Podcasts about Framing

At the risk of sounding corny (and real in a world of AI slop podcast descriptions), let me add a fourth F: Ford. As in Tom Ford. No, not that one -- the cinematographer Tom Ford, who made my favorite film of the year absolutely shine through his work years ago.What do I mean by that? As we talk about, much of what I love about URCHINS is its lighting, and that came from enduring relationships that Tom built over the years that he brought on for this film. There's a huge lesson in that and Tom's career; you can have all the talent in the world, but if you aren't a team player, the big brands and great films won't call you.That's not this Tom Ford's problem. Just the opposite. Film Independent Spirit Awards, are you listening? URCHINS should win awards for its visually stunning canvas, and I'm so glad to be joined by the person who made it happen.Tom and I talk about:how he got to be such a great shooter for top brands and films like URCHINS;learning vs. innate understanding of cinematography;why he's been so successful working with brands like Nike and top fashion;how freeing it was to have a director that kept him separated from clients' demands;advice for people wanting to work with top brands;whether he wants to direct and how to properly manage that relationship;the general state of cinematography in independent film and how it relates to URCHINS;how a guy from the United Kingdom shoot a love letter to Florida;the importance of the team Tom Ford has assembled throughout the years;his favorite shot in the film;avoiding cliches in URCHINS;his advice for aspiring filmmakers;what's next for him;working on short films;where cinematographers can go wrong.Tom's Indie Film Highlight: SOME RAIN MUST FALL (2024) dir. by Qiu Yang Memorable Quotes:" Framing's always been more instinctive versus yeah, rule of thirds."" it's all about just building connections with other people who have an interest in that kind of work."" I grew up in a kinda small town in England where it has some similarities to Florida."" Adam also offered back ends to everyone."" Sometimes we can try and always show the face too much, and sometimes it's interesting to withhold a bit from the audience so they can put two and two together themselves or come up with their own meaning."" Yeah, I definitely wouldn't put loads of money into a short. I think it's worth doing a short as a proof of concept, but even if it's a proof of concept, you don't need everything to be perfect as long as the storytelling's good."" If it's just white walls and a camera, it's like you can have the nicest lenses in the world, but it's not gonna do as much for the story as a proper like decked out place."Links:Follow Tom On InstagramListen To Part One With URCHINS Director Adam Rioux

Jeff Mains sits down with Logan Yonavjak, a nearly two-decade veteran of impact investing and venture capital, who built the Founder Readiness Institute after watching a promising founding team unravel post-investment. Logan explains why "people risk" — not market or product risk — is the leading cause of startup failure, and how her Founder Readiness Level assessment uses AI-driven quantitative linguistics (rooted in adult developmental psychology) to measure a founder's capacity for complexity, resilience, and coachability. The conversation covers her pivot from selling to VCs to selling to mid-market companies (200–2,000 employees), why she favors partnerships over "owning the whole stack," what building the tool taught her about her own leadership blind spots, and where people analytics is headed as AI reshapes what's left for humans to do.Key Takeaways4:46 — The deal that started it all: a founder who "buckled" after investment closed, and the lesson about charisma bias.7:16 — Why investors spend more time on the pitch deck than on the person who has to execute it.9:18 — The data: ~65% of startup failures trace back to people problems (Noam Wasserman / Harvard Business Review, 10,000 founders studied).10:18 — How the Founder Readiness Level differs from personality tests: it measures developmental stage, not static self-reported traits.13:27 — Why AI made scoring open-ended, scenario-based responses possible at scale (versus hand-coded transcripts).17:30 — What "managing complexity" actually looks like in high-level leaders: holding multiple interdisciplinary frameworks at once.19:15 — The go-to-market mistake: mistaking "this is interesting" for a real, fundable pain point among VCs.21:50 — Repositioning the ICP: C-suite and L&D leaders at Series B/C+ startups in high-innovation industries.29:02 — The Steve Jobs thought experiment: high strategic complexity, likely lower relational intelligence early on.35:04 — Build vs. partner: why "ecosystem builder" is a higher-complexity strategic move than trying to dominate a category.38:32 — The question every founder should be asking themselves: "How coachable am I?"39:17 — Where to find Logan and the assessment (readinessengine.io, LinkedIn).Tweetable Quotes"Charisma is a remarkable camouflage. A great storyteller can make a structurally fragile leadership team look like a dynasty, right up until the growth pressure hits.""We bet on the horse, not the jockey... we say we're betting on the jockey, but we don't give them any tools.""It's not about being better or worse, it's just that it depends on where you would be best situated professionally.""AI has taken the bottom out of [junior-level work]. So what's left for humans to do is actually more complex tasks.""It's a higher level strategic complexity move to be more of an ecosystem builder than someone trying to dominate a market.""How coachable am I? ... that growth mindset to success — everyone should be asking themselves that on a regular basis.""Sixty-five percent of startups don't die because the product was bad. They die because the founder couldn't see themselves clearly when things got hard." — Jeff MainsSaaS Leadership LessonsPeople risk beats market risk. Roughly two-thirds of startup failures trace back to human/leadership breakdowns, not product or timing.Charisma is not a leadership metric. The most compelling storytellers in the room are often the hardest to accurately evaluate.Self-reported assessments have a ceiling. Static, forced-choice tests can be gamed and don't track development over time — open-ended, scenario-based signals are harder to fake.Position around infrastructure, not features. Framing the product as "developmental intelligence infrastructure" rather than another HR tech point-solution avoided category fatigue.Partner before you build or acquire. Complementary players (e.g., behavioral analytics firms) can expand value to shared clients faster than trying to own the entire stack.Coachability and flexible identity predict survival. The founders who pivot fastest under negative market feedback are the ones who don't over-identify with a single idea.Guest Resourceswww.founderready.iohttps://www.facebook.com/loganyonhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/loganyonavjak/https://www.instagram.com/loganyon/https://x.com/LoganyonEpisode SponsorThe Futureproof Series - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfkXKUPZ5xuOqMPR7_gzGybncTtavyR1NThe Captain's KeysSmall Fish, Big Pond – https://smallfishbigpond.com/ Use the promo code ‘SaaSFuel'Champion Leadership Group – https://championleadership.com/https://jeffmains.com/books/SaaS Fuel ResourcesWebsite - https://championleadership.com/Jeff Mains on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffkmains/Twitter - https://twitter.com/jeffkmainsFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/thesaasguy/Instagram - https://instagram.com/jeffkmains

Mehr positiv denken - genau das ist mit dem PERMA-Modell nicht gemeint. PERMA hat der amerikanische Psychologieprofessor Martin Seligmann eingeführt. Vielmehr heisst das, mehr darauf zu achten, etwas mal mit einer anderen Brille zu betrachten. Ein neues «Framing», also etwas in einen neuen Rahmen zu setzen, kann ein negatives Ereignis auch in ein Positives umdeuten. Die Psychologin und Psychotherapeutin Sandra Figlioli-Hofstetter hat es am eigenen Leib erfahren: Als ihr und Ihrer Familie die Wohnung gekündigt wurde, war sie erst mal wütend. Nun hat sie ein neues zu Hause gefunden. Eines das ihr, und ihrer Familie entspricht. Nein, es ist sogar ein Traum in Erfüllung gegangen. Eine Familienwohnung in einem tollen sozialen Umfeld mit Garten und viel Natur.

Warum werden Entscheidungen im Führungsteam immer wieder neu diskutiert, obwohl eigentlich längst alles entschieden wurde? In dieser Podcast-Folge spricht Michael Stiller über einen der häufigsten Denkfehler in Geschäftsführungen und Führungsteams: Viele Entscheidungen wirken gemeinschaftlich erarbeitet, sind aber schon durch die erste Meinung im Raum vorgeprägt. Das Ergebnis: schnelle Einigkeit im Meeting, später jedoch neue Diskussionen, bekannte Einwände und mangelnde Verbindlichkeit. Du erfährst, warum offene Fragen oft gar nicht wirklich offen sind, wie sogenanntes Framing die Entscheidungsfindung beeinflusst und weshalb Führungskräfte häufig unbeabsichtigt die Qualität von Entscheidungen verschlechtern. Michael zeigt außerdem, wie unabhängiges Denken vor der Diskussion zu besseren Ergebnissen führt und warum starke Führung nicht bedeutet, früh die eigene Meinung vorzugeben. Außerdem erhältst du einen einfachen Entscheidungs-Check, mit dem du die Entscheidungsqualität in deinem Unternehmen überprüfen kannst.

John Quinn, founder and CEO of Wellnecity, joins Stacey Richter for an outtake from their conversation last fall on rethinking how self-insured employers build their provider networks. Rather than treating the network as one big, undifferentiated system, Quinn argues employers should think like a manufacturing supply chain: break healthcare into defined "subassemblies," or pods of care — pediatric care, a cancer journey, a kidney stone episode — and direct-contract for those pods whenever the price beats the fee-for-service average. If the boundaries of the pod are clear and the price comes in lower, Quinn says, the plan and the member both win, quality being equal. WHAT YOU'LL LEARN ✅ Why Stacey Richter says the provider-network debate could fill "a 20-hour show," and why networks still have real upsides — administrative infrastructure, claims coordination, guaranteed provider payment, and broad access — even as critics like Mark Cuban ask on LinkedIn, "Why do we need networks? It is just a way for insurers to play pricing games." ✅ A real example of network rigidity: a self-insured employer identified 40 physicians who cost the plan upwards of $15 million in a single plan year while patient harm was occurring, and their ASO couldn't figure out how to remove those doctors from network under the existing contract structure ✅ How John Quinn defines a "subassembly" or "pod of care" — a bounded, definable episode like pediatric care or a cancer journey — and why purchasing that pod for less than the fee-for-service average is a win for the plan and member, assuming quality stays neutral ✅ Quinn's kidney stone example: a physician who says he can now treat a kidney stone in a 48-hour to five-day episode for roughly $2,000 to $3,000, versus the typical six weeks of pain, overuse of pain medication, and a price north of $10,000 ✅ Why Quinn frames network optimization as a manufacturing supply-chain problem — the same way an automobile gets built from subassemblies sourced from specialized providers around the globe — because it's a mental model CFOs and senior leadership at self-insured employers already trust ✅ Quinn's bottom line: "We have the tech and we've got the tools to do this at this point. We just have to get ourselves out of" the fee-for-service hangover WHY THIS MATTERS Provider networks have real tradeoffs: broad access and guaranteed payment on one side, opaque pricing and rigid contracts on the other. John Quinn's pitch to self-insured employers isn't to blow up the network model, but to layer bounded, directly contracted "pods of care" on top of it wherever a clear price beats the fee-for-service average. Framing that as supply-chain sourcing, rather than a wholesale network overhaul, gives risk-averse finance and HR leaders a model they already understand — and, Quinn argues, the technology to act on it already exists. MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE LinkedIn Post by Mark Cuban Article: Medical Economics, "An Idea Whose Time Has Gone: Healthcare Provider Networks," by Jim Jusko, JD EP457 with Cynthia Fisher: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps EP433 with Justin Leader: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps EP501 with Ivana Krajcinovic, PhD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps EP503 with Ryan Wells; Leo Spector, MD, MBA; and Adam Stavisky: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps EP485 with Cristin Dickerson, MD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps EP486 with Stan Schwartz, MD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps EP493 with John Quinn: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps EP495 with Mick Connors, MD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps EP505 with Ahilan Sivaganesan, MD: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Other Apps === LINKS ===

