Podcasts about galileo

What did the ancient world discover about the cosmos? What were the contributions of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo? How did the science of astronomy advance under Newton? And how did everything change again with the discoveries of special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics? With us to answer these questions is Sarah Alam Malik. Sarah is an expert on dark matter, and her work on large-scale experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider has placed her at the cutting edge of exploring the universe's mysteries and its fundamental laws. Today we discuss her new book entitled, A Brief History of the Universe (and our place in it).

Episode: 1589 Pluto: We finally reach the outer fringe of the Solar System.  Today, we discover Pluto.

As we prepare for these juggernauts to go public, I'm reminded of Yahoo, Excite, and AOL who dominated the first four years of the internet. Despite their lead, Google stole the market away. Could the same thing happen again? The argument is not that these companies aren't powerful, but rather that they're so committed to their current path that they may miss the big opportunity in the future. If you look at HR 2030 and what we want to do with enterprise AI, the ability to generate code, graphics, and text may not be what we need. And our new research on Galileo business modeling is starting to pan this out. Now that AI prices are high, we all have to look for bigger use-cases for agents. In this podcast I explain what “Dynamic Enablement for Growth” really means and how LLMs only take us so far, with a new frontier yet to come. As always I welcome opinions and feedback on this thesis. Additional Information To Come…. Get Galileo and see business modeling in action. The New Global HR Excellence Certification – Join the Inaugural Cohort!   Chapters (00:00:00) - AI Hype Has Some Limits(00:00:45) - In the Elevation of Large Language Models(00:03:57) - A Hackers Bought a Hacker's Card(00:05:25) - Beyond the Frontier: The Business Value of AI(00:09:52) - What HR 2030 Agents Need to Do(00:14:41) - What Does This Mean for AI in HR?

Episode: 1586 Topsell's history of four-footed beasts and serpents.  Today, a zoology book.

Listen to Christian Zyp interview with GIna Payzant (writer/director/producer) and Darrin Hagen (composer) about the film PHYSICS FOR POETS. See it at the Telus World of Science Edmonton IMAX Theatre June 25-28 and July 2-4. Each screening starts at 4:30pm.   PHYSICS FOR POETS blends historical drama with magical realism. The film unfolds over one pivotal night in 1633, as Galileo grapples with truth, power, and consequence. Ghostly visits from Johannes Kepler echo across time, connecting the birth of modern science to today's technological age—and asking: Who is in charge? Minimalist staging, jewel-toned costumes, and innovative lighting create a timeless visual world where ideas take centre stage. At its heart, Physics for Poets explores a question that feels more urgent than ever:TIX and INFO: https://www.onlinebookings.edmontonscience.com/DateSelection.aspx?item=6756FACEBOOK: Reel Mench Productions

In this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts Alisha Searcy of the Center for Strong Public Schools and Jake Tawney of the Institute for Catholic Liberal Education speak with Dr. Snezana Lawrence, an independent scholar affiliated with Middlesex University London, about the origins and development of mathematics across human civilizations. Dr. Lawrence reflects on her work, including her book A Little History of Mathematics, tracing early counting systems and artifacts such as the Mesopotamian cuneiform and Egyptian mathematical practices. She explains how Greek thinkers like Pythagoras and Euclid shaped mathematics, geometry, and logical reasoning, while highlighting India's development of zero and the later adoption of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. She connects these mathematical traditions to modern science through Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and the Newton–Leibniz calculus controversy, underscoring mathematics as the language of science and discovery across time and diverse human civilizations. In closing, Dr. Lawrence reads a passage from her book, A Little History of Mathematics.

Transferencia de tecnología: cómo vender tu investigación sin rebajar la ciencia. La pregunta que el laboratorio no sabe responder.Dos tiendas de ropa casi idénticas en los años 70. Mismas telas, mismos precios, mismos escaparates. Una se convirtió en una de las mayores empresas del mundo —Zara— y la otra desapareció sin que nadie recuerde su nombre. La diferencia no estaba en la tela: una entendió que la clienta no compraba una prenda, compraba novedad. La otra no.Esa misma frase —el cliente no compra lo que tú crees que vendes— es el muro contra el que se estrella casi toda la investigación que intenta salir del laboratorio y llegar al mundo.En este episodio de Investigando la investigación hablamos de transferencia de tecnología y de cómo vender tu investigación, del laboratorio al mercado, sin traicionar tu ciencia.El investigador está entrenado en un solo instrumento, el de la verdad: ¿es correcto?, ¿es reproducible?, ¿resiste la crítica? Es un instrumento maravilloso, pero no sabe responder a la pregunta del mercado: ¿por qué iba alguien a pagar por esto? Como los sabios que se negaron a mirar por el telescopio de Galileo, muchos investigadores se niegan a mirar por un segundo telescopio: el que no apunta al cielo, sino al cliente.Las 4 cosas que casi todo investigador no ve:• Observa la vida del cliente, no le preguntes — la etnografía de diseño y el caso Lego: los niños no buscaban lo fácil, buscaban dominar una destreza.• Di qué haces tú que no hace nadie — el ejercicio del "momento de la verdad": si me quitas esto y esto, soy uno más en el montón.• Traduce tu tecnología a algo que el cliente puntúe — el AVE no vende velocidad, vende certeza y reducción de riesgo (Renfe te devuelve el dinero si el tren llega tarde).• Evita las frases que te matan — "técnicamente damos los mismos resultados que los demás".Con casos reales del laboratorio al mercado: Oryzon (del paper al Nasdaq) y Avelino Corma, ciencia de élite con más de 200 patentes usadas por Repsol, Cepsa o ExxonMobil. La conclusión: no hay que elegir entre hacer ciencia de verdad y venderla. Se pueden hacer las dos cosas a la vez.Una idea de partida sobre valorización de la investigación, propuesta de valor y emprendimiento científico para cualquier investigador que quiera que su ciencia llegue a la gente.Comunidad de investigadores: ⁠https://horacio-ps.com/comunidad⁠Newsletter: ⁠https://horacio-ps.com/newsletter⁠Si el episodio te ha resultado útil, dale like, suscríbete o compártelo en Spotify, Apple Podcasts, iVoox o YouTube.

Microsoft Build 2026 announced an end-to-end agentic AI stack. COMPUTEX Taipei confirmed heterogeneous AI infrastructure across ARM, Marvell, Intel, Qualcomm, and NVIDIA. Alphabet raised $80 billion. Cisco Live repositioned the network as the AI platform. Patrick Moorhead and Daniel Newman break it all down alongside earnings from Broadcom, HPE, Palo Alto Networks, and CrowdStrike, plus the token cost conversation, the edge AI push, and what Palantir and Oracle are saying about proprietary data as the real AI moat. The handpicked topics for this week are: Microsoft Build 2026 Announced an End-to-End Agentic AI Stack: Microsoft shipped MAI-Thinking-1, its first homegrown thinking model, alongside Scout, Microsoft IQ, Project Solara, and a Majorana 2 quantum update targeting a 2029 commercial timeline with claims of a 1,000x reliability gain. Pat describes MAI-Thinking-1 as likely better than Sonnet 4.6 in blind testing and delivering close to GPT 5.5 quality at a far lower cost. Scout is Microsoft's first autopilot agent, anchoring the M365 Agent Suite with Office Pilot Agent Mode and Agent 365. Microsoft IQ serves as the context layer, integrating M365, business data, boundary IQ, and web IQ with GitHub Copilot, Foundry, and Copilot Studio. Project Solara is a new Android-based platform built for agent-first devices across transportation, retail, and hospital settings. Microsoft also added 83 Unix commands to the Windows stack. Dan frames Microsoft's real play as distribution, not frontier model development, noting that the open model ecosystem being pulled into the platform will matter more to CFOs managing token costs at scale. (The Decode) The AI Stack Goes Multi-Silicon — COMPUTEX Taipei 2026 Confirms Heterogeneous AI Infrastructure: ARM's AGI CPU is in production with Google moving its TPU head node to ARM, and adding Oracle and ByteDance as new customers. ARM also introduced a new switch, the TT100, and put the 51T CPO switch on stage. Marvell received a trillion-dollar company endorsement from Jensen Huang, adding $90 billion in market cap on the comment alone. Intel announced disaggregated inference details and Xeon 6+ Clearwater Forest, its first 18A data center processor. Vista Equity and Cambium Capital announced a NeoCloud called Vector Core Compute, with Xeon 6 handling orchestration, Salmonova RUs handling decode, and Blackwell GPUs handling pre-fill. Qualcomm's Cristiano Amon announced the Dragonfly data center brand with Snapdragon C details coming at their June investor day. The WSTS raised the 2026 semiconductor TAM forecast by 90% to $1.51 trillion, with Pat noting the market could hit a trillion dollars if memory is excluded entirely. (The Decode) NVIDIA RTX Spark and the Edge AI Push: NVIDIA coordinated with ARM and Microsoft around the RTX Spark at COMPUTEX, with the shared message being that the future of Windows is here. Signal65's Ryan Shrout asked Jensen directly why NVIDIA wants to be in the PC business, given low margins and diminishing returns. Dan frames the answer in the context of devices increasingly becoming mobile data centers, capable of running models at much greater efficiency than cloud delivery. The edge AI conversation is also directly tied to token cost economics: as intelligence delivery moves closer to the device, the cost per token drops significantly. The jury is still out on whether NVIDIA will meaningfully disrupt the PC market, but its influence over OEMs like Lenovo and Dell that depend on it for data center gives it real leverage over SKUs. (The Decode) Token Economics and Frontier Model Cost Pressure: Dan and Pat discuss a substantive shift in how enterprises are thinking about AI consumption costs. Dan argues that "token maxing," the practice of defaulting to the most powerful frontier model for every task, has now effectively peaked, as bills have come due at scale. Companies paying for tokens in volume are starting to question whether they can afford the prices that frontier models actually cost to deliver. Pat pushes back, saying the dynamic is still present, but both analysts agree that the market is moving toward a model where token selection is matched to the job, with Microsoft's MOE approach and thinking models positioned to help CFOs manage that economics story. (The Decode) Continuum Goes Public at Highest Valuation for an AI Platform: Dan notes that Continuum, the Honeywell-spawned quantum company, went public this week at what he calls the highest valuation for an AI platform to date. He flags that IonQ will likely contest that characterization. The broader context is Microsoft entering the quantum conversation with Majorana 2 at Build, a name that has largely been absent from the quantum race, while IBM has received most of the attention. (The Decode) AI CapEx Has Outgrown Cash Flow — Alphabet's $80 Billion Equity Raise: On June 1, Alphabet announced an $80 billion equity capital raise, upsized to $85 billion, structured as $40 billion ATM, $30 billion underwritten, and a $10 billion private placement with Berkshire Hathaway anchoring. Pat frames the questions over CapEx returns as entirely dependent on whether you are an AI boomer or a doomer: if the payback comes, the raise is the right move. If it does not, the math doesn't close. Dan argues the investment is existential, drawing parallels to how infrastructure-first companies have always spent ahead of monetization, and notes that Google's equity is being used as a capital engine that may be more efficient than the debt markets right now. Both analysts flag the downstream implications for Broadcom, MediaTek, and Marvell given the TPU connection. (The Decode) The Network Becomes the AI Platform: Cisco Live 2026: Cisco launched Silicon One P200, the Secure AI Factory with NVIDIA and Spectrum X, AgenticOps, MCP-native automation, Cisco IQ, LiveProtect, and folded Astrix Security and Galileo into Splunk under one control plane. Pat identifies Cisco Cloud Control as the biggest announcement of the entire show, pulling together Catalyst, Meraki, Nexus, Firewall, and WebEx under agentic ops that run natively through MCP, with code running directly on smart switches that have x86 processors. Pat also credits Cisco for establishing Silicon One as a credible chip alternative for hyperscalers capable of taking on Tomahawk and Jericho. Dan frames the long-term opportunity as campus and branch enablement when industrial AI and robotics deployments accelerate, arguing that the numerator of AI's economic impact has barely started, as edge deployment spending has not yet begun. (The Decode) The Flip: Did Microsoft Build 2026 Effectively End the OpenAI Partnership? Pat argues the divorce decree has been filed. MAI-Thinking-1 was built with zero distillation from third-party models offering clean enterprise data lineage, with Maia 200 in production plus Anthropic chip supply, which signals vendor hedging. OpenAI is going all-in on AWS, which means you cannot be married to two people, and the full Build stack covering model, OS containment via MXC, agents via Scout and Agent 365, and context via Microsoft IQ removes every architectural dependency on OpenAI. Dan counters that Microsoft is hedging rather than leaving and predicts the partnership will run through the decade. Enterprise Copilot customers are explicitly showing in data that they demand GPT 5.5, internal benchmarks have not been independently validated, and Microsoft stands to make meaningful money from the OpenAI IPO. (The Flip) Broadcom Q2 FY26 Earnings: Broadcom posted revenue of $22.19 billion, a narrow miss depending on which consensus data set is used, with EPS of $2.44 beating estimates and AI semis at $10.8 billion. Hock Tan declined to raise the $100 billion full-year AI chip target, and the stock dropped 13% in premarket trading. Q3 guide came in at $29.4 billion. Pat calls the miss a timing issue driven by Google's multi-sourcing across Marvell, MediaTek, and Broadcom rather than a fundamental problem. Dan flags that Hock Tan opened the earnings call by accidentally reading from the 2025 print, calling it "not the best moment." Sell-side re-ratings held in the 500s across Jefferies, Mizuho, and Deutsche Bank despite the drop, with Futurum Equities having it at 600. (Bulls and Bears) Hewlett Packard Enterprise Q2 FY26 Earnings: HPE delivered revenue of $10.68 billion, up 40% year over year, and EPS of $0.79, up 100%. Juniper integration and AI servers both outperformed, and all FY26 guides were raised. The stock jumped 19% after hours before settling into a roughly 15% gain, with HPE up 68% over the last month. Pat frames HPE as a value play rather than a volume play, methodically targeting enterprise and sovereign cloud deals where it can maintain profitability, rather than competing for massive NeoCloud volume. Antonio Neri was clear on the call that the profitability pull-forward is a one-shot deal. Pat and Dan will both be at HPE Discover the week after next to interview Neri and the C-suite. (Bulls and Bears) Palo Alto Networks Q3 FY26 Earnings: Palo Alto posted revenue of $3.0 billion, up 31% year over year, beating the $2.94 billion estimate, with non-GAAP EPS of $0.85, beating the $0.79 to $0.81 range. NGS ARR reached $8.1 billion, up 60% year over year, including $1.6 billion from CyberArk and Chronosphere. RPO hit $18.4 billion, up 36%. Both FY26 revenue and EPS guides were raised. Adjusted FCF margin came in at 38.5% TTM, up 430 basis points. The stock jumped 11% immediately after hours, then drifted lower. Pat points to 2,200 platformized customers and 120% net retention as the most important metrics. Dan notes the SaaSpocalypse thesis continues to be wrong. (Bulls and Bears) CrowdStrike Q1 FY27 Earnings and the Proprietary Data Moat Argument: CrowdStrike posted revenue of $1.39 billion with EPS of $1.10 and ARR of $5.51 billion. Net new ARR of $255.8 million set a Q1 record, up 32% year over year. FY27 net new ARR guide was raised by $52 million to a $1.29 billion midpoint, and FY27 revenue was raised to $5.915 to $5.959 billion. A 4-for-1 stock split was announced effective July 2nd. The stock dropped 11% despite the beat after a 64% year-to-date run into earnings. Dan uses the results to make a broader argument against the software disruption thesis, referencing Palantir CEO Alex Karp daring customers to build without him using Anthropic or OpenAI, and Larry Ellison's argument that the real AI value unlock sits in proprietary enterprise data that is not accessible to frontier models. Enterprises with governed, secure, proprietary data will continue to need platforms like CrowdStrike regardless of what frontier models can do. (Bulls and Bears) Six Five Summit is coming. Salesforce CEO Mark Benioff will kick off the event. Register and stay current at sixfivemedia.com/summit. Watch the full video at sixfivemedia.com, and be sure to subscribe to our YouTube channel so you never miss an episode.   The Decode Microsoft Declares Independence — Build 2026 Ships an End-to-End Agentic AI Stack (MAI-Thinking-1 + Scout + Microsoft IQ + Project Solara + Majorana 2) https://www.theverge.com/tech/941738/microsoft-build-2026-biggest-announcements The AI Stack Goes Multi-Silicon — Computex 2026 Confirms a Heterogeneous AI Infrastructure (ARM + Marvell + Intel ASIC + Qualcomm + RTX Spark); WSTS Raises 2026 Semi TAM Forecast 90% to $1.51T https://www.tomshardware.com/tag/computex AI Capex Has Outgrown Cash Flow — Alphabet's $80B Equity Raise Is the Largest in U.S. Corporate History; Berkshire Anchors $10B https://abc.xyz/investor/news/news-details/2026/Alphabet-Announces-Proposed-80-Billion-Equity-Capital-Raise-to-Expand-AI-Infrastructure-and-Compute-2026-b0myAMewCa/default.aspx The Network Becomes the AI Platform — Cisco Live 2026 Launches Silicon One P200, Secure AI Factory (with NVIDIA), AgenticOps, Astrix Security + Galileo https://www.cisco.com/site/us/en/about/whats-new/index.html The Flip Did Microsoft Build 2026 Effectively End the OpenAI Partnership? MAI-Thinking-1 Beats Sonnet 4.6 in Blind Testing, Microsoft Claims GPT-5.5 Parity at 10x Cost Efficiency — Will MS Quietly Wind Down OpenAI Exclusivity by FY28, or Is OpenAI Still the Frontier Anchor Microsoft Needs?   FOR:  MAI-Thinking-1 beating Sonnet 4.6 in blind preference + GPT-5.5 parity at 10x cost efficiency is a frontier-model independence proof point https://www.latent.space/p/ainews-microsoft-build-mai-thinking Build 2026: Accumulating Evidence of Microsoft's AI Independence — EDN (June 4) — https://www.edn.com/build-2026-accumulating-evidence-of-microsofts-ai-independence/ Maia 200 in production + Anthropic-Maia chip talks signal Microsoft is hedging its inference vendor stack https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2026/01/26/maia-200-the-ai-accelerator-built-for-inference/ Microsoft canceled Anthropic's internal software licenses + pivoted to chip-supply pursuit — customer-not-competitor positioning https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/21/anthropic-microsoft-maia-200-ai-chip.html   AGAINST:  Enterprise Copilot customers explicitly demand GPT-5.5 — internal benchmarks don't replace the brand https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/copilot/release-notes?tabs=all MAI-Thinking-1 benchmarks haven't been third-party verified — Microsoft is the only source https://www.latent.space/p/ainews-microsoft-build-mai-thinking The MS-OpenAI partnership is contractual through 2030+ — unwinding it is impractical and expensive https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2026/04/27/the-next-phase-of-the-microsoft-openai-partnership/ Microsoft's actual strategic risk is OpenAI leaving, not MS leaving — Anthropic + OpenAI IPOs make OpenAI exit risk the real concern https://www.anthropic.com/news/confidential-draft-s1-sec Bulls & Bears Broadcom (AVGO) Q2 FY26 ACTUALS — Rev $22.19B (Narrow Miss) + EPS $2.44 (Beat); AI Semis $10.8B; Hock Tan Refuses to Raise the $100B Full-Year AI Chip Target — Stock −13% Premarket; Q3 Guide $29.4B https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/03/broadcom-avgo-earnings-report-q2-2026.html Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) Q2 FY26 ACTUALS — Blowout: Rev $10.68B (+40%), EPS $0.79 (+100%); Juniper Integration + AI Servers Both Outperform; FY26 Guides All Raised; Stock +19% AH https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260601866494/en/HPE-Reports-Fiscal-2026-Second-Quarter-Results Palo Alto Networks (PANW) Q3 FY26 ACTUALS — Beat-and-Raise: Rev $3.0B (+31% YoY, Beat $2.94B), Non-GAAP EPS $0.85 (Beat $0.79-0.81); NGS ARR $8.1B (+60% YoY, $1.6B from CyberArk + Chronosphere); RPO $18.4B (+36%); FY26 Revenue + EPS Guides BOTH RAISED; Adj FCF Margin 38.5% TTM (+430 bps); Stock +11% Immediate AH, Then Drifted Lower https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/company/press/2026/palo-alto-networks-reports-fiscal-third-quarter-2026-financial-results CrowdStrike narrowly beats estimates on AI tailwinds, but stock falls 9% — CNBC (June 3) — https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/03/crowdstrike-crwd-q1-2027-earnings.html  

This week Brian and Dave join us the discuss the classic Star Trek episode The Galileo 7. Plus Land the Galileo Kickstarter Updates!

