scenarios to see what can convince Vince and Darren to miss El Tráfico too. What would it take for you to miss it? Let us know!Join our Patreon and help us keep making this showMerch Available Now at HappyFootSadFootPod.comTwitter: @HaFoSaFoYouTube: @happyfootsadfoot Instagram: @happyfootsadfootTikTok: @happyfootsadfoot Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Famously, Burt Ward has said that, in the episode BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME, he was placed above a pit of tigers, with meat hanging above him that encouraged the tigers to jump. Meanwhile, in THE OFFICIAL BATMAN BATBOOK, Joel Eisner says there were no live tigers, just a clip from an old movie. Who's right? The answer may surprise you! Scott Sebring has shared his interesting research on this topic with us, and we share it in this episode - available only on Patreon!

Shot of the Day, Profile This, TV Time with Ted and Headlines!

August is Black Business Month and we are highlighting black women entrepreneurs because they are one of the fastest growing groups of entrepreneurs. Dr. Catrise Austin is an award winning cosmetic dentist to the stars and Hip Hop Recording Artist, Cardi B., Famously rapped about her in her music. Dr. Catrise understands the connection between dental health and mental health and we discussed the importance of having a culturally competent dentist that you can trust to open up to and talk about anxiety and low self-esteem with regards to dental health. Teri Johnson is an award-winning entrepreneur and owner of Harlem Candle Company and Harlem Perfume Company and she uses African American History to illuminatemhomes across the world with her elegant candles, fragrances and designs that are inspired by the Harlem renaissance. She talked about how success as a black woman entrepreneur comes with highs and lows.On this episode we discuss how Black Women should support each other and uplift each other because they often have to work twice as hard for their businesses to survive and they don't get the same level of financial funding as other business owners. Many of black women owned businesses are self-funded and were severely impacted by 202. As a black woman entrepreneur and doctor, Dr. Judith personally understands the importance of supporting black women owned businesses because entrepreneurs deal with a whole host of mental health issues because they tend to take care of everyone else but themselves. This puts them at risk for High functioning depression because they worry about the needs of their clients, employees and their families and they feel like they cannot slow down because they are needed by so many.Listen in as we discuss:Supporting Black Women Owned Businesses.Coping with High Functioning Depression as an EntrepreneurHow to take risks as a physician business owner.How to build relationships in business.How to form long lasting friendshipsHow to check-in with your friendsHow to take care of your mental health as a small business owner How to Ask For Help and SupportFollow Dr. Catrise Austin Instagram WebsiteFollow Teri Johnson Instagram WebsiteFollow Dr. Judith Joseph: Instagram TikTok Facebook Website Newsletter Sign-UpDisclaimer: Consider your individual mental health needs with a licensed medicalprofessional. This content is not medical advice.