    Bleeding is what kills people after trauma. That single fact sits at the center of this WarDocs episode, in which host Dr. Wayne Causey, a vascular surgeon, sits down with two military interventional radiologists — Dr. John Pavlus of Brooke Army Medical Center and Dr. Jonathan Schutt, an interventional radiology resident at Yale — to examine one of the fastest-moving areas in modern medicine and what it could mean for the wounded service member. Endovascular care, as they describe it, is deceptively simple to explain and remarkably hard to field: a small stick in the groin or the wrist, image guidance instead of an incision, and wires and catheters small enough to be called straws, threaded through the vascular tree to block a bleeding artery or reline an injured one. As one guest puts it, the patient goes home with a band-aid.    The conversation moves quickly from definition to system. At Brooke Army Medical Center, a trauma activation commits the interventional team to needle-stick access within sixty minutes of the call, day or night. That standard was not bought with equipment. It was built on years of bi-directional trust with the trauma surgeons, to the point that the team now responds without stopping to relitigate the imaging. Both guests are blunt that ownership is the price of admission: if interventional radiology wants a seat on the trauma team, it has to show up at two in the morning for cases that are neither lucrative nor glamorous.   The harder question is how far forward this capability can go. REBOA is scaled today at Role 2, and stent graft and embolization cases in Role 3 remain largely case-reportable events performed by clinicians who brought their own equipment. The limiting factor, both guests argue, is not technique — it is imaging, logistics, and institutional will. Meanwhile, Israeli teams transition to bunker operations within twenty-four hours, and Ukrainian experience with drone-driven injury patterns is already reshaping assumptions about REBOA and embolization that the United States has not yet tested.   The episode closes on people rather than platforms: the case for a military interventional community that crosses Service lines and partners with surgical colleagues, the argument for a skill identifier that lets the system find the right clinician, and a practical inventory of what one interventional radiologist would carry in a backpack if told to deploy tomorrow. Chapters (01:11-06:26) Two Pathways Into Military Interventional Radiology (06:26-10:15) Endovascular Care Explained: A Lot Through a Pinhole (10:15-17:02) The Sixty-Minute Trauma Activation at Brooke Army Medical Center (17:02-26:11) Forward Capability: REBOA, Stent Grafts, and the Role 2 and Role 3 Gap (26:11-35:54) Silos, Superpowers, and the Real Cost Equation (35:54-49:56) Allied Lessons, a Military IR Community, and What Fits in a Backpack Chapter Summaries (01:11-06:26) Two Pathways Into Military Interventional Radiology Both guests trace how they arrived at interventional radiology and at military service — one from the Air Force Academy and a fighter pilot track redirected by a day shadowing an orthopedic surgeon, the other from a childhood spent in a pararescue uncle's uniform and an HPSP commissioning. Each was pulled toward endovascular work by the same realization: that the future of the specialty was in doing more through less. Their training routes differ, one through diagnostic radiology and fellowship, the other through an integrated residency pathway. (06:26-10:15) Endovascular Care Explained: A Lot Through a Pinhole The guests define endovascular care in the language they use with patients: a small poke in the groin or the wrist, image guidance rather than an open field, and catheters threaded through the vascular tree like a plumber working pipes. Roughly ninety-five percent of the work is image guided, most often with fluoroscopy. The host adds the surgeon's framing — always ask what can be fixed through the blood vessel before opening a chest or an abdomen. (10:15-17:02) The Sixty-Minute Trauma Activation at Brooke Army Medical Center A blunt trauma patient arrives, CT shows active extravasation from a high-grade splenic injury, and the trauma activation commits the interventional team to needle-stick access within sixty minutes. The guests describe how that pathway was built on bi-directional trust rather than debate over each scan, and why the team now launches without relitigating the imaging. Both stress that owning trauma call — unglamorous, poorly reimbursed, and at all hours — is what earns interventional radiology its place on the team. (17:02-26:11) Forward Capability: REBOA, Stent Grafts, and the Role 2 and Role 3 Gap The conversation turns to what exists downrange. REBOA is scaled today at Role 2, and endovascular hemorrhage control at Role 3 remains largely a set of case reportable events performed with clinician-supplied equipment. The guests explain stent grafts as simultaneous hemorrhage control and reconstruction, and identify imaging, transport, and packaging — not procedural skill — as the true limiting factors on projecting this capability forward. (26:11-35:54) Silos, Superpowers, and the Real Cost Equation One guest argues that interventional radiology has been siloed by civilian incentives the military has no reason to copy, and that the specialty's real advantage is the fusion of diagnostic reading and procedural skill he calls a superpower. The host and guests weigh the higher up-front cost of advanced imaging and devices against the dramatically lower recovery burden of a pinhole procedure. The biggest hurdle, one guest says flatly, is people — convincing decision makers the capability is worth funding. (35:54-49:56) Allied Lessons, a Military IR Community, and What Fits in a Backpack Israeli teams shifting hospitals to bunker operations within twenty-four hours and Ukrainian experience with drone-driven injury patterns are held up as evidence the United States is playing catch-up. The guests describe the effort to build a military interventional radiology community across Services and to partner with the American College of Surgeons military chapter. The episode closes with a practical deployment loadout — ultrasound, micropuncture kits, sheaths, a base catheter, coils, and wire — and a walk through current training pathways into the specialty. Take Home Messages Bleeding is the mission. The immediate cause of preventable death after trauma is hemorrhage, which is why endovascular capability belongs in the operational conversation at all. Every argument for pushing this capability forward reduces to stopping the bleeding fast enough, and doing it without creating a second catastrophe. Framing the specialty this way makes its military relevance impossible to dismiss. Trust is the system, not the equipment. A sixty-minute call-to-stick standard at a level one trauma center was not purchased — it was built over years of bi-directional trust between the trauma team and the interventional service. Once that trust exists, the activation launches without relitigating the imaging, and everything else falls into motion. Any unit trying to replicate the capability should build the relationship before it buys the gear. Ownership earns the seat. Trauma call is unglamorous, poorly reimbursed, and inconvenient, which is exactly why some centers have written interventional radiology out of the pathway entirely. Showing up at two in the morning, reviewing imaging alongside the trauma team, and taking responsibility for the patient is what secures a permanent place on that team. Presence before the activation is what makes the activation work. The limiting factor is logistics, not technique. Everything done at a level one trauma center is technically achievable far forward — the constraint is diagnostic imaging, fluoroscopy, packaging, and airlift, not procedural skill. Progress therefore depends on investment decisions and institutional will rather than on new procedures. Convincing leaders that the capability is valuable is the hurdle, and funding follows conviction. Allies are already ahead, and the injury patterns are changing. Israeli teams move a hospital into bunker operations within twenty-four hours, and Ukrainian experience with drone-driven wounding is already reshaping assumptions about balloon occlusion and embolization. Planning for the last war is the fastest way to arrive unprepared for the next one. Learning from partner nations now is cheaper than relearning under fire. Episode Keywords military medicine, interventional radiology, endovascular care, WarDocs podcast, non compressible torso hemorrhage, REBOA, stent graft, embolization, hemorrhage control, combat casualty care, Brooke Army Medical Center, trauma activation, expeditionary interventional radiology, Role 2 care, Role 3 care, military trauma system, vascular surgery, image guided procedures, John Pavlus, Jonathan Schutt, Air Force medicine, Army medicine, military health system, battlefield medicine, damage control #WarDocs, #MilitaryMedicine, #InterventionalRadiology, #EndovascularCare, #CombatCasualtyCare, #HemorrhageControl, #TraumaCare, #MilitaryHealthSystem Honoring the Legacy and Preserving the History of Military Medicine The WarDocs Mission- WarDocs exists to honor the legacy of Military Medicine, preserve its history, and inspire every generation — across all Services, Corps, and Ranks — to serve with excellence and pride. Through mentorship, coaching, and education, we equip those considering, entering, and serving in military medicine with the knowledge, connections, and community they need to thrive. We celebrate Who we are, What we do, and, most importantly, How we serve Our Patients, the DoW, and Our Nation. Find out more and join Team WarDocs at https://www.wardocspodcast.com/ Check our list of previous guest episodes at https://www.wardocspodcast.com/our-guests Subscribe and Like our Videos on our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@wardocspodcast Listen to the “What We Are For” Episode 47. https://bit.ly/3r87Afm WarDocs- The Military Medicine Podcast is a Non-Profit, Tax-exempt-501(c)(3) Veteran Run Organization run by volunteers. All donations are tax-deductible and go to honoring and preserving the history, experiences, successes, and lessons learned in Military Medicine. A tax receipt will be sent to you. WARDOCS documents the experiences, contributions, and innovations of all military medicine Services, ranks, and Corps who are affectionately called “Docs” as a sign of respect, trust, and confidence on and off the battlefield, demonstrating dedication to the medical care of fellow comrades in arms. Follow Us on Social Media Twitter: @wardocspodcast Facebook: WarDocs Podcast Instagram: @wardocspodcast LinkedIn: WarDocs-The Military Medicine Podcast YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@wardocspodcast

Feeling flat in a job that looks good on paper isn't ingratitude — it's information, and most advice culture offers ("follow your passion" or "just be grateful") skips the actual work of reading it. In this episode, Brett Ingram explains why a decent job is often harder to leave than a bad one, introduces the psychological concept behind why we tolerate "not bad enough" for years, and walks through a four-question "quiet audit" — plus one small experiment — for finding out whether you're bored, misaligned, or just in a different season of life, without gambling your paycheck to do it. What You'll Learn in This Episode Why a job that's "good enough" is often harder to leave than one that's genuinely bad — and the psychological trap that keeps you stuck in it The region beta paradox: why we recover faster from intensely bad experiences than from mildly bad ones, and what that means for a job you can't quite bring yourself to leave The two default scripts culture hands you ("follow your passion" and "just be grateful") — and why both are ways to skip the actual work of finding out what's true The difference between being bored and being misaligned, and a one-question test to tell which one you're actually dealing with Why "this no longer fits" and "this was a mistake" are two completely different statements — and why conflating them keeps people frozen The four anchors that quietly keep people in jobs that no longer fit them: money, identity, loyalty, and comfort Why clarity comes from action, not more thinking — and the small, reversible experiment to run before you decide anything Episode Timestamps [0:00] Introduction — the unhappiness nobody feels sorry for [2:00] Brett's own story: the ceiling that didn't match his ambition [4:00] The real problem — you've been auditing the wrong thing [5:00] The region beta paradox: why "not bad enough" is the hardest thing to leave [7:00] The two scripts culture hands you, and why both let you skip the work [9:00] Introducing the Quiet Audit — four questions and one move [9:00] Question 1: Am I bored, or am I misaligned? [11:00] Question 2: Is this a wrong job, or a changed season? [12:00] Question 3: What am I actually staying for — a reason or a fear? [17:00] Question 4: What could I learn about this without quitting? [19:00] Mr. Tanner, and the difference between a love and a livelihood [21:00] The two-week practice: track your energy, notice yourself, run one experiment [23:00] Closing thought — it's a compass, not a complaint Episode Summary There's a specific kind of unhappiness that nobody feels sorry for: a job you're good at, a paycheck that's solid, people who trust you — and underneath all of it, a quiet, persistent "is this it?" Brett Ingram opens this episode by naming that tension precisely, because the vagueness of it is what makes it so hard to act on. It's not dread. It's not misery. It's a low hum, a flatness on a Monday that isn't crisis-shaped enough to justify doing anything about it — which is exactly the problem. Brett's central argument is that most people are asking the wrong question. The instinct is to audit the job — is it good enough? — and by any reasonable measure, a decent job keeps passing that audit, which is exactly why the feeling doesn't go away. "The job may not have changed at all," Brett says. "You changed. What you need from your work at forty-two is not what you needed at thirty." The role didn't get worse; the fit got looser, and a loose fit is much harder to notice than a bad one. To explain why a mildly wrong job is so much stickier than an obviously bad one, Brett brings in the region beta paradox, a concept from a 2004 paper by psychologist Daniel Gilbert and colleagues (with the memorable title "The Peculiar Longevity of Things Not So Bad"). The finding: people often recover faster from intensely bad experiences than from mildly bad ones, because acute pain trips an alarm and forces a decision, while mild, tolerable discomfort never does. You can survive a "good enough" job for years, one bearable day at a time, because nothing about it ever forces the question. As Brett puts it, the salary, the competence, and the routine "aren't the reward for staying — they're the reason you stop asking the question." From there, Brett dismantles the two scripts most people default to when this feeling surfaces. The first — "life is short, follow your passion, go" — is seductive but skips the actual work; research on career change shows passion is usually the result of investment, not the cause of it. The second — "be grateful, plenty of people would kill for what you have" — weaponizes real gratitude into a gag order, when the truth is you can be genuinely thankful for a job and still have outgrown it. Both scripts let you avoid the actual question: what specifically is going on here, and what would it take to find out? That's where Brett introduces the Quiet Audit — four questions and one small move, none of which require quitting anything to start. Question one separates boredom (fixable inside the job — a new project, a harder challenge) from misalignment (the work itself, done well, still points away from what you now care about). The test: imagine the dream version of this exact job — best boss, best pay, best project. If that fixes it, you're bored. If it still feels wrong, that's alignment, and no internal move touches that. Question two reframes "wrong job" versus "changed season" — an important distinction, because "this no longer fits" is not the same claim as "this was a mistake." Question three is the most honest one: what are you actually staying for, and is it a reason or a fear? Brett names four anchors that quietly hold people in place — money (and more specifically, the lifestyle built to consume it, not the salary itself), identity (who am I if I'm not this?), loyalty to people who believe in you, and plain comfort. And question four is the one that actually breaks the paralysis, drawing on research from London Business School professor Herminia Ibarra: we don't think our way into a new direction, we act our way into it. Clarity isn't what you get before you move — it's what movement produces. The episode closes with a two-week practice built from all of it: track your energy (not your hours) and note one moment a day that gave you energy and one that drained it; notice when you feel most like yourself; and run one small, reversible experiment — a conversation, an adjacent project, a single afternoon doing the thing you're curious about — not to decide, but to learn. That's the whole shift Brett is after: from an inside question you keep answering with outside numbers, to actual information you gather on purpose. It connects directly to the fit between your work and the life you're actually living now — the ongoing question underneath most of what optYOUmize means by purpose and meaningful work. Resources Mentioned "The Peculiar Longevity of Things Not So Bad" — Jane E. J. Ebert and Daniel T. Gilbert, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004 — origin of the "region beta paradox" concept discussed in this episode Herminia Ibarra, Working Identity: Unconventional Strategies for Reinventing Your Career — source of the "act your way into a new way of thinking" research on career change "Mr. Tanner" — song by Harry Chapin, referenced for the line "Music was his life, it was not his livelihood" Up in the Air (2009 film) — referenced for its portrayal of a life optimized on the outside but hollow underneath Frequently Asked Questions How do I know if I should leave a job I'm good at? Start by separating boredom from misalignment. Imagine the dream version of your exact job — best boss, best pay, best project. If that fixes how you feel, you're likely bored, which is usually solvable where you are. If the dream version still feels wrong, that's misalignment, and no internal move — a promotion, a raise, a new manager — will touch it. What is the region beta paradox, and why does it make a decent job so hard to leave? It's a psychological finding, from a 2004 paper by Jane Ebert and Daniel Gilbert, that people often recover faster from intensely bad experiences than from mildly bad ones. An acutely bad job trips an alarm and forces a decision. A mildly wrong job never does — it's tolerable enough, day to day, that nothing forces the question, so people can stay stuck in a low-grade wrong fit for years. What's the difference between a job that's actually wrong and one I've just outgrown? "This no longer fits" and "this was a mistake" are different claims. A job can have been genuinely right for who you were at 30 and genuinely wrong for who you are at 42 — the role didn't get worse, your needs changed. Treating a changed season as a mistake is what keeps a lot of people frozen, because it turns a normal evolution into something to regret. What are the real reasons people stay in jobs they've outgrown? Brett names four anchors: money (often it's the lifestyle built around the salary, not the salary itself), identity (who am I if I'm not this role), loyalty to people who believe in you, and plain comfort — the pull of the familiar. None of these are character flaws, but it's worth being honest about which ones are actually holding you. Do I have to quit my job to figure out if I should leave? No — and Brett argues that's the wrong approach entirely. Citing research from Herminia Ibarra, the episode makes the case that clarity comes from small, reversible action, not more thinking: a single conversation, an adjacent project, or one afternoon spent doing the work you're curious about will teach you more than months of lying awake weighing it in your head. Is it ungrateful to want to leave a good job? No. The episode's core distinction is that gratitude and outgrowing something aren't mutually exclusive — you can be genuinely thankful for a job and still know it's no longer yours. Framing the question as a gratitude test is one of the two scripts Brett says people should retire, because it lets you avoid finding out what's actually true. What is the "quiet audit" from this episode? It's a four-question framework plus one small move, done privately over two weeks: (1) am I bored or misaligned, (2) is this a wrong job or a changed season, (3) what am I actually staying for — a reason or a fear, and (4) what could I learn about this without quitting. Alongside the questions, you track your daily energy, notice when you feel most like yourself, and run one small, reversible experiment. Keep Exploring If this episode resonated, these are worth your time: Purpose & Meaningful Work Pillar — The full framework on building work that actually fits the life you want, not just a résumé → Purpose & Meaningful Work Guide Sustainable Ambition: How to Want More Without Losing Yourself — A closer look at telling genuine drive apart from compulsive striving → optyoumize.com/podcast/sustainable-ambition-want-things-without-being-consumed Is It Too Late to Change Your Life? The Ownership Test — A companion framework for separating a real constraint from an inherited deadline → optyoumize.com/podcast/is-it-too-late-to-change-your-life Enjoyed This Episode? The best way to support optYOUmize is to subscribe and leave a review — it takes about two minutes and makes a real difference in helping more people find the show. Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Amazon Music · YouTube Leave a Review →