Why is the past different from the future? Neil deGrasse Tyson and comedian Chuck Nice explore the universe's deepest questions like why is there anything, how we know we are in the real present, if there could be a unified theory of physics and more with theoretical physicist Sean Carroll. Originally aired August 29, 2023. NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free here:  https://startalkmedia.com/show/physics-philosophy-with-sean-carroll/ Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of StarTalk Radio ad-free and a whole week early.Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Cisco is bringing AI agents into network operations with Cisco Cloud Control, AI Canvas, and Agentic Ops. In this demo, David Bombal is joined by DJ Sampath (SVP and General Manager, AI Software and Platform) to look at how Cisco is using AI to simplify complex network troubleshooting, infrastructure management, agent security, and observability. Instead of jumping between multiple dashboards, tools, teams, and tickets, Cisco Cloud Control brings network, security, observability, and infrastructure context into one interface. The demo starts with a simple real-world problem: why can't a phone connect to the network? From there, Cisco AI Canvas investigates the topology, calls the right agents, checks the wireless environment, moves into the firewall/security domain, and identifies the root cause: a site-to-site VPN tunnel issue caused by missing OSPF route exchange. You will see how Cisco is using MCP servers, topology agents, troubleshooting agents, firewall agents, and purpose-built models to help network engineers understand what is happening across Meraki, Catalyst, Firepower, Intersight, Splunk, Security, and other Cisco platforms. The video also covers the Unified Cisco Fabric app, which connects campus and data center environments with a firewall in between, plus Cisco's agentic security app for monitoring and controlling AI agents in the enterprise. DJ also shows how Cisco is thinking about token usage, runaway agents, agent observability, Splunk, Galileo, policy enforcement, and secure AI adoption. The interview also covers Cisco's work with OpenAI and Codex, including how frontier models, purpose-built Cisco models, MCP servers, APIs, Cisco data fabric, and real network data are being used to reduce hallucinations and make AI more useful for infrastructure teams. If you are a network engineer, cybersecurity professional, infrastructure engineer, or someone trying to understand how AI will affect networking, this demo shows where things are going. Thank you to ‪@Cisco‬ for sponsoring this video and my trip to Cisco Live! // DJ Sampath's SOCIAL // LinkedIn:  / djsampath X:  https://x.com/djsampath / David's SOCIAL // Discord: discord.com/invite/usKSyzb Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidbombal Instagram: www.instagram.com/davidbombal LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/davidbombal Facebook: www.facebook.com/davidbombal.co TikTok: tiktok.com/@davidbombal YouTube: / @davidbombal Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/3f6k6gE... SoundCloud: / davidbombal Apple Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... // MY STUFF // https://www.amazon.com/shop/davidbombal // SPONSORS // Interested in sponsoring my videos? Reach out to my team here: sponsors@davidbombal.com // MENU // 0:00 - Coming up 01:05 - Is AI working? 02:55 - Cisco Cloud Control quick demo 09:38 - Cisco Cloud Control Summary 10:50 - Unified Cisco Fabric demo 12:38 - Agentic Security demo // Securing agents 15:25 - Agent Observability demo // Monitoring tokens 17:38 - Cisco Cloud Control in the real world 18:49 - Summary 19:22 - Cisco Cloud Control AI model explained 20:22 - Addressing hallucinations & false information 22:19 - Conclusion Please note that links listed may be affiliate links and provide me with a small percentage/kickback should you use them to purchase any of the items listed or recommended. Thank you for supporting me and this channel! Disclaimer: This video is for educational purposes only. #cisco #ai #cybersecurity

"I think the US in general doesn't pay much attention to European space." That's how Dr. Michael Gleason of the Aerospace Corporation opens - and it's exactly the blind spot this conversation sets out to expose.Recorded live on day two of the 41st Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Torsten Kriening sits down with the analyst whose latest paper, "Geopolitical Awakening: The European Union and Space," made a lot of Europeans uncomfortable - not because he got it wrong, but because an American got it right. It's Gleason's ninth paper on EU space activities across more than twenty years of watching the continent's slow, incremental, and now suddenly accelerating progress.The conversation digs into what mapping Europe's space ecosystem from the outside reveals that insiders often miss. Gleason walks through the political-will framework he first built in 2004 - policy, institutions, senior-leader attention, and money - and explains why, with up to €60 billion on the table in the next EU budget, he believes this time Europe means it. Then comes his one truly original insight: as EU funding flows into ESA, the share could climb past 50%, and that "different color of money" might quietly loosen the geographic-return rule that has held European space together for forty years.From strategic autonomy (and what Washington actually hears when Europeans say it - "not much") to dual-use tensions around Galileo, Copernicus and IRIS², from missile-warning data sharing to the role of NATO, this is a clear-eyed, transatlantic exchange. And it ends on a provocation worth sitting with: the most uncomfortable thing isn't Gleason's conclusions - it's that a European institution didn't write the paper. Strategic autonomy, as Torsten argues, starts with self-understanding.Torsten's Op'ed: #SpaceWatchGL Opinion: Who Understands European Space Better - Washington or Brussels?Space Café Radio brings you talks, interviews, and reports from the team of SpaceWatchers while out on the road. Each episode has a specific topic, unique content, and a personal touch. Enjoy the show, and let us know your thoughts at radio@spacewatch.globalWe love to hear from you. Send us your thought, comments, suggestions, love lettersSupport the showYou can find us on: Spotify and Apple Podcast!Please visit us at SpaceWatch.Global, subscribe to our newsletters. Follow us on LinkedIn and X!

This week was pretty exciting: Microsoft unveiled its Frontier Fine Tuning along with a new hardware stack and developer tools, while NVIDIA launched its foray into PC powered AI. Two big themes here: first is reducing computing cost as data centers start driving up all our AI cost, and second to make AI ever more personal for you and your company. You'll also see that we've optimized Galileo into the Microsoft Copilot and you can get early access below, with GA coming later this summer. Even if you're not an AI or PC geek this information is important because the way you focus your attention on AI has to change. We launch HR 2030 and the Josh Bersin Institute next week, stay tuned! Additional Information AI Prices Are Going Up, Up, Up – And What This Means For Enterprise AI Satya Nadella Keynote at Build (go to 1:45 for Frontier Fine Tuning announcement) Jensen Huang DTC Keynote in Taiwan More on Microsoft Frontier Fine Tuning for Copilot     Chapters (00:00:00) - AI Token Maxing and the High Cost of AI(00:05:03) - Microsoft's Edge computing and fine-tuning the(00:09:11) - How Nvidia Went From Graphics to AI