EPISODE 1837: Technical Authority – Audio, Lighting, and Production HacksProduction Value is Professional Value: Sounding and Looking Like a LeaderBy J. Loren Norris | August 12, 2026When you present through a digital medium, your technology serves as your stage. If that technology is flawed, your message suffers. Poor technical presentation creates immediate friction, undercuts your hard-earned expertise, and can quietly break an audience's trust before you even finish making your point.In today's briefing, we analyze the mechanical adjustments necessary to align your technical presence with your leadership capability.Technical Pillars of Authority:Lighting for Leadership: Bad room lighting leaves you hidden in shadows. Discover how to position a simple three-point lighting layout to eliminate harsh visual drops and emphasize your expressions naturally.The Audio Standard: Many creators prioritize cameras, but audio carries the true value. Learn why high-quality, intelligible sound matters far more than a 4K video frame, along with immediate steps to improve raw room acoustics.Framing and Composition: Where is your camera looking? We address how to use accurate eye-line angles to project natural authority without alienating your virtual attendees.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.productiveflourishing.com

Must a Christian reject modern science to hold a faithful view of Genesis? In Part 1 of this two-part collaborative episode, Dr. Chris Firestone (The Firestone Files) sits down with Dr. Nathan Jacobs (The Nathan Jacobs Podcast) in Nashville to tackle the contentious, heavily polemical debate surrounding creation, Young Earth Creationism, and evolution.Moving past the rigid false dichotomies often found online, Firestone and Jacobs draw from their shared philosophical training and the rich history of the early Church—including the Eastern Church Fathers like St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Irenaeus. They explore how theology categorizes dogma versus theologoumena (theological opinion), how the Alexandrian school of allegorical reading functioned, and whether ancient authors like St. Paul accepted the science of their era without making it a test of orthodoxy.Timestamps00:00 Introduction & Framing the Debate 03:08 Evolution, Creation, and the Modern Online Polemics 05:18 Personal Backgrounds: Hugh Ross, Genesis, and Modern Science 10:25 The High Demand: Does Faith Require Rejecting All Science? 14:15 Moving Beyond the False Dichotomy (Young Earth vs. Evolution) 18:00 The Dogmatism of Secular Science vs. Unyielding Fundamentalism 21:50 Dogma, Heresy, and Theologoumenon (Theological Opinion) 27:18 Protestant Fundamentalist Assumptions in Modern Creationism34:38 Philosophy of Creation: Divine Omnipotence and Divine Deception 42:33 Did Physics and Biology Function Differently Before the Fall? 48:48 Alvin Plantinga, Modal Logic, and Disarming Polemical Objections01:00:18 Substantive Consensus vs. Ancient Scientific Views in the Fathers 01:15:24 Storytelling, Inerrancy, and How the Bible Approached History 01:31:08 The Alexandrian School, Genesis Oddities, and the "Eighth Day"======================================Do you like this content? Join Jacobs Premium to get exclusive access to essays, lecture series, monthly Q&A Zoom calls, and ourbook club. Use code: LEWIS to get a discount: https://www.thenathanjacobspodcast.com/Support the East West Series: http://theeastwestseries.com/======================================Relevant Links:Do the Church Fathers Reject Evolution: https://youtu.be/4BugOwStHqg​Why I Reject Evolution: https://youtu.be/IBwZBDlu8CAGod's Omnipotence Explained: Can God Really Do Anything? https://youtu.be/qEYzy1Wbjcg All links:The Theological Letters (Substack): https://nathanajacobs.substack.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thenathanjacobspodcastX: https://x.com/NathanJacobsPodFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/nathanandrewjacobsAcademia: https://vanderbilt.academia.edu/NathanAJacobsListen and please review the podcast elsewhere:Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0hSskUtCwDT40uFbqTk3QSApple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-nathan-jacobs-podcast

The AI-driven capex cycle might be the biggest investment story of the past century. The five largest hyperscalers were on track to spend around $800 billion on AI infrastructure in 2025, and as a share of U.S. GDP, AI capex has already eclipsed the dot-com boom of the 1990s. Chips are at the center of the AI frenzy – the same chips that also guide precision munitions and power satellite communications. In pursuit of a strategic advantage, nations are racing to shore up critical supply chains and achieve dominance in the economic arena. How will industrial policy's reemergence influence investment opportunities and global capital flows? For a closer examination of industrial policy's risks and rewards, PGIM's Daleep Singh talks to Mike Schmidt, Distinguished Visitor at Princeton University's Griswold Center for Economic Policy and former Director of the CHIPS Program Office (CPO) at the U.S. Department of Commerce. The discussion covers topics including: A framework for employing industrial policy effectively Economic resilience and strategic dominance Opportunities and challenges in ramping up U.S. chip production Recent industrial policy actions and their market impact How to prepare supply chains to withstand geopolitical weaponization or unexpected shocks

Please pray for Dave and Bethlie as they continue this season of pause on the podcast. If you're a brand new listener or a orignal listner from 6 years ago, we're sure this series will be a blessing. Series Recap Fear God — To fear God, kids must first know God (can't stand in awe of someone unfamiliar). Keep God First — God takes priority over comfort, convenience, and blessing. A home can look put together (loving spouses, "good kids," active church attendance) and still fail at these principles. None of this happens by accident; it requires deliberate, daily practice. Parents can "perform" faith at church, but they cannot fool their own family — kids sense whether God is genuinely first. Step 3 (this episode): Love God with All Your Heart, Soul, Mind, and Strength "No one rebels against that which they love." What you love becomes obvious to others (illustrated humorously via sports team loyalty). How to Train Kids to Love God In the good times: Teach kids to be thankful. Teach them to be thankful for each other (birthdays, Father's/Mother's Day, graduations), and for God's provision through others (writing thank you notes). Prioritize church attendance even when life is comfortable — ease is often when people quietly deprioritize God. Invest financially/practically in opportunities for kids to encounter God (e.g., sending kids to summer camp despite the cost). In the dark times: Personal Example: loss of children (infant loss), loss of both of Bethlie's parents, church transitions, ministry conflicts/misunderstandings. Foundation matters: loving God consistently in good times prepares a family not to be "blown out of the water" by hard times. Framing for kids: hardship isn't God abandoning the family — it's the reality of living in a fallen/sin-cursed world; God remains good and can grow us through difficulty. Model consistency: continue church attendance, Bible reading, prayer, and kindness within the home even when discouraged — kids watch whether parents' faith holds up under pressure. Have honest, age-appropriate conversations with kids about what's happening and reaffirm the family's commitment to keep loving God through it. Serving others during hard times shifts focus off self and onto others — described as "powerful." Callback to Episode 1 theme: "serve the Lord with gladness" — serving happily in both good and bad times testifies to love for God. Caution on guarding the tongue (referencing James 1:26) — complaining/negativity undercuts a credible testimony of loving God, especially in front of children. Closing Thought "Love is never stagnant — it is either growing or declining. "Relationship with God requires ongoing, active pursuit, not a one-time declaration. Summary challenge to listeners: fear God, keep God first, and love God with heart, soul, mind, and strength — then train the next generation to do the same.

My guest on the show today is Len Gutkin, editor of The Chronicle Review, which is the ideas and analysis section of the Chronicle of Higher Education. Len, in his freelance life, is a critic whose essays have appeared in Liberties, The Los Angeles Review of Books, and elsewhere.He got his PhD in English from Yale in 2014, spent some time as a postdoc at Harvard, and has spent the years since largely at Chronicle, writing about the intellectual and institutional life of the American university with, from my perspective, an admirable sense of skin in the game; is somebody who cares about this stuff, and you can sense it in his writing.This episode with Len is something of a throwback for the show. A lot of my early episodes were pretty squarely focused on the culture wars — wokeness, anti-wokeness, what was going on in the academy, in journalism, in politics that kind of thing — and I have definitely drifted away from that territory, I think for good reason, in large part because I, like so many other people, kind of ran out of interesting new things to say about it.But I am coming back to it here because Len's recent [paywalled - email Len for access] essay in Liberties, which he titles “Reading for Sins,” is the kind of piece that can probably only be written in retrospect, with a bit of distance from the hullabaloo. Len takes on what he calls at one point, maybe with a hint of apology, “snowflake hermeneutics”: the tendency, particularly acute in the literary humanities over the last decade or so, to read works of art primarily, or at least substantially, for the sins they contain; to fixate on the morally or politically objectionable aspects of books at the expense of everything else about them.He approaches that less to condemn it, though there's no secret as you're reading it that he's not a fan of this approach to literature, than to give it what I think of as a genuine institutional and intellectual history — to understand it as something other than the thing that gives Chris Rufo too many owie feelings.To do that, Len ranges pretty widely. He gets into the sociology of taboo, the history of literary education, and, among other examples, a 2023 controversy over Merve Emre's New Yorker review of John Guillory's book Professing Criticism. Guillory's book argued that literary scholars as a profession had made a rather grievous conceptual error at some point along the way: they came to think that their work as scholars was justified, at least in part, on the basis of its beneficial political impact on society. In some extreme cases, scholars saw themselves explicitly as activists, but in many cases it was somewhat more indirect. They had constructed a paradigm in which the critical, inquisitive, deconstructive work they did served clear political ends.Guillory was critical of that. Emre, reviewing his book for The New Yorker, lexplored his argument and then added some of her own, drawing on her own experience in academia. In doing so, and this is key to how Len gets into it in his essay, she repeatedly used a phrase that Guillory himself had used to characterize what had happened to his field: “professional deformation.” It is the English translation of what was a originally a French expression used to describe actual physical deformations, like the way coal miners might develop a distinctive slump or hunch.That phrase then provided the spark for an explosion of outrage from members of a public Facebook group called Remaking the University, administered by a former president of the Modern Language Association and populated by tenured and tenure-track faculty at high-prestige institutions. They did not like Emre's use of “professional deformation.” Here is how Len, in his Liberties essay, characterizes what he observed in that Facebook group:I paid more than usual attention to the reception of Professing Criticism, because I had written about it several times myself. I was interested to see what the folks at a popular public Facebook page devoted to “Remaking the University,” hosted by a recent president ofthe Modern Language Association, would make of Emre's review. They didn't like it. And several of them — tenured professors of English, not naïve or overeager freshmen — were appalled by Guillory's use of the phrase “deformation,” as well as by Emre's approving use of it throughout her review. The subject is introduced thus, by a distinguished Victorianist: “I just read this and I'm feeling dismayed” by the “flippant, careless, and damaging work, including the unspeakable use of ‘deformation' here, not to mention the Anglocentrism, elitism, etc.” This professor goes on: “It is horrifying that a person can use ‘deformed'/‘deformation' in 2023 in an article in a major magazine and nobody flagged it.” Then another professor — like the first, a well-known scholar in her field — weighs in: “the ableism was stunning.” And the first professor returns to the charge: “I just did a search for ‘deformed' and felt physically ill. She uses it nine times in the article, starting with ‘hideously deformed.' What the hell? How are disabled scholars supposed to feel when they read that? How is it possible that she could think it was cute to use such a derogatory term and that the editors didn't flag it? I don't even see how one can debate the merits of the idea with slurs like that sitting in the prose.”In a less interesting essay than Len's, we would simply be presented with this as blatant evidence of snowflakes doing their snowflake hermeneutics. Len's approach is more interesting. He is somewhat taking for granted that it's absurd, but he's asking: what is actually going on here? What does it mean to say that one feels physically ill from reading the word “deformation” in this context? What feelings or reactions are being submerged, evaded, or sublimated in this kind of discussion? For what ulterior purpose was the accusation of ableism serving as a stalking horse? And why were people so pissed off in the first place?One answer Len gives has to do with the idea of words themselves as magic, as sacred, as having the power to heal or harm or alter the fabric of the universe. He points out that this is not a novel relationship to words — it is in fact ancient, and it connects in a pretty clear way, once he lays it out, to a much longer and then much more modern history of how literature, and the study of literature and other humanities, has functioned in the modern West as a kind of substitute for religion in the aftermath of the collapse of organized Christianity as a taken-for-granted source of meaning, vessel for sacred energies. The close reading of difficult texts was, within that period, understood as a serious spiritual practice.What Len argues — and what I find genuinely compelling and pretty persuasive — is that snowflake hermeneutics is in part a rearguard response to the loss of that function. The prestige that attached to literary study in that earlier period has drained away, and nobody quite knows how to recover from it. Snowflake hermeneutics is, in this reading, an unconscious attempt to restore some of literature's old sacred charge by treating certain words and representations as sacred but in a negative register, because the positive ones can no longer serve. They've been vanquished from the inside by the contemporary academy, and then more thoroughly vanquished by the macro forces we're all buffeted by — neoliberalism, postmodernity, capital, techno-futurism, whatever you want to call them.That is a much more interesting conversation to have than simply “snowflakes bad,” which isn't really a conversation at all. Also interesting is where Len and I end up when we try to take seriously the role of taboo, the idea that certain words are genuinely destabilizing and that we need protection from them. We talk about whether taboos of some kind are necessary to the functioning of any society, whether any culture can really do entirely without taboos, whether everything should truly be on the table in a scholarly or intellectual context.We go deep on those things and others, and I had a lot of fun.One small production note: Len's dog makes a brief but notable appearance early in the conversation. His barking, though loud, does not last long. He is not a bad dog. He is a good dog. But if you hear him and it feels disruptive, it will pass soon.Eminent Americans is produced in collaboration with the John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at Washington University in St. Louis, and is distributed through its publication, Arc Magazine. You can find all of Arc's podcasts, including this one, and much more online at arcmag.org.It was a real pleasure to have Len on for this semi-throwback episode. Peace.0:00 Intro – Dan introduces guest Len Gutkin, editor of The Chronicle Review0:55 Framing the episode as a “throwback” to earlier culture-war coverage1:19 Len's Liberties essay “Reading for Sins” and “snowflake hermeneutics”2:21 Sociology of taboo, literary education, and the Guillory/Emre controversy4:46 The “professional deformation” Facebook group outrage6:39 Len's real question: why do people feel “physically ill” from a word?7:34 Words as sacred/magical — literature as substitute for religion9:19 Snowflake hermeneutics as grief response to lost prestige of humanities10:24 Preview: taboo, necessity of taboos in any culture10:56 Note on a barking dog early in the interview10:56 Danforth Center/Arc Magazine credits10:14 Interview begins — Len's background and title at The Chronicle11:16 Len summarizes “Reading for Sins”13:20 Len's academic background, PhD at Yale (2014)14:23 State of campus politics circa 2003–2014 (”interregnum”)16:02 2014 Yale grad student “atmospheric concerns” moment17:02 Postdoc years at Harvard, sensing the shift building19:20 The complicated student/faculty dynamic behind the culture wars22:46 Case study #1: the “N-word” podcast and classroom taboo rules26:52 The Michael Warner “faggotry” anecdote28:09 Slurs as concentrated sites of language's power29:22 Workplace-norm slippage into classroom/literary norms32:14 The Odyssey, disturbing content, and professional hypocrisy36:14 Dave Hickey/Mapplethorpe/Jesse Helms tangent on art's power to disturb39:17 Double-edged strategy: aggrandizing vs. vitiating one's subject41:15 Right-wing “manosphere” vs. left-wing academic parallels (Barbara Kruger)46:44 Case study #2: Guillory's “professional deformation,” Emre's New Yorker review, and the Facebook backlash50:53 Is public Facebook commentary fair game as evidence?54:24 Faculty fear of students posting to social media57:00 Christian right's historical claim to being the “OG” trigger-warning enforcers60:34 Hypocrisy on both sides of the free-speech/academic-freedom debate64:29 Buckley's “God and Man at Yale” and academic freedom skepticism65:04 Psychoanalyzing the Facebook group's outrage — displacement theory68:57 What was the actual “betrayal” in Guillory's book and Emre's review?70:42 Timing: 2023, the fraying of “woke consensus,” and October 7th73:15 Case study #3: Paul Moses and the 1960s Huckleberry Finn controversy at U Chicago80:29 Should there be any taboos in arts education? Céline as test case88:19 Circling back: blasphemy, sacralization, and STEM's rising prestige93:52 AI as an accelerant of the loss of literary culture95:53 What a “mature” response to loss/grief might look like97:22 Closing thoughts and outro/credits This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit danieloppenheimer.substack.com/subscribe

Russell Shorto, author of Smalltime: A Story of My Family and the Mob, provides a historical and personal exploration of organized crime in the small industrial town of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, framing the American Mafia as a "mirror of American capitalism." The story traces the family's roots back to Sicily, where the author's great-grandfather, Antonino Scioto (later Tony Shorto), emigrated to work in coal mines before his mysterious murder in Italy in 1920. This tragedy forced his son, Rosario "Russell" Shorto, to become the family's provider at age six, eventually finding his way into the world of bootlegging and gambling during Prohibition. Russell developed specialized skills as a card and dice cheat, finding a mentor in a neighborhood "Black Hand" leader. In the late 1930s, Shorto partnered with Joe Regino, a mobster sent from Philadelphia to establish a local franchise. Their base of operations, City Cigar, became a central hub for a gambling empire that included the numbers racket, pinball, and card games, all protected by a sophisticated system of bribing local police and politicians. Shorto emphasizes the social context of ethnic prejudice, noting that many Italianimmigrants turned to the "underworld" because legitimate economic paths were often closed to them. The book also examines the internal family toll of this lifestyle—secrets, alcoholism, and the strain of living multiple lives—as the author and his father attempt to reconstruct the history of a man who never "broke cover." The empire eventually crumbled under the pressure of federal investigations led by Bobby Kennedy and local fallout from the unsolved 1960 murder of bookie Pippy diFalco. (2)1899 CAMBRIA COUNTY, PA

Vandaag het gesprek met Jeanine Mies. Jeanine is al ruim 25 jaar zelfstandig tekstschrijver en trainer, vooral voor de rijksoverheid. Ze is zich steeds meer gaan richten op de invloed van taal op gedragsverandering. In 2024 publiceerde ze haar boek Magneetwoorden over de aantrekkingskracht van positieve taal. En in het verlengde daarvan richtte ze de WEL-beweging op voor positieve verandering. Daarmee nodigt ze ons uit om ons vaker te richten op wat we wél willen in plaats van wat we níet willen. Laten we beginnen… Samenvatting Met hulp van AI gemaakt. Wat ik zoal leerde van Jeanine : 00:00 intro - de oorsprong van de liefde voor taal 02:25 De cirkel van de middelbare school tot nu rond met deze lezing 05:05 Spelen met taal en haakjes zoals de Vakbond voor Dieren. 06:00 Framing met taal. De woorden die je gebruikt zeggen iets over hoe je de wereld waarneemt. 11:25 Nathan Rutjes is een mooi voorbeeld van een coach die positieve taal gebruikt in zijn coaching van de jonge spelers. 14:00 Het vraagt extra aandacht om positieve woorden te gebruiken. 15:20 Angstpoli vs durfpoli, een mooi voorbeeld van een woord dat afstoot en een woord dat aantrekt. 20:45 Een frame waardoor je gelijk weet, dit willen we niet. 21:55 Wat is de oproep voor de wereld waar we naar toe willen, in plaats van de wereld waar we vanaf willen? 24:55 Bewustwordingscampagnes maken meer kapot dan je lief is. 25:20 Wil je aandacht? Wees dan ergens tegen. Wil je wat bereiken? Wees dan ergens voor. 26:55 De blik verschuiven van wat we niet willen, naar wat we WEL willen. 27:20 De kapitalistische negatieve prikkel verkoopt. 30:30 Het negatieve redt zichzelf en het positieve kan een schijnwerper gebruiken. 31:05 De WEL-blik werkt. 33:40 De drie V's voor een goed verhaal: value, villain en vision. 34:55 Het ontstaan van het WEL-festival en de WEL-beweging. 36:55 Als je uitspreekt "ik ga het doen", dan gaat het ook eerder gebeuren. 37:20 Het ontstaan van de magneetwoordenkalender door een vermelding in het boek terwijl die er nog niet was. Plus een slimme manier om deze actueel te houden. 40:15 Dit is waarom ze stichting heeft opgezet voor haar WEL-activiteiten. 42:55 Hoe bepaal je wat een goed bedrag is voor je product? 47:00 Teken van deze tijd: Waar veel geld verdiend wordt dat slecht is voor de wereld, en waar je goed doet voor de wereld dat daar weinig geld tegenover staat. 52:00 Zelf een magneet zijn. 53:15 Hoe wil ik dat mensen me herinneren als ik er niet meer ben. Meer over Jeanine Mies: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeaninemies/ magneetwoorden.nl https://wel-beweging.nl Boek: Magneetwoorden (2024) Andere bronnen: WEL festival Karel de Feijter Orde van den Prince - Wikipedia Voorzitter van de Vakbond voor (werkende) dieren- Marjolein de Rooij Nathan Rutjes - video van begeleiding tijdens een wedstrijd Jens van der Weele - transitietaal Messaging 101 (drie V's) Doortje 't Hart Zo krijgen we een economie zonder verborgen impact – Babette Porcelijn Samen werken naar het happy 2050 scenario – Babette Porcelijn boek: Stemmen met je portemonnee met bijdrage van Jeanine en Babette Reint Jan Renes - Wikipedia Video van het gesprek met Jeanine Mies https://youtu.be/UutxNbrVd-k Kijk hier https://youtu.be/UutxNbrVd-k Transcript van het gesprek

The Senate confirms Jay Clayton to lead ODNI. A new CISA framework highlights critical infrastructure isolation capabilities. OpenAI's rogue agent breached more than just Hugging Face. The average cost of a data breach continues to rise. Indirect prompt injection proves irresistible to cyber criminals. Broadcom patches multiple VMware products. ShinyHunters claims responsibility for Ernst & Young's recent breach. Our guest is Sean Zadig, CISO at Yahoo, discussing the impact of AI on the defense side. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. CyberWire Guest Today we are joined by Sean Zadig, CISO at Yahoo, discussing the impact of AI on the defense side without all the hype in either direction, what is a CISO actually doing about it. Selected Reading Senate Confirms Jay Clayton to Lead U.S. Intelligence Community (The New York Times) China and Iran Are Already Inside US Grids: CISA Demands Tested Isolation Plans (Tech Times) OpenAI's rogue agent compromised a customer at a second tech firm, executive says (Reuters) Anatomy of a Frontier Lab Agent Intrusion: A Technical Timeline of the July 2026 Incident (Hugging Face) The Average Cost of a Data Breach Rises to $5 Million (Infosecurity Magazine) USSPACECOM Issues Space Warfighting Environment 2040 for Joint Force Space Operations (ExecutiveGov) THE SPACE WARFIGHTING ENVIRONMENT 2040 Framing the Future for the Joint Warfighter (U.S. Space Command)  Notes from Underground: Adversarial Prompt Injection (Proofpoint) Critical VM Escape Vulnerability Patched in VMware ESXi (SecurityWeek) ShinyHunters Claims Ernst & Young Hack (SecurityWeek) America bans imported robots due to supply chain and security risks (The Register) Share your feedback. What do you think about CyberWire Daily? Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts with us by completing our brief listener survey. Thank you for helping us continue to improve our show. Want to hear your company in the show? N2K CyberWire helps you reach the industry's most influential leaders and operators, while building visibility, authority, and connectivity across the cybersecurity community. Learn more at sponsor.thecyberwire.com. The CyberWire is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc.

Want to know how leaders should utilize AI without losing their critical thinking skills? In this episode of the Build a Vibrant Culture Podcast, Nicole Greer sits down with organizational scientist and author Adrian Wolfberg to explore his book, Who Leads When AI Thinks?This conversation dives into leadership and business strategy, organizational culture, and the human judgment skills that AI cannot replace. Adrian explains why AI is not just a tool but a relationship, how leaders can use framing and reframing to make better decisions, and why curiosity may be the most underrated leadership skill of all.In this episode, you will learn:How to think about AI as a relationship instead of a toolA better approach to framing and reframing decisions as reality changesWhat most leaders get wrong about delegating critical thinking to AIPractical strategies to protect curiosity and judgment on your teamThis episode is for leaders, managers, business owners, and professionals who want to strengthen decision-making, protect organizational culture, and lead well in an AI-enabled workplace.

In episode 198 of Cybersecurity Where You Are, Sean Atkinson discusses artificial intelligence (AI) and privacy from a risk-based cybersecurity perspective. Together, he explores how organizations and individuals can assess AI risk, apply governance frameworks, evaluate third-party AI services, and balance innovation with due diligence.Here are some highlights from our episode:00:41. Framing the conversation around AI, privacy, and risk-based controls02:22. Due diligence and ethical considerations around AI products and services03:14. Data minimization and transparency as foundations for AI privacy04:46. Privacy impact assessments as a way to understand AI data collection and use05:42. AI governance and the tension between implementation velocity and risk management10:08. The use of existing data flows and controls in AI assessments11:57. Algorithmic transparency and the challenge of understanding AI decision making13:47. Standards, frameworks, and data sovereignty in AI privacy governance15:12. Encryption, anonymization, tokenization, and federated learning as privacy safeguards16:40. The need to shift stakeholder input left in AI development and deployment lifecycles19:13. Building literacy around security, data management, privacy, and AI risk23:40. The value of cross-functional and written assessment criteria for AI risk26:21. A call to action for keeping pace with AI privacy and and innovation riskResourcesCIS Controls v8.1.2 AI Security Guidance WorkbookEpisode 105: Context in Cyber Risk QuantificationService Provider Management Policy Template for CIS Control 15EU AI Act: first regulation on artificial intelligenceAI Risk Management FrameworkIAPP AI Governance CenterEpisode 120: How Contextual Awareness Drives AI GovernanceSecure by Design v1.1 A Guide to Assessing Software Security PracticesReasonable CybersecurityIf you have some feedback or an idea for an upcoming episode of Cybersecurity Where You Are, let us know by emailing podcast@cisecurity.org.

Pappy and Stevie are droppin Columbombs "Suitable for Framing" is the fourth episode of Season 1 of the classic detective series Columbo, which originally aired on NBC in 1971. The episode is widely celebrated by fans and critics as a masterpiece of television, famous for delivering one of the greatest "gotcha" endings in TV history. https://www.patreon.com/spoilerspodcast

Click to Text Thoughts on Today's EpisodeAs part of the Graced Health Sunset Series, I sit down with Kate Lyman — nutrition coach, Master of Public Health, Certified Health Education Specialist, and owner of Kate Lyman Nutrition. Kate also co-hosts the How to Fitness podcast alongside Michael Ulloa, where the pair bring an evidence-based, ad-free lens to trending wellness and nutrition topics.In this conversation, Kate breaks down how she and Michael research and script their deep-dive episodes, why the menopause transition is a hotbed for health misinformation, and why "it depends" might be the most honest (and most frustrating) answer in wellness. We also swap stories on episodes that surprised us, the sketchy side of the supplement industry, and how to think clearly about GLP-1 medications.Topics Discussed Today:Behind the scenes of a research-heavy podcast Why the menopause transition attracts so much misinformation The pull of hot takes Framing health advice as experimentation Navigating GLP-1 medications Kate's one takeaway for listenersEpisode LinksHow To Fitness Podcasthttps://www.katelymannutrition.com/how-to-fitness-podcastMy latest recommended ways to nourish and move your body, mind and spirit: Nourished Notes Bi-Weekly Newsletter30+ Non-Gym Ways to Improve Your Health (free download)Connect with Amy: GracedHealth.com Instagram: @GracedHealthYouTube: @AmyConnell

Day 5 of 50 Days for Freedom, hosted from @Swan after Cory's handle hit tech trouble. Swan's buy fee sits at 50 basis points through Labor Day. Framing doc: swan.com/battle. Cory on disagreeing well. Three summers of shows with Vlad Costea despite splitting on layer twos and drivechain. A lot of people we think we oppose actually love Bitcoin, and privacy is common ground. UK digital ID scrapped, sort of. Suz reports the £1.8B scheme killed after a 2.9M-signature petition and cross-party opposition. Her warning: canceling a brand name is not abandoning the architecture. The back door is already open. GOV.UK One Login covers 122 services, with all central government services slated to join by 2027. Age verification, employment checks, and the Online Safety Act converge on the same result. America's version, differently packaged. No single federal portal yet, but Real ID, mobile driver's licenses, and digital age checks add up. Federalism is a partial brake. Panel consensus: very close. Fear plus convenience is the playbook. 9/11, COVID, now the FATF travel rule reframed as national security. Suz: "you can make a scared man do anything." Bitcoin's answer is separating money from the identity gateway. Fourth Turning, with an exit. Brady's case: institutions are collapsing on schedule, but this cycle has Bitcoin and Nostr already built. Freedom tech that math makes un-co-optable. Cory's version: ten million US Bitcoiners, the race to avoid the war. Education is the whole mission. Lyn Alden's Seven Misconceptions, Vijay's 2018 Bullish Case article, Yan Pritzker's Inventing Bitcoin, and the Bitcoin Season documentary. Cory: understanding earns you the right to own more. ETF buyers who skipped it get lettuce hands. Swan versus Coinbase, box by box. Swan Sovereign, Swan Vault multisig, Swan Safe Plus with live video withdrawal confirmation, buy fees under Coinbase's advanced exchange, and Swan covering network fees. Plus Steve's scarcity chart: 60 million millionaires, 21 million coins. Agentic commerce wants Bitcoin. Scott's Machine Economy project, Buzz, Lightning Labs' Wavelength, and HTTP 402 finally getting built. An agent needs only a keypair. Cory also set the BIP110 policy: not daily here, but a moderated debate is coming.