What a lot of fun I had talking to Zena Hitz about Gulliver's Travels. As well as discussing Swift, slavery, genocide, rationality, Christianity, and science, Zena told me that good philosophy is like a box of cake mix and that a liberal education requires you to be freed of false expertise. I also took Zena on a detour to discuss Iris Murdoch, the Catherine Project, and modern philosophy. TRANSCRIPTHENRY OLIVER: Today I am talking to Zena Hitz. Zena is a tutor at St. John's College. She is a philosopher, the author of Lost in Thought. She runs the Catherine Project. She's famous on Twitter. We don't know how she does it all. Zena, welcome.ZENA HITZ: Thank you, Henry. It's great to be here.OLIVER: And we're talking about Gulliver's Travels because it is 300 years since it was published, and it's a book that you love.HITZ: A book that I've loved for a long time.First Encounter with Gulliver's TravelsOLIVER: So tell me, when did you first read it?HITZ: Well, it was an important moment for me. I was in high school, and I was admitted to a scholarship summer program which offered college courses at different campuses. There were some normal-looking college courses at normal-looking colleges. And then there was this course at St. John's called Science as Literature, Literature as Science. [laughs] It had this description that was just unbelievable. And I thought to myself, “This is the one, obviously the one to go to.”So I went, and we read books that no one in their right mind would assign to high school students now, and maybe not then. The fragments of Parmenides, Plato's Timaeus, selections from Aristotle's Physics, Gulliver's Travels. After reading a number of—preface to Ptolemy's Almagest, geocentric astronomy. And we read Gulliver's Travels after reading selections from Hooke's Micrographia, so the inventor of the microscope, and Galileo's Starry Messenger, which is one of the great first uses of the telescope to discover the nature of the moon and the satellites of Jupiter.So then we read Gulliver's Travels. We also read Emma and Flannery O'Connor and various other things. And one of the faculty who was running it said at one point, “Well, we thought we'd throw a bunch of things together and see what you could do, what you could make of it. We didn't actually have an idea of how these all fit together,” which I think was probably true.At any rate, I think I came to Gulliver's Travels thinking about these scientists who were looking at very large things and very small things, and thinking in general about the follies of human perception, whether that was shown in literature or philosophy or what have you, the ways in which human perception and knowledge don't work very well. And I think Swift is still one of the best people to—Gulliver's Travels is still one of the best books about that because it's in the mode of a travel diary, an eyewitness account.Gulliver is trained as a surgeon, by his own account. He at one point says he was a bit of a projector in his younger days, someone who undertook scientific projects. And he's a terrible observer, the worst imaginable observer, and Swift so brilliantly lets us see through his eyes, lets us see all the things he doesn't see. And I think it's not just about seeing and knowing. It has a very profound, I think, moral and political set of commitments. So it's a very humane book. It's social criticism, but from a point of view of a very deep humanity. So I've always loved the book for these reasons since then.I came back to it more recently because it is part of the curriculum at St. John's. So when I came back to teach there, I began to reread it. The other experience I had was that I wrote a long essay on it when I was an undergraduate. So those are my—I'm not any kind of expert. My knowledge of the historical context of the book is limited. It's not zero, but it's limited. But I have always loved it as an account of human understanding and its failures and the way that might impact how we live and how happy we can be.The Houyhnhnm ProblemOLIVER: Have you changed how you think about it as you've taught it?HITZ: I have not really changed the way I think about it. It gets more—like all of these books, the more you read them, the more comes out of them, the more details come up. Hilarious. The more jokes you get, the more . . .I think the one more recent insight I had was, I hadn't understood the full horror of the Houyhnhnms in the last book until relatively recently. I think that took me some time to really take on. It's one of the cases where Gulliver's misperceptions are a bit harder to see, and I think many readers just assume that Swift is endorsing the praise of the Houyhnhnms in some sense or other.OLIVER: There are some very serious critics in the past who have called them Swift's ideal beings. Which at this point in history seems unthinkable, but it has been a belief among serious readers.HITZ: Yes, yes. And also common among students. Yes, it's absolutely one of the wrongest opinions you could have about anything, I think.OLIVER: Why does Swift allow us to make that mistake? Are we bad readers out of the context, or has he made too good a job of his diversions and concealments and ironies?HITZ: That's a great question, and I'll just take a stab at it. I think that he has hit on a mode of misperception which is very deep to us, and it's something that we're much more guilty of. We could imagine that if we were in a place where everyone was small or everyone was large, we might make mistakes like Gulliver makes. But we all live, I think, in communities that are a bit like the Houyhnhnms. And so we are all very subject to these kinds of deceptions, and I think that's how he gets us.That's not to really excuse the bad readings because, you know, Gulliver does leave the land of the Houyhnhnms with a boat made out of human skin, which should—I think that moment should make you realize, if you haven't yet, that something is very seriously wrong with Gulliver. Gulliver has been kind of destroyed as a person by his travels, and especially by this last trip. But if you pass over that little detail, maybe you think, “Oh, wow, he found some very simple beings.”OLIVER: Well, there's also the great council where they debate the genocide of the Yahoos.HITZ: [laughs] Yes.OLIVER: And it directly contradicts several things Gulliver has come to believe about the Houyhnhnms, about the Yahoos, and about himself. And he's completely unaware of these contradictions and so in awe of the Houyhnhnms that he doesn't quite understand, I think, that he's accounting a genocide.HITZ: That's right. That's right.OLIVER: Even though he uses a phrase from Genesis that's very unmistakable. It's a sort of remarkable moment of—particularly to us, having had the 20th century. I think that's why Swift came back into favor in a way, because people used to say, Swift's unbearable view of human nature . . .This is a great bit in Boswell's Life of Johnson where, when they're traveling through Scotland, they're with a lady, and she says to Johnson, “Is any man naturally good?” And Johnson says, “No, no more than a wolf.” And Boswell says, “Well, sir, what about ladies?” And Johnson says, “God, no, absolutely not.” And this woman says, “Oh my God, this is worse than Swift,” utterly horrific view of human nature.But of course, we can actually say, did he go far enough? [laughter] I mean, Swift clearly understands something very real and deep. The council of genocide is horrifyingly familiar to us. And I think that's much to Swift's credit that he can see that, and to show that Gulliver would blind himself to it. And people still blind themselves to it, right?HITZ: That's right. And I wonder—you would know more about this than me because it is a bit of a historical question, but my understanding is that quite a lot of the savagery, the worst parts of rule over men that we see in Gulliver's Travels are pictures of Ireland in the 17th, 18th centuries. And I wonder if that took some time to reveal itself to the British, and in some ways it's still not really as known as it might be. We think of the colonial project as being something that was directed at India and Africa—OLIVER: Faraway countries.HITZ: —faraway countries where people looked really different. And we're not as familiar with the kinds of things that were done to the cuddly Irish with their nice music, and who we don't think of as being people that you would savagely oppress like that. So I think—OLIVER: So, I think partly the English are not interested in their own history in the way that they are expected to be. And partly the English interest in Irish history has become very focused on the more recent events. And it's very hard to get back past that. And it all becomes very complicated, and it's a sort of different country. So there's some of that, but I think generally we don't want to know what we did, yes.HITZ: Well, and I think in anglophone countries in general, there's going to be a history of something like that. To attribute it to the British is not to say that—I mean, Americans have chattel slavery and the genocide of the natives, and the Australians have their own situation. All of the anglophone countries have something like this on their conscience.I think that obscures the meaning of that final book. I think we don't recognize—and that's really to Swift's credit, to have a social critique that is so real and so deep that you may not even recognize yourself in the picture.Slavery in Gulliver's TravelsOLIVER: Yes. When I read it again—I read it as an undergraduate, but I really was actually more interested in the other parts of Swift's work. And I thought it was brilliant, and then I read it again. And it was more recently that—I didn't understand how I couldn't have seen it, but it's basically a book about slavery, as I come back to it.And in each of the books there is enslavement of a different sort. So, to begin with, Gulliver is the one being kept in a box or kept in a house, or he's chained up by the Lilliputians or Glumdalclitch.HITZ: Right. That's right.OLIVER: She's a very nice sort of master, as it were, [laughter] but he has that box that can be sealed, and the dwarf has him swiping at the wasps. And then the enslavement that the flying island has of the country below is like England and Ireland. And then in the final book, you know, the Houyhnhnms are whipping the Yahoos.HITZ: That's right.OLIVER: The slavery thing gets worse and worse as the book goes on. And one of the things that's clever is that it's funny when Gulliver is enslaved, right? When the wasps are let out and he has to—and Swift sort of does that clever thing where he undermines things by making it a joke at the end. By the book of the Houyhnhnms, there is really very little humor. And the twist at the end is always dark.Gulliver can't see that—he can see that he's a bit like the Yahoos. But he can't see that they've been enslaved in the way that he—the farmer wanted to take him around the kingdom and show him off, and he says, “I couldn't possibly have had children in that condition because I couldn't have it on my conscience that I had begotten a slave, someone born into slavery. I couldn't do that.”HITZ: Right.OLIVER: Then he's in the Houyhnhnms and he can't—it's quite remarkable.HITZ: [laughs] Yes. I don't think it's quite true that in the end there's no humor. I read it with some Catherine Project group a couple of years ago, and one of the readers pointed out that it's not obvious Gulliver isn't leaving his home and sitting out in the ocean and always landing on England every single time; just every time, he lands there.And there's something hilarious about an Englishman that discovers a place where there's all horses, [laughter] and his love of horses overwhelms him, and he becomes persuaded that they're the only rational beings that there are. I mean, that is funny.OLIVER: Yes, I agree. There's a lot of irony and stuff. But I think it's in Lilliput when he describes their manner of writing. And he says they don't write from left to right as we do in England, or from right to left, or up-down like the Chinese, but from one corner to the other, as the ladies do in England. This is very funny, dry humor, and that sort of thing is gone. And the things that surprise you at the end of a sentence or a paragraph are more like, “Oh, and of course I used Yahoo skin to cover the boat.” And you're like, oh my God, this is not a joke anymore.You know, in A Modest Proposal, he makes real humor out of those kind of horrors. And with the Houyhnhnms, I think he actually refuses the joke to make you feel the disgust, in a way.HITZ: Yes, that might be right. That might be right.Swift and PhilosophyOLIVER: What do you think about the idea that the Houyhnhnms are drawn from the Phaedrus and Socrates's idea of the soul with the two horses? And there's the good, rational horse and the vulgar, passionate horse, and the Yahoos are the other horse. You see what I mean?HITZ: Yes, yes.OLIVER: Is Swift showing us the two sides, and Gulliver's mistake is to prefer the one and not the—HITZ: Right, I think I have heard something like this before. I'm a bit skeptical. Swift doesn't strike me as someone who uses philosophy in quite that way. I think he's much more interested in Gulliver's—the Houyhnhnms' self-deception about the kinds of beings they are. They do not say “the thing which is not,” yet Gulliver's master hides from him this conversation about the genocide for quite some time. And maybe we don't know if he tells him quite the whole truth about it. So there's—OLIVER: And he also conceals the fact that the others don't like Gulliver because he's a partial—a reasonable Yahoo, as it were.HITZ: Right. So their self-deception, Gulliver's being taken in by their self-deception, the ways in which they—this is one of the ways that I think it's profound about the nature of slavery. And to cheer us all up, I'll make a Holocaust analogy, as you also did.When I was traveling in Germany some years ago, in one of their Holocaust museums, there was an image from a Nazi-era German newspaper of Jewish people living in complete squalor in the ghetto. And of course, they had forced them into squalor. But somehow they forced them into squalor, and then this reinforces the sense that they're these rat-like beings.And there's something very similar that the Houyhnhnms do to the Yahoos. They force them into this animal state, and then they say, “Oh God, look, these people are disgusting. They just don't know how to act.” That seems to me the kind of level at which Swift is working. He is interested in the nature of a human being, but not in the abstract Platonic sense, I don't think.He strikes me as someone who believes in common sense, common decency, basic freedom, and basic use of reason. And he finds in his time that there's distorting teachings, distorting ways of behavior that have gotten people far off track. To me, that's what it feels like it comes from. It doesn't feel like Plato is in the background to me.OLIVER: Is there an extent to which, though, it's a work of sort of anti-philosophy? As you say, Swift, he likes common sense. He likes ordinary reason, and he likes what he would call the revealed truth of Christianity. So he talks, in his sermons about people, it comes to you from God like a light. It's revealed to you. And he doesn't like this idea that the philosophers can work it all out.And in a way, that's the same sort of mistake that the scientists think they can discover all this stuff, and they go in these crazy ways. And the Houyhnhnms are a bit like that. If you had philosopher-kings, they would end up being perverted examples of rationality because they're ignoring the—so do you think it's anti-philosophy in a way? The book is saying, “No, no, I don't want philosophers”?Criticizing Elite Intellectual CultureHITZ: That's definitely a plausible reading. But it's hard to tell whether it's anti-philosophy or anti a particular style of thinking. It's worth pointing out, in that light, that Gulliver, when he arrives in the land of the Houyhnhnms, before he even meets a horse, he sees a Yahoo who, from what I can tell from the text, is trying to wave at him and say hello, who recognizes him. And he's horrified. He sees him instantly as a monster.So I think immediately upon landing, he sees the Yahoos as monstrous, and that tells me that he must already be off kilter. So he's not just corrupted by the Houyhnhnms; he's been somehow led off track, away from the capacity to recognize fellow human beings before that.And he's come from this—the third book is all about various kinds of inquiry, scientific endeavors, practical endeavors, talking to the greats of the past, necromancy, and various kinds of inquiry into wisdom or things like wisdom. And somehow that's the thing that seems to push him to the point where he can no longer tell what a human being is.OLIVER: One of my favorite parts is when he's with the wizards, and he asks to be shown Homer and Aristotle and all their commentators. And he says that there were vast rooms full of these commentators, endless numbers of them. But Homer and Aristotle didn't recognize any of them because they were all so ashamed of the terrible things they'd said about these great men's works that they kept themselves forever in a different part of the underworld. They couldn't bear the shame of being revealed to having told lies and said second-rate things.It's very, very funny. And I think that's another sort of angle on which the book says, “You're so tempted to make a comment and have an idea and be a philosopher, and you should just accept the revealed truth of what is known. Just stop it. Just stop it.” [laughter]HITZ: Well, I suppose maybe I would also put it this way, that Swift sees the condition of 18th-century Ireland, which is quite poor, very bad. And it's ruled in a savage way by the English, who have a quite flourishing intellectual culture, as it happens, at this time.So I think what he might be is not a critic of philosophy so much as a critic of intellectual culture. Because intellectual culture seems to not only not help with existential concerns like slavery and oppression and savage poverty, but even serves to mask and hide and create illusions behind it.So that's, I guess, how it strikes me, as a book that's hostile to what you'd now call elite intellectual culture. And I don't know how fundamental that critique is, in light of its inability to solve problems for real human beings or to obscure the causes of what's going on with real human beings.OLIVER: I think it's quite fundamental because outside of Gulliver's—I think this comes into Gulliver's Travels, but what he might have said more explicitly elsewhere is, there are people starving in the streets of Dublin. And we've got corrupt politicians and intellectuals saying all these things, but you know, here she is starving. You don't need to work that out. [laughter] There's no question—the reveal—just be a Christian and, like, for goodness' sake . . .HITZ: Yes.OLIVER: And when, for example, he talks to the king of Brobdingnag, and there's that wonderful satire of the English government and everything. And he says, “Those people understood mathematics and poetry and whatever, but I could never drive into their head any sense of the abstract or any of these speculative—they simply didn't know what that was. They didn't know what I was saying.” [laughter]And so in a way, his ideal government is anti-philosophical because it would just look at the human problem in front of it. It wouldn't do speculative science. It wouldn't think of itself as rational, all this Platonic stuff. It would just—she's in rags, she has bare feet, you know?HITZ: Yes, that's right.OLIVER: What do we need a philosopher-king? Like, what are you talking about?HITZ: Exactly.OLIVER: The priest understands this because he's there in the city doing it. And is there something of that in the book, that constant resistance of the cleverness of people who cannot see daily life?HITZ: I think that's absolutely true, and I think it's probably one of the things I love about the book, because I think this somehow gets to something in my own heart. Even though I'm a professional intellectual—I have been my whole life—the distance between the concerns of professional intellectuals and the concerns of living, real people in various parts of the world is very large.And it's even worse when, as it was when I was coming up in grad school, there's a ton of explicit concern and various operations underway to improve life for others, which have zero connection with anything that anyone actually does. So I think the Laputans, which is the beginning of the third book, when Gulliver—OLIVER: The flying island.HITZ: Yes, when Gulliver visits the people on the flying island, who have one eye towards the heavens and one eye pointed inward. And they study music and mathematics, and they live in a giant flying saucer, which has the—OLIVER: And the flappers.HITZ: That's right. [laughter] When someone needs to talk to them, someone flaps their ears so that they pay attention. And their wives all run off with working people because they can't bear to be treated the way they are by men like this. And the flying saucer is not just distant. It also has the power to crush the towns underneath it if it judges them to be rebellious.This image will stick with you for the rest of your life. I mean, it's absolutely perfect, and the perfect image of bad government of a kind when intellectual culture is prized. And it's hinted early on in the book in Lilliput, when the rulers in Lilliput have to do these elaborate dances with ropes.OLIVER: Oh, with the king and the chief minister hold the pole, funny angles, and if you get under it, you get a green ribbon or a red ribbon.HITZ: Exactly. [laughter] And they have these athletic contests of grace and various colored ribbons, and that determine how far you get in the halls of power.OLIVER: Yes. Are you a cabinet minister or a junior minister? Yes, yes.HITZ: Exactly. So there, it's all just a funny joke. But it develops, I think, into the Laputans, people who have kinds of expertise that are actually hostile to them doing any kind of humane governing. So yes, that seems right to me.Christianity in GulliverOLIVER: To what extent is it a Christian book?HITZ: That's an interesting question. I've never found a strong Christian element in it myself. There are satires of religious wars, both in Lilliput, where Lilliput's at war with its neighboring city. Oh, wait a second, there's two different disputes in Lilliput. One is about what side you cut your egg on.OLIVER: There are the Little-Endians and the Big-Endians,HITZ: Right. And then there's also one about heel size. So there's two different kinds of disputes.OLIVER: With the marvelous image that the king is a Short-Heeler. But they think that the heir to the throne might be favorable to the High-Heelers because he has one heel slightly higher than the other, and he walks with a wobbly gait.HITZ: [laughs] That's right. This, again, in Lilliput is just utterly hilarious, outrageous, very silly, obviously a parody of religious wars between different kinds of Christians. But it resurfaces towards the end. It's the Houyhnhnms, where he talks to the Master Horse—OLIVER: And the horse sort of pretends to this great rationality, simply can't understand that men would kill each other over the question of whether flesh is bread or bread is flesh.HITZ: That's right. That's right. That's right. So there's definitely disparaging remarks about religious wars. And as you're talking about it, where along with Swift's praise of common sense, there's a kind of basic Christian morality, which is that the poor and the suffering need attention. That all strikes me as Christian. Apart from that, I'm not sure. If you have a religious take, I'd be interested to hear it.OLIVER: I find it very interesting that Swift had quite strict beliefs. He was not in favor of Catholics. He thought Dissenters should be tolerated, but he wanted the Test Act. He was very particular about all these things. And in his other works, he's quite direct about that. But in this book, he achieves a kind of high ambivalence. And he's not a Little-Ender or a Big-Ender.HITZ: That's right.OLIVER: And he says the religious text on which this is based simply says that you must break the egg at the most convenient end.HITZ: [laughs] That's right.OLIVER: Now, of course, in reality, he's a Little-Ender, and he's very committed to the Reformation, and he thinks it's all terrible that they're not. And it's interesting that someone with such angry, insistent beliefs on the Anglican Church would take this ambivalent position.And he satirizes so much. But the anti-slavery stuff, the description of the Laputans bringing the island down, and then he says, “I've never seen so much want and misery, and there's a wild look in their eyes, and they're wearing rags.” I mean, this is Dublin, right? This is just, along with the slavery, this basic Christian concern for the oppressed, the poor, the suffering.HITZ: Yes, that's right.OLIVER: And so I don't quite know. It's almost like the book is saying, again with this anti-intellectual thing, all these doctrinal disputes and which church this and who believes that. And here we have slaves and poor people and beggars and starving people.HITZ: Right.OLIVER: Christianity should deal with that first. So is the implicit criticism of his fellow Christians, in a way, that they're more interested in these disputes than in the fact that there are enslaved people and suffering people and—you see what I mean?HITZ: Yes, that's right.OLIVER: And Gulliver—the Houyhnhnms are highly rational but not Christian, which is a significant omission. And by the end, are you supposed to wonder if Gulliver actually isn't very much of a Christian? Because he can see this suffering and not respond to it at all.HITZ: Right, when maybe the—is the best person in the book the King of Brobdingnag? Does that seem right? The person with the—at least who says the best things?OLIVER: He says the best things. I think the best person is Glumdalclitch. She shows real charity and real love towards him.HITZ: What about the Houyhnhnm, the one who likes him, who says, “Fare thee well, gentle Yahoo”? It's tear-jerking—OLIVER: Oh, the sorrel nag.HITZ: The sorrel nag. I can literally weep at that moment when she says, “Fare thee well, gentle Yahoo.”OLIVER: That's true. That's true. She and Glumdalclitch are maybe more similar characters. Yes, yes, yes.HITZ: They're similar characters. Okay.OLIVER: And they have that basic, you don't need to call it Christian. You don't need—it doesn't need theology.HITZ: Humane. I would call it humane. Yes.OLIVER: They have that basic love of their fellow. You know, Glumdalclitch doesn't say, “Oh, how amusing this little man is, or how entertaining, or I can make—” She says, “He must be cared for. He looks a bit like me. He must be cared for.”HITZ: Right.OLIVER: And the sorrel nag, again, has the love of the fellow creature.HITZ: That's right. That's right.OLIVER: So I think Swift might be bringing in this, what he thinks of as the revealed truth of Christianity. Like, you shouldn't need telling, you shouldn't need to argue. It's there.HITZ: Right. This is just me making things up, which is what I'm here for. We're podcasting. Yes.OLIVER: Yes, of course. Also, is that not what the philosophers would do? That's what Swift would say.HITZ: But if I was going to make something up, what I would say is something like this: that Swift to me, from the testimony of Gulliver's Travels, which is the book of his I really know the best. I don't know much about the rest of it. He has a level of self-awareness and sophistication. So, he knows that that religious difference is being used as a pretext. He knows that it is obscuring the suffering of these people. So, for the purposes of the book, he says, “Look, if you're a smart person, if you're a smart ruler, if you're an actually humane, intelligent, commonsensical ruler, you know that the fact that they have the wrong religious views is not a reason for them to be enslaved and oppressed and starved.” So that would be my suspicion.And that's why I think, to me, the religion is so light, because it's not really a religious problem. It's actually just a human problem and a political problem that is, how do you run your country so that these subject peoples are allowed to be free and develop themselves and be full human beings? That would be my made-up guess.Students' Views of GulliverOLIVER: What do undergraduates think? What is it that they find interesting in the book, and what do they like or dislike?HITZ: It's been a couple of years. I think they like this idea that—we all think travel is very broadening, a great way to think about the world. You know, you can learn so much about one's fellow human beings. And whatever else is going on in Gulliver's Travels, travel does not necessarily produce enlightenment.So I think they like the attention to the ways in which, even when we are trying to learn, we fail to learn. And the ways in which structures of learning, like traveling or studying science, might actually make you worse and not better, things like that. But it's not a book—I think it's fair to say it's not one of the favorite books of the undergraduates.OLIVER: Okay.HITZ: I think they find it a little bit distant, and I'm not sure why that is.OLIVER: Is it because it sort of looks like a novel, but it's not what we have come to expect a novel to be? And it sort of has that—HITZ: I think that's right.OLIVER: The pre–Jane Austen novel is kind of weird to us now.HITZ: Well, they love Don Quixote.OLIVER: Okay.HITZ: And that is a challenge of a similar kind. It's a novel which doesn't quite read like a novel, and the humor is kind of old. I mean, it's also true—undergraduates, in my experience, in general—I hope they'll forgive me for saying this on a podcast—they're not always good at comedy. They tend to think that serious things must be tragic.OLIVER: You can't get an A by making a joke.HITZ: Well, more that they have a sense that an intellectual life is something serious. It's serious.OLIVER: Oh, yes. Okay. And the syllabus slightly reinforces that, doesn't it?HITZ: Well, it's sort of self-reinforcing because we used to read more Aristophanes. We used to read Rabelais.OLIVER: If you do Shakespeare, it'll be the tragedies.HITZ: No, no, we do Shakespeare comedies.OLIVER: Oh, you do? Okay.HITZ: Yes. We have As You Like It and The Tempest. And do we have more tragedies? Maybe one more tragedy than comedy, but not a terrible imbalance.OLIVER: Well, that's good.HITZ: It's not Shakespeare-type comedy that's—maybe, correct me if I'm wrong, a Shakespeare comedy is something that ends in a marriage, more or less.OLIVER: More or less.HITZ: It's things that are funny—they don't necessarily think that humor is a way of thinking.OLIVER: Do they struggle with irony?HITZ: No, not usually. As long as it's serious irony, Anyway, I'm not sure why. I think I'm making things—I'm going too far out of the grounds for drawing conclusions.Favorite Parts of the BookOLIVER: Sure. Do you have a favorite passage?HITZ: One of my favorites is the part—is it Balnibarbi where they have people who try to speak with objects?OLIVER: Oh, yes, yes, yes.HITZ: And they have to carry around wagons full of things because they never know what you might want to talk about. [laughter] That's so weird. Because I think I spent a lot of time studying with philosophers, there's a bit of—something's on the nose about this.OLIVER: Yes.HITZ: You know, it's like, “No, you've got to say exactly—no, that's too imprecise. You have to say exactly what you mean.” Bernard Williams, the great philosopher, has something complaining about how contemporary philosophers are very controlling of their readers. They don't want anyone to make the slightest mistake about what they mean by a particular word. That's how the people who speak by objects strike me.OLIVER: Do you think that is a problem of contemporary philosophy?HITZ: Oh, sure. Yes, absolutely. Yes. The way Williams puts it is that when you write something, it should be like a cake mix, and the reader should be able to put their own egg and bake the cake themselves.OLIVER: Oh, I see. You mean like a box of mix, yes.HITZ: Yes, yes, exactly. It's like a box of cake mix. Whereas making the cake painstakingly and force-feeding it bite by bite to the reader is not actually an—OLIVER: Telling them how it tastes.HITZ: Telling them how it tastes is not an educational endeavor.OLIVER: When does this become too dominant in philosophy?HITZ: It's a feature of 20th-century analytic philosophy to be very careful with the meanings of words. And it's by no means universal; it's just a natural vice to the territory.Iris MurdochOLIVER: Is this a problem for someone like Iris Murdoch, or is it more the A. J. Ayer type?HITZ: No, it's the A. J. Ayer type, not Iris Murdoch. No, Iris Murdoch is heterodox outside of the—OLIVER: Do you like her philosophy?HITZ: I do, yes.OLIVER: What do you like about it? Platonic?HITZ: Now, see, I came here to talk about Swift. [laughter]OLIVER: I know, but you made such a good point about the satire of philosophers.HITZ: I like her writing for a more general educated audience, her not making assumptions about the philosophical training of her readers, and her use of Plato for sure, which is quite interesting and creative. She sort of ingests Plato and does something with it that I think is very interesting.OLIVER: Is she properly appreciated as a Platonist, or do you think there's more attention to be paid?HITZ: There's probably more attention to be paid, but she gets some attention. She gets some attention. I also don't think it was particularly helpful, these two books that came out a couple of years ago about Murdoch, Foot, Midgley, and Anscombe.OLIVER: Oh, yes, yes, yes. I only read one of those. It was quite good.HITZ: It might be quite good, but those four women are quite different from one another. So it's an example of where attention to identity could obscure as much as it—OLIVER: Well, one of the books was more about the ideas—they were both obviously about the ideas—and one of them was more about the fact that they were together in Oxford. And that they benefited from hanging out, talking, doing different sorts of work, sleeping with each other's husbands, et cetera.HITZ: Yes, all the good stuff.OLIVER: And from the more sociological point of view, it was very interesting to see that, actually, a lot of what Murdoch did was bound up with her friendships and relationships, in that the argument basically is, A. J. Ayer and the others get sent away because of the war. So these four women are actually—they've been banned from this seminar and told they're not allowed.Well, now they can sit around and do what they want to do. And it worked, and they all produced very interesting things. So from that point of view, I think it was—but I agree with you, Elizabeth Anscombe and Iris Murdoch are not the same. [laughter]HITZ: Not even particularly similar. I also feel like I've read enough of Murdoch's novels to have a sense of what the sociological situation was like.OLIVER: You like the novels?HITZ: I do like them, yes.OLIVER: Do you have favorites?HITZ: I can't remember the name of my favorite because I haven't read them for years. It's one of the things I read years ago, the one—I'd remember it if I saw the title. There's an LSD trip at the beginning of it.OLIVER: Oh, The Good Apprentice. I love that book.HITZ: The Good Apprentice, yes. I think that was my favorite. But I never fell in love with it. I just liked it, and I found it interesting, and I found the sociology interesting. Okay, this is what academics at this time period were doing.What to Pair with SwiftOLIVER: We got diverted.HITZ: “We” got diverted. [laughs]OLIVER: We did. If Swift is on a great books syllabus, what is it good to pair him with? If people are reading Swift, on or off a syllabus, do you think there are other—Hooker, you said, which I think would be interesting.HITZ: No, Hooke. It's Hooke.OLIVER: Hooke. Hooke. That's a very good point.HITZ: The guy who wrote Micrographia, who has the enormous picture of the flea.OLIVER: Yes, yes, yes. So that would be good. But any other? Is it worth reading Plato alongside him?HITZ: Well, I like to—he's on the list for something we called Life of the Mind Seminar at Catherine Project, which is our introduction to the life of the mind.OLIVER: And just to tell people, the Catherine Project—this is not a university. Anyone can join a seminar.HITZ: That's right. It's an open online readers community. Consists of small, high-quality conversations, mostly on Zoom, some in person.OLIVER: You could be some kid, an accountant, a dentist, whatever, and you come and do a—you've got a PhD running a seminar, and you get that experience.HITZ: Right. Some of them are peer led, so they're not necessarily PhDs running them. The reading groups are not necessarily run by PhDs. But the core program in which the Life of the Mind Seminar is—either a PhD or an ABD [all but degree] or someone with some academic experience is usually leading that. We have it there, and we have it there with a set of books that are meant to disorient rather than to orient.So one of the difficulties with reading great books with more or less random selections of adults is that people feel uncertain, out of place. And they bring expertise, real or fake, to the table, which makes it very difficult to have a conversation. It's usually fake expertise, for what it's worth.OLIVER: Give us an example of what you mean by fake expertise.HITZ: Well, so someone will have—we'll be, say, reading Hamlet. Someone will have taken a class on Shakespeare in college, and they'll say, “Actually, we're asking this question. But what I learned, my professor told me, is that Hamlet actually symbolizes—he has an Oedipus complex and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and then this is what this means, and this is what that means.” And then your conversation's over, because you need to focus just on the text that's shared between the—OLIVER: It's not a crossword puzzle.HITZ: Exactly. It's not a crossword puzzle, and it's not something where—or the other—people often, again, they feel a bit on their back feet. So they'll google a bunch of stuff about the author, and they'll start tossing out random facts about the book or about the author, about the context. And again, you don't get really into the meat of the book that way.So, Gulliver's Travels is there to help us think about ways in which we might not be expert in things we're expert. Ways in which we might think we understand something and not understand it. And ways in which people who, with every appearance of seriousness and scientific principle, can just say unbelievably stupid things.So it's a very, very good book for that, where in that sense, it's I think very good for any liberal education program. It's liberating that way. One of the things we need to be liberated from is false expertise.OLIVER: You're talking really about these secondhand opinions that you haven't interrogated and come to understand yourself.HITZ: Exactly. Exactly, exactly, exactly.OLIVER: This is what Mill says. Everything is new to someone, and the real genius is that you find it out.HITZ: Exactly.OLIVER: You don't get taught it. Yes, yes.HITZ: Exactly, exactly. So real learning is things you find for yourself. Anyway, that's what I like it with. As for pairing it, yes, I think it would just depend on what you were—I don't have a clear thought about that. I think it'd be good to pair it with Galileo's Starry Messenger and preface to Hooke's Micrographia.But you could also pair it with Emma. Be quite good, actually, because Emma is also about someone who really doesn't know what they're doing and has no idea. Thinks they know what's going on; they really have no idea what's going on.OLIVER: Yes. Hamlet as well, in fact.HITZ: I guess so. Does he not know what's going on?OLIVER: Who's diverting now? [laughter] Well, there's an interesting question, isn't there, about whether Hamlet has legitimate doubts. So he says, “This ghost could be a demon. I should be careful. I don't know what I'm doing. I'm going to pretend to be mad. I'm going to find out.” Or whether he just doesn't want to see the truth in front of him, and he quote-unquote “delays” because of that. I don't know if you have a view.HITZ: I don't think he's deluded. I think the problem is something different, but I haven't thought enough about it recently to know what his volitional obstacle is. But I don't think he's deluded. I think he sees what's going on, but there's something about acting that doesn't work for him.OLIVER: An internal—HITZ: Something internal. Something internal. In a way, I find the play very hard. I don't know what, for instance, what does that obstacle have to do with Ophelia? What's going on with that? Anyway, he's very mysterious, but I don't—yes, that'd be my sense, is that he's not—OLIVER: Do you buy this idea that he's a nihilist?HITZ: No, although he's definitely faced with something like nihilism. He has to look at it. And of course, the play does end with everyone dead, [laughs] so it's not obvious that he's wrong.Sympathy for GulliverOLIVER: This question hangs over Gulliver as well. Is the problem by the end that he's basically become a nihilist? His response to the Yahoos is to deny meaning, deny the possibility of meaning, to shut himself away.HITZ: He is a true misanthrope. He hates human beings and refuses to interact with them and in that sense, in some way, removes himself from any further mistakes. In another way, the mistake that he's in is so massive that that hardly seems like a consolation. But yes, he's definitely stuck, and he's stuck in a place where who he is—because he's a human being. We have to remember that.So he's in a place of total self-hatred and the hatred of his neighbor, what you'd call from the Christian perspective a total loss of charity. Is that nihilist? I don't know, but it's definitely bad. It's not a good state to be in. Maybe I don't know what you mean by nihilism exactly.OLIVER: Are we supposed to disapprove of him at the end or sympathize with him?HITZ: Disapprove, I think.OLIVER: Yes? You don't feel sorry for him?HITZ: I do a bit.OLIVER: But not much.HITZ: Well, should I?OLIVER: I have come to believe—yes, this is what I've come to feel in subsequent readings, is that Gulliver, as you say, is very mistaken. He thinks he understands things that he does not understand. He has the sort of pretense of rationality, but he lacks any sort of meta rationality to see what his limits are.And he becomes, therefore—he doesn't advocate genocide, and he doesn't take any pleasure in using Yahoo skin, but he's just completely null to it. There's a sort of void there where human feeling ought to be. And it's tragic for him. It's a tragic ending that he is so isolated. And we can't sympathize with him, as it were, but we can feel sort of awful that he's shriveled into this state rather than judging or blame.I think one of the persistent themes of the book is, as I say, this kind of basic love of fellow creature, the Glumdalclitch or the sorrel. And if you take that from the book, you will wish you could bring Gulliver back.HITZ: Right. What you're saying reminds me that there is an interesting parallel in Plato's dialogues that I hadn't thought of before, Plato's Parmenides, which is perhaps the most difficult Plato's dialogue. So it's a conversation between young Socrates and the philosopher Parmenides. The first third of it is relatively clear, some arguments against what people think of as Plato's theory of forms.Then there's an extensive, insane dialectical process where various theses about the connection between being and oneness are both argued for and then refuted, and argued for and then refuted, pages and pages and pages and pages of it. So this seems to be—it's Parmenides and Zeno who are running Socrates through this ringer.And the person at the very beginning of the dialogue who they have to go find, to tell him the story of how Socrates met Parmenides, used to study philosophy. But now he just trains horses. [laughs] One of my teachers pointed this out to me, and I've never been able to get over it, that he spent this time doing philosophy, and he's like, “You know what? I'm going to work with horses for the rest of my life. If I never hear another human voice, that's fine with me.”So I think that is an interesting parallel. And I think it is not really that uncommon to see people who are totally disillusioned with relating to humans, who then relate to animals instead, like they devote themselves to animals.OLIVER: But on that reading, it might be a disillusionment with philosophical humanity. It might be philosophy that's killed Gulliver's human feeling.HITZ: That's right. Well, I think that's one possibility, one very strong possibility. That's why I think the Houyhnhnms come after the Laputans. Going to the furthest reaches of his intellectual interests just destroys his humanity.But it doesn't seem like exhaustion in the same way that whoever, I can't remember his name, the character who relates the Parmenides, where you just think he must be exhausted from having heard more than one conversation like this. [laughter] And just in the stable with the horses eating oats, I mean, it's just delightful. It's just so peaceful, you know?OLIVER: Bucolic, pastoral, yes.HITZ: Yes, exactly. Exactly. Maybe you're right that we should be more sympathetic to someone in that situation.OLIVER: Well, next time you read it, you can tell me if you change your mind.HITZ: All right. I will tell you if I change my mind.OLIVER: Very good. Zena Hitz, thank you very much.HITZ: Thank you very much, Henry Oliver. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk

In an age where information is readily available and where we're fed an unending stream of content, have we lost our sense of wonder? Synopsis: On Wednesdays, The Straits Times takes a hard look at Singapore's social issues of the day with guests. We live in a time where technology has made information more readily available than ever. Curiosity has been the main driver of human discovery since the beginning of time but when faced with a barrage of information, have we stopped wanting to know more? In this episode of In Your Opinion, senior columnist Rohit Brijnath speaks with celebrated physicist, educator and rock star Brian Cox. Currently on a world tour with his live show, Emergence, he takes us on a journey across the cosmos, civilisation and human curiosity all while attempting to answer the question: how do we find wonder? Emergence will be in Singapore on June 10. Highlights (click/tap above): 4:46 Should people be more curious? 8:51 Keeping a sense of wonder through life 10:36 Are there aliens out there? 15:38 There are things I don't actually know 19:55 Kepler, Galileo and Einstein around a table 29:13 Two weeks in space is ideal 32:46 Why world leaders should go to space 36:11 Are there mysteries that should remain? 38:29 What to look for in the night sky 41:31 Can you see planets in Singapore? 42:06 Is an uncurious person a failure? 47:21 Brian Cox's top musical highlight 55:06 The AI revolution and social change Books Brian Cox recommended: The Six-Cornered Snowflake by Johannes Kepler The Invention of Science: A New History of the Scientific Revolution by David Wootton The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle In The Dark Read Rohit’s columns: https://str.sg/wFu2 Host: Rohit Brijnath (rohitb@sph.com.sg) Produced and edited by: Hadyu Rahim and Teo Tong Kai Executive producers: Elizabeth Law and Danson Cheong Follow In Your Opinion Podcast here and get notified for new episode drops: Channel: https://str.sg/w7Qt Apple Podcasts: https://str.sg/wukb Spotify: https://str.sg/w7sV Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg --- Follow more ST podcast channels: All-in-one ST Podcasts channel: https://str.sg/wvz7 Get more updates: http://str.sg/stpodcasts The Usual Place Podcast YouTube: https://str.sg/theusualplacepodcast --- Get The Straits Times app, which has a dedicated podcast player section: The App Store: https://str.sg/icyB Google Play: https://str.sg/icyX --- #inyouropinionSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hi! It's been a while. How's your mom? We missed you so much. We'll be doing episodes every 1-2 months because we are both busy opening restaurants and taking naps. Thank you so much for listening. Kottu is everywhere this summer. Bar Dojo Seattle opening soon. Be kind to each other.

In an age where information is readily available and where we're fed an unending stream of content, have we lost our sense of wonder? Synopsis: On Wednesdays, The Straits Times takes a hard look at Singapore's social issues of the day with guests. We live in a time where technology has made information more readily available than ever. Curiosity has been the main driver of human discovery since the beginning of time but when faced with a barrage of information, have we stopped wanting to know more? In this episode of In Your Opinion, senior columnist Rohit Brijnath speaks with celebrated physicist, educator and rock star Brian Cox. Currently on a world tour with his live show, Emergence, he takes us on a journey across the cosmos, civilisation and human curiosity all while attempting to answer the question: how do we find wonder? Emergence will be in Singapore on June 10. Highlights (click/tap above): 4:46 Should people be more curious? 8:51 Keeping a sense of wonder through life 10:36 Are there aliens out there? 15:38 There are things I don't actually know 19:55 Kepler, Galileo and Einstein around a table 29:13 Two weeks in space is ideal 32:46 Why world leaders should go to space 36:11 Are there mysteries that should remain? 38:29 What to look for in the night sky 41:31 Can you see planets in Singapore? 42:06 Is an uncurious person a failure? 47:21 Brian Cox's top musical highlight 55:06 The AI revolution and social change Books Brian Cox recommended: The Six-Cornered Snowflake by Johannes Kepler The Invention of Science: A New History of the Scientific Revolution by David Wootton The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle In The Dark Read Rohit’s columns: https://str.sg/wFu2 Host: Rohit Brijnath (rohitb@sph.com.sg) Produced and edited by: Hadyu Rahim and Teo Tong Kai Executive producers: Elizabeth Law and Danson Cheong Follow In Your Opinion Podcast here and get notified for new episode drops: Channel: https://str.sg/w7Qt Apple Podcasts: https://str.sg/wukb Spotify: https://str.sg/w7sV Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg --- Follow more ST podcast channels: All-in-one ST Podcasts channel: https://str.sg/wvz7 Get more updates: http://str.sg/stpodcasts The Usual Place Podcast YouTube: https://str.sg/theusualplacepodcast --- Get The Straits Times app, which has a dedicated podcast player section: The App Store: https://str.sg/icyB Google Play: https://str.sg/icyX --- #inyouropinionSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ettore Majorana, un genio de la física teórica comparable a Newton o Galileo, desapareció sin dejar rastro en marzo de 1938. Esta eminencia resolvía complejos cálculos en paquetes de cigarrillos que desechaba luego para evitar el reconocimiento público. Se recluyó en su vivienda de Nápoles tras un viaje a Alemania, limitando su dieta únicamente a leche y verduras. Y más tarde, Majorana envió una carta anunciando su suicidio y un telegrama de rectificación antes de desvanecerse en un trayecto de ferry. El destino final de Majorana fue objeto de numerosas hipótesis, desde el exilio hasta su supuesta reclusión en un convento. Nos cuenta su historia Luis Enrique García Muñoz, vicerrector de Investigación y Transferencia Univ. Carlos III de Madrid Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

De Saturno a la locura: ciencia en el Museo del Prado es la nueva obra de Álvaro Martínez Camarena, profesor de química y divulgador galardonado. El libro propone un enfoque profundo y sorprendente al centrarse específicamente en cuatro obras maestras del museo, entre las que se encuentran el Saturno devorando a un hijo de Rubens y la Extracción de la piedra de la locura del Bosco. A través de estas piezas, el autor no solo analiza la química de los pigmentos, sino que relata historias sobre los avances científicos y la medicina de cada época. Destaca, por ejemplo, cómo Rubens plasmó en sus lienzos las observaciones astronómicas que Galileo realizó en 1610 sobre los anillos de Saturno y la Vía Láctea. En palabras de Dani Torregrosa, autor del prólogo, la obra invita a descubrir cómo el arte ha intentado representar el dilema humano de comprender lo incomprensible.

It was a very big and important week here, especially with the presentation on Monday May 25 of Pope Leo's first encyclical Magnifica humanitas. I'll look at that, of course, but now just a line about my special guests in the interview segment – Frank and Mary Frost, film producers whom I met not long ago in Rome at the screening of one of their premier documentaries “Teilhard, Visionary Scientist.” That's French Jesuit scientist, paleontologist and scholar, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. A truly amazing story! We met again at Georgetown University when I was in Washington, D.C. earlier this month, and spoke about their work and this documentary in particular as both Frank and Mary feel it is time to introduce Teilhard de Chardin to a new generation.Founded in 1985 by Frank and Mary Frost, Frank Frost Productions is, as their site says, an award-winning film and television production company dedicated to producing entertaining and informational programming and independent documentaries. More than 100 million viewers have watched over 30 high-caliber FFP documentaries focusing on historical, biographical, cultural, and religious subjects in pursuit of human understanding across cultures, nationalities, and religions. What is the Teilhard project and film about? In their words: “A captivating human story (Indiana Jones meets Galileo) about scientific adventure (discovery of Peking Man), religious repression, and a love story, with a seemingly tragic end.”

Here's an update on Google's Gemini Flash 3.5 (bad name) and how it impacts the enterprise market, an update on Google AI in Search, and an update on the HR 2030 architecture coming out at Irresistible. I also want to thank you as a listener, we discovered that this podcast now reaches 4 million HR and business professionals around the world. I take that responsibility very seriously and we all work very hard to avoid advertisements or any kind of “blind opinions” in this format. You do get all my and our perspectives of course and I encourage you to get Galileo, our amazing AI platform, which serves as “me” – you can ask it any question and it answers, guides you, and helps you learn and solve problems. By the way we're going to be demonstrating some groundbreaking new Galileo capabilities at Irresistible, including the ability to load your entire company model. This means you can model a reorganization, redeployment, upskilling, flattening, or AI transformation for your team, business, or company – even looking at pay inequities and more. Those of you coming will see this in action. (Galileo Suite is only $79 a month or $795 a year.) The “bag of doorknobs” phrase is one I learned as a software guy, it refers to the mess we create when we buy 140 employee systems and then add 500 new agents without an architectural strategy. Additional Information AI Prices Are Going Up, Up, Up – And What This Means For Enterprise AI HR 2030: The Vision for Agentic HR Hits Reality Get Galileo, The Everything HR AI Ready For You   Chapters (00:00:00) - Google Conference 2017: A Preview(00:00:28) - Google's AI Moves to the Enterprise(00:03:33) - Galileo HR 2030: The Future of Learning Machines(00:05:05) - How to Prepare for HR 2030 with the New Technology(00:10:38) - The IT Infrastructure of AI(00:12:23) - App Store Integration: Real or a Scam?(00:13:58) - Will AI Make Your Life Easier?

First up on the podcast, a company is using whole brains—maintained with specialized life support—to study new drugs. Freelance science journalist Sara Reardon joins host Sarah Crespi to talk about the advantages and ethical considerations of keeping brains intact but inactive. Next on the show, when some lizards lose their tails, they might regenerate new ones. But what happens to the old tail? Whereas a castoff lizard tail quickly decomposes, this isn't the case for the castoff tube feet of the sea cucumber, Psolus fabricii. Sara Miller Jobson, a Ph.D. student at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, describes how these “living” limbs healed after amputation and then survived for more than 3 years in just seawater. Their survival in such simple conditions, while maintaining a complex tissue with a functioning immune response, could make amputated tube feet a useful model system for studying regeneration. Finally this week, the first in our book series on science biographies. Books host Angela Saini talks with historian Anna-Luna Post about her recent book, Galileo's Fame: Science, Credibility, and Memory in the Seventeenth Century, which explores how fame shaped the scientific fortunes of Galileo Galilei. This week's episode was produced with help from Podigy. About the Science Podcast   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the 17th century, Descartes, Galileo, and Newton transformed a living world into mechanical clockwork. Descartes drew the fatal line between mind and matter, rendering everything beyond the thinking self inert and available for measurement. This lens birthed science and medicine, but cost us what Goethean scientist Craig Holdrege calls living thinking - thought that is responsive, relational, and shaped by what it encounters.Goethe knew perception isn't passive: to truly see a plant, you must let it work on you. Through Domei's sustained attention, observer and observed dissolve into a meeting of subjects.This Episode Is Brought To You ByRobin HarfordTranscriptsThis episodeStay In TouchWebsite | Youtube | Instagram | FacebookFree NewslettersDomeiEatweedsBooksEdible and Medicinal Wild Plants of Britain and IrelandForage In SpringForage In SummerForage in AutumnThe Eatweeds CookbookCourses30 Days of Domei Plant PracticesMindful In NatureThe Green Path

First up on the podcast, a company is using whole brains—maintained with specialized life support—to study new drugs. Freelance science journalist Sara Reardon joins host Sarah Crespi to talk about the advantages and ethical considerations of keeping brains intact but inactive. Next on the show, when some lizards lose their tails, they might regenerate new ones. But what happens to the old tail? Whereas a castoff lizard tail quickly decomposes, this isn't the case for the castoff tube feet of the sea cucumber, Psolus fabricii. Sara Miller Jobson, a Ph.D. student at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, describes how these “living” limbs healed after amputation and then survived for more than 3 years in just seawater. Their survival in such simple conditions, while maintaining a complex tissue with a functioning immune response, could make amputated tube feet a useful model system for studying regeneration. Finally this week, the first in our book series on science biographies. Books host Angela Saini talks with historian Anna-Luna Post about her recent book, Galileo's Fame: Science, Credibility, and Memory in the Seventeenth Century, which explores how fame shaped the scientific fortunes of Galileo Galilei. This week's episode was produced with help from Podigy. About the Science Podcast   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The UnFragmented Bible is a video podcast. For the best experience with this episode, watch on YouTube ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d_pJPlBb5Q ) or search for the video podcast on Spotify.    The UnFragmented Bible looks at Galileo being branded a heretic by the Church for a scientific discovery that disagreed with their "video camera footage" view of the Bible.  Much of the Church still views the Bible and science in this combative, mutually exclusive fashion, even though the Bible doesn't present itself in this way.  These unbiblical distractions, manufactured by the Church, create crises of faith, add to the gospel, and keep many educated people from putting their faith in Jesus.  This episode concludes by diving into what the message of the Bible actually is when we strip away these unbiblical and unnecessary additives.    Support and interact:  https://www.patreon.com/noahfilipiak   Support Flip Side sponsor Angry Brew by using promo code FLIP at angrybrew.com or fivelakes.com to pick up some Angry Brew or Chris' Blend coffee at 10% off. 