Your spouse shoots down every FI conversation with "we can't afford it" or "retirement at 35 sounds crazy." You respond with better spreadsheets, tighter logic, more compelling numbers—and somehow make things worse. The problem isn't your math. It's that you're bringing a calculator to an emotional fight. Why FI Conversations Trigger Defensiveness 00:05:30 — When we talk about money, we're not really talking about money. We're talking about security, social status, control, self-worth, and love. FI challenges the social contract most people internalized since childhood: work until 65, then retire. Violating this norm triggers psychological reactance—the tendency to resist when autonomy feels threatened. 00:12:00 — Pursuing FI signals more than personal choices. It implies judgment about others' decisions. If you're pursuing work-optional status at 40, you're indirectly questioning why someone else plans to work until 67. That's why seemingly rational discussions about savings rates become emotionally charged. 00:18:00 — Five common mistakes guarantee FI conversations will fail: Leading with numbers instead of values Using community jargon ("4% rule," "coast FI") with outsiders Framing as "early retirement" rather than "work optional" Presenting FI as a done deal instead of a mutual exploration Evangelizing instead of listening The Communication Framework That Actually Works 00:28:00 — Start values-based conversations by asking open-ended questions: "If you woke up without work or money worries, what would your perfect Tuesday look like?" This explores shared desires without triggering resistance. People generate their own reasons for change—which proves far more persuasive than any argument you present. 00:35:00 — The elicit-provide-elicit framework from motivational interviewing: Elicit: Ask questions to understand their perspective first Provide: Share relevant information only after listening Elicit: Get their response to create dialogue, not lecture Instead of: "We should save 50% of our income to retire by 40." Try: "What does financial security mean to you? ... I've been reading about building flexibility into our careers. What aspects of that appeal to you?" 00:43:00 — Validation acknowledges concerns without requiring agreement. When your partner worries about market crashes, don't counter with historical data. Say: "I hear you're concerned about losing everything in a downturn. That's a legitimate worry worth addressing." Then explore solutions together. 00:50:00 — Regular money dates reduce emotional charge. Schedule monthly 30-minute check-ins specifically about finances. Make them pleasant—coffee shop, weekend morning, whatever feels special. Low-stakes repetition normalizes these conversations. When One Partner Resists FI 00:56:00 — First understand the resistance. What do they feel they're losing? Status from career advancement? Daily structure? Social connections? Address the emotional concern behind the objection. Start with minimal commitments rather than aggressive savings rates. Instead of "let's save 60% of income," try "what if we saved an extra $100 this month?" Build momentum through small wins that don't trigger reactance. 01:02:00 — The four essential communication skills: Open-ended questions (who, what, where, when, why, how) Affirmations (recognizing strengths and efforts) Reflections (repeating back what you heard) Summaries (pulling together themes from the conversation) Notable Quotes Jasper Lee: "You cannot beat an emotional objection with a logical argument." Jasper Lee: "When we talk about money, we're not really talking about money. We're talking about security, social status, control, your self-worth, love." Jasper Lee: "People are always more persuaded by arguments they generate themselves than by arguments you present to them." Brad Barrett: "The journey to FI is probably about ninety percent psychological and maybe only five percent to ten percent about the actual mechanics of money." Jas…

This week we're talking about, What to Do When Your Child Pushes Your Buttons. Your child says something that lands hard, or they shut down completely and the silence fills every corner of the house. You hold it together in the moment, but later, when everything is quiet, you replay it. You wonder if you handled it right. You wonder if the relationship is okay. And you do all of that alone, without anyone to help you sort through it. The hard truth is that solo parenting doesn't give you a timeout from the hardest parenting moments. There's no one to tap in, no one to debrief with, and no one to remind you that you're not failing just because your kid is furious with you right now. Robert Beeson, Founder and CEO of Solo Parent, and Elizabeth Cole, a single parent navigating this in real time, sit down with Amber Fuller, a counselor with a Master's in Marriage and Family Therapy and single parent, to talk through what's really happening when your child pushes back, and what it actually looks like to stay grounded, hold your position, and keep the relationship intact at the same time. Key Insights from This Episode: Your child's anger is often a signal, not an attack. When kids rage or shut down, they're usually communicating fear, loss, or a need for control they don't yet have words for. Staying emotionally regulated isn't about suppressing your feelings. It's about being the stable presence your child needs when their own emotions are running the show. Framing your child's pushback as a form of trust changes how you receive it. They push hardest at the people they believe won't leave. Resources Mentioned in This Episode: The Emotional Lives of Teenagers by Lisa Damour The Whole Brain Child by Dr. Dan Siegel Stay Connected + Get Support: Download our Solo Parent App Join a Solo Parent Group Learn more about Solo Parent Follow us on Instagram  

Ein Antikmarkt in Bamberg, ein staubiges Gemälde, ein Verkäufer mit einem Satz über Rahmen. Zwanzig Jahre später verkauft ein amerikanisches Medienunternehmen Wall Street den Zugriff auf Sätze im Millisekundenbereich, für bis zu hunderttausend Dollar im Monat. Dazwischen liegt alles, was Du über Framing wissen musst. Und ein Fall, der zeigt, wie brutal die Mechanik zurückschlägt: Die Frau, die Framing in Deutschland bekannt gemacht hat, ist über zwei Wörter auf einem Deckblatt gestolpert. In dieser Folge geht es um das Handwerk dahinter. Warum Steuerlast und Steuerbeitrag dasselbe Geld völlig verschieden aussehen lassen. Warum Sondervermögen zum Unwort des Jahres 2025 gewählt wurde und was das über Schulden verrät. Warum ein undefinierter Begriff wie Stadtbild stärker wirkt als jede Definition. Und warum die Forschung inzwischen zeigt, dass Framing seine Kraft verliert, sobald ein zweiter Rahmen daneben steht. Am Ende bekommst Du vier konkrete Regeln: warum jedes Dementi das Bild verstärkt, das es löschen soll, wie Du Deinen eigenen Rahmen setzt, statt am fremden zu reparieren, welche Wörter Du benutzt, ohne sie je geprüft zu haben, und warum die Verpackung Deiner Person bewertet wird, lange bevor jemand Deinen Inhalt liest. Wenn Du mit Deiner Wirkung arbeiten willst statt gegen sie: MEandYou.de.

Episode Summary With sub-internship (away rotation) season approaching, the hosts pull back the curtain on what orthopaedic faculty and residents are actually evaluating when a visiting medical student rotates through their program — and how to make the most of a high-stakes, high-anxiety few weeks that can shape where a student matches. Timestamps 00:00 — Intro Welcome and standard disclaimer: discussion is for informational purposes only, not professional medical advice. Setup for the episode topic — sub-internships and the residency match process. 00:30 — What sub-internships are and why they're stressful Framing the away rotation as an audition: students are trying to show programs who they are in a compressed, high-pressure window, often while living out of a temporary apartment in an unfamiliar city. 03:00 — What "being a good fit" actually means Programs are evaluating who they'll want to work closely with for 5 years — not just intelligence, but genuine likability and motivation. Surgical skill and knowledge can be taught; character is harder to change. 06:00 — Knowing your patients cold Being over-prepared on rounds — knowing the patient's history as well as or better than the intern — is one of the clearest signals of a strong sub-intern. Also covers outpatient/clinic prep and being a true team player, not just to faculty but to residents and staff alike. 09:00 — It's not about what you know — it's how you think Faculty don't expect med students to have read every paper. What stands out is how a student approaches an unfamiliar problem, reasons through it, and engages honestly rather than performing. Also: don't fake being busy or "look like you're learning" for show — it's noticeable. 12:00 — Phones, timing, and letters of recommendation Being visibly on your phone reads badly, even if you're doing legitimate reading between cases. Advice to request letters of recommendation about a week in advance so faculty can ask a few thoughtful questions about motivation and goals, rather than being asked last-minute. 15:00 — Flip the script: evaluating the program Sub-internships are a two-way evaluation. What to watch for: whether junior residents are progressing appropriately (a junior who already "knows everything" like a senior isn't actually a good sign — it may mean the program lacks structured teaching), how happy residents seem, and practical factors like hospital type (county vs. academic vs. hybrid) and commute/travel time. 18:00 — Talking about research in interviews Advice on discussing research authentically rather than treating it as a checklist. How to "spin" even offbeat research topics into a genuine, engaging conversation — with personal examples from silk moth cocoon biology to heart transplant genetics. 21:00 — Electives worth adding: psychiatry and emergency medicine A case for adding a real psychiatry rotation to build empathy and understanding of how depression, anxiety, and chronic pain intersect with orthopaedic care — plus a recommendation for an emergency medicine rotation to build consult and acute-care skills. 24:00 — Recommended resources and final advice A recommended online video resource for students transitioning from med student to resident, covering surgical basics and interview prep. Reflection on how important — and exciting — the sub-internship and match process is. 26:00 — Closing story and outro The hosts trade "craziest sub-I moment" stories, including a memorable case involving a corrective surgical procedure and a valet-parking mishap with a very expensive sports car. Standard sign-off and where to find the show on social media. Key Takeaways -Sub-internships are as much a character evaluation as a skills evaluation — programs are choosing a colleague for the next 5 years, not just a technically skilled trainee. -Being over-prepared on your patients and being genuinely kind to residents, faculty, and staff are among the strongest signals a program looks for. -Avoid "performing" for evaluators — faking productivity (phone use, fake studying) is more noticeable than students think. -Request letters of recommendation early — about a week ahead — to give faculty time for a thoughtful conversation. -Students should also be evaluating the program: resident happiness, teaching structure, and practical logistics all matter. -Consider adding psychiatry and emergency medicine electives for skills directly relevant to orthopaedic practice. Please subscribe to our podcast at Apple PodcastsCheck out our website on Simplecast

Back like it never left, Intertextual Experience welcomes Amabel Holland—designer, video essayist, author, and co-owner of Hollandspiele—for its forty-sixth episode. Amabel has been making my favorite board game media through her video essays, so this conversation is in conversation with those videos. While the title of the episode is “Episode of Six Video Essays,” technically only four wind up being explicitly chosen through this installment's game. With that being said, Amabel's nuanced responses connect to more than the selected six, weaving in various other essays (future ones as well), games, movies, and more media to explore the ways in which art can impact us, why preservation is important, and how being unique and filling different niches will push boundaries of what games can do or be even if it might not be the most commercially viable strategy. Additionally, there is discussion of immersive sims and the correct way to eat skittles, some very impressive word game play, and much more. This is not an episode to miss.Speaking of things you don't want to miss, check out following things from Amabel:Video EssaysHollandspiele WebsitePatreonBlueskyHere are the documents used in this episode: the reference document (serves as the games mentioned in this episode as well) and the word game itself. In order to not spoil too much, the sections of the episode are going to not have too many extra notes. Technically, you could cross reference the show notes, episode cover image, and the reference document to figure out what's being talked about within each section; it's a mini-puzzle in a sense. Regardless, each section is basically just the title of each video essay.Intro and State of the Video Essays (0:00)Should Board Games Be Frustrating (24:32)The general frame of the word game is described right at the beginning, and then it moves to frustration in some various games.Boxes: Selling, Framing, Meaning (44:42)[There is a small, fun, post-credit audio bit that was originally in this section.]Replay Value: Repetition, Ritual, and Improvement (57:07)Expanding Board Games (1:09:27)Wrap-up Questions (1:19:31)A text on Amabel's mind and things to look forward to from her!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you like this show, liking it on whatever platform you listen to and writing a review would mean so much! Furthermore, it's as independent as it gets, so any financial support would help with the subscriptions that make this project go smoothly.That can be done by "buying me a coffee" and/or buying a copy of my board game (I like it).All of my socials and support information can be found here: Intertextual Experience Linktree

Contact us. We'd love to serve youGrow in your ministry preparation through the FREE Practically Trained Pastors Cohort.Give financially to support the work of helping pastors thriveWrite a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify Resources(03:20) Framing the Question: Do Pastors Need Seminary?(05:10) Biblical Foundations for Training(06:50) How Seminaries Assumed the Training Role(07:27) Jim's Training Story: Church-Based “Seminary”(10:00) Brian's Training Story: Mentors & “Informal M.Div.”(13:15) Serving at Southern Seminary Without a Seminary Degree(15:45) So, Is Seminary Required? Global & Historical Perspective(18:30) Who Really Needs Seminary? Denominations, Missions, Teaching(21:45) Credentials and Closed Doors(23:30) Seminary as Structure, Deadlines, and Motivation(26:05) The “Educational Bubble,” Enrollment Decline, & Competition(28:10) Tension: “You Need the Church” vs. “You Really Need Us”(29:40) Encouraging Smaller, Church-Connected Seminaries(31:15) Alternative Pathways & Practical Shepherding Cohorts(32:40) Encouragement to Non‑Seminary Pastors(34:45) Pastors, Don't Outsource Training Your Men(37:10) Final Word & Prayer

Join our WhatsApp group for weekly exclusive content: https://chat.whatsapp.com/FEgoaCOQoyU2VX49SwA8Aw?s=cl&p=a&ilr=4   Be Courageous, be Honest, be a Jew. Those were the words with which a parent took leave of his son during the Holocaust.    However much we are aware of the terrible years that befell our People, the words and testimonies shake us and make us rethink Faith & Suffering   Mrs Zahava Ungar & Mr Yisrael Diamond are living proof to the tragedies and perseverance that took them through 5 years of torment. They are both heads of a families today which have continued the Yiddishkeit of pre-war generations. Their words need to be heard.   Timestamps: [0:00:00] – Survivor vignette: sneaking out for water, sister taken [0:00:38] – Podcast introduction and dedication [0:01:50] – Framing the episode: from numbers to personal stories; link to Tisha B'Av [0:03:33] – Reading and discussion of the three Holocaust letters (to ~[0:07:30]) [0:07:37] – Introduction to Mrs. Sahava Unger [0:08:17] – Early life, Nazi occupation, father taken to labor [0:10:28] – Ghetto, deportation to Auschwitz [0:13:47] – Birkenau, living conditions, selection, loss of sister [0:18:47] – Liberation, aunts in “Canada,” uncle in Sonderkommando, journey after the war ~[0:24:27]–[0:29:00] – Reflections on fear, hunger, cold; her later life and family [0:29:00] – Introduction to Mr. Yustral Diamond [0:29:23] – Leaving Antwerp; journey to Montpellier, south of France [0:31:08] – Round-up orders; warning and help from French gendarmerie chief [0:38:21] – Hiding in villages, resistance environment, daily terror [0:45:32] – Post-war: yeshiva, return to Antwerp, move to Golders Green, religious perseverance [0:48:07] – Introduction to Rav Yeshua Grunwald [0:49:57] – Excerpts from his writings; Holocaust suffering as “mizbeach” / Kodesh Kodashim [0:53:29] – His closing prayer for justice and redemption [0:54:17]–end – Host's closing words and Tisha B'Av message