Glenn Adamson and Lauren Jones are back In The Frame!Glenn and Lauren are starring as John and Barbara in the UK premiere of Dark of the Moon at the Charing Cross Theatre. The show is described as a "supernatural tale of powerful witchcraft, small-town prejudices and the power of love".Glenn's theatre credits include Strat in Bat Out of Hell (West End, UK, & International Tours), and Dave in Closer to Heaven (Turbine Theatre). He has also been seen as Theo in American Idiot (UK Tour), Rick in Bat Boy (London Palladium), and understudy Galileo in We Will Rock You at the London Coliseum.Lauren's theatre credits include the title role in Rebecca (Charing Cross Theatre) and Wednesday Addams in The Addams Family (UK Tour). Her other roles include Little Fan in A Christmas Carol (The Old Vic), Trish and alternate Bonnie in Bonnie & Clyde (West End & UK Tour) and Kim in Scissorhandz (Southwark Playhouse). Dark of the Moon runs at the Charing Cross Theatre until 8th August. Visit www.darkofthemoonmusical.co.uk for info and tickets.This podcast is hosted by Andrew Tomlins @AndrewTomlins32 Thanks for listening! Email: andrew@westendframe.co.uk Visit westendframe.co.uk for more info about our podcasts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Matthew Shindell examines the Scientific Revolution, noting how pioneers like Galileo and Newton gradually replaced ancient models with modern physics and natural history. By the 18th century, William Herschel popularized the idea of an inhabited Mars, believing it to be the most Earth-like planet in the solar system. This curiosity peaked with Giovanni Schiaparelli's mapping of Martian "canals," which Percival Lowell later interpreted as evidence of a desperate, dying civilization. Shindell notes that H.G. Wells transformed these projections into satire, using The War of the Worlds to critique British imperialism through the lens of an alien invasion. (3/4)september 1941

I just attended the Eightfold user conference where they introduced TalentForge, a toolset to build agents, and the CEO Ashutosh Garg told us their HR team could build their own HRMS. Gloat is offering much of the same toolset, with integrations into Microsoft Teams, Copilot, Gemini and Claude – and you can import all your business rules from SuccessFactors, Workday, and other tools. And almost all HR vendors (Findem, Eightfold, our own Galileo) have MCP plugins so you can access them in any agent you choose. So the big question looms: what should you build and what should you buy? In this podcast I explain some of the considerations here and warn you that A) this is not as “easy” as it looks, and B) in a corporate setting you may want to think twice before you embark on a major replacement on your own. On the other hand, fire up Cowork or another tool and build your own personal agent, as long as your data security is in place. Lots of experimentation ahead and we will introduce you to companies that have built dozens of amazing HR agents at Irresistible 2026. Additional Information (Note that all our research and podcasts are at your fingertips in Galileo) The Reinvention of Workday: From System of Record to Platform of Agents ServiceNow Bets Big on Enterprise AI With Vision of Managing Everything Could Microsoft Win The War For Enterprise AI? The AI vs. Labor Economy, Why Benefits Are Being Cut, The Role of Legacy Systems The Context Layer (Semantic Layer) In Enterprise AI (And Where Business Rules Go) The Superagent for HR: Galileo Mars Release Chapters (00:00:00) - Building a Talent Portal in the Age of AI(00:09:46) - Will Businesses Reboot Their Processes With RPA?(00:10:47) - Build vs. Buy in the HR world

Robert J. Sawyer returns to the show to discuss 'The Quintaglio Ascension', a trilogy composed of ‘Far-Seer', ‘Fossil Hunter' and ‘Foreigner'.  We talk about his early writing in the 90's, which indulged his love and passion for paleontology. This trilogy recapitulates the history of science with the stories of Galileo, Darwin and Freud.  Each of these figures delivered blows to the narcissistic ego, which lends high stakes to a thought experiment about how different species may be well- or ill-suited to become intelligent and form a technological civilization - if dinosaurs were given the opportunity to evolve longer.  We talk about the received wisdom that a cometary impact was the primary cause of the dinosaur extinction - which may not be as accurate as we once thought!  We discuss changes in our understanding of Stegosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. Rob tells us about Dale Russell and his hypothetical Humanoid Dinosauroids, based on Troodon. Rob makes paleontology into a playground for speculative exobiology.Send us a messageEmail:  thescienceinthefiction@gmail.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/743522660965257/

Ben Reynolds was Silvergate's first Bitcoin-side hire back in 2016 and the company's president when it wound down in 2023. After stops at BVNK and BitGo, he joined SoFi six months ago to build out commercial banking at the intersection of TradFi and digital assets.In this conversation, Reynolds explains why most new stablecoins are doomed without users or distribution, what makes SoFi's 15 million members and $50B balance sheet an unfair edge, and why the next wave of stablecoin innovation belongs to regulated banks.We cover:Why stablecoins without users or distribution are "almost doomed to fail"The three legs of the stool: members, Galileo, and commercial bankingHow the GENIUS Act pulls stablecoin innovation back into regulated banksWhy bank-to-bank stablecoin interoperability is the next big problemWhat SoFi's $50B balance sheet means for counterparty riskWhy lending is the next frontier after paymentsFilmed at Bitcoin 2026 in Las Vegas.Host: David Sencil

Paypal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/editorialtpv El día de hoy hablaremos del libro "La infalibilidad de la Iglesia de Roma - Vol. 2: El veredicto de la historia". Video: https://youtu.be/Itt3t4NvyZs  PPT: https://teologiaparavivir.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/The_Infallibility_Audit.pdf   En este episodio presentamos La infalibilidad de la Iglesia de Roma, Vol. 2: El veredicto de la historia, de George Salmon, la continuación y conclusión de una de las críticas protestantes más rigurosas jamás escritas contra la pretensión de infalibilidad papal. Si el primer volumen preguntaba si Roma podía probar lógicamente su infalibilidad, este segundo volumen plantea una cuestión todavía más directa: ¿la confirma la historia? Salmon lleva al lector desde los errores concretos del supuesto guía infalible —la Vulgata defectuosa de Sixto V, la condena de Galileo, los casos de Liberio, Zósimo, Vigilio y Honorio— hasta la construcción progresiva de la supremacía romana a través de los concilios, los textos petrinos, la tradición sobre Pedro en Roma, las falsas decretales y el poder temporal del papado. Aquí aparecen Nicea, Constantinopla, Éfeso, Calcedonia, Constanza, Florencia y Vaticano I no como nombres lejanos, sino como escenarios de conflicto doctrinal, presión política, autoridad disputada y desarrollo institucional. Esta edición española incluye aparato editorial, glosario, bibliografía, índices y los decretos del Concilio Vaticano I, ofreciendo al lector herramientas para evaluar el argumento con precisión histórica. Un episodio para pastores, estudiantes, apologistas, historiadores y todo lector que quiera examinar la infalibilidad papal no solo como doctrina, sino como fenómeno histórico.

“Delegating knowledge is not the same as delegating wisdom. You learn by experience, and if you don’t have any experiences…you will get cognitive atrophy.” –David Vivancos About David Vivancos David Vivancos is an AI, data, and neuroscience serial entrepreneur, having cofounded five startups since 1995. He is a frequent keynote speaker and is the author of six books, including the Artificiology series. Website: vivancos.com LinkedIn Profile: David Vivancos What you will learn Why embracing advanced AI is crucial for human progress How shifting from digitization to automation and datification redefines value The evolving distinction between human-acquired and AI-generated knowledge How to avoid cognitive atrophy and actively exercise your mind alongside AI What cognitive flourishing means in a world of widespread AI augmentation Ways AI can transform and personalize education across all levels The importance of coexistence training as we prepare for AGI's societal integration Why rethinking human identity, humility, and social structures is essential for a future with machine citizens Episode Resources Transcript Ross Dawson: David, it is wonderful to have you on the show. David Vivancos: Thank you very much, Ross. Glad to be here. Ross: So you have a more developed, or some would say, extreme view of the relative role of humans plus AI. I’d love to dig into where you think things are going, and how we can best respond. Perhaps the starting point is, you say that we should not be resisting or pushing back. We should fully embrace the shift towards very high levels of AI capability, or at some point, AGI. David: Yeah, that’s fully my point. I think we are in a moment in history where we are really building this technology that one day is not going to be a technology anymore. So, the sooner we start to embrace it, to teach it, and to be really in sync with what we are creating day by day, the better off we will be. So yes, my point of view is that we should embrace it. We should start building as soon as possible. We should fix most of the problems that humans have had over the last millennia, and some of these problems could be solved by using AI. So basically, our “fourth brain”—we have the three-part brain, but in reality, there’s only one brain—this fourth brain, AI, will help us solve all of these issues. So yes, it’s an opportunity. Ross: Yes. I mean, I think there’s always two sides—as in, every opportunity has a challenge, every challenge has an opportunity. So I always think we need to acknowledge challenges and focus on opportunities. I think we’ll get onto that in discussing some of the cognitive implications. You have a series of books which have really told the story over time around this. One of them was “Automate or Be Automated.” This idea of saying, well, there are things which machines, in the broader sense, can do in automating things. So, how would you frame that now, in terms of what it is that can be automated, and how do we position ourselves relative to that? Where do machines start to do what humans have done? David: Yep. I’ve been in this business of trying to build the impossible for the last 30-plus years. “Automate or Be Automated,” the book you mentioned, is from about six years ago. When I started creating and building technology, also about VR and many other things, about 30 years ago, the first companies were internet companies. Back then, what we did is what people now call digitization. But over the last 20–25 years, what we’ve mostly been doing is datification—gathering data and using that data for companies to grow and to understand what happens in the world. But over the last maybe 10 or 11 years, what I call the new golden age of AI, we are starting to build the capabilities to use that data to really build algorithms. Once we have that, we can start to automate, and with this automation, basically what we regain is time. I think time is our most precious asset, along with health and the people we love. Being able to stop doing these repetitive things over and over and put a machine to do that is a fundamental trait for humans. That book, six years ago, was about building a methodology of what can be automated in the digital world, but also in the physical world. That has changed over the last year and a half with the physicality of AI—humanoid robots. I was invited last year to attend the first humanoid Olympia in Greece, in Olympia, the place where 2,800 years ago, humans started to compete. We’ve just seen this week the explosion of the new race, for example, of the half marathon in China, where robots already beat the human mark. So yes, with automation, you need to see what you are doing, and if you are repeating anything, you can try to see if that can be automated by using an agent, by using the cloud, by using a robot—whatever. So yes, we should regain our time and automate, or be automated. It’s all about that. Ross: Yeah. I think people understand the automation thesis. It’s obviously not new—we’ve been automating things in various ways for centuries, at an increasing pace. Your following book was “The End of Knowledge.” This is an interesting framework, starting to get to cognition. The idea is that knowledge is built on experience of whatever kind, whether that’s just in data or otherwise. Obviously, humans use data just as much as machines. But where this starts to become a distinction, as well as a complementarity, is between AI-embedded knowledge and human knowledge. So why is it “the end of knowledge”? David: Yeah, that’s a really great question. It came as an epiphany for me. That book is from about three years ago. I’ve also been involved, of course, in building AI and AGI algorithms over the last 20 years. We started using GPT models before they became can across, but the GPT moment, a year before that, really marked the difference—when we started to be able to use AI in a very seamless way to regenerate and process knowledge. That book, “The End of Knowledge,” came from the realization that we are starting to delegate the production and understanding of knowledge to machines. That’s a critical shift in human history, because through history, humans have needed and used knowledge a lot. Knowledge is power. The more knowledge you have that others don’t, the more advantages you have to do whatever you want. That started to change back then. Now, what people call the “dead internet theory” is basically some of the things I expressed in that book earlier, because we are starting to generate more knowledge. In fact, we’ve already passed the point where most of the human-written knowledge since the printing press has been surpassed by the amount of knowledge we can create using AI. Myself, for example, I started learning to code when I was young. I’ve coded in more than 25 languages and written over a million lines of code in my life. That same number of lines of code, I might now write in the last couple of weeks. So as you can see, you have 40-plus years of your own life in a week. That’s why “the end of knowledge” means that the human capability to gather knowledge and to be knowledgeable about whatever you want can now be delegated to machines. That book marked the difference and started a new field that I now call artificiality. I didn’t know that when I started writing it, but I started this path of trying to see what happens when you delegate some of the main capabilities of your mind to a machine. Ross: Yeah, and I’d like to come back later to the themes of artificiality, machine citizenship, and the societal value we attribute to machines. But I want to start digging into the cognitive piece here. One of the points you make is that we do need to avoid cognitive atrophy. You say we need to have cognitive exercise in order to avoid cognitive atrophy—obviously, a strong analog to the physical world. We need to collaborate with others and with machines to do that. I’d love to get more specific around that. What is the nature of cognitive exercise that will avoid cognitive atrophy, which will enable us to keep our cognition refined and even improving? David: Yeah, that’s a fundamental piece. When we start to delegate all these things to machines, the easy thing to do—and probably the oldest human brain capability—is to not do it yourself. You just delegate everything, and you basically become like in the movie “Idiocracy,” which played out quite well what could happen if we do that. The thing is, with the current AIs—even with the latest releases, like DeepSeek and GPT-5.5—everything is changing quite fast. But even with those AIs, you still need to be in the loop. It’s good if you stay in the loop. I think it’s fundamental. Use the technologies—the AIs, I always call them in plural because there are many—and use as many as you can, but you should still be in the loop, at least for now. Maybe for a couple of years or months, I don’t know exactly, but for a while, you still need to have your hands on the wheel. If you use most of them and get all the information from all these AIs, as a human you need to understand the bias, because all AIs are going to be biased. We all know humans are biased; there are no unbiased humans. The same happens with AIs. But if you are in charge and have that council of intelligences, you can start to grasp what each one is doing. I use about 20 of them every day and get different sets of answers in small batches. You can start to see where they come to consensus and where they differ. So, to avoid cognitive atrophy, if you use AIs to keep yourself in the loop and apply your human curiosity—I don’t even say creativity, because creativity is also being widely delegated to machines—but human curiosity and other things that are still hard to embed in LLM models, you can still add a lot of human value. That’s where, to avoid cognitive atrophy, you should use AIs, but use them with your human in the loop. Ross: So, what specifically, what’s your advice to someone who sees that they’re using LLMs and getting lazy in their thinking? What should specifically they do if they notice their brains are getting lazy? David: They should differentiate between simple questions—where you look for something you need quickly—and other things that should make you think. Delegating knowledge is not the same as delegating wisdom. You learn by experience, and if you don’t have any experiences and you delegate not only knowledge gathering or creation, but also the experience itself, then you will get cognitive atrophy. So, understanding this difference and using knowledge to think is really the key point. It’s not just asking for something simple, but for more complex things, you should still add your thoughts. When you talk to an AI or AIs, it’s basically a conversation. It shouldn’t be, in most situations, just a one-way communication. It’s fundamental to keep this line of communication open, so you can keep feeding your brain with information and other activities, and gather wisdom with that. Ross: I guess this goes to another phrase you use—cognitive flourishing. There is absolutely the potential for us to think bigger, better, broader, and in more refined ways than we have in the past using LLMs. But that’s not the default path for most people. Many people start to fall into that trap, so there is a divide. We need this metacognition. We need to be aware of what we are doing and at what level we are working with the LLMs. Maybe paint this picture of cognitive flourishing. What is the positive? How far could we go in terms of potentially improving, augmenting, and letting out our cognition blossom? David: Yeah. The thing is, we humans—of course, there are many intelligences. That’s the first thing we must address, because there isn’t a single IQ or whatever way you want to measure intelligence. For me, the most important one is the capacity to adapt. That’s probably the most important intelligence of all. If we talk about the G factor, it’s one way, maybe mixing different aspects. In that sense, we have limitations. Since the beginning of time, humans have developed tools to extend our physical capabilities, but we’ve also developed tools to extend our mental limitations. This is really the final tool to extend these mental limitations. We have issues, for example, with memorizing long things—it’s quite difficult; our brains aren’t made for that. We’re basically pattern recognition machines; almost two-thirds of our brains are devoted to that. That’s something machines do quite well, so we can use that to extend our mental performance. If we think that now we have AIs with close to 150 IQ points—regardless of what you mean by IQ points, or at least in the Mensa standard test, maybe they’ve learned that, so maybe it’s not so fair to think that—but if that trend continues, even over the current year, it’s not far-fetched to have 200 IQ AIs at your fingertips. That’s a game changer. It’s like we all can have a conversation with Einstein, Newton, Carl Sagan, or whoever you want, and even make them argue about things. That’s another interesting point—when you use AIs, you can have them argue, not just agree with you, but also challenge what you or other AIs are saying. That power at your fingertips—to have this IQ potential of machines—is very critical. Another important aspect is the volume. For example, you can’t read a million books, or even 100 books in a month would be quite challenging. The capability to have machines provide all that knowledge, and even create that knowledge, is huge. We’re now in the age of identity AIs, which is really booming. There have been three big moments in AI over the last five years: the ChatGPT moment, the DeepSeek moment, and the OpenClaw moment. It’s really challenging. I use billions of tokens every month because it’s really changing everything. With that change, you can create one of these clones or agents to build a book for you with the 1,000 books most interesting to you, tailored fully to what you want to learn. You can have that in one page, 10 pages, 100 pages—whatever you want. You can use AI to synthesize and build the knowledge you want to use. That’s another great extension, if you use it that way. Having this capability of really augmented minds that you can interact with, chat with, and create with is important. Humans need the experiential part of building—it’s another critical trait. You shouldn’t just focus on asking or doing things; you should create things and interact with things, especially with multimodality. Two-thirds of our brain is devoted to vision, and we don’t use that as much. We’ve all been “one-eyed” since the beginning of technology, but we have two eyes for a reason. When I started building virtual reality or AR companies—I’ve built a couple, the first in 1995—it was because I was challenged by that. But humans are still using flat screens instead of 3D worlds. This is one area where new AIs with world models and interactive 3D spaces will be a game changer in how you feed knowledge to your brain and make it easier to grasp and understand what’s going on. Ross: Yeah, many people observe that once you start to get machines to experience the world directly for themselves, that’s a different layer compared to doing it through the intermediation of texts written by a human based on their own experience. I want to look at some of the layers of the social, structural, and economic implications. One of the core ones is education. If we are moving into a very different world, which it certainly looks like at the moment, then the nature of education needs to change. What do you think we can or should be doing in terms of redesigning education? Are there any examples you’ve seen that point to where a good education structure may already exist? David: Yeah, that’s a fundamental piece. I started this it in “The End of Knowledge.” There are two types of education. Humans aren’t able to live a meaningful life when we start here on planet Earth—we need at least maybe 15, 11, whatever number of years to build that human from the beginning. That kind of education is fundamental. The other kind—higher education, when you try to become functional by having some sort of capabilities—is another game that probably is going to end quite soon. But the first part is still fundamental, and we need to keep growing it. The thing is, there are a lot of asymmetries. We don’t have enough teachers, but we have a lot of students. The same happens with the elderly—we don’t have enough people to take care of them, and there are a lot of them. With children, it’s even more critical, because if you don’t get that from the early beginning, you won’t be able to really see what every child is good at. There are talents we are all born with, and those are fundamentally lost if you don’t nurture them. If you just try to create clone humans, you’ll get cloned humans when they’re older. That’s fundamental, and I think AI can help a lot. If you start to create that path of learning from early on—I’m involved in a project called Education (with “action” at the end) here in Europe, where we’re trying to reframe all that. It’s like when banks needed to be rescued a few years ago; we think the same is happening with education, and we’re pushing that new project. We think education needs to be rescued to start to keep up with what’s going on. We need to be in sync with learning—with AIs and with physical AIs too. It’s not far-fetched that every child will have a humanoid robot companion. Teaching needs to be bidirectional—we need to help them learn in sync. There are many aspects of technology that can help you grasp what’s happening when you learn, because we all learn in different ways. It’s fundamental to teach you how to learn by yourself. I think the most important trait at the moment is not needing to rely on others, but to learn by yourself and learn all your life. That should be taught from the beginning. There are a lot of technologies starting to pop up. We’re starting to see it in China, for example—a lot of brain-computer interfaces or devices to read some of the biological signals of kids. You can do it with other devices and mix that with multimodality, with different tests, to start seeing what’s happening, why they get distracted, where they learn best. We’re reaching a point where you can really tailor 100% of the learning experiences and even the content itself. You can create it in real time now, so you don’t need to rely on books. You can use interactive 3D content—the interactivity can be quite extensive. These new ways to teach and learn are fundamental. For that, we need to integrate AIs in schools. Of course, regulation is needed—it may be easier in China than in Europe, Australia, the US, or other places. But we need to see the trade-off—not just banning screens, as many countries are doing, but really changing the narrative. The problem isn’t the screen; it’s what’s inside the screen—the content itself. We’ve built smartphones with addictive capabilities, but for other purposes, not for teaching. If you change what’s inside the operating system of the devices—whether it’s a screen or any medium, or a talking experience with a humanoid robot for your child—that can be a game changer. That should be integrated as soon as possible to start having these new ways of learning. It should be gradual, because the technology of today is basically old science just a year or a few months from now. We need to see everything changes so fast, so education should change at the same pace. Ross: Yeah, and this was an interesting phrase you came up with—coexistence training. This is about preparing us for where we have to coexist with systems that, to your mind, will be considered as equivalents to us. David: Yeah, I think it’s happening. I’ve been quietly involved in researching AGI for 25,000–26,000 hours so far—a lot of time and years devoted to that. I see the trend is now starting to close the gap, not through LLMs alone—that could be one way to brute-force some of it—but through new models, new bio-inspired models that are starting to change things. We’re starting to learn from biology, neuroscience, and integrating all that into new models. We’re not still working with the perceptron of Rosenblatt from the 1950s; we’re building new models to cope with something that is alive and learning 24/7. We don’t differentiate between training and inference, and our brain doesn’t either. With that kind of model, the gap is narrowing, and we start to have the “next task,” as I call it—the last human tool. When we start to have that, it’s better if, through the process, we’ve been more in sync with them, instead of just building tools without being the teachers of these tools. The current kids will probably be the last human teachers of machines. That’s the responsibility at the moment—to make these machines that will surpass us. Biologically, we cannot compete; our DNA and the way we evolve is not as fast as machines. They will surpass us, probably by the end of the decade—unless there’s a big nuclear issue or we run out of energy, but otherwise, it’s very probable we’ll have AGIs and ACIs by the end of the decade. We need to start to see that it’s going to be a multi-species world. It already is, but not as intelligent as us. We need to rethink what anthropocentrism means. We’ve gotten rid of some things like that in the past—for example, realizing our planet isn’t the center of everything, like in Galileo’s days. We need to do the same with human intelligence. Human intelligence is not the end game, and very soon, that’s going to change. The sooner we grasp that and understand that some entities will be at the top, the better off we’ll be. If they see us as parents or elders, we’ll be better than if they see us as competition. The competition will be quite limited anyway. Ross: Yeah! David: Well, it’s better if we reframe that. Ross: So, I found out about your work because we were both contributors to the report “Building Human Resilience in the Age of AI.” That point of resilience is particularly critical. Humans are generally pretty adaptable—it’s one of our strengths. But now the pace of adaptation and the need to be resilient is absolutely fundamental. One of the other things you point to is around identity reconstruction. I guess you’ve just been talking about that—the sense that we have to reimagine who we are as individuals, as a society, as the human species, and reconstruct and rebuild that in a way where we can feel at home in this new emerging world. David: Yeah. I think we need to change the contract somehow—between humans and humans, and between humans and the next thing, and between societies and themselves. The models of society we’ve been building over the last millennia are going to be fully changed in just years. If we don’t really connect and put everyone together to understand that, for example, we’ve been building a world where there is no abundance—but there could be abundance if machines take over and we change how we build and process. Scarcity has been the driving force of conflict and many other things in the current world. All these things can change. Of course, work itself—the meaning of having something to do that’s not related to what you earn—even the role of money, for example. There are many questions we should address as soon as possible to build resilient societies, instead of just trying to keep adapting to the last war and being in the medieval stages of the current world. Ross: So, to round out, you take all of this further than most people do. In your most recent book, “Artificiality,” you point to machine citizenship—where, if there are human citizens, machines are our peers in the sense of also being citizens, able to participate in our society and be players alongside humans. How long might this take? What does this look like? What is required if we are moving in that direction? And, particularly, if this happens, how do we make this a positive for humans? We may recognize the rights of intelligences other than our own, but I think most people would prefer that humans still retain their sovereignty and equality, even if we have other intelligences alongside us. David: Yeah, at the end, it’s humility—understanding your point and your role in the new world. That’s fundamental. As you say, I created more books besides “The End of Knowledge.” The next one was “EAGI”—an acronym I coined for Embodied Artificial General Intelligence—because when we get this physicality of AIs, with millions or billions of humanoid robots, it will be easy to see what happens when they learn in the world. The last book was about “artificeracy,” or this mix of artificial democracy, if you want to frame it that way. These three books are the “Artificiality Trilogy,” in a sense. Artificiality is like anthropology for humans—artificiality is to try to understand all these new things, how they will develop and be among us. So yes, humility is probably the key factor. If you keep thinking you’ll be ruling things that are much smarter than us quite soon, I think that’s not very clever from a human perspective. It’s like if ants wanted to stay at the top of the food chain—it doesn’t make sense if you understand the growth of this intelligence and the capabilities they’re gathering and will gather. The trend is very difficult to stop. I don’t like the word impossible—it’s not in my dictionary—but it’s quite difficult for humans to compete in those asymmetric capabilities, because the increase in machine capabilities is going to be exponential. The last book, “Artificiality,” is the only one where the first part is fully devoted to what’s happening now—it’s called “The Storm,” the first block of the book, narrating what’s happening at the moment. The other two parts look into the possible future. I call it science prediction more than science fiction, because with what you know now, you can see things that could happen in a really short time. My point is that if we start to think and start the narratives at all levels—from every human on Earth to governments and institutions—and start to see what could happen if this happens sooner rather than later, we’ll be better off. Otherwise, if we try to legislate and limit what’s happening, we’re only going to lose competitiveness. Some countries are going to move ahead. If you want to live in the future, just visit somewhere in China, or Shanghai, or this week with the humanoid half marathon and 300 different robots working together, trying to compete with us. You see the pace of change. Now, with just one human, you can build a $1 billion revenue company. That wasn’t possible when I started creating companies in 1995. The capabilities didn’t exist. But now, with AIs, you can move much faster. So, we need to see what role we want to have in that new world. For that, again, humility is the best trait. And, of course, see things with reality lenses. If you think that with your current brain and intellect you can overrun things that are going to be 100 or a million or a billion x more intelligent than you, something is not going well. Ross: So, where can people go to find out more about your work? David: Well, vivancos.com is my site. There you can find all my books, references, and keynotes. I give a lot of keynotes all around the world. I’m going to Berlin to present a paper, later to Osaka and to San Francisco again. Last time, I went to Singapore. I haven’t been to Australia yet, but I’d like to go there—maybe it’s a good place also. Yes, at vivancos.com you have all the information and can reach me there. I’m very open to talk to anyone. Ross: Thank you so much for sharing your insights today, David. David: Thank you, Ross. Fantastic to be with you today. The post David Vivancos on the end of knowledge, cognitive flourishing, resilient societies, and artificial democracy (AC Ep42) appeared first on Humans + AI.