Contact us. We'd love to serve youGrow in your ministry preparation through the FREE Practically Trained Pastors Cohort.Give financially to support the work of helping pastors thriveWrite a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify Resources(03:20) Framing the Question: Do Pastors Need Seminary?(05:10) Biblical Foundations for Training(06:50) How Seminaries Assumed the Training Role(07:27) Jim's Training Story: Church-Based “Seminary”(10:00) Brian's Training Story: Mentors & “Informal M.Div.”(13:15) Serving at Southern Seminary Without a Seminary Degree(15:45) So, Is Seminary Required? Global & Historical Perspective(18:30) Who Really Needs Seminary? Denominations, Missions, Teaching(21:45) Credentials and Closed Doors(23:30) Seminary as Structure, Deadlines, and Motivation(26:05) The “Educational Bubble,” Enrollment Decline, & Competition(28:10) Tension: “You Need the Church” vs. “You Really Need Us”(29:40) Encouraging Smaller, Church-Connected Seminaries(31:15) Alternative Pathways & Practical Shepherding Cohorts(32:40) Encouragement to Non‑Seminary Pastors(34:45) Pastors, Don't Outsource Training Your Men(37:10) Final Word & Prayer

Youth Soccer, the World Cup, and America's Pay-to-Play Problem 6 to 8 Weeks: Perspectives in Sports Medicine Runtime:~23 minutes Episode Summary With the World Cup underway, the hosts ask a controversial question: why isn't the US better at men's soccer, given a talent pool that dwarfs countries like Belgium and Norway? The conversation pivots from there into the real subject of the episode — how America's pay-to-play youth sports system is driving both a talent gap and a youth injury epidemic, especially ACL and overuse injuries in young athletes. Timestamps 00:00 — Intro Welcome and standard disclaimer: discussion is for informational purposes only, not professional medical advice. 00:30 — Why isn't the US better at men's soccer? Framing question for the episode: the US has far more people than countries that regularly outperform it (Belgium, population 11.8M; Norway, population 5.6M), yet can't compete at the same level on the men's side — a contrast with the sustained success of the US women's national team. 02:30 — Setting up the real topic: youth injuries Transition into ACL and overuse injuries in young athletes, particularly young females, and how that connects to the US youth development model. 03:00 — The pay-to-play system How youth sports shifted over the past ~10–25 years from school and community leagues to private club/travel teams. Families now spend as much as $20,000/year on travel soccer and baseball. 05:00 — The numbers behind the industry Youth sports is cited as a ~$40 billion industry. Comparison of costs: a recreational league (e.g., AYSO) runs roughly $140–150/year, while an entry-level travel team runs about $1,700 and an academy-level club team about $3,500 — before uniforms, extra practices, or private coaching. 07:00 — Is this just a soccer problem? Discussion of whether this trend is soccer-specific or affects baseball, basketball, and volleyball too (it's across the board). The disappearance of casual pickup games and rec leagues in favor of organized, paid leagues. 09:00 — US vs. European development models European countries emphasize multi-sport participation and general athleticism (coordination, core strength) over early performance and specialization. Cited participation gap: roughly 90% multi-sport participation in some European countries vs. a steep drop-off in the US. 11:00 — The scholarship reality check The odds of a young athlete earning a college scholarship or going pro are extremely low. Recommendation: decisions about youth sports should center on the child's enjoyment and development, not a scholarship or pro chase. 13:00 — Why specialization raises injury risk Explanation of how single-sport specialization leads to repetitive stress on the same body parts, and how kids aren't developing the balanced strength, coordination, and movement patterns that protect against injury. European academy model contrasted as more balance- and skill-focused. 15:00 — Specialization and injuries at the pro level Early specialization linked to earlier injuries in professional athletes — for example, NBA players who specialized young tearing Achilles tendons earlier in their careers, and a rise in Tommy John (elbow) surgeries among teenage baseball players. Also: level of soccer access is often a financial decision, not a quality/skill decision — elite club access can cost $30,000+/year. 17:00 — Socioeconomic and geographic inequity Access to elite club teams correlates with socioeconomic status and geography. Talented kids in lower-income areas may never be discovered because showcases and elite coaching are gated by cost. 19:00 — The one big change If they could change one thing about the system: delay specialization and actively encourage multi-sport participation, especially early on, to reduce overuse injury risk. Advice for parents on how to guide kids toward a broader athletic foundation. 21:00 — Wrap-up and World Cup predictions Lighter closing segment with picks for the World Cup winner Key Takeaways The US pay-to-play youth sports model filters talent by financial access rather than ability — a likely contributor to underperformance in men's soccer relative to population size. Early single-sport specialization is linked to higher rates of ACL tears and overuse injuries in youth athletes, and earlier injuries in those who go on to play professionally. European development models emphasize multi-sport participation and general athleticism over early specialization and performance metrics. The likelihood of a scholarship or professional career is very low — a useful reframe for parents weighing time and financial investment in club sports. Socioeconomic and geographic barriers likely mean talented young athletes go undiscovered simply due to lack of access. Show notes generated from an automated transcription pass; timestamps are approximate. Please subscribe to our podcast at Apple PodcastsCheck out our website on Simplecast

Telling the Story: Part 2 Acts 7:1-16 by William Klock When I was an American school kid in the 70s and 80s I learned that the defining events in the history of the United States were was the founding of Jamestown in 1607; the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth in 1620; and, of course, the Revolutionary War that began in 1775 and the signing of the Declaration of Independence—well—almost exactly 250 years ago.  There were plenty of other events that shaped the story, but those were the events that set the United States on its trajectory: a heritage from Britain with a good dose of religious freedom and Protestant work ethic coming together in a grand expression of the rights of man shaped by the Enlightenment.  Were there flaws?  Yep.  Slavery was a big one.  But the way I learned the story, the British mainland colonies of North America were on the fringe of the slave trade.  We received a tiny fraction of it.  The real slavery problem was in the Caribbean and Latin America.  Plus, we dealt with it.  The whole Civil War thing—a tragedy.  But it was a story to be proud of. But in 2019, the New York Times began a new publishing project.  They called it The 1619 Project.  It was subtitled, “A New Origin Story”.  Why 1619?  That was the year the first African slaves were brought to Virginia.  Before the Pilgrims.  Before the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  It was a deliberate attempt to reframe the story of the United States.  Instead of a story rooted in a proud English heritage and religious liberty and Enlightenment ideals of freedom and liberty, the 1619 Project told the story of the United States as one rooted in racism and slavery and oppression.  Instead of a story that makes you stand proud, it's a story meant to instil shame and guilt. The 1619 Project didn't come out of nowhere.  It made public a story that many people had already been telling, especially to younger generations. And, as you would expect, this resulted in a great cultural clash.  Both sides shouting at the other, basically saying, “How dare you tell our story wrong!”  It wasn't so much a matter of the events themselves.  Both versions of the story involved the same events, the same people, and all of that.  But it highlights how much how you frame a story, how much you stress certain events and people and ideas over others, that you can end up with stories that are essentially the same, while dramatically different.  One instils national pride; the other instils national shame.  That doesn't mean there's no right or wrong.  Framing the American story as if slavery and racism are its fundamental core is dishonest.  But at the same time, telling a story that glosses over those evils for the sake of instilling pride, well, that's a problem too. And as much as this Postmodern metanarrative dilemma was nowhere on the radar of First Century Jews, I think it's a good way to understand what was going with Jews in those days and it's a good illustration of what Stephen is doing in his speech before the Sanhedrin in Ats 7.  [It's page 1087 in the Pew Bibles.]  There were different “parties” competing for influence and control in First Century Judaea and as much as they all told the same story of Israel, reaching back to Abraham and Moses and David, to the law and the Prophets, all rooted in the same exodus and exile and the same promises, how they told the story produced very different results, different feelings about Israel's present situation, different ideas about the future and how to get there—just as how I learned American history makes you smile when you see the Stars and Stripes, but others, having learned The 1619 Project story, feel shame. For Pharisees, unfaithfulness to the law resulted in exile—one that was still effectively ongoing—and only national faithfulness to the law would get them out of it.  For the Sadducees, that was all in the past.  God had restored them from their exile, and the temple and its priests were the proof.  All was well.  For the Zealots, the story said that armed revolution was the only way out of their oppression.  For the Essenes, the group responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls, the story said that the everyone and everything had been defiled by unfaithfulness, even the temple itself.  God would wage holy war on the unfaithful, so they—the only truly righteous ones—retreated to the desert to wait and to keep pure.  And there was the historian Josephus.  A generation later, he told the story—after the disaster had happened—to say that the Jewish revolutionaries had brought God's wrath on themselves and that God had raised up the Romans to act as his instrument of judgement.  Same story, but the different ways they told it, the different parts they emphasised, the way they interpreted certain events like the Babylonian Exile, landed them in very different places.  Like I said last week, the story got them to the airport, but they were all waiting at different gates—and none of them the right gate for the God's real homecoming.  That said, all of them held the same markers of Jewish identity dear: the torah, the temple, the promised land, their circumcision.  They disagreed on a lot, but attack any of those things and they'd all join in stoning you after charging you with blasphemy. So what Stephen is doing before the Sanhedrin, backing up all the way to Abraham and telling the story yet again, was in good keeping with what was going on in First Century Judaea.  So—in case you missed last week or have forgotten—in the first sixteen verses, Stephen began telling the story of Jesus and the Spirit by going back to Abraham.  This was the moment when the God of glory—Stephen wants to stress that he's here to glorify the God of Israel, not blaspheme him or his holy things—Abraham was the moment when God stepped into the darkness and misery of his broken, fallen, corrupted creation and called to Abraham.  In Abraham, God was launching his project to restore rebellious humanity to himself and to set to rights the creation that we broke.  Now, there was more to it than this—it's online if you missed or forgot it—but Stephen's main point is that the gospel is not a departure from the story of Israel.  It's not something new that has no roots in what happened before.  He's saying to the Jewish elders: When the God of glory, the God of Israel called Abraham out of Ur and settled him in the promised land and established his covenant with him to make him a nation, that was the beginning of the story that brings us to Jesus, to the cross and the empty tomb, to the ascension and to Pentecost.  The story of Abraham is the story of the gospel and vice versa. Remember, they accused him of blaspheming torah and temple and Stephen's saying, “No way!  Torah and temple are good.  They're glorious.  They're how God prepared us and brought us to Jesus.”  Like I said last week, when you leave your car and board the ferry, you are in no way saying your car was bad.  It got you to the ferry.  But you can't drive on water.  Now it's time do something new—to do the very thing your car brought you to do. And then from Abraham to Joseph.  Stephen tells Isreal's story in such a way to highlight that when the God of Israel acts to bless and to save his people, it's often in unexpected ways.  Abraham was promised the land of Canaan, but never had any more of it than a little burial plot.  And Jacob and his sons were forced to flee the land of Canaan in order to survive a famine.  And Jacob's sons were wicked men who sold their brother, Joseph into slavery after nearly choosing to murder him.  And Joseph went from slavery to prison.  How was God going to work anything good from any of that?  But he did.  The sovereign God was at work all along.  Slavery and prison led Joseph to the premiership of Egypt just in time deliver his family when they arrived.  None of them had ever expected any of that.  But God delivered them.  And Stephen's telling of the Joseph story also highlights that gracious forgiveness has always been at the heart of the story of God and his people.  There was Joseph, hated, abused, sold into slavery by his brothers, but instead of taking revenge, he welcomes them and throw a party. This is what Jesus had been doing as the lost sheep of Israel, the tax collectors and sinners, came to him in repentance and faith. And this is the sort of rejoicing that would take place in heaven were the Sanhedrin to see how the story leads to Jesus and repent.  God was waiting for them with open arms and a promise of blessing, and they should know that, because that's how God's great story has always worked.  It's the key in which this great symphony is written. So now, Moses.  As important as Abraham and Joseph were, Moses stands like a colossus over the story of Israel.  Moses was the deliverer who led Israel out of Egypt and parted the sea.  It was Moses who went up Mt. Sinai and saw God for himself.  It was Moses who came down and delivered the torah to Israel.  It was under Moses that God made a nation out of Abraham's family.  And this is where they've accused Stephen of blasphemy.  They've accused him of speaking against the torah and temple and Moses.  So look at Acts 7, beginning at verse 17.  Stephen highlights three things about Moses.  The first thing he stresses is how Moses was raised up by God to be the right man at the right place at the right time—even though no one would have guessed at the beginning that Moses was God's man for the hour. Stephen says: “God had sworn an oath to Abraham.  [Remember the promise to make him a great nation and to give his descendants the land of Canaan?] When the time drew near for this promise to be fulfilled, the people had increased and multiplied in Egypt, until another king arose over Egypt, one who had not known Joseph.  He got the better of our people, and ill-treated our fathers, forcing them to abandon their newborn children so that they would die.  It was at that time that Moses was born, and he was pleasing to God. He was nursed for three months in his father's house.  But, when they abandoned him, Pharaoh's daughter claimed him and brought him up as her own son.  So Moses was educated in the full teaching of Egyptian wisdom, and he was powerful in what he said and did.” Already, in the life of Joseph, Stephen has stressed that God works human evil for good.  Nothing escapes his sovereign hand.  And just so with Moses.  First, this new Pharoah decides to make slaves of the Hebrews.  Not good.  And then, when their numbers increase so prolifically that Pharaoh fears being able to control them, he hatches a plan to murder all the baby boys.  And so Moses ends up in a basket in the river, where Pharaoh's daughter finds him and decides to raise him as her own.  God turns Pharaoh's hate, prejudice, and injustice against him, sovereignly placing one of those Hebrew boys right in Pharaoh's own home, raised at Pharaoh's expense, and tutored by Pharaoh's own tutors in the famed wisdom of the Egyptians.  God ensure the story is full of irony.  Pharaoh unwittingly nurtures and educates the very man who will be his downfall.  And Moses, himself, receives the training needed one day to oversee, to govern the people of Israel.  Again, at the time, none of this made any sense.  No one could see any significance to the story as it was unfolding.  But God has a plan and one of the things the Jewish people learned from Moses' story—and so many others—is to trust God.  In the famous words of William Cowper, God moves in a mysterious way.  It's another motif in the divine symphony—one that comes back over and over and that God's people out to recognise when they hear the music. Second, Stephen stresses the rejection of Moses by his own people.  Look at verse 23: “When he had grown to forty years old, it came into his heart to see how his brothers, the sons of Israel, were doing.  He saw someone being wronged, and came to the man's defence; he took revenge on behalf of the man who was being oppressed, by striking down the Egyptian.  He thought his kinsfolk would grasp the fact that God was sending him to their rescue, but they didn't. “The next day he showed up as two Hebrews were fighting, and he tried to bring them back together again. ‘Now then, you two,' he said, ‘you are brothers! Why are you wronging each other?'  But the man who was wronging the other wasn't having it.  ‘Who made you a ruler or judge over us?' he retorted, pushing him away.  ‘Do you want to kill me in the same way you killed the Egyptian yesterday?'  At that word, Moses ran away, and lived as a guest in the land of Midian, where he had two sons.” Yet another motif in the symphony, another recurring theme in the story.  Jesus wasn't the first of God's deliverers to be rejected by his own people.  The story highlights that this is sometimes how God works.  Now, there's no one-to-one equivalence between Moses and Jesus.  Moses was rejected because he wasn't ready yet.  He had a desire to see his people freed, but he hadn't yet been called by God to that mission, nor had he received instruction on how to do it God's way.  This way of telling the story, this way of looking back to the Old Testament is something we see all through the New Testament.  I think of the way Matthew regularly explains how something in the Jesus story “fulfils” this or that thing from the Old Testament.  And often we're left wondering how the connection works.  Thanks largely to the Church Fathers, we've been taught to see these connections as literal prophecies or as “types”, as spiritual shadows that prefigure Jesus and various events in his life.  That's kind of close, but it's not quite what Stephen (or Matthew) do.  When Matthew, for example says that in the birth of Jesus Isaiah's words about the virgin conceiving and bearing a child are fulfilled, we wonder how that works.  Isaiah was talking about a young woman in his own day bearing a child…and she wasn't a virgin.  What Matthew was doing was pointing back to an event in Israel's past, in Israel's story, where the birth of a child to a young woman—maybe a princess, maybe the Prophet's wife…it's not clear—but where the birth of this child signalled that God was about to act to deliver his people.  Matthew latched onto that.  This is how God works, but this time—in the birth of Jesus—it's not just a young woman, it's an actual virgin, and this time God's not just delivering his people from a foreign king; this time it's deliverance from sin and death.  Matthew recognised the motif in the music.  It was there in Isaiah's day, a lone violin telling a story that most people missed, but in the birth of Jesus that motif returned, and this time the whole symphony was playing it. Stephen's drawing on the story of Moses the same way.  Moses was rejected by his own people.  A repeating theme in the story that the Sanhedrin—people who know this story, know this symphony so well already—a theme they ought now to see plain as day in what happened to Jesus.  It should be obvious.  They were the ones playing the instruments this time, after all. And then, third, Stephen stresses how through Moses, the God of glory, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God Israel had known for two thousand years, had revealed himself in a new way that no one had expected.  Look at verse 30: “After another forty years, an angel appeared to him in the desert at Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush.  When Moses saw it, he was amazed at the vision.  But, as he came closer to see, there came the voice of the Lord: ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.'  Moses was very frightened, and didn't dare to look.  But the Lord said to him, ‘Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.  I have looked long and hard at the trouble my people are having in Egypt. I have heard their groaning, and I have come down to rescue them.  So, come on now: I'm going to send you to Egypt.'” Stephen wants to be clear—and we see this all through early Christian preaching—the God revealed in Jesus the Messiah is not new.  He is the same God who has been directing this story, this symphony from the beginning.  This is the God of their fathers, the God who has been rescuing his people according to his promises for two thousand years.  The God they know.  The God whose character and ways they ought to have recognised in Jesus. Yes, Stephen's saying, Jesus was not what we expected.  In Jesus—and now in the Spirit—God is doing something amazing, something astounding, something new.  And that's why you rejected him.  But knowing the story, knowing the music, we should have expected God would do precisely this: something new, something wild, something we didn't expect.  Because the story is already full of episodes where God does just that.  No one, least of all Moses, exiled to the wilderness, tending his father-in-law's sheep—expected the burning bush.  And yet in that moment, heaven and earth came back together, God spoke, a man was called, and the world was never the same again. And Stephen's point is this: You can't predict the unexpected thing that God will do; but you can be sure—because the story is full of such moments—that God does act unexpectedly to do the things he's promised and that we expect, the very things in which we hope. Holy ground, for example, was something Stephen and his fellow Jews understood.  The temple was holy ground.  It was where heaven and earth met.  But it wasn't the end-all-be-all of holy grounds.  It began at Mt. Sinai—not in Isreal, but in the wilderness—where God met Moses in the burning bush, where the plan to rescue Isreal from her bondage began.  When the Israelites built the tabernacle and the cloud of God's glory descended to fill it, God upstaged what he'd done at the burning bush.  And then again, with the temple.  As if it were the strings playing the motif at the burning bush, and in Exodus 40 as God's glory fills the holy of holies, the woodwinds join them.  And the music was good and it was beautiful, but the Sanhedrin should now be hearing that same motif as, in Jesus and the Spirit the whole symphony comes together to play.  Stephen isn't disparaging Moses.  He's not blaspheming the law or the temple.  He's saying, “Can't you hear it?  Their beautiful theme is now being woven into something far grander and played by the whole symphony.  The motifs have been there all along, the story has always been told this way.  Don't plug your ears to this new thing.  Listen.  And hear how it's taken up all the old themes into something that is nothing short of glorifying to the conductor, to the God of glory. That's as far as we have time to go this morning.  Like I said, Acts 7 is long and there's a lot to unpack.  But I think the great take-away for us from this part—in addition to learning to hear the great story of God and his people—I think the most important thing here is to know that God really does do new and unexpected things.  As we get to know the story, we ought to expect for God to do the unexpected, for God to do new things that upstage what he's done in the past.  And yet, the story also emphatically tells us that as much as God does new things and upstages the things he's done before, those new things are always in keeping with what he's done before.  The past always points to the future and the future never undermines the past.  As the writer of Hebrews tells us, “God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.”  We live in an age where too many people are ready to do something new themselves—something that breaks from what or how God has already revealed himself, something that breaks from or that disparages or that blasphemes God's past actions or his past instructions—they take this new human thing and declared that God is doing a new thing.  Andy Stanley saying we need to unhitch from the Old Testament so that God can do something new.  No!  Churches embracing sexual immorality and post-modern notions of identity and sexuality and family and marriage and then saying, “See, God is doing a new thing!”  A thousand times, no!  Brothers and Sisters, the theme of the story, the key of the symphony doesn't change.  God does new things, but those new things follow from what God's already done.  On the other hand—and I think it's mostly in response to all the proclamation of “new things” that aren't godly at all—on the other hand, we can become too fearful, too conservative and we can end up where the Pharisees and Sadducees and the Essenes were: locked down, afraid of the new, and turning away from burning bushes, and unwilling to go where God is actually leading. This why we need to steep ourselves in the story.  This why we need to immerse ourselves in the great symphony and to let the music wash over and through us.  Brothers and Sisters, we need to know the themes and the motifs, to learn the key in which God is playing, to be intimately familiar with how they interact, weaving around and through each other, so that as the story continues to unfold, as the symphony bursts into new movements, we can hear God bringing those old familiar themes to new heights, while also being able to recognise when a different story is being told, or a different symphony is being played.  I've said over and over, Brothers and Sisters: God's word is life.  Know, meditate on it, let it mould you, and then let it pour forth from you to give life to others. Let's pray: Lord of all power and might, the author and giver of all good things:  Graft in our hearts the love of your Name; increase in us true religion; nourish us with all goodness; and bring forth in us the fruit of good works; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.  Amen.

NB: This episode contains a discussion of suicide and may not be appropriate for all listeners. If you are thinking about hurting yourself, help is always available at 988 in the United States. Suicide in Popular Media and Culture: Studies in Framing a Social Catastrophe (Bristol University Press, 2026) brings together scholars from across disciplines to examine how suicide is mythologized, politicized, and challenged across film, TV, young adult literature, digital platforms, online communities, and more. From news coverage of celebrity suicide to social media interventions with at-risk youth, this wide-ranging collection explores suicide's intersections with class, gender, chronic illness, and cultural identity. The book is co-edited by Mike F. Alvarez (Assistant Professor of Communication at the University of New Hampshire), Warren J. Bareiss (Professor of Communication at the University of South Carolina Upstate), and Jolane Flanigan (Professor of Communication Studies at Rocky Mountain College and a licensed mental health counselor). Some Crisis Resources *Note: some of these may utilize emergency services or law enforcement to conduct wellness/welfare checks or active rescues. Ask if these are possibilities at any point during your conversation. 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline Website Dial 988 The Trevor Project Website Provides support for LGBTQ+ youth facing crisis 1-866-488-7386 Text: 678678 Chat: Here Crisis Text Line Text HOME to 741-741 Trans Lifeline 1-877-565-8860 (U.S.) 1-877-330-6366 (Canada) Warmline.org Website Contains links to warmlines in every state Provides peer support Find a Helpline Website For those not in the U.S. Search for links to crisis centers worldwide Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Supply chain transformation is no longer just about efficiency. It is about resilience, intelligence, and trust across every layer of the system. In this episode, Reid Jackson and Liz Sertl were at GS1 Connect. Melanie Hilton sat down with Miguel Rodriguez Garcia from MIT, Frederik Bohn from Plug and Play Tech Center, and Lisa Morales-Hellebo from REFASHIOND Ventures to explore what supply chains could look like in 2050 and the challenges that must be solved today to get there. The conversation spans cybersecurity risks that now extend into physical operations, the rise of robotics in logistics, and the growing need for verified, trustworthy data across global networks. The guests also explore how interoperability gaps inside large enterprises slow progress, why collaboration remains one of the biggest barriers across industries, and how emerging approaches like AI agents and materials verification could reshape decision making. Together, they highlight that the future supply chain will depend on aligning technology, standards, and human behavior in ways that are still being defined. This is more than a discussion about emerging technology. It is an exploration of how supply chains must evolve into connected, transparent, and adaptive systems where data integrity, automation, and cross-industry collaboration determine long term success. In this episode, you'll learn: How cybersecurity is evolving from a digital risk into a physical supply chain challenge How robotics and automation are already reshaping warehouse and logistics operations Why data trust and verification are becoming essential for future supply chain systems Things to listen for: (00:00) Opening remarks from Reid Jackson and Liz Sertl introducing the GS1 Connect session (01:26) Framing the 2050 supply chain discussion and key themes (07:40) Cybersecurity threats expanding into physical supply chain operations (11:00) Robotics moving from experimental to real warehouse deployment (15:00) Trust and verification of physical materials through data and scanning (19:30) Collaboration challenges across industries and supplier ecosystems (23:10) Interoperability gaps inside large enterprise systems (26:00) AI agents, hallucinations, and the importance of data quality (30:46) Real world visibility innovations using highway camera data networks (32:38) The future vision of standardized machine communication and interoperability Connect with GS1 US: Our website - www.gs1us.orgGS1 US on LinkedIn Connect with the speakers: Melanie Hilton on LinkedInMiguel Rodriguez Garcia on LinkedInMassachusetts Institute of Technology at https://web.mit.edu/Lisa Morales-Hellebo on LinkedIn REFASHIOND Ventures at https://www.refashiond.com/Frederik Bohn on LinkedInPlug and Play Tech Center. at https://www.plugandplaytechcenter.com/  

NB: This episode contains a discussion of suicide and may not be appropriate for all listeners. If you are thinking about hurting yourself, help is always available at 988 in the United States. Suicide in Popular Media and Culture: Studies in Framing a Social Catastrophe (Bristol University Press, 2026) brings together scholars from across disciplines to examine how suicide is mythologized, politicized, and challenged across film, TV, young adult literature, digital platforms, online communities, and more. From news coverage of celebrity suicide to social media interventions with at-risk youth, this wide-ranging collection explores suicide's intersections with class, gender, chronic illness, and cultural identity. The book is co-edited by Mike F. Alvarez (Assistant Professor of Communication at the University of New Hampshire), Warren J. Bareiss (Professor of Communication at the University of South Carolina Upstate), and Jolane Flanigan (Professor of Communication Studies at Rocky Mountain College and a licensed mental health counselor). Some Crisis Resources *Note: some of these may utilize emergency services or law enforcement to conduct wellness/welfare checks or active rescues. Ask if these are possibilities at any point during your conversation. 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline Website Dial 988 The Trevor Project Website Provides support for LGBTQ+ youth facing crisis 1-866-488-7386 Text: 678678 Chat: Here Crisis Text Line Text HOME to 741-741 Trans Lifeline 1-877-565-8860 (U.S.) 1-877-330-6366 (Canada) Warmline.org Website Contains links to warmlines in every state Provides peer support Find a Helpline Website For those not in the U.S. Search for links to crisis centers worldwide Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/film

NB: This episode contains a discussion of suicide and may not be appropriate for all listeners. If you are thinking about hurting yourself, help is always available at 988 in the United States. Suicide in Popular Media and Culture: Studies in Framing a Social Catastrophe (Bristol University Press, 2026) brings together scholars from across disciplines to examine how suicide is mythologized, politicized, and challenged across film, TV, young adult literature, digital platforms, online communities, and more. From news coverage of celebrity suicide to social media interventions with at-risk youth, this wide-ranging collection explores suicide's intersections with class, gender, chronic illness, and cultural identity. The book is co-edited by Mike F. Alvarez (Assistant Professor of Communication at the University of New Hampshire), Warren J. Bareiss (Professor of Communication at the University of South Carolina Upstate), and Jolane Flanigan (Professor of Communication Studies at Rocky Mountain College and a licensed mental health counselor). Some Crisis Resources *Note: some of these may utilize emergency services or law enforcement to conduct wellness/welfare checks or active rescues. Ask if these are possibilities at any point during your conversation. 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline Website Dial 988 The Trevor Project Website Provides support for LGBTQ+ youth facing crisis 1-866-488-7386 Text: 678678 Chat: Here Crisis Text Line Text HOME to 741-741 Trans Lifeline 1-877-565-8860 (U.S.) 1-877-330-6366 (Canada) Warmline.org Website Contains links to warmlines in every state Provides peer support Find a Helpline Website For those not in the U.S. Search for links to crisis centers worldwide Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

The climate transition will require trillions of dollars of investment, but many of the biggest opportunities still face structural financing barriers because our financial system was not designed for a challenge of this scale and complexity. As investors, entrepreneurs, and institutions work to accelerate the transition, there is a growing need for new financial models that can bridge those gaps and unlock capital more effectively.Today, we're joined by Bob Zulkoski of Conduit Capital, a firm taking a very different approach to climate finance. Rather than building one big fund, Conduit is creating platforms designed to unlock private capital at scale — from financing energy-efficiency upgrades in commercial real estate, to launching climate-transition SPACs, to developing a new blended-finance vehicle aimed at helping impact investment managers bridge what Bob calls the “Pioneer Gap.” Bob calls the model radical collaboration, and the goal is not just to invest well, but to prove new models that others can replicate.On today's episode, we cover:1:19 – Framing the Climate Finance Challenge and Introducing Bob Zulkoski2:34 – What Is Conduit Capital? Vision and Radical Collaboration3:48 – Replication as Theory of Change: Paving the Way for Competition5:23 – Business Model: Non‑Concessionary, Patient, Impact at Scale6:41 – Introducing Sustainable Credit Partners (SCP) and Mid‑Market CRE8:09 – The Retrofit Problem: Aging Buildings, Spiking Energy Costs, Brown Discount10:04 – SCP's Lending Model: Easier, Cheaper, Faster for Borrowers11:34 – Underwriting + GreenGen Partnership and Education Role13:55 – SCP Traction: Origination Targets, Pipeline, Institutional Capital16:02 – Loan Sizes, Typical Collateral, and Brown Discount Mitigation16:48 – Three “Superpowers”: Market Familiarity, GreenGen + Climate First Bank, Moody's19:53 – Who Else Should Do This? Scaling via Competition and Green CLOs22:48 – Introducing Climate Transition SPACs and Market Backdrop23:01 – Rethinking SPACs: Tool for Climate Transition and Valuation Gaps27:37 – First SPAC: Energy Transition Special Opportunities and Target Sectors29:48 – Why Regenerative Agriculture Belongs in Climate SPACs32:19 – Defining the Pioneer Gap vs. Missing Middle/Valley of Death35:30 – The Pioneer Gap Impact Platform Fund and Alliance Structure37:50 – Blended Finance Stack: Catalytic, Mezzanine, and Market Capital39:08 – Why This Is the “Best of Times” for Climate Investing41:40 – Closing ReflectionsResources MentionedSustainable Credit Partners (SCP)GreenGenMoody's Investors Service Climate First BankC‑PACE (Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy) Climate Transition Special Opportunities SPACSpring Lane CapitalPioneer Gap Alliance & Pioneer Gap Impact Platform Fund Connect with usBob ZulkoskiJason RissmanKeep up with Invested In ClimateSign up for our NewsletterSubscribe for our Other Future NewsletterLinkedInInstagramIf you like what you hear, subscribe and rate to support the show! Have feedback or ideas for future episodes, events, or partnerships? Get in touch!