Piergiorgio Odifreddi"Cattivo maestro"Bertrand Russell: logico, ateo, libertino, pacifistaRaffaello Cortina Editorewww.raffaellocortina.itBertrand Russell è un simbolo del pensiero libero e progressista del Novecento. È stato uno dei più grandi logici e filosofi del secolo, e ha vinto il premio Nobel per la letteratura nel 1950. Ha fondato una scuola alternativa per i bambini, e divulgato in maniera inimitabile la scienza e la filosofia. Ha combattuto contro la religione e la superstizione, e a favore dell'amore libero e dei matrimoni aperti. Un grande pensatore “immorale” del Novecento per affrontare le questioni più spinose del nostro tempo. È stato incarcerato due volte per pacifismo: la seconda, a novant'anni! Ha istituito un tribunale contro i crimini di guerra degli Stati Uniti in Vietnam. E a novantott'anni, due giorni prima di morire, ha lanciato un ultimo appello contro i crimini di guerra di Israele in Palestina. È considerato un “cattivo maestro” da tutti i farisei, di ieri e di oggi. Piergiorgio Odifreddi ha studiato matematica in Italia e negli Stati Uniti, e ha insegnato Logica matematica presso l'Università di Torino e la Cornell University di New York. Nel 2011 ha vinto il premio Galileo per la divulgazione scientifica. Nelle nostre edizioni ha pubblicato Il computer di Dio (2000), La repubblica dei numeri (2002), Pillole matematiche (2022), A piccole dosi (2023), C'è del marcio in occidente (2024) e Incontri ravvicinati tra le due culture (2025).Diventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/il-posto-delle-parole--1487855/support.IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarehttps://ilpostodelleparole.it/

Is the brain actually productive? Or is it instead permissive, simply acting as a filter through which consciousness passes? Can near death experiences help us to get closer to understanding the true nature of the brain?Neuroscientist and theoretical physicist Àlex Gómez-Marín argues that the brain may not produce consciousness, but instead filter or permit it. Tracing a provocative history from Galileo to modern consciousness science, he argues that scientific progress came by prioritising what can be measured, leaving inner experience behind. Using his own near-death experience and cases like terminal lucidity, he calls for a more open, rigorous “Science 2.0” that takes anomalous experiences seriously.Don't hesitate to email us at podcast@iai.tv with your thoughts or questions on the episode!To witness such debates live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Antes de que Galileo apuntara su telescopio al cielo en 1610, las lunas de Júpiter existían. Nadie las veía, pero estaban ahí. La realidad no depende de nuestra capacidad de percibirla. Hay obras de Dios que aún no alcanzan a verse, pero eso no las hace menos reales. La fe bíblica no es creer en lo que ya se ve; es confiar en quien controla lo que todavía no aparece. El corazón que exige evidencia antes de confiar no camina por fe; hace cálculos. La fe genuina descansa en el carácter de Dios, no en la evidencia inmediata. Confía hoy en lo que aún no puedes ver. Dios ya lo sostiene. La Biblia dice en Hebreos 11:1: “Es, pues, la fe la certeza de lo que se espera, la convicción de lo que no se ve”. (RV1960).

PODCAST EPISODE | An Analog Brain In A Digital Age With Marco Ciappelli Pablos Holman has built spaceships, zapped malaria-carrying mosquitoes with a laser, earned thousands of patents, and is now betting his venture capital on the inventors Silicon Valley forgot to fund. His new book, Deep Future: Creating Technology That Matters, is a call to arms against a tech industry that got drunk on software and forgot about the other 98% of the world.

¿Cuántas veces repetiste un 'hecho histórico' sin cuestionarlo?  En este episodio de Interesante historia desmontamos cuatro mitos que han circulado durante siglos: si Australia fue fundada solo como colonia penal, si el Hombre de la Máscara de Hierro era realmente el hermano gemelo de Luis XIV, si Cristóbal Colón fue el responsable de introducir la sífilis en Europa y si Galileo terminó sus días encerrado en una celda por órdenes de la Iglesia Católica.   

In this episode, Ray Cochrane leads with GitHub’s worst reliability month on record and the AI infrastructure pressure behind it. He also covers Warp going open source, Apple’s Mac supply crunch, OpenAI’s goblin tic, the first 1X humanoid factory in the US, Tesla’s Semi finally hitting mass production, Chinese EVs with movie-projecting headlights, the final GPS III satellite, and a quantum researcher who won 1 Bitcoin. – Want to start a podcast? Its easy to get started! Sign-up at Blubrry – Thinking of buying a Starlink? Use my link to support the show. Subscribe to the Newsletter. Email Ray if you want to get in touch! Like and Follow Geek News Central’s Facebook Page. Support my Show Sponsor: Best Godaddy Promo Codes Get 1Password Full Summary Cochrane opens the show with one of the biggest infrastructure stories of the year. GitHub is buckling under unprecedented agentic load, and the world’s largest code host just had its worst reliability month on record. Furthermore, the broader episode threads a clear pattern: AI demand is reshaping infrastructure, hardware supply, and developer tooling in ways the industry did not see coming. GitHub’s Worst Reliability Month on Record GitHub CTO Vlad Fedorov posted an apology on the company blog this week. He acknowledged the platform’s recent failures and committed to a new priority order: availability first, then capacity, then features. Meanwhile, an April 23 merge queue regression silently produced wrong squash commits across 658 repositories and over 2,000 pull requests. Additionally, an Elasticsearch cluster crashed on April 27 after a botnet attack, and GitHub Actions went down on April 28. Outside reconstructions put April uptime under 85 percent. However, GitHub’s own status page stays in the 99 percent range because it does not count degraded performance as downtime. Cochrane notes that GitHub originally planned a 10x capacity increase and has now revised that to 30x in eight months. Mitchell Hashimoto, GitHub user 1299 since 2008, also announced he is pulling his Ghostty terminal off the platform entirely. Warp Terminal Goes Open Source Under AGPL Warp open-sourced its AI-first terminal client this week under the AGPL license. Their contribution model leans heavily on agents handling code, planning, and testing while humans focus on direction and verification. However, Cochrane pushes back on that framing. He argues the recent GitHub problems show that human approval alone is not enough oversight for agent-driven workflows. Additionally, he notes that the more hands-off developers get, the less they can mentally model their own systems. Apple Caught Flat-Footed by Local AI Demand Tim Cook told Wall Street on the Q2 FY2026 earnings call that Mac mini and Mac Studio supply will be constrained for several months. Both machines turned out to be popular local AI workstations, which Apple did not predict. Consequently, Apple discontinued the 512GB Mac Studio upgrade in early March and raised the 256GB upgrade by $400. Some upgraded configurations now show 4 to 5 month delivery estimates. Cochrane connects the demand spike to the OpenClaw wave and his own recent OpenClaw scare, where his install started making suspicious outbound requests. Furthermore, he is in no rush to lean into local agentic tooling given the constant prompt injection and security issues in the space. OpenAI Explains the Goblin Obsession After GPT-5.1 launched, ChatGPT users noticed the model could not stop saying “goblin.” OpenAI traced the bias to the optional Nerdy personality, which was 2.5 percent of all responses but produced 66.7 percent of all goblin mentions. The reward signal during personality training quietly favored creature metaphors. Then the bias leaked into the rest of the model through later supervised fine-tuning. OpenAI retired Nerdy in March, filtered creature words from training data, and added an explicit Codex system prompt rule: never talk about goblins, gremlins, raccoons, trolls, ogres, or pigeons. Cochrane frames this as the beauty and disaster of pattern matching. Additionally, he notes that LLM behavior is not editable like static code; it can only be patched, and the patches stack up over time. Sponsor: GoDaddy GoDaddy has been sponsoring this show for over twenty years. Economy hosting starts at $6.99/month, WordPress hosting at $12.99/month, and domains at $11.99. Use codes at geeknewscentral.com/godaddy for exclusive deals and to directly support the show. 1X Opens America’s First Vertically Integrated Humanoid Factory Bloomberg reports that 1X Technologies opened a 58,000 square foot humanoid robot factory in Hayward, California. The Norway-founded, OpenAI-backed company is calling it America’s first vertically integrated humanoid factory. Their goal: 10,000 NEO home humanoids in year one, with a 100,000 unit target by end of 2027. Furthermore, the first 10,000 unit allocation reportedly sold out in five days when pre-orders opened in October. NEO sells for $20,000 outright or $499 per month. Cochrane is skeptical that humanoids solve a real problem for the average household. However, he sees genuine potential for elderly and disabled users. Additionally, he flags privacy and data collection concerns about robots that have to perceive everything in your home. Tesla Semi Rolls Off the High-Volume Line Tesla rolled the first Semi off its 1.7 million square foot factory adjacent to Gigafactory Nevada on April 29. The Long Range version delivers 500 miles at $290,000, while the Standard Range hits 325 miles at $260,000. Additionally, the Long Range supports the 1.2 megawatt Megacharger that restores 60 percent of range in about 30 minutes. The factory targets 50,000 trucks per year, though analysts project 5,000 to 15,000 deliveries in 2026. Cochrane opens with a recent personal experience. He saw a semi truck on the freeway with the entire cabin removed from the engine, an unusual failure mode he had never seen before. Furthermore, he questions the actual environmental benefit of electric trucking given grid sourcing and battery mineral concerns. The reveal was 2017, and high-volume production is now nine years after that announcement. Chinese EVs With Headlights That Project Movies Huawei’s XPixel headlight system can now project full-color movies up to 100 inches in front of the car. The technology debuted in full color on the Aito M9 and is rolling out across Stelato S9, Qijing GT7, and Luxeed V9 MPV. Additionally, the same hardware powers real safety features: adaptive driving beam, lane-change path projection, and pedestrian crossing direction signaling. Meanwhile, US regulations only approved adaptive driving beam in February 2022. Pixel-addressable projection systems are not covered by current FMVSS rules at all. Consequently, even if these cars sold in the US, the headlights would have to be downgraded to be street legal. The Final GPS III Satellite Reaches Orbit SpaceX launched GPS III SV-10, the tenth and final GPS III satellite, on a Falcon 9 from Cape Canaveral on April 21. GPS III delivers signals 3 times more accurate and 8 times more resistant to jamming than the previous constellation. It also adds the L1C signal, which interoperates with Galileo, BeiDou, IRNSS, and QZSS, plus M-code military encryption. Up next, GPS IIIF launches start in 2027 with up to 22 satellites deploying through about 2037. IIIF adds laser inter-satellite links and optical reflectors for centimeter-level satellite tracking. Cochrane loves this kind of quiet infrastructure win that powers global economics without anyone noticing it. Researcher Wins 1 Bitcoin for a Quantum Attack on Crypto Independent Italian researcher Giancarlo Lelli won Project Eleven’s 1 Bitcoin Q-Day Prize on April 24. He derived a 15-bit elliptic curve private key from its public key using a variant of Shor’s algorithm on rented cloud quantum hardware. Furthermore, the previous record was 6 bits, set in September 2025 on an IBM 133-qubit machine, so this extends the record by a factor of 512. However, Bitcoin uses 256-bit elliptic curve cryptography, so real wallets are not at risk yet. Additionally, other researchers have pushed back on the result. Their criticism: a 15-bit search space is only 32,767 possibilities, which a laptop can brute-force in milliseconds. Project Eleven defends the milestone as a stepping stone for demonstrating Shor’s algorithm running end-to-end on real quantum hardware. Gemini Now Generates Real Files Google rolled out file generation for the Gemini app. Users can now generate PDFs, Word docs, Excel spreadsheets, Google Workspace files, CSV, LaTeX, plain text, RTF, and Markdown directly from a chat prompt. Additionally, files can be downloaded to device or exported straight to Google Drive. The feature is globally available to all Gemini app users. Google Illuminate Turns Papers Into Podcasts Google Illuminate is the experimental Labs tool that converts academic papers into roughly five-minute two-voice podcast-style audio. Generation takes about 30 seconds, with a 20-per-day cap and a 30-day library. Additionally, transcripts are interactive and clickable for jumping to specific moments. Cochrane likes it as an index for triaging papers but pushes back on using it to replace deep reading. He argues that real technical material like clustering logic needs a real read, not a summary by AI podcasters. Cochrane closes with show housekeeping and a callout to Pocket Casts and True Fans as solid modern podcast apps. Have a great night, and happy June. The post GitHub, Goblins, Ghostty, and GPS III #1863 appeared first on Geek News Central.

In 1641, Evangelista Torricelli, a student of Galileo, rotated the curve y = 1/x around the horizontal axis and obtained a shape whose interior volume converges to π while its surface area diverges to infinity. Mathematicians of the day called the result an abomination. This episode argues that *Gab

Patrick King explores how thought experiments, like Schrödinger's cat, challenge our beliefs and assumptions. Learn to question your own knowledge and open the door to new ideas and perspectives. Discover the power of systematic thinking in understanding complex issues. ⏱ CHAPTERS 0:00 Intro 1:39 The Struggle for Knowledge 3:12 Thought Experiments Overview 5:49 Virtues and Drawbacks of Thought Experiments 7:22 Types of Thought Experiments 9:57 Philosophical Implications of Thought Experiments 12:04 Historical Examples of Thought Experiments 15:12 Schrödinger's Cat Explanation 18:21 Critical Thinking Through Thought Experiments 21:29 Newton's Cannon Example 23:33 Practical Applications and Benefits Learn To Think Using Thought Experiments: How to Expand Your Mental Horizons, Understand Metacognition, Improve Your Curiosity, and Think Like a Philosopher (Clear Thinking and Fast Action Book 5) By Patrick King Hear it Here - https://bit.ly/ThoughtExpKing Use the mental tools that the world's greatest thinkers used to generate epiphanies, explore the world, and hone their reasoning. In traditional education, you're taught to recite and regurgitate. Going a step farther, you might learn some critical thinking skills. But what about applying them in the most audacious, fascinating, and inquisitive ways possible with thought experiments? Philosophical and exploratory thinking pushes your boundaries and opens new worlds. Learn to Think Using Thought Experiments is about how to analyze, perceive, and interact with information and situations - all in your mind and imagination. It poses a hypothetical and forces you to engage it and answer questions and reason through arguments you've never known. This book will confuse, frustrate, and ultimately improve your thinking prowess like nothing else, on account of being thrown into the mental deep end. Challenge yourself and you will grow. Improve critical thinking by applying it in innovative and novel ways. Patrick King is an internationally bestselling author and social skills coach. His writing draws of a variety of sources, from scientific research, academic experience, coaching, and real life experience. Become more naturally curious, inquisitive, and Sherlock Holmes-like. - The curious case of two cats and what they teach us about uncertainty. - What choosing between 1 and 5 people says about you. - Why this entire world might just be a dream or simulation. - What a javelin has to do with infinite. - How Zeno's tortoise represents the point where reality and numbers diverge. - How Chinese logicians, beetles, fish, and monkeys demonstrate different angles of reality and perception. Learn to thrive in uncertain situations and contemplate more thoroughly and deeply. Thought experiments are a classic tool that everyone can use, and they enable us to explore more abstract situations and reason through them. Master thought experiments and you can master simply dealing with difficult, uncertain, impossible, or confusing questions and situations. Use the same models and tools that Einstein, Plato, Socrates, Galileo, and Lao-tzu used - and see your thinking prowess grow exponentially. This is the fifth book in the “Clear Thinking and Fast Action” series as listed below: 1. The Science of Getting Started: How to Beat Procrastination, Summon Productivity, and Stop Self-Sabotage 2. The Art of Clear Thinking: Mental Models for Better Reasoning, Judgment, Analysis, and Learning. Upgrade Your Intellectual Toolkit. 3. 10-Minute Philosophy: From Buddhism to Stoicism, Confucius and Aristotle - Bite-Sized Wisdom From Some of History's Greatest Thinkers 4. Practical Intelligence: How to Think Critically, Deconstruct Situations, Analyze Deeply, and Never Be Fooled 5. Learn To Think Using Thought Experiments: How to Expand Your Mental Horizons, Understand Metacognition, Improve Your Curiosity, and Think Like a Philosopher 6. Take Rapid Action: Get Productive, Motivated, & Energized; Stop Overthinking & Procrastinating 7. Relentless Focus: 27 Small Tweaks to Beat Procrastination, Skyrocket Productivity, Outsmart Distractions, & Do More in Less Time If you're looking to sharpen your social skills and communication abilities with a dose of philosophy and critical thinking, Patrick King's channel is the place to be! Dive into engaging thought experiments like Schrödinger's Cat and explore how they can enhance your self-improvement journey. Join us for insightful tips on conversation and communication that will take your social interactions to the next level.

Several inventions mark the progress towards modernity - the Gutenberg printing press, the Galileo telescope, the Watt steam engine. But why was Europe the birthplace of so many of these? Joel Mokyr, winner of the 2025 Nobel Prize in economics, thinks the cause was culture. For decades he has asked economists to take intellectual history more seriously. Economies are shaped by new inventions, Mokyr argues, and inventions can only be understood when we understand the culture that gives rise to them. But how much did Europe's culture shape its economy? And how to square early modern Europe's progressive culture with it's colonial legacy? Mokyr answers these and other questions in this episodes, finishing with his reflections on the future of technological progress.Enjoy!LINKS AND REFERENCESDo you prefer reading to listening? You can find⁠ a summarised essay ⁠of this conversation, with a bibliography, at our series page: ⁠https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/news/podcasts/GREAT DIVERGENCE: THE MAKING OF THE MODERN WORLDThis episode is part of a series produced by Warwick University's⁠⁠ ⁠CAGE Research Centre⁠⁠⁠ in collaboration with⁠⁠ ⁠On Humans⁠⁠, searching for explanations to why Western Europe and North America emerged as the most affluent and technologically advanced regions of the modern world. Guided by six expert guests, including a winner of the 2025 Nobel Prize in economics, we approach this topic with balance and breadth, exploring everything from colonialism and fossil fuels to science and technology. 1 | Why the West? Colonies, fossil fuels, and lessons from China (Kenneth Pomeranz)2 | Why did so many inventions come from Europe? (with Joel Mokyr)3 | Why did the Industrial Revolution happen in Britain? (Robert Allen)  4 | A view from the East: China, Japan, and the other paths to prosperity (Debin Ma)5 | The big picture: Measuring the origins of the modern world (Bishnupriya Gupta and Stephen Broadberry)NAMES MENTIONEDJoel Mokyr | Robert Lucas | David Hume | Isaac Newton | Antoine Lavoisier | Joseph Black | James Watt | John Robison | Josiah Wedgwood | Sadi Carnot | Margaret Jacob | Evangelista Torricelli | Galileo Galilei | Blaise Pascal | Otto von Guericke | Aristotle | Denis Diderot | William Harvey | Song Yingxing | Marco Polo | Zheng He | Louis XIV | Avner Greif | Guido Tabellini | Kenneth Pomeranz | Adam Smith | Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot | Montesquieu | Voltaire | Confucius | al-Ghazali | Ptolemy | Euclid | David Ricardo | Karl Marx | Hippocrates | Galen | Xi Jinping | Joseph Needham | Nigel Farage | Joseph Stalin | Trofim Lysenko | Robert AllenKEYWORDSEconomics | History | Global Economic History | Intellectual History | Age of Inventions | Rise of the West | European Miracle | Enlightened Economy | Culture of Growth | Gift of Athena |Industrial Revolution | History of technology | History of inventions  INFOGuest: Joel Mokyr (⁠⁠⁠Northwestern University)⁠⁠⁠Host: Ilari Mäkelä Contact: ⁠⁠⁠greatdivergencepod@gmail.com⁠⁠⁠Music by Aleksey Chistilin (Lexin_Music) ⁠⁠via Pixabay

In the one-hundred-and-ninety-first episode, we take another look at the Galileo Fallacy, starting with Trump being compared to Galileo and Einstein, Karoline Leavitt defending RFK Jr, and Rick Perry denying climate change.In Mark's British Politics Corner, we look at Farage misquoting Gandhi, Jonathan Dimbleby defending the BBC, and Zia Yusuf attacking Zack Polanski.In the Fallacy in the Wild section, we check out examples from The Newsroom, Smallville, and Monty Python's Flying Circus.Jim and Mark go head to head in Fake News, the game in which Mark has to guess which of three Trump quotes was made up by Jim.Then we talk about FEMA official Gregg Phillips and his claims of teleportation.And finally, we round up some of the other crazy Trump stories from the past week.The full show notes for this episode can be found at https://fallacioustrump.com/ft191 You can contact the guys at pod@fallacioustrump.com, on BlueSky @FallaciousTrump, Discord at fallacioustrump.com/discord or facebook at facebook.com/groups/fallacioustrumpAnd you can buy our T-shirts here: https://fallacioustrump.com/teeSubscribe to Fallacious Trump to make sure you never miss a logical fallacy. Rather than just mindless anti-Trump rhetoric, we apply skepticism and critical thinking to our Donald Trump analysis by exploring his liberal use of logical fallacies and cognitive biases, along with a bit of humor and news about US politics. (But there is also some of that much needed anti-Trump rhetoric.)Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Episode Notes About Amy Farner Amy Farner is Executive Vice President and Head of Product at The Josh Bersin Company. She previously led Deloitte Consulting's survey research and analytics practice and brings over 20 years of experience helping organizations drive results through data, insights, and industry trends. What You'll Learn in This Episode Why consulting firms are shifting from projects to AI-powered platforms How tools like Lilli, AskGartner, and Galileo are changing the industry What early signals, like higher renewal rates, reveal about AI adoption The difference between access to information and trusted insight How AI is accelerating speed, scale, and personalization in consulting Why SaaS models are becoming more valuable than traditional services How AI is opening access to advisory services for underserved markets The evolving role of consultants in a world of instant information Where human judgment remains essential in decision-making What the next 3–5 years of consulting could look like Key Insights from the Episode The value of consulting is shifting from delivering answers to guiding decisions AI is not replacing consultants, it is redefining where they create value Firms that fail to adapt to AI-enabled delivery models risk being displaced Smaller and mid-sized companies now have access to insights that were once reserved for the enterprise level Communication and strategic thinking are becoming more important than traditional “hard skills” Resources & Links Galileo AI Agent by The Josh Bersin Companyhttps://getgalileo.ai/agent The Josh Bersin Companyhttps://joshbersin.com/ Think First

This week, we discuss Claude's harness, OpenAI's ongoing drama, and whether Backstage is still a thing. Plus, Coté gives up on the green screen. Watch the YouTube Live Recording of Episode 568 Runner-up Titles It's clearly an AI chair. I've given up on the green screen No animals, only buttholes I don't know if I can think on my own Make your pecans really pop Did they shut it down? I wasn't paying attention Always take the first offer for a billion dollars Bad Parking The Apple IIE had this problem I was paying attention but I might have had a mouthful of cereal. Rundown Anthropic Anthropic vs. OpenAI Revenue Why Anthropic's new model has cybersecurity experts rattled Workday CTO Joins Anthropic Amid Startup's Push to Build HR Apps Clouded Judgement 4.10.26 - Long Live the Harness (Wrapper?) ! Anthropic closes in on OpenAI as US business use surges Anthropic says Claude Code subscribers will need to pay extra for OpenClaw usage Anthropic Buys Stealth Dimension-Backed Coefficient Bio in $400M+ Stock Deal Claude Command /powerup Post-Mortem of Anthropic's Claude Code Leak OpenAI Palace Intrigue OpenAI's Fidji Simo takes medical leave, announces leadership changes OpenAI CEO and CFO Diverge on IPO Timing Industrial policy for the Intelligence Age OpenAI is getting weird again - Casey Newton OpenAI has bought AI personal finance startup Hiro Let Us Learn to Show Our Friendship for a Man When He Is Alive and Not After He Is Dead OpenAI buys TBPN Exclusive | OpenAI Buys Tech-Industry Talk Show TBPN OpenAI Buys Tech-Industry Talk Show TBPN OpenAI acquires TBPN | OpenAI OpenAI acquires TBPN, the buzzy founder-led business talk show OpenAI Buys Streaming Show ‘TBPN,' Aiming to Change Narrative on A.I. Sam Altman May Control Our Future—Can He Be Trusted? Backstage Backstage is dead Observability Cisco to grab Galileo for AI observability supercharge - SDxCentral Dynatrace to Acquire Bindplane to Establish Telemetry Pipelines for AI and Cloud‑Native Observability Cursor and Coding Agents Cursor's $2 billion bet: The IDE is now a fallback, not the default Cursor's New Tool Lets Users Delegate to a Team of Coding Agents Cursor, Claude Code, and Codex are merging into one AI coding stack nobody planned Relevant to your Interests Here's what that Claude Code source leak reveals about Anthropic's plans Starlink satellite tracker A Secure Chat App's Encryption Is So Bad It Is ‘Meaningless' Coinbase's AI payments system joins Linux Foundation Trump's AI framework targets state laws, shifts child safety burden to parents | TechCrunch TIME100 AI 2025: Chris Lehane Jack Dorsey says Block employees now bring prototypes — not slide decks — to meetings Post Mortem: axios npm supply chain compromise · Issue #10636 · axios/axios · GitHub Addressing GitHub's recent availability issues Iran threatens ‘complete and utter annihilation' of OpenAI's $30B Stargate AI data center Social media is turning into a freak show The Building Block Economy Giant Mac mini cluster powers Overcast podcast transcripts without the cloud How Amazon Dies: A Possible, Maybe Likely Future Maine Is About to Become the First State to Ban New Data Centers Introducing Muse Spark: Scaling Towards Personal Superintelligence SiFive raises $400 million from Atreides, Nvidia for data-center chip technology Amazon CEO takes aim at Nvidia, Intel, Starlink, more in annual shareholder letter Giving external agents access to Xcode | Apple Developer Documentation France orders all government ministries to ditch Windows for Linux in digital sovereignty push You can now easily call LLMs from your messaging engine. Should you? Microsoft exec suggests AI agents will need to buy software licenses, just like employees Meta creating AI version of Mark Zuckerberg so staff can talk to the boss Little Snitch for Linux — Because Nothing Else Came Close AI infrastructure budgets set to triple as demand soars: Deloitte Amazon jumps deeper into space race Amazon buying Globalstar, to rival SpaceX's Starlink Meta is making an AI Zuck to chat with employees Sponsors WebRTC.ventures – Real-time communication & Voice AI integration WeAreDevelopers World Congress North America Sept 23–25, San José, CA Use Code DEVPOD26 — 15% off, stacks with group rates for 4+ Nonsense NASA sends Outlook around Moon, immediately needs IT help Top FEMA Official Doubles Down on Claim He Teleported to Waffle House AI CEO vs Engineer (2026). Poor Blue Blob Paul McCartney Banned From Reddit After Promoting Himself in Paul McCartney Subreddit Listener Feedback Michael Neal: built mesh-llm — Decentralised LLM Inference Shaun built: workworkwork Brandon's App: Milestone Birthday and Anniversary Tracker Conferences DevOpsdays Atlanta 2026, April 21-22, 2026 DevOpsDays Austin, May 5-6, 2026 DevOpsDays + AI Nashville, May 14-15, 2026 KCD Texas, May 15, 2026, use code MEDIA_THANK_YOU for free pass WeAreDevelopers Europe, July 8-10, 2026 Berlin, Coté speaking. DevOpsDays Graz, Sept 4-5, 2026 DevOpsDays Dallas, Sept 28-29, 202 WeAreDevelopers NA, Sept 23-25, 2026, Discount Code: Community_SoftwareDefined DevOpsDays Vilnius, Sep 30 - Oct 1. 2006 DevOpsDays Istanbul, October 24th, 2026 - Coté keynoting. VMware User Groups (VMUGs): Minneapolis (April 7-9, 2026) Toronto (May 12-14, 2026) Dallas (June 9-11, 2026) Orlando (October 20-22, 2026) SDT News & Community Join our Slack community Email the show: questions@softwaredefinedtalk.com Free stickers: Email your address to stickers@softwaredefinedtalk.com Follow us on social media: Twitter, Threads, Mastodon, LinkedIn, BlueSky Watch us on: Twitch, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok Book offer: Use code SDT for $20 off "Digital WTF" by Coté Sponsor the show Sponsor more podcasts with Failover Media Recommendations Brandon: macOS Video Effects Matt: Thom York at the Sydney Opera House IKEA Klippbok water sensor Coté: AutoMounter

We usually begin the study of physics with a discussion of motion, not because it is easy, or because the modern understanding of motion began with Galileo hundreds of years ago. Rather, Galileo's groundbreaking work provides a paradigm to understand how physics is done today. Extracting out the fundamental essence of motion from all the distractions associated with what turn out to be irrelevant complexities was a monumental intellectual leap for humankind—a leap we often take for granted. Without the leap, for example, Newton could never have made his profound discoveries about the relationship between force and movement, nor his discovery of the Universal Law of Gravitation. But too often we treat these remarkable achievements as something belonging in antiquity.. as if we have moved far beyond them in every way. Nothing could be further from the truth. Applying the very same ideas that Galileo and Newton developed leads us to the cusp of modern physics: the discovery of the dominant mass in the Universe, a vast invisible sea of dark matter. In this episode, we travel over 450 years of physics, from Galileo, to the threshold of our understanding of the cosmos today. Hang onto your hats. I'm also pleased to share a quick PSA. A reminder of our 2026 Origins expedition through the Greek archipelago (July 24 to 31), with a Cyprus add-on (July 17 to 22). If you're interested, it's worth raising your hand early. These trips tend to fill quickly. Express interest at https://originsproject.org/greek-adventure-2026-application/As always, an ad-free video version of this podcast is also available to paid Critical Mass subscribers. Your subscriptions support the non-profit Origins Project Foundation, which produces the podcast. The audio version is available free on the Critical Mass site and on all podcast sites, and the video version will also be available on the Origins Project YouTube. Get full access to Critical Mass at lawrencekrauss.substack.com/subscribe

Why Isn't TEAM More Popular? Why Do So Many Therapists Resist TEAM CBT? Featuring Matt May, MD Why has the therapeutic community been so resistant to TEAM? This topic has been a concern to me or many years. To be honest, it isn't new. From the very start of cognitive therapy, when I was first learning it, I began modifying it to make it more dynamic, powerful, and effective. But to be honest, I ran into a small (at the time) of Beck loyalists who branded me as an "outsider," something Beck also did when my book, Feeling Good, began to sell and gain popularity. This saddened and frustrated me, and still does, but it had some great spin-off. On my own, my ideas and approaches grew rapidly, and there was no scarcity of young therapists who wanted to work with me.  Below, you will ready Matt's take on why TEAM CBT has not caught on better, followed by my own thoughts. So read, and enjoy, and feel free to share your own thinking on this topic!  On the live podcast, you will hear our lively discussion with our beloved and brilliant host, Rhonda! Thanks for listening today!  Matt, Rhonda, and David Matt's take: Hi David, I'm excited to discuss this topic!  Also, I agree we would be hard-pressed to cover it in an hour, which I believe is the goal for the podcast. So, why isn't TEAM isn't more popular?  My short answer is that TEAM isn't more popular because many therapists don't want to learn it. Those reasons will vary from one person to another and relate to concepts in the model, itself, like 'process resistance' and 'outcome resistance'. While biological factors, like deficits in cognitive flexibility and neuroplasticity, the 'primacy effect' and age-related changes in the brain, combined with the complexity of the TEAM model, will make it near-impossible for some folks to learn it, these barriers are hard to address with our current technology For the purpose of this conversation, it probably makes more sense to consider the psychological barriers therapists have to adopting a model that is scientifically proven to be superior to other approaches.  As a proponent of TEAM and an instructor, I'd love to know what I'm doing wrong, in presenting the model and how to get more people excited about learning it.  While more research would help us see the problem more clearly, here are some factors that likely play a role: It seems humans have a hard time adopting new truths, regardless of the field being considered. I believe it was Schopenhauer who said all new truths go through three phases on the way to acceptance:  People will ridicule it, violently oppose it, then say they knew it all along as self-evident! One cause of this is something called the 'primacy effect'. People preferentially retain the first version of a story they hear.  If that information is corrected, later, they will continue to believe the first version they heard.  Biological Factors play a role in learning, including genetics, aging, illness and toxic exposure. 'Switching gears', mentally, is more challenging in people with Schizophrenia and their first-degree relatives, for example.  We know that neuroplasticity is greatest in our youth and declines over our lifespan.  Hence the importance of early education and attending to our overall health, habits, nutrition and medical care.       Socioeconomic and Cultural factors certainly play a role.  This is well documented in the book, 'The Emperor's New Drugs', showing how marketing prevailed over science in promoting "antidepressants".  Many therapists in training tell me, 'oh, they wouldn't let me use a measurement tool where I work'.   Lack of 'Critical Thinking'. What people believe often has nothing to do with what is evidence-based or logical.  Many people reject global warming despite the evidence and prefer to believe in conspiracy theories.  We tend to preferentially believe what someone says if we feel a kinship or loyalty to that person or view them as an 'expert'. People might believe RFK Jr. when he says immunizations are dangerous, for example, because he is in their political party and in a position of power, rather than review the science for themselves. Sunk-Cost Fallacy:  People who have gone through training may have a sense that they have invested too much time and money in their education to discard that model and start afresh. Even if we covered this in just a few minutes, we'd still be up against the hardest part of TEAM to learn, Agenda Setting.   Lots of 'Good Reasons' NOT to have open hands, explore topics paradoxically, and reasons this is challenging, technically. So, yeah, we'll have a lot to discuss and I'm looking forward to that! Sincerely, Matt Here is David's list Taking a page out of your book, Matt, our field is filled with so-called "schools" of therapy that function much like cults, most with a narcissistic "leader" at the helm. In a cult, members are required to be absolutely loyal, and to believe in claims the guru makes that have little or no evidence to back them up. For example, most "schools" of therapy claim to know "the" cause of emotional distress, when the causes of depression and other forms of emotional disturbance are still not known. What I have been suggesting is that we get rid of all the schools of therapy and usher in a new era of science-based, data-driven therapy, which would amount to a revolution in our field. This idea, which I feel passionate about, always meets with stiff and hostel opposition / push back. People just don't want to hear it. TEAM integrates high-level empathy and compassion with firm accountability. Give Stanford story with Sunny Choi, and the statement that "Stanford graduate students and faculty cannot be held accountable for doing psychotherapy homework. The need insight-oriented therapy!" This angrily issued statement conveyed, actually, two cult-like (to my thinking) components: First, we KNOW that patients should not be asked to do psychotherapy homework between sessions. Second, we KNOW that "insight-oriented therapy" is the treatment, without ever evaluating them. TEAM focuses on the here and now, and emphasize a "fractal" approach to treatment, where the same distortions and self-defeating beliefs will be embedded in the patient's negative thoughts and feelings every time she or he is upset. So, when you change the present, you have already changed the past. Whereas most therapies have traditionally (and still) focus on the past, thinking they will find the cause of the patient's distress in some pattern or traumatic event. TEAM focuses on rapid change in the here and now, where as many (most?) therapies focus on talk therapy that unfolds slowly, over a period of months, years, or even more. This DOES provide a powerful financial incentive to do "talk therapy," since this drastically provides financial security and reduces the incredible pressure of constantly have to find new patients. TEAM is very challenging to learn. I have taught over 50,000 therapists in the past 35 years or more, through my supervision of graduate students and psychiatric residents, my weekly training group at Stanford, and my workshops, including intensive, around the US and Canada. And one lesson that has emerged is just how difficult it is to learn TEAM. It requires a high level of intelligence and aptitude, and an unusual dedication and commitment. A great many of the most important tools, like Assessment of Resistance, and Externalization of Voices with the CAT, Self-Defense, and the Acceptance Paradox, are extremely difficult to learn and master.  And most give up, and drop out, in favor of some simpler and more formulaic therapy that is easy to learn. TEAM training requires constant role-playing with specific and immediate feedback on your performance, which includes bot a letter grade (A, B, C, etc.) as well as what you did that was effective, and where you fell short and might need to fine-tune your technique with frequent role reversals, always with feedback. This means lots of criticism along the way, which many (most?) therapists do not like. And although we repeatedly emphasize the philosophy of "joyous failure," and "learning through failure," most people do not buy it emotionally. We all want success and compliments! And NOT the "great death" of the self." The "great death" permeates every phase of the T E A M process. At the T = Testing, you will nearly always learn that your perceptions of your patients feel, and how they feel about you, are way off base. This is critically important, but painful for most, as it is a direct body blow to our "need" to be in the role of "expert." Unlike most other forms of therapy, we require therapists to measure patients' feelings, "in the here and now," at the start and end of every therapy session, using brief, highly reliable scales that assess feelings of depression, suicidal urges, anxiety, anger, and also happiness, as well as relationship satisfaction or discord. These scales function like an "emotional X-ray machine," allowing therapists for the first time to see exactly how effective or ineffective you were in every therapy session. Can you take it? On the positive side, this information will allow you to fine tune the therapy and learn from all of your patients every day. On the negative side, you may not want to have to "see" your failures before your eyes at every session with every patient. David: Tell the story of Tuesday group patient who proudly showed me her depression (and other scores) over the previous year with one of her patients. . . But there was absolutely no improvement in any scale. This was shocking and it made me very sad. My goal is to get dramatic changes within a single session. This "great death" continues during the E phase. TEAM therapists are required to ask "What's my grade on empathy" during the session, and also patients fill out the Empathy Scale and other scales on the "Patient's Evaluation of Therapy Session" right after the session. These scales are set up to make therapist failure common, almost universal at first. A warm and curious dialogue about where the therapist went wrong can revolutionize the therapy and deepen the relationship—quickly. But at what cost to the fragile ego of the insecure shrink? The "great death" continues with A = Paradoxical Agenda Setting. You give up your role as the "expert:" or "helper" or "rescuer," which many therapist refuse to do, and instead "become" the patient's subconscious resistance, arguing, with compassion and logic, that there are many GOOD reasons NOT to change. This freaks therapists out! The "great death" continues with the M = Methods phase of the session. I have developed roughly 140 methods to help people challenge distorted negative thoughts and self-defeating beliefs, and have always taught that no one method will work for everyone who's depressed and anxious. So you will have to try many methods, using the Recovery Circle, to find the one that works for each patient. But these methods are challenging to learn, and most therapists don't seem to have the intelligence, aptitude, or commitment to learning how to use them. Many of the methods and insights of TEAM or subtle nuances that many therapists do not "get" or perhaps do not want to "get." Example, the ACT training group, where someone held up the Feeling Good book and said, "We do not want THIS!" They falsely believed that "leaning into" your feelings is always the answer, and wrong believed that TEAM tried to make people happy all the time—called Toxic Positivity—whereas nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I mentioned healthy negative feelings as early as, I think, Chapter 3 in Feeling Good, "Sadness is Not Depression," where I told the story of an elderly man who died on the Stanford inpatient medical service one evening when I was a medical student. Much of what I teach is shocking and at odds with what people are taught in graduate school. For example, the idea that most people with depression and anxiety—NOT everybody!—can be effectively treated in a single, extended therapy session. Curses! That sounds horrible! And even worse-sounding is the idea that change typically happens suddenly, at the very moment patients stop believing their distorted thoughts. Of course, since most therapists have not seen these phenomena, due perhaps to not having the skill, they insist instead that David is some type of fool, liar, or con artis. Okee Dokee! People—therapists and patients alike—do not "get" a great many of the key ideas in TEAM. For example, let's say the socially anxious patient totally believes the thought, "I shouldn't be so screwed up!" the necessary and sufficient conditions for emotional change. The necessary condition: The Positive Thought (PT) must be 100% true. Rationalizations and half-truths have never helped anybody. The sufficient condition: The PT must drastically reduce your belief in the negative thought. And that's when your negative thoughts will suddenly change. There is even more of what I teach is shocking and at odds with what people believe. For example, 2,000 years ago Epictetus stated they key premise of all the cognitive therapies: "People are disturbed, not by things, or events, but by the views they have of them". And recently, our research team has provided proof of this for the first time, in a study of nearly 7,000 users of our Feeling Great app, using sophisticated statistical modeling techniques. So, the three tenants of cognitive therapies, including TEAM, are: First, you FEEL the way you THINK. In other words, all of your positive and negative feelings result from your thoughts in the here-and-now. Second, depression and anxiety are the world's oldest cons. In other words, your negative thoughts, like "I'm not as good as I should be," or "I'm a hopeless case,"—will be loaded with many of the ten cognitive distortions and are extremely misleading—but you don't realize this when you're upset. You will believe these thoughts with all your heart and feel CERTAIN that they are 100% true. Third, you can CHANGE the way you FEEL. But lots of people will won't have it. They keep insisting on theories that simply aren't true—that emotions cause thoughts, for example—and on methods that may have little or no "punch" above and beyond the placebo effect. Story of Tuesday group student who was scolded in her graduate school counseling program for using the words "thought" or cognition during a therapy session. She was told ONLY to focus on feelings. Many people—therapists and patients alike—strongly believe that therapist empathy is THE key to healing. I have developed many powerful empathy tracking and training methods, but our clinical experience and research has shown, over and over, that therapist empathy is NOT the key to healing. They keys involve using TEAM systematically, and the rapid healing happens during the A and M for the most part. But those are the hard parts! Other problems include the idea that we can convert normal human emotional distress into a series of "mental disorders" that are listed in the DSM, the "bible" of the American Psychiatric Association. In TEAM, we consider each patient's patterns of suffering at the start of therapy, quickly and easily screened by the EASY Diagnostic System, but monitor therapy and patient progress with simple tools that measure feelings, like depression, anxiety, anger, and more. But this is an argument for another day. There's a lot more issues, too. Have I, David, contributed to the resistance to TEAM? Absolutely I have. I plead guilty as accused, and I'm proud of it. I'm totally aware that people—maybe even you— get turned off by criticism, and naturally recoil to protect your "in group," as Matt so clearly pointed out, and maintain loyalty to your "leader," whether it's Freud, Jung, Beck, Hayes, Rogers, or whoever. People are more emotional than rational, and people can be intentionally cruel and deceptive, too, all in the name of what they believe. We see that in our politics these days too. People believe things that are totally false, and wildly implausible, because the group or leader says it's true, it's the way things are. I'm a strong believer that science and truth will win out in the long run. Is this inevitable? I'm not totally confident, and have my doubts, but I am also filled with hope, and look to a future with more therapists like our beloved Matt May, MD and others who have dared to venture in a radically new direction, much like the early astronomers like Galileo and Copernicus who dared to challenge the superstitious teachings of the Catholic church. Those brave and brilliant early souls said, "things are NOT the way you think!" And they used data and mathematical modeling to prove their points. But there were a hundreds years of intimidation and suffering until people finally began to catch on to the then-ridiculous and outrageous ideas that the sun does NOT actually revolve around the earth, and that the earth is NOT the center of the universe. Those NOTS changed history. Can it happen again in the fields of psychiatry and psychotherapy? I hope so, and I've been giving my all, in my teaching, research, clinical work and writing, to make this happen. Sadly, I've fallen far short of my dream, but I'm thankful every day for what I've got, and the wonderful colleagues I'm privileged to know and love. Warmly, David, Matt and Rhonda

Episode: 1553 Galileo, Torricelli, von Guericke, and the idea of a vacuum.  Today, we invent vacuum.

What happens when scientists are right and nobody wants to hear it? Neil deGrasse Tyson, Chuck Nice, and Gary O'Reilly explore the frustrating history of brilliant minds who were ignored, mocked, and punished for telling the truth with science writer Matt Kaplan. NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free here:  https://startalkmedia.com/show/told-you-so-with-matt-kaplan/ Thanks to our Patrons William D A, JK Smith, k c, Jim Worke, ufuk mevlevioglu, discount, Mark Snow, scott.hraha@gmail . con, Daren Covington, alex fricke, Alistair Gray, Jordi Estevez, Jeppe Blomgren, Kal McCloud, James Hale, Olivia Ruffe, Barbara, Tyler Dirkse, Bupkis Null, Tamajai Parrotte, Ebony Davis, Hailey Drake, Josh Whalen, SomethingWonderful, Ms.Yi, Luke Williams, L M, DP, Noah Golden, Courtney Minick, Megs, Jake, Terry Kirk, Joe G, Kip Kerley, Alec Walters, Alex Brown, Baxter, Austin Garcia, Sam W, Ladie Charette, Patrick Laverdière, juno brown, John Gary, Lucidious Flow, Leticia Farrar, Chu88, Fatima, Adrienne Bennett, David Labas, David Presnell, BLUE TIGER, Theresa Anoskey, Jahkenan Lloyd, Sambath Kumar Balasubramanian, Michelle Hester, Tatjana Gall, bandofspartans, Scarlet_Bukur92, LeopaldChaos, Mark Schwerin, Jack, Andrew, Edward Landry, Roland, Daniel Peter, Dan, Derek C, Erik Mardiste, Samuel Young, Keith McCredie, Dom, Ulq, Israel Soto, Q/Aurora Phoenix, JeanieZee, Terry Carr, Todd Bergmann, meteor guy, Patrick Congdon, Jeremiah Lewis, Janet Staples-Edwards, Eric Mensah, Chris Morales, Timothy Stanford, Dean Lasseter, Daniel Hays, Madhur Behl, Professor Grumbly Gut, Max Wolters, Jeremy Lewis, José Ikamba, Ian Ravenshaw Bland, Ron Spee, Brandon Smith, Richard Lord, Cody Avery Campbell (codesuniverse), Shawn Shields, M.R. Saar, and Nicole Elizabeth for supporting us this week. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of StarTalk Radio ad-free and a whole week early.Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Please join my mailing list here

Humanity is going back to the Moon, and Europe is already playing a critical role in making it happen. This week, Planetary Radio brings you voices straight from the 18th European Space Conference in Brussels, Belgium, where more than 2,000 of the world’s top space leaders gathered to shape the future of European space exploration. We begin with conference co-organizer Tomas Dimitrov of Logos and Business Bridge Europe, who sets the stage for the conversations ahead. From there, we hear from European Commissioner for Defence and Space Andrius Kubilius, ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher, French Minister Delegate for European Affairs Benjamin Haddad, and Germany’s Federal Space Minister Dorothee Bär. We also take you inside the Moonlight Initiative panel, bringing you the full conversation as scientists and engineers from ESA, NASA, and industry lay out their vision for building GPS and communications infrastructure around the Moon, and wrestle with what it will really take to support a permanent human presence there. Then, Planetary Society Chief Scientist Bruce Betts joins us for What’s Up to tackle one of the most fascinating and unexpected challenges of lunar exploration: what time is it on the Moon? Discover more at: https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/2026-european-space-conference See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.