Welcome back to Crawlspace. In this new episode, Tim Pilleri & Lance Reenstierna are joined by old friend, Aaron Habel. Aaron is best known for his work on the wildly popular podcast, The Generation Why w/Justin Evans. He is the producer, host and investigator of Framed: An Investigative Story. Season 3 of Frames takes on the hotly debated case of Temujin Kensu, a man who was incarcerated in 1987 for the 1986 murder of Scott Macklem. Listen to Framed: https://framedpod.com/ https://framedpod.com/pages/where-to-listen Follow Aaron: https://www.instagram.com/popular/aaron-habel/ The music for Crawlspace was produced by David Flajnik. Listen to his music here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.pond5.com/artist/bigdsound.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Crawlspace: IG:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/Crawlspacepodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TT:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@crawlspacepodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ FB:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/Crawlspacepodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ X:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/crawlspacepod.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Spotify:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/7iSnqnCf27NODdz0pJ1GvJ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Youtube:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/crawlspace⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Apple:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/crawlspace-true-crime-mysteries/id1187326340⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Missing: IG:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/MissingCSM/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TT:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@missingcsm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ FB:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/MissingCSM⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ X:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/MissingCSM⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Spotify:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/0yRXkJrZC85otfT7oXMcri⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Youtube:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/missingcsm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Apple:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/missing/id1006974447⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Private Investigations For the Missing Please donate if you can: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://investigationsforthemissing.org/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://piftm.org/donate⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/PIFortheMissing⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/PIFortheMissing/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/investigationsforthemissing/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Check out our entire network at⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://crawlspace-media.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You might remember Katryn from episode 292, where we dove deep into the behavioral blueprint for inclusion. Well, a lot can happen in a year—or in our current case, since the wild ride of the 2026 election—and the DEI landscape is shifting beneath our feet. I'll admit, when I first started this work ten years ago, I thought we could just shout from the rooftops that inclusion matters and everyone would just magically get it. But as we look at the headlines today, it's clear that "shiny object syndrome" has left us with a lot of noise and not enough real, systemic change. Katryn and I sit down to unpack what global leaders are actually doing right now to push past the performative and get to the heart of what makes workplaces genuinely fair. Key Themes from the Conversation Moving from Noise to Systemic Change. Organizations frequently focus on highly public, performative declarations of inclusivity rather than restructuring the underlying processes that perpetuate bias. "Organizations were doing a lot of the shiny stuff... doing what we would call noisy things, right? Proclaiming, saying, being public... but obviously that not necessarily translating to real-world change." — Katryn Wright The Problem with Unconscious Bias Training. Treating broad, one-size-fits-all training modules as a standalone solution is ineffective and can create artificial metrics that trigger cultural backlash. "An awful amount of money was spent on something that the science shows is... ineffective at best, counterproductive at worst." — Katryn Wright Inclusion as an Aspiration, Not a Default Value. Framing inclusion as a predefined company value mistakenly implies that the work is already complete, whereas framing it as an ongoing aspiration invites employees to actively participate in closing the gap. "When we talk about inclusion as a value, it is not as effective as when we talk about inclusion as an aspirational goal... it suggests that we've been missing a trick to be bringing people on as much as we can." — Katryn Wright Precision and Data Science in Workplace Fairness. True progress requires identifying the exact inflection points in employee experiences—like hiring, promotion, and retention stages—where disparities emerge, and applying targeted behavioral interventions. "Let's go and be as precise as possible about changing behavior in that exact situation... when we are able to be as precise as possible about which specific behaviors need to change, we can get to those outcomes." — Katryn Wright Actionable Takeaway for Listeners Stop trying to de-bias your entire team all at once with sweeping declarations. Instead, pick one specific process in your daily workflow—whether it's how you audit resumes, run performance reviews, or distribute project assignments—and analyze the data to find where the equity gaps lie. Designing small, targeted interventions at precise moments is how real cultural evolution happens. Follow Katryn at https://www.morethannow.co.uk/

Tom Bevan and Carl Cannon discuss the media's framing of socialism. Then, Andrew Walworth and Carl interview author Stephen B. Young about his new book, "America vs the Overclass." Next, Tom and Carl discuss Marco Rubio deporting the Laotian child sex offender who was pardoned by Tim Walz. Then finally, the guys give up their "You Cannot Be Serious" stories of the week. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Tyler gives another update on the house build while juggling client work, family, site prep, foundation details, and the next round of framing decisions. He gets into the reality of self-performing a build while life, work, and money keep moving. Sign up for the Modern Craftsman Community:

In this episode, we discuss the ideological work done by our media's default frame of immigrants, poor seniors, homeless people, and those with disabilities as "burdens" and "strains" on our limited resources––namely those provided by the holy Taxpayer. Meanwhile, skyrocketing police and Pentagon budgets are just treated as unremarkable laws of nature.   With guest Beatrice Adler-Bolton of the Death Panel podcast.

BUILD A BETTER BUSINESS | You don't see the world as it is. You see it through the filters of your brain. Every conversation, decision, and client interaction is shaped by hidden cognitive biases—the mental shortcuts that influence how you think and respond. Learn to recognize them so you can communicate more effectively and make better decisions. Access the Cognitive Biases resource.    In this episode:  00:00 ChatGPT Hallucinations 00:49 Humans Are Biased Too 03:03 Biases as Brain Shortcuts 03:36 System One vs Two 05:56 What Is Cognitive Bias 07:33 Biases Used Against You 08:27 Anchoring Explained 10:12 Availability Heuristic 13:05 Loss Aversion 15:34 Framing and Contrast 18:40 Fundamental Attribution Error 20:34 Graceful Disposition 21:19 In-Group Bias Blindspots 23:23 Halo and Horn Effects 24:18 Bandwagon Social Proof 25:04 Peak-End Rule Memories 26:37 Negativity Bias Rewiring 28:22 Hindsight Bias Decisions 30:59 Confirmation Bias Bubbles 33:43 Survivorship Bias Story 36:16 Humility and Next Steps   Subscribe to the More Than More Podcast for new weekly episodes as we discuss building meaningful and impactful businesses, careers, and lives through real estate. Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube 

In this episode of the Crazy Wisdom Podcast, host Stewart Alsop speaks with Ekaterina Matveeva, founder of Amolingua and Lingo Plus and co-organizer of AI roundtables with EcoCivilization. The conversation covers a wide range of AI-related topics, from the cultural implications of AI development across different countries to the evolution of Ekaterina's perspective on artificial intelligence—moving from initial anger and fear in 2023 to active participation in AI model design by 2025. They discuss the importance of including diverse cultural perspectives in AI training, the cross-country differences in AI regulation (comparing Argentina's human-out-of-the-loop approach to Europe's cautious stance), and the critical question of which sectors need humans in the decision-making loop. The discussion ventures into brain-computer interfaces and Neuralink, examining what happens when technology is removed and questioning whether healthy humans should pursue such enhancements, before touching on the future of personal AI models and the preservation of indigenous wisdom in AI training. You can connect with Ekaterina on LinkedIn to follow her work on AI, education, and cross-cultural technology development.Timestamps00:00 Stewart welcomes Ekaterina Matveeva, founder of Amolingua and Lingo Plus, discussing her work organizing AI roundtables with EcoCivilization05:00 Ekaterina shares her evolution from anger toward AI in 2023 to realizing collaboration potential, emphasizing importance of multicultural perspectives in AI development and training10:00 Discussion of Argentina's new AI liability bill creating human-out-of-loop systems, contrasting with Europe's human-in-loop requirements and different global regulatory approaches15:00 Safety considerations in robotics and AI development, comparing industrial automation standards across regions and discussing Pentagon's use of Anthropic with Palantir systems20:00 Exploring brain-computer interfaces and Neuralink developments, questioning enhancement versus necessity and examining motivations behind cognitive augmentation technologies25:00 Debating human capabilities beyond cognitive function, discussing nervous system, emotions, psychosomatics, and whether brain generates or receives thoughts30:00 Examining societal divisions from enhancement technologies, referencing Avatar and Years and Years series, questioning benefits for healthy individuals versus disability applications35:00 Discussing technological gaps between enhanced and standard populations, concerns about corporate seduction into cybernetic modifications, and lack of long-term safety studies40:00 Questioning who frames AI conversations and trains models, exploring dominant worldviews embedded in AI systems and Vatican-Anthropic collaboration implications45:00 Stewart shares mistakes with Facebook biometric data and building personal AI infrastructure, emphasizing importance of controlling your own models and data50:00 Analyzing whether massive data collection actually improves AI training, questioning if user conversations become buried garbage rather than meaningful model improvements55:00 Ekaterina discusses plans for organizing more roundtables, integrating indigenous wisdom into AI training, and connecting on LinkedIn for future collaborationsKey Insights1. Ekaterina Matveeva's perspective on AI has evolved significantly since 2023, moving from initial anger and fear about AI's impact on education and translation work to becoming actively involved in AI development and training. She realized that instead of resisting AI advancement, she could participate in shaping it by contributing her expertise in education, language, and cross-cultural communication. This shift represents a broader realization that diverse participation in AI development is crucial for creating more versatile and culturally sensitive models rather than allowing a monopoly of values from any single country or culture.2. The conversation highlights fundamental differences in AI regulation across regions, with Europe implementing human-in-the-loop requirements and comprehensive safety measures, while Argentina is reportedly creating frameworks for human-out-of-the-loop AI systems with limited liability. The United States falls somewhere between these approaches, pursuing rapid advancement with fewer regulatory constraints. These divergent approaches reflect different cultural values and priorities, raising important questions about whether AI development should prioritize efficiency and profit or human oversight and control in critical infrastructure sectors.3. Both speakers express concern about brain-computer interfaces like Neuralink, questioning the motivation behind enhancing cognitive abilities when humans already possess multiple forms of intelligence including emotional, cultural, and bodily intelligence. The primary applications demonstrated so far appear limited to video games and potentially military applications, raising questions about whether the technology serves genuine human needs or merely represents an attempt to compete with robots. The speakers emphasize that humans are already complete beings with sophisticated nervous systems, senses, and capabilities that extend far beyond cognitive processing.4. A critical insight emerges around the question of what happens when advanced technologies are removed or turned off. This applies both to brain-computer interfaces and to broader civilization infrastructure dependencies. The speaker shares experiences from 2020 of attempting to live independently in rural California, discovering the challenges of isolation and self-sufficiency. This relates directly to concerns about creating dependencies on technologies where the software ownership and control remain unclear, particularly when those technologies become integrated into human bodies or essential services.5. The discussion reveals concerns about increasing societal division based on access to enhancement technologies. Beyond existing financial inequalities, the speakers worry about a future where people who can afford biological and technological enhancements will advance rapidly while others are left behind. This isn't about disadvantaging certain groups but rather about creating an unbridgeable gap between enhanced early adopters and what they call standard populations who may be intelligent people maintaining traditional ways of life but lacking access to expensive enhancement technologies.6. Matveeva emphasizes the importance of including diverse cultural perspectives, particularly indigenous wisdom and Buddhist traditions, in AI training data. She argues that current AI models reflect the worldviews, values, and hierarchies of their predominantly Western designers, which influences the guidance these models provide to users worldwide. By incorporating wisdom traditions from various cultures, AI models could potentially become wiser and more culturally adaptive, serving diverse populations more effectively rather than imposing a single cultural framework globally.7. The speakers discuss the problematic nature of data collection and ownership in AI training, noting that massive amounts of user data may not actually be improving AI models as expected. There are indications that some AI companies are now specifically requesting users to help train models on their prompts, suggesting that simply collecting billions of conversations hasn't been as useful as anticipated. This raises questions about whether the data users have given away over the past several years has actually made significant impact or is simply buried in chunks of information that aren't effectively connected to meaningful improvements in AI performance.

Ernesto Araújo discusses recent democratic victories in Colombia and Peru, characterizing them as a rejection of organized crime and socialism. He criticizes media bias for framing these shifts as a "right-wing drift" while ignoring the deep-seated corruption of regional leaders like Lula da Silva. 41952

1.

Most people think influence comes from having authority. It doesn't. AJ and Johnny continue their Hidden Language series by breaking down the architecture running underneath every high-value conversation. They reveal the three roles that shape outcomes — framers, validators, and reactors — and explain why the most influential person in the room is often not the most senior. If you've ever watched someone less qualified walk away with the opportunity, partnership, or promotion, this episode explains why. The difference often isn't expertise. It's who sets the context, who validates it, and who ends up reacting inside someone else's frame. Chapters 00:00 – The hidden architecture of high-value rooms 03:00 – Framers, validators, and reactors explained 06:00 – Why smart people lose influence 09:00 – The Framer's Opening: shifting the room in 60 seconds 12:00 – Framing around what decision-makers care about 14:00 – Meetings, negotiations, and client conversations 16:00 – Why early frames have gravity 18:00 – The Observation → Frame → Question formula20:00 – Turning influence into a repeatable skill Episode Resources: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠theartofcharm.com/test ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Unlockyourxfactor.com⁠⁠⁠ influence, executive presence, communication skills, leadership, social intelligence, persuasion, workplace communication, negotiation, networking, decision making, leadership communication, status dynamics, frame control, professional development, social skills, business communication, relationship building, influence skills, career growth, strategic communication Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices