Podcasts about generalists

The generalist agent is disappearing. The ones winning right now aren't trying to be everything to everyone — they're becoming the undeniable expert in one thing.   Valerie Upham, a Compass agent in San Diego, did exactly that. By committing to a single, high-need specialty most agents won't touch, she generated over $475,000 in GCI in 18 months — and $267,000 of that came straight from educational seminars and events.   If you're still chasing every lead in every price point and quietly wondering why you feel replaceable… this episode shows you the opposite move.   In this episode, you'll learn:   The Niche-Down Paradox: Why narrowing her focus to one specialty actually multiplied her referrals — and made her the obvious call. The $267K Seminar Engine: How educational events became her single biggest source of GCI in 18 months. The Room of Two: Why Valerie works a 2-person seminar like a full listing appointment — and the listings it's closed. Fill the Room: The exact channel mix she uses to drive attendance — direct mail to 30-year homeowners, Facebook, NextDoor, LinkedIn, and Eventbrite. The Trust-First Play: How shredding events and her own podcast build relationships years before anyone's ready to list. The Equity Protector: Why she personally manages contractors and renovations to protect a family's return through a major life transition.   Valerie's results weren't luck. The structure behind her niche was built inside Tom Ferry Coaching.   Ready to stop competing as a generalist and become the expert clients seek out?   Schedule a free call with a Tom Ferry consultant to learn more about coaching and see if it's right for you.

There are 7 Key components of #salesgrowth for MSPs and IT service providers Each has a key role in allowing good companies to scale and become great Do you agree with the 7? Especially point number 2? Have a listen and tell me I'm wrong Chapters 00:00 - Introduction to the 7 Hard Truths about MSP Growth 02:07 - Technical Brilliance vs. Soft Skills and Sales Engines 05:38 - Bespoke Setups Kill Scalability 09:34 - Founders as the Biggest Bottleneck 13:25 - Growth Requires Capital Investment in People and Systems 17:20 - A Niche Beats a Generalist 21:52 - Lack of a Structured, Repeatable Sales Process 25:04 - Sales Cycles in the MSP Space are Long 29:11 - Inspirational Story: Ann Makosinski and the Hollow Flashlight 30:21 - Closing Thoughts and "Eat or Be Eaten" Ethos CTA Sales shouldn't feel like guesswork. Get clear, proven tactics delivered weekly — no fluff, just results. If you want to close more and stress less, this is for you.

What does it actually take to grow as a talent leader when the playbook keeps changing? Chelsea Kovak, Head of Global Talent Acquisition at TaskRabbit, shares how she thinks about AI, data, tooling, and the skills recruiters need to build in a market that's moving faster than ever. Along the way, she reflects on her path from sales to talent acquisition, the value of being a connector, and why adaptability may be the most important skill in modern recruiting.Connect with host James Mackey on LinkedIn! Thank you to our sponsor, SecureVision, for making this show possible!  Follow us:https://www.linkedin.com/company/82436841/SecureVision: #1 Rated Embedded Recruitment Firm on G2!https://www.g2.com/products/securevision/reviewsThanks for listening!

Rylan Foltz went from JP Morgan analyst to independent wealth advisor to co-founding WealthFeed — a marketing and prospecting platform helping financial advisors find better clients faster using predictive analytics and behavioral data. In this episode, Rylan walks through the full arc of that journey and unpacks the strategic decisions that took WealthFeed from zero to thousands of advisors in just two years.Jeff and Rylan dig into why the wealth management industry is so underserved by marketing technology, the power of building bottom-up before going enterprise, how to make a SaaS product genuinely sticky in a regulated industry, and why your distribution moat matters more than your product moat in an era where anyone can spin up a competing product overnight.Whether you're a first-time founder trying to crack product-market fit, or a scaling SaaS leader thinking through enterprise sales cycles, pricing strategy, and team-building, this episode delivers actionable insight on all fronts.Key Takeaways3:47 — The Origin of WealthFeed Rylan realized as a practicing advisor that organic growth was the hardest part of the job — and that the wealth management industry had almost no structured approach to marketing. That gap became the business.6:15 — Why Finance Is Marketing's Last Frontier Advisors can name the big firms but not their local competitors. The industry is dominated by aging, lifestyle-mode advisors who stopped teaching growth tactics — leaving a giant opportunity for a niche marketing platform.10:39 — What's Old Is New Again WealthFeed offers machine-written handwritten notes that look like wedding invitations. In a world saturated with digital communication, old-school physical outreach is standing out again.11:22 — Stop Thinking Leads, Start Building Assets Advisors shouldn't buy leads — they should build a database audience the way Budweiser buys Super Bowl ads: consistent, compounding, ROI over time.13:01 — Niche Marketing Builds Trust Generic messaging ("I help with retirement planning") signals you don't know your prospect. Hyper-specific messaging ("I work exclusively with SaaS co-founders on RSUs and equity comp") creates immediate trust and relevance.14:12 — The All-in-One Platform Advantage WealthFeed layers CRM, outbound marketing (LinkedIn, email, direct mail, handwritten notes), and proprietary data into one workflow — so advisors don't stitch together five point solutions.17:41 — Simplicity Over Power at Launch Early on, feature overload slowed adoption. The lesson: launch with one compelling use case (for WealthFeed, inheritance lead data), get users in the door, then upsell from there.20:55 — Your Moat Is Your Distribution AI lets anyone copy a product in a weekend. What can't be copied overnight is your relationships, your user base, and the custom integrations you've built into a customer's workflow.25:03 — Bottom-Up Enterprise Strategy WealthFeed got traction by signing individual advisors first, letting the grassroots demand bubble up to management — which created enterprise deals without having to wait in long procurement queues.27:09 — Don't Hunt Elephants Until You Can Afford To Enterprise deals can drag for three years. Without revenue from individual and SMB customers, a startup can starve waiting for that one big contract to close.29:28 — Hybrid Pricing: Access Fee + Usage Credits Flat subscriptions don't work when one advisor sends 20,000 handwritten notes and another logs in once a month. A hybrid model lets you charge for scale without penalizing light users.31:28 — Price High, Discount Down Starting low and raising prices creates churn and resentment. Starting at a premium and offering a promotional discount sets expectations — customers know the real value from day one.33:19 — Balancing Founder Vision vs. Customer Feedback A 50/50 split: take customer input seriously, but don't become a yes-man. The most successful founders — especially those who've lived the problem — trust their forward vision even when customers can't yet see it.35:59 — Build Infrastructure Before You're Drowning WealthFeed hired sales, dev, and customer success earlier than felt necessary. That foundation is now why their customer success "outperforms anyone else in the industry."38:30 — Flatten the Org to Connect Dev and Customer Tech teams that never see how the product is used build the wrong things. WealthFeed has engineers sit in on sales calls so they understand why features matter, not just what to build.39:45 — Let Compliance Work With You, Not Against You Instead of pitching firms on new compliance workflows, WealthFeed integrates into whatever compliance process already exists — dramatically speeding up enterprise approvals.Tweetable Quotes"Your moat is your distribution. Go-to-market has gotten extremely valuable because you could almost create the product overnight." — Rylan Foltz"Stop thinking about leads. Start thinking about building an audience, a database, an asset for life." — Rylan Foltz"No one wants a generalist. Everyone wants the best knee surgeon in the country. As an advisor, you've got to become really niche-focused." — Rylan Foltz"Start your pricing high. You can always discount down. It's really hard to raise prices." — Rylan Foltz"It's easier to sell one flavor of ice cream and say it's the best than to offer 32 flavors and create option overload." — Rylan Foltz"What's old is new. Everything shifted to digital, so old-school processes are how you stand out now." — Rylan Foltz"You'll be most successful solving a problem you personally went through. It comes across in your sales, your fundraising, everything." — Rylan Foltz"Don't get too caught up in enterprise until you build up the user base. Get revenue first, then you can afford to chase the elephants." — Rylan FoltzSaaS Leadership Lessons1. Niche down relentlessly — and mean it. Rylan didn't just say "we focus on financial advisors." WealthFeed built every feature, every data layer, and every compliance workflow around that single ICP. The more specific your niche, the stronger your trust signal, the better your retention, and the harder you are to displace. Generalist products get commoditized. Specialists get embedded.2. Distribution is the real product. In a world where a working SaaS product can be replicated in a weekend, your go-to-market is your most defensible asset. Relationships, user base saturation within target firms, custom integrations, and compliance workflow ownership are what prevent a competitor from walking in and saying "we do the same thing." Build distribution as intentionally as you build product.3. Start simple — layer complexity after adoption. Feature-rich doesn't mean better. WealthFeed launched with one use case (inheritance lead data) and expanded from there. Getting a user in the door on one powerful idea is vastly easier than selling a full platform. Upselling to an existing user is far more efficient than converting a prospect who's overwhelmed at first glance.4. Build your team infrastructure earlier than you think you need it. Founders often hire only when they're already underwater. Rylan and his team built out sales, dev, and customer success before they felt the pressure — and that head start compounded into top-tier customer outcomes. Infrastructure built under stress tends to crack. Infrastructure built with intention scales.5. Price to your value, then offer strategic discounts. Starting low might feel like a growth hack, but it sets a price anchor that's almost impossible to raise without friction. Starting at a premium gives you room to discount strategically, run promos, and still maintain perceived value. Customers who came in knowing the "real" price won't balk at renewal the way customers who got a surprise price hike will.6. Close the gap between your builders and your buyers. One of WealthFeed's most impactful structural choices: having engineers sit in on sales calls. When the people building the product understand how it's actually used — and why it matters — they build better, faster, and with more empathy. Kill the wall between tech and go-to-market. Your roadmap will thank you.Guest Resourcesrylan@wealthfeed.comhttps://www.wealthfeed.com/https://www.linkedin.com/in/rylanfolts/Episode SponsorThe Futureproof Series - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfkXKUPZ5xuOqMPR7_gzGybncTtavyR1NThe Captain's KeysSmall Fish, Big Pond – https://smallfishbigpond.com/ Use the promo code ‘SaaSFuel'Champion Leadership Group –

In this episode of SLP Coffee Talk, Hallie chats with Sarah Bishop—14-year school-based SLP, California Speech-Hearing Association president, and union rep—about why being a generalist is actually your biggest flex. Sarah shares her winding path to the field (spoiler: it starts with an art history degree and museum tours), why school-based SLPs need to stop apologizing for knowing a little of everything, and how to keep growing without losing your mind. This one's for every SLP who's ever felt like everyone else has a specialty except them.Bullet Points to Discuss: Why the generalist label gets a bad rap—and why it shouldn'tHow to figure out what continuing education you actually needWhat a PLC is and how to start one even if your district doesn't have oneThe mindset shift that makes it easier to grow without burning outHow school-based SLPs define their expertise differently than private practiceHere's what we learned: Own the generalist title. Any kid walks through your door, you know where to start. That's not nothing—that's everything.You will get things wrong. So will every SLP who's been in the field for 14 years. Let it go and keep moving.Connection is the intervention. Showing up, caring, and actually paying attention to a kid? That's already therapeutic.Find your people. You don't need a huge community. Start with one SLP buddy or one district PLC meeting.Know your role. Private practice treats the disability. You remove barriers to education. That's a different—and equally valid—job.Learn more about Sarah Bishop: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sawahfwend Learn more about Hallie Sherman and SLP Elevate:  

What does it mean for a business to truly operate at the AI frontier? In a special crossover episode at Microsoft Build, Sarah Guo and Elad Gil team up with Latent Space host “swyx” to talk with Microsoft Chairman and CEO Satya Nadella about the future of AI platforms, software development, and the tech ecosystem. Satya reflects on the latest breakthroughs from Microsoft Build, the strategic shift toward multi-model harnesses, and why private evaluations (evals) are now a company's most important intellectual property. They also discuss how autonomous AI agents are reshaping the role of software engineers, the durability of SaaS business models, and why showing communities the ROI on data centers is so critical. Plus, Satya shares his thoughts on the economic and societal impacts of the token economy, as well as the future of AI-driven education startups. Sign up for new podcasts every week. Email feedback to show@no-priors.com Follow us on Twitter: @NoPriorsPod | @Saranormous | @EladGil | @satyanadella | @Microsoft | @latentspacepod | @swyx Chapters: 00:00 – Satya Nadella Introduction 01:48 – Reflections from Microsoft Build 03:12 – Microsoft's AI Training Strategy 05:48 – Complexity of Real-World Deployment of AI 07:33 – Augmenting Human Capital 09:37 – Harnesses for Enterprise 11:49 – Developer Value 15:09 – Can Everybody Operate at the Frontier with Their Frontier Intelligence? 15:51 – Modern Definition of IP 17:38 – Future of Vendor vs. Enterprise Agents 21:48 – Near-Term Predictions on Model Pricing 24:02 – Durability of SaaS 25:58 – What Satya's Building 28:18 – Future of Engineering Roles 30:54 – How Microsoft Can Be More Ambitious 34:36 – Data Centers and Community Impact 38:01 – AI's Impact on Society 39:52 - AI and Education 42:28 – Conclusion

Cassiano Surek, CTO at Beyond, joins host KJ to explore how artificial intelligence is fundamentally reshaping the workforce, enterprise structure, and even how we shop. Cassiano argues that the era of hyper-specialized talent is giving way to competent generalists who can orchestrate AI tools across the full stack, and that the companies embracing this shift are already pulling ahead. The conversation spans team architecture, the flattening of corporate hierarchies, the dawn of agentic commerce, and a surprising personal project built to lighten the mental load of moms everywhere. Four Key Takeaways: 3:39 — Curiosity is the core driver of innovation. It won't always pay off, but the compounding of near-wins over time is what ultimately leads to breakthroughs. 12:36 — Corporate hierarchies are contracting dramatically. AI enables fewer, more versatile people to do more, making deep layers of management increasingly obsolete. 17:26 — The workforce is shifting from deep specialists to competent generalists, people who can work across the full solution stack using AI tooling, unlocking a new era of entrepreneurial creativity. 17:26 — Agentic commerce is already here. AI agents will soon shop on your behalf, fundamentally disrupting how merchants, brands, and consumers interact, possibly by this Christmas. Quote of the Show (12:37):"A success is made of many almost quasi successes... It's an endless journey of exploration." — Cassiano Surek Join our Anti-PR newsletter where we’re keeping a watchful and clever eye on PR trends, PR fails, and interesting news in tech so you don't have to. You're welcome. Want PR that actually matters? Get 30 minutes of expert advice in a fast-paced, zero-nonsense session from Karla Jo Helms, a veteran Crisis PR and Anti-PR Strategist who knows how to tell your story in the best possible light and get the exposure you need to disrupt your industry. Click here to book your call: https://info.jotopr.com/free-anti-pr-eval Ways to connect with Cassiano Surek:LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cassianosurek Company Website: http://www.bynd.com/ How to get more Disruption/Interruption: Amazon Music - https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/eccda84d-4d5b-4c52-ba54-7fd8af3cbe87/disruption-interruption Apple Podcast - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/disruption-interruption/id1581985755 Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/6yGSwcSp8J354awJkCmJlD YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=disruption+%2F+interuuptionSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Claudius Unger ist definitiv kein Sommelier im klassischen Sinne. Im „Blauen Engel“ in Aue, den er gemeinsam mit seinem Bruder Benjamin führt, ist er ein hochverdichtetes Hybrid-Talent aus Serviceintelligenz, purem Weinerlebnis und situativer Präzision. Sommelier ist für ihn kein Berufsbild, sondern eine Funktionsverschiebung: weg von der Rolle, hin zu einem beweglichen System aus Wahrnehmung, Anpassung und radikaler Gegenwärtigkeit. Man könnte sagen: Er ist das Ergebnis einer Gastronomie, die sich nicht mehr über reine Dienstleistung definiert, sondern über Interpretation. Und genau dort bewegt sich Claudius Unger mit einer Selbstverständlichkeit, die nicht konstruiert wirkt, sondern gewachsen – destilliert über Jahre, über Flaschen hinweg, über Gespräche, die sich oft länger entfalten als die gesamte gastronomische Familiengeschichte selbst. Dabei arbeitet er nicht gegen die Tradition, sondern durch sie hindurch. In der nüchternen Betrachtung ist er ein hochfunktionaler Generalist innerhalb eines extrem spezialisierten Feldes. Er liest nicht nur Wein, er liest Situationen. Mikrospannungen am Tisch, verschobene Blickrichtungen, unausgesprochene Hierarchien zwischen Gästen – all das wird Teil seiner Sensorik. Und der Wein ist dabei nicht Kulisse, sondern präzises Werkzeug dieser Wahrnehmung. Doch jede reine Kompetenzbeschreibung greift zu kurz, weil sie ihn in ein statisches System zwingt. In Wahrheit ist er ein bewegliches Koordinatensystem aus Erfahrung, Intuition und kalkulierter Improvisation. Wo andere im Aromarad argumentieren, setzt er einen Satz, der Situationen entkrampft, bevor sie sich verfestigen. Keine Überhöhung, keine Mystifizierung – sondern eine Sprache, die Wein wieder zugänglich macht, noch bevor er beschrieben wird. Dieser Allrounder innerhalb der Sommelier-Welt bewegt sich permanent im Spannungsfeld zwischen Kontrolle und Kontrollverlust. Zwischen der exakten Temperatur eines Weins und der unexakten Temperatur eines Raums. Zwischen technischer Präzision und sozialer Unschärfe, die kein Lehrbuch vollständig abbilden kann. Ach, und habe ich eigentlich schon über seine Vorliebe für mit Weinhefen gebraute Biere gesprochen? Brauche ich nicht, das macht er selber am besten.

Proximity to Power is one of the most overlooked skills in business, leadership, and personal growth. In this coaching session, I break down why talent alone is not enough and how getting close to the right people can completely change your trajectory.Most highly talented people stay underpaid, overlooked, and undercapitalized because decision-makers never truly see their value. This video reveals how powerful people think, what they look for, and how to position yourself to gain influence, opportunity, and momentum.If you want to increase your influence, attract high-level opportunities, and become impossible to ignore, this lesson is for you.Whether you're an entrepreneur, executive, salesperson, coach, or ambitious professional, these principles can help you elevate your position and unlock new levels of success.Chapters:00:00 - Highly Talented Yet Under Capitalized 00:56 - Proximity to Power04:05 - The Power of One Person05:05 - Generalist vs. Specialist05:48 - Luck Is A Person07:45 - Seeing Prey Drive09:50 - Like and Subscribe!________________________________Get connected with Coach Burt:Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/michealburtTikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@therealcoachburtFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/CoachMichealBurtLinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/michealburtDive deeper with Coach and his concepts:Free PreyDrive Planner: https://planner.coachburt.com/plannerEvents: https://www.thegreatnessfactory.com/eventsJoin Our Group Coaching: https://www.thegreatnessfactory.com/membershipHire Me To Speak: https://www.coachburt.com/bookcoachCheck Out My Books: https://books.coachburt.com/books#ProximityToPower #CoachBurt #Leadership #SuccessMindset #BusinessGrowth

In this episode, Kaila and Kyle are joined by Milly Tamati, the founder of generalist.world, to talk about the benefits of being a career generalist (vs. a specialist), what people get wrong about generalists, and how to start building a portfolio career.  00:00 Intro  01:29 Defining what a “generalist” is 02:27 What does a long-term generalist career look like? 04:42 What people get wrong about specialists vs generalists 07:39 How do you figure out your strengths and fit as a generalist? 14:52 What is a “portfolio career”? 21:16 Are there certain personalities that are best suited for a portfolio career? 23:06 How Milly is thinking about AI 27:03 Is it more beneficial in the long run to be a generalist given the AI boom? 31:57 Per My Last Policy Want to get all of Kaila & Kyle's career resources? Subscribe to Per My Last Email: https://www.permylastemailshow.com/  Watch Per My Last Email on YouTube:   @PerMYLastEmailShow Follow Per My Last Email Instagram: @permylastemailshow TikTok: @permylastemailshow Twitter: @permylast_email Have a question for us? Send us an email or voice note to permylastemail@morningbrew.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Each week on Per My Last Email, Morning Brew's resident career experts Kaila and Kyle – whose careers have collectively spanned the corporate, government, nonprofit and startup sectors – debate the trickiest challenges in work life, and share tactics on how to overcome them. Share the show with a friend, and leave us a review on your favorite podcast app! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dyslexic Kids: Specialists, Not Generalists | Russell Van Brocklen Russell Van Brocklen speaking, the Dyslexia Professor, shifting daily reading frustrations into confident academic wins for students facing dyslexia.Dyslexia touches as many as 15–20 % of all learners  , yet most families still hear “wait and see.” I flip that script. As the Dyslexia Professor, I translate structured-literacy methods proven most effective for struggling readers   into bite-size actions parents can use tonight. Your audience leaves knowing exactly why multisensory routines beat generic worksheets and how to start seeing progress before the next report card.Links:https://mailchi.mp/dcacd9a6f9ae/3-reasons-ebookhttps://www.instagram.com/dyslexiaclassesus/Tagspodcast for creatives,creative podcast,podcast creator interviews,professional podcast,creative podcasts,podcast host interviews,creative podcast ideas,Dyslexia,Early Childhood Education,Education,Education Coach,Education for Kids,Kids & Family,Parenting,Raising Kids,Reading,TeachingSupport PEG by checking out our Sponsors:Download and use Newsly for free now from www.newsly.me or from the link in the description, and use promo code “GHOST” and receive a 1-month free premium subscription.The best tool for getting podcast guests:https://podmatch.com/signup/phantomelectricghostSubscribe to our Instagram for exclusive content:https://www.instagram.com/expansive_sound_experiments/Subscribe to our YouTube https://youtube.com/@phantomelectricghost?si=rEyT56WQvDsAoRprRSShttps://anchor.fm/s/3b31908/podcast/rssSubstackhttps://substack.com/@phantomelectricghost?utm_source=edit-profile-page

Josh built Green Construction & Roofing from $0 to $550K in his first year — and he's on track for $1.5M. So why can't anyone find him on Google?In this live business breakdown, we pull up his market in Biloxi, MS and discover the brutal truth: he's spending $10,000/week on ads and is NOWHERE to be found. The problem isn't his budget. It's his name, his niche, and who he hired to run it.We break down:0:00 The keyword mistake costing him customers1:19 Meet Josh — $550K year one, on track for $1.5M04:30 Why "Construction AND Roofing" is killing his Google ranking06:00 The rebrand + mascot strategy the big players use08:15 Live Google audit — he's invisible (watch it happen)12:30 Generalist vs. specialist: who you should ACTUALLY hire15:55 The Facebook video strategy 99% of contractors get wrong17:40 Automating the customer journey (booking, color selection, follow-up)24:40 The 3 moves to make THIS weekIf you're a roofer or contractor trying to scale past the chaos, this one's for you.Coaching Session Signup: https://calendly.com/dripjobs/breakthroughPurchase the 31 Days of Value and build an EMPIRE: https://www.amazon.com/31-Days-Value-home-service-businesses/dp/B0FQSH32X7Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2v0D0SNSBofqJJE6zApEE1DripJobs Demo: https://calendly.com/dripjobsteam/dripjobsdemoGusto: https://gusto.com/i/tanner269OpenPhone: https://openph.one/referral/8Kc17aqFacebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/173750747824373/?ref=shareFollow me on Instagram: http://Instagram.com/officialtannermullen#roofing #roofingbusiness #contractormarketing #localseo #roofingcontractor #homeservices #businessgrowth

Show Highlights: Overreliance on federated patronage to subsidize local co-ops. [03:55] Preserving disciplined strategic focus in favorable cycles. [10:17] How generalist experience supports an enterprise perspective. [17:29] Generalist vs. specialist paths in ag for future talent. [23:36] The importance of matching skills to evolving roles. [29:01] Garden City Co-op's prolific development of CEO talent. [31:57] What's GCC's succession and talent planning strategy? [34:04] Early AI adoption strategy and guardrails for co-ops. [39:40] The need for new talent and agility with AI experimentation. [43:51] Imagining asset-free co-ops and redefining value creation. [49:44]  Connect with Jeff on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-boyd-81220441/. To explore Garden City Co-op, visit https://www.gccoop.com/.  If you are interested in connecting with Joe, go to LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joemosher/, or schedule a call at www.moshercg.com.

"80% of the decks landing on her desk had AI on slide one."This week on Bricks & Bytes we sat down with Jennifer Davis, who recently joined Suffolk Technologies after five years as Managing Director of Techstars Boston, where she reviewed thousands of applications and ran 65+ companies through the program.She brought the kind of pattern recognition you only get from saying no a few thousand times.Tune in to find out about:✅ Why the bar has risen across pre-seed, seed, and Series A — and what VCs now want to see before they write a check✅ The co-founder mistake that kills more startups than bad ideas (and why 50/50 equity splits are a red flag)✅ Why "not all money is created equally" — and how founder-unfriendly terms signed early can derail an exit years later✅ What Jennifer is looking for as she takes the reins on Suffolk's Boost accelerator, and the founder profile she'd most want to back in 2027Listen on Spotify, Apple, or YouTube

Marketing positioning is the topic we want to talk about today. Picture the scene; A client calls. The brief is good, right in your market, and you know you can fill it well. Then they say it. “We have had a cheaper quote.” So you do the maths. You come down on the fee. You win the business. And you tell yourself it was the right call. But here is the question nobody asks in that moment: why was price the thing being compared in the first place? Fee pressure is one of the most common frustrations we hear from recruitment business owners. And almost every conversation about it focuses on the wrong thing. Better negotiation tactics. More confidence in the room. How to justify your rate. Those things matter. But they are downstream of the real issue. The real issue is positioning. And if you do not fix that, the fee conversations will keep coming. What You Will Learn in This Post: Why fee pressure is rarely about the fee What positioning actually means for a small recruitment business Why generalist agencies are most at risk and what to do about it How to build authority that changes the fee conversation before it starts When Price Becomes the Only Variable Think about how a hiring manager chooses a recruiter. They have a brief. They reach out to two or three agencies. They have a conversation, maybe receive a proposal, and then they make a decision. If everything in that process looks broadly similar, if the conversations feel the same, the proposals look the same, and everyone uses more or less the same language. The only meaningful variable left is price. And of course, they are going to push on it. You cannot blame the client for that. They are making a rational decision with the information they have been given. The problem is the information they have been given. When a recruitment business has not established a clear position in the market and has not communicated what genuinely sets it apart from the next recruiter on the list, it is asking clients to take a leap of faith. Most clients will not make that leap. They will default to the number. This is not a negotiation problem. It is a positioning problem. And the fix has to happen long before that phone call. What Positioning Actually Means for a Small Recruitment Business Positioning is the answer to one question: why you, specifically, over everyone else, a client could call? Not “we have a great network.” Not “we really care about our clients.” Every recruiter says those things. They are expected, not differentiating. A strong position is specific. It names a market, a type of client, a type of problem, or a type of outcome that you are uniquely placed to deliver. And it is communicated consistently, before, during, and after every client interaction. When someone has been seeing your content for weeks, and it speaks directly to the challenges in their sector, when they visit your website. It feels like it was built for their industry, when they get on a call with you, and you already understand their world without them having to explain it, the fee conversation changes character entirely. One of our members described it perfectly. He said that by the time he got on a call with a new client, the fee was almost secondary. They had already decided they wanted to work with him based on what they had seen of him over time. They knew his value before the conversation even started. That is what a clear position, consistently communicated, actually delivers. The client has already done their own convincing. Why Generalist Positioning Is the Highest-Risk Place to Be The evidence is clear on this, and our experience with clients backs it up: generalist micro agencies face the most fee pressure. The reason is straightforward. When you are available for everything, you are the obvious choice for nothing. Generalist positioning tells a client you can help with whatever they need. The client hears: one of many options. Which means price becomes the tiebreaker. Specialist positioning says something different. It says: we work specifically in your world. We know your market, your hiring challenges, your candidate pool, and what goes wrong when you get this hire wrong. The client hears: this person understands us in a way the others do not. We see this consistently with the businesses we work with. Those who have committed to a clear niche, whether that is a sector, a geography, a type of role, or a type of client, have the fewest conversations about fees. Not because they never face pushback. But by the time they get to that conversation, the client already sees the difference. Karen, who runs a specialist medical sales recruitment business, had a company call her out of the blue to say they had been using another recruiter for the past 2 years. Still, her content had been so consistently useful that they wanted to switch to it. That client never asked about her fees. They had already decided. What to Do Instead of Dropping the Fee When the “we have had a cheaper quote” conversation happens, and it will, what is the alternative to discounting? First, understand what the client is actually telling you. When they say you are more expensive, they are usually saying they cannot yet see why you are worth the difference. That is not a price objection. It is a value gap. And value gaps are closed with information, not discounts. Second, have something to point to. If you have been producing content that demonstrates your sector knowledge, if you have case studies showing the outcomes you have delivered for similar businesses, if your personal brand on LinkedIn reflects genuine expertise rather than generic recruitment messaging, you have evidence. Evidence closes value gaps. Third, hold the position. Dropping the fee feels like the path of least resistance. But every time you drop it, you signal that your original number was not justified. And you train that client, and others like them, to push on price every time. The businesses that command the best fees are not the ones with the sharpest negotiators. They are the ones who have built enough authority in their market that clients do not feel the need to test the price. Thanks, Denise and Sharon How We Can Help If fee pressure is something you deal with regularly, it is worth taking a closer look at how your business is positioned and whether your marketing communicates that position effectively. That is the work we do inside Superfast Circle, and we have just completely rebuilt the programme. If you have looked at joining us before and it was not quite the right fit, it is worth another look. Dop us an email on Support@superfastrecruitment.co.uk and we will send over the details. The post You Are Not Losing on Price. You Are Losing on Positioning appeared first on Superfast Recruitment.

Von Märchenplatten und Kassettenrekordern bis zum modernen Audio-Storytelling: Wir sprechen mit Günter Merlau über den Aufbruch der deutschen Hörspielszene ab den 2000ern, darüber, was es bedeutet, als Produzent, Autor, Regisseur und Sprecher ein echter Generalist zu sein, über wegweisende und preisgekrönte Serien wie Caine, Die Schwarze Sonne und Drizzt – und darüber, warum LAUSCH Medien heute dennoch vor allem Hörbücher produziert.Eine Folge für alte und neue Kassettenkinder.

Mehr Rechtsgebiete, mehr Mandate – klingt logisch. Ist es nicht. Hinter dieser Aussage steckt ein Denkfehler, der Kanzleien monatlich Umsatz kostet, ohne dass sie es merken. In dieser Folge zeigen Alessandro und Michael, warum das Gießkannenprinzip im Kanzleimarketing scheitert, was Suchmaschinen wirklich belohnen und wie du mit Fokus auf ein Rechtsgebiet schneller auf 20.000, 30.000 oder mehr Euro Monatsumsatz kommst – bevor du überhaupt ans Wachstum in die Breite denkst. Das lernst du in dieser Folge: - Warum Generalisten online gegen Spezialisten verlieren – selbst wenn sie juristisch breiter aufgestellt sind - Was Google als „thematische Autorität" wertet und wie du sie aufbaust - Wie du herausfindest, auf welches Rechtsgebiet du dein Marketing-Budget zuerst setzen solltest - Das Domino-Prinzip: Wie aus einem fokussierten Rechtsgebiet eine skalierbare Kanzlei wird - Warum 9 von 10 Kanzleien, die mit Fokus starten, nie wieder zurückgehen wollen Wenn du Klarheit willst, wo dein Wachstum wirklich steckt: Buch dir ein unverbindliches Erstgespräch auf www.corominas-consulting.de Abonniere den Kanzleikompass und hinterlasse uns eine Bewertung – das hilft uns, noch mehr Kanzleien zu erreichen.

The secret to better communication isn't adding more—it's knowing what to leave out.Communication isn't clearer when you say more — it's clearer when you say less. As David Epstein puts it, we're wired to keep adding, even when “the better solution is often what you take away.” The challenge isn't having ideas; it's choosing which one actually matters.Epstein is an author and investigative journalist known for his New York Times bestseller Range. In his latest book, Inside the Box, he explores how constraints can sharpen creativity and elevate thinking, a theme that reflects his broader work at the intersection of psychology, performance, and innovation. “If you assume someone will only remember one thing,” he explains, “decide what that is before you start talking.” That simple constraint forces clarity — and changes how we communicate entirely.In this episode of Think Fast Talk Smart, Epstein and host Matt Abrahams unpack why limits make us better communicators and thinkers. From the dangers of “featuritis” to the creative breakthroughs sparked by restriction, they explore how blocking familiar paths leads to more original ideas and communication. To listen to the extended Deep Thinks version of this episode, please visit FasterSmarter.io/premium.Episode Reference Links:David EpsteinDavid's Book: Inside the BoxEp.108 All In: How Improv Helps You Show Up and Communicate Well Connect:Premium Signup >>>> Think Fast Talk Smart PremiumEmail Questions & Feedback >>> hello@fastersmarter.ioEpisode Transcripts >>> Think Fast Talk Smart WebsiteNewsletter Signup + English Language Learning >>> FasterSmarter.ioThink Fast Talk Smart >>> LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTubeMatt Abrahams >>> LinkedInChapters:(00:00) - Introduction (02:18) - Featuritis & Overload (03:57) - Constraints & Creativity (08:07) - Chunking Information (09:28) - Familiarity & Innovation (10:30) - Clarifying Through Feedback (13:01) - Defining the Problem (14:23) - Precluding Default Approaches (16:03) - The Final Three Questions (23:12) - Conclusion ********Thank you to our sponsors.  These partnerships support the ongoing production of the podcast, allowing us to bring it to you at no cost.Unleash your Superhuman potential with AI that meets you where you work. Learn more at superhuman.comJoin our Think Fast Talk Smart Learning Community and become the communicator you want to be. 

Your revenue is inconsistent and you already know why you haven't made the decision yet. In this episode, I break down the WHO problem most SaaS partners mistake for a skills problem, why serving more industries makes you the best option for no one, and the audit I run on every client's last twelve months of revenue to find their real signal. I share what Jay McBain's data shows about the fastest-growing tech partners right now, and the three steps to rebuild your business around one industry and one problem type. If you keep getting random referrals and repricing every engagement from scratch, this one's for you.Resources and LinksJay McBain on The Paul Higgins Podcast: Episode 435Need help with your WHO and WHAT decisions? Apply for a FREE Multiplier CallBook a Decision Session herePrevious episode: 680 - The 28 Moments Your Clients Use to Choose Without YouCheck out more episodes of the Paul Higgins PodcastSubscribe to our YouTube channel: @PaulHigginsMentoringJoin our newsletterSuggested resources

Chris Temple, Editor and Publisher of the National Investor, joins us to review the macroeconomic trends moving the markets, and his outlook on US general equities, precious metals, and various segments of the critical minerals space. Chris also recaps some of the companies he just saw in person at a number of site visit tours throughout Nevada, California, and Arizona.   We start off discussing the Fed meeting earlier this week, and a brief summary of Jerome Powell's 8-year tenure as the head of the US central bank.  Next, we pivot over to the macro backdrop for incoming Fed head, Kevin Warsh; and the results that have accrued as the result of prior monetary and fiscal policy in the US and abroad.  Chris note the persistent issues of record sovereign debt loads, higher-for-longer inflation levels, greatly spurred along by excessive money printing over Jerome Powell's term, pressures from the war in the Middle East, and the potential for slowing economic growth and more meaningful pullback in the broad US equities in the medium-term.   Switching over to gold, silver, and the precious metals equities, Chris had warned subscribers earlier in the year that things had become overbought and gotten ahead of themselves and to fade that rally, anticipating a medium-term sector pullback. He pointed to the coming corrective move in the PM sector, that was then exasperated by the war in Iran, when many felt that would be a bullish driver for gold and silver. Central banks and generalist momentum investors had come into the precious metals over the last couple years, but then some of these same groups had shifted over to selling PMs over the last couple months, putting further pressure on the sector. Generalist investors are still very much fully deployed into US equity markets and in particular the tech stocks and AI trade, and have pushed those valuations to record levels. As a result they are less inclined to be following the future potential of the commodities stocks. Chris is prepared for a future corrective move in US stock markets, that would initially drag everything else down with it, including most commodity and resource stocks. However, he pointed to the 2009 period coming out of the Great Financial Crisis, where gold and silver rebounded quicker and went up more on a performance basis than the broad markets. He expects to see a similar trend after a market liquidity event, where the PMs rebound first and to a greater degree, and the rest of the metals complex will follow.   Next we shifted over to trends within the broad basket of Critical Minerals, where Chris makes the point that one can't paint them all with a broad brush, as some have unique fundamental or macro drivers and have popped up periodically like a game of “whack-a-mole.”   He pointed out that critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel had popped and then dropped over the last few years, but that he was more animated by uranium, fertilizers, magnesium, tungsten, titanium, copper, and zinc at present.   Wrapping up, Chris highlighted the companies he just met with on his multi-state site visit tour through Nevada, California, and Arizona including:   Gunnison Copper Corp. (TSX: GCU) (OTCQB: GCUMF), Nevada Organic Phosphate Inc. (CSE: NOP) (OTCQB: NOPFF), Integra Resources Corp. (TSXV: ITR) (NYSE American: ITRG), North Peak Resources Ltd. (TSXV: NPR) (OTCQB: NPRLF), Borealis Mining Company Limited (TSXV: BOGO) (OTCQB: BORMF), Apollo Silver Corp. (TSX.V: APGO) (OTCQB: APGOF), and Arizona Gold & Silver Inc.  (TSXV: AZS) (OTCQB: AZASF).    Click here to follow along with Chris at the National Investor website.   For more market commentary & interview summaries, subscribe to our Substacks:   The KE Report: https://kereport.substack.com/ Shad's resource market commentary: https://excelsiorprosperity.substack.com/     Investment disclaimer: This content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, an offer, or a solicitation to buy or sell any security. Investing in equities and commodities involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions. Guests and hosts may own shares in companies mentioned, and companies profiled may be sponsors of the KE Report.    

In this episode, Trey sits down with Andrew Wagley. Andrew shares his journey from insurance rookie to niche domination, building a successful agency with innovative SEO strategies and programmatic insurance solutions. Discover how he leverages relationships, technology, and niche focus to scale rapidly and efficiently as a one-man agency. Keywords:Insurance, Niche Markets, SEO, Agency Growth, Program Insurance, Home Care, Business Development, Industry RelationshipsKey TopicsBuilding niche insurance verticalsLeveraging relationships with underwritersImplementing SEO strategies for lead generationFocus on niche markets to accelerate growthBuild strong relationships with underwriters for program accessUse SEO to generate inbound leads at scaleFrom Rookie to Niche Leader: Andrew Wagley's Insurance Success StoryHow Andrew Wagley Built a 350-Client Home Care Insurance Empire"Nationwide SEO strategy for home care leads""The sky's the limit for agency growth""Retention rates are very high"Chapters00:00 Introduction to Andrew Wagley01:50 Andrew's Journey into Insurance04:19 Building a Successful Agency06:15 The Importance of Relationships in Insurance07:39 Expanding into New Verticals09:41 Leveraging SEO for Lead Generation12:37 Creating Exclusive Programs14:32Scaling the Business18:41 Retention and Client Relationships21:28 Exclusive Products and Partnerships25:12 Generalist vs. Niche Focus28:38 The Power of Consistency31:59 Challenges of Starting an Agency33:52 Advice for Aspiring Entrepreneurs39:13 Key Takeaways for Success

Tune in to hear Head of School, Dr. Mark Carleton, chat with Cindy Hilton, Lower School 5th grade Language Arts teacher about her professional background including five years in finance and 17 years in education. This episode is now live and available for download on our People of PS Podcast. Cindy Hilton holds an Associate of Science in Biology from San Jacinto College and a Bachelor of Science in Interdisciplinary Studies from the University of Houston–Clear Lake. She is certified in EC–6 Generalist, EC–12 Special Education, English as a Second Language (ELL), and Gifted and Talented (GT).  Throughout her teaching career, Cindy has worked with 2nd grade, 4th grade, 5th grade, Special Education, and GT students, building a strong foundation in supporting a wide range of learners.  Cindy and her husband Jay, the School's Director of Facility Operations, not only work together at PS, but they also work together in their community. She and her husband pastor a small church in the Clear Lake area where she teaches Sunday School, and is part of the praise team. In their free time, the Hiltons enjoy fishing in Galveston Bay, Port Aransas, and Rockport. Cindy also enjoys bible journaling, reading, sewing, and embroidering.  Jay and Cindy have been enjoying life together for 30 years, and they are proud parents to sons Blaze (24), Bishop (22), and Brooks (13), and bonus son Charles (20). At home, her family also cares for chickens, ducks, and two quirky German Shepherds.

The Great private Capital Reset is upon us. Markets are volatile and driving new economic imperatives. Are VC funds still VC funds, even if they raise billions per fund? What happened to the rest of the market? What is driving VC investments? What do Limited Partners think? What is on their minds? This and more, in episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. Navigation: Intro The State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation What Really Matters: Performance.. Returns The Mega Fund Question The Case for Smaller… Rightsized Funds What Comes Next? Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Introduction Welcome to episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. This episode will be about the great private capital reset. As you know, or you have probably heard, there is significant structural transformation in the world of venture capital, and we are probably witnessing a fundamental reset of the private capital stack. We got a huge bubble in 2020, 2021. Fueled by near-zero interest rates. We got inflated fund size, compressed due diligence, and now a generation of zombie funds and zombie startups. Now that rates have normalized, exits have not been as much as expected. LP patience is a warning sign, and I guess the industry is being forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: most VC funds raised since 2017 might not return what their LPs expected. You know, how do we start?   Nuno This is going to be a relatively nuanced episode. Obviously, there is going to be a lot of haves and have-nots, both in terms of VC funds, also in terms of startups. And so I want to start with that. This is going to be more nuanced than all transformational and disruptive.   Bertrand It’s not the end. It’s not the end.   Nuno State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? It’s not the end. There’s still huge mega funds that are raising more and more. It’s clear that the music has stopped, right? So if we’re playing the game of chairs, the music has stopped. Around ’22, ’23, we started seeing the first signals that funds had raised way too much money. Firms collectively raised around $669 billion globally in 2021 alone. If we fast forward now to last year, 2025, depending on the sources, we did some internal analysis at Chameleon. We came up with $75.6 billion was raised last year by 493 funds, right? So That’s a significant drop, right, in terms of fundraising. Other sources would say a little bit more. There’s a little bit of a discussion around how much did the top 30 funds capture. If you believe some of the stats out there, they would say that actually top 30 funds captured 75% of all capital raised last year. We did again some internal analysis at Chameleon, and the conclusion we came to, it was closer to 50 to 55%. So not as dramatic as some of the sources out there, but still pretty dramatic. There’s a lot of capital concentration on the top funds. Again, the top 30 funds would’ve raised 50 to 55% of capital or up to 75% according to other sources. So definitely a tremendous amount of concentration. There was a lot more fragmentation in terms of capital raised if we’re looking at the years from 2010, 2011, all the way through 2021. So 2021 would’ve been sort of the peak of non-concentration if you look at that. And that again, now we are getting more and more concentration. There’s more and more of this arbitrage around, I’ll give money to the top funds, I will not give money to the smaller funds, or I’ll give less money to the smaller funds. There’s a little bit of a movement around concentration. We’ll talk about it later and what that means. Are mega funds really better? Are the small funds still the way to go? We’ll talk a lot about that later in today’s episode. There seems to be a little bit of a bifurcation. We could say it’s either bifurcation around top-tier VCs or larger VC funds versus smaller VC funds. My perspective is the bifurcation that we’re seeing right now is more of a bifurcation between funds that are no longer just stepped into the VC space, but they’re actually becoming more and more private equity firms with full asset management range from early stage all the way to late stage. Think of it almost like a private equity hedge fund, quasi, versus classic VC funds. And I think what we’re seeing is the Andreessen Horowitzes, the a16zs of the world, the NEAs, the Sequoia Capitals, just to name a few, becoming more and more broad asset class managers across private equity, whereas you have more classic VC happening in earlier stages. And so that’s the real bifurcation that I think is actually happening.   Bertrand And maybe not really hedge fund, because they are always still long-only funds. So there is no hedging happening, at least as far as I know.   Nuno Well, some of these guys have become RIAs, like A16z has become an RIA, so they can do secondaries.   Bertrand That’s true. Yeah.   Nuno And they can also sell stuff, etc. So I don’t know how aggressive they’re going to be in terms of secondaries and selling and actually doing other kinds of services you can do if you’re an RIA. But it’s not, I think, out of the realm of possibility that they would sort of acquire and sell stock more rapidly. In that way, to your point, Bertrand, maybe they actually become beyond just long guys, right?   Bertrand Yes. Another trend I have seen is some of the larger VC funds seems to have no problem investing in multiple competitors. This was not possible before. I mean, if you’re a VC fund, you had some sort of duty not to invest in the competitors, but now some invest OpenAI, Anthropic at the same time. Do you see that as part of this evolution?   Nuno For sure. And I think there’s a lot of people like the ostrich putting their heads below the ground and it’s like, “Eh, no, no, nothing to see here.” But that does constitute a conflict of interest. And if I’m a startup raising, this assumption that you will not invest in one of my competitors is no longer there, certainly for the mega funds, because of that notion of deployment of capital. Now, some funds will still hide under the notion, actually formally from a fund perspective, we’re not investing in competitors. It just happens that different types of our funds are investing in competitors. Like maybe my growth fund is investing in a competitor to my early stage fund, right? But our funds are relatively independent. So I think there’s a little bit of hide and seek that will go on if you talk to some of the fund managers. Well, they say, well, we’re not investing out of the same fund into these competitors. But between you and I, as we know, a lot of these partnerships actually do a lot of stuff together at the general partnership level. So are there really actual Chinese walls between the funds? Well, it really depends on the partnership. And to be honest, most of the partnerships don’t have very significant Chinese walls between the funds, right? The managing general partners sometimes actually occupy investment committee roles across different funds. So I think the conflict of interest is there. So that’s why I say there’s a little bit of ostrich behavior. Put your head behind the ground or below the ground and just pretend nothing is happening. Just sharing maybe a couple of interesting stats. Global fund closings for 2025, according to our numbers at Chameleon, 1,098 closed. In 2025. Closed is when you start deploying capital, right? Whereas— so it’s not closed down, it’s closed like we start deploying capital. And that number, 1,098, is dramatically down from 1,600 in 2024. And it’s actually the lowest number of closings that we saw since 2014. So again, this is bad, right? It means there’s less funds doing fund closings and deploying capital in the market than since 2014 and dramatically below the 2024 numbers, right? Where we already saw some market readjustments. The number of active VC firms in the US that did 2+ deals, which is not a huge bar, has dropped 38% back to numbers in 2023. So we don’t have numbers that are a little bit more up to date, but basically in 2023, those numbers are already dramatically dropped. So there’s less and less active funds. So there’s funds that might be in the market, but they’re not actually deploying that much capital, not doing that many investment. They’re sort of either zombie funds or relatively passive funds that have passed their investment period. For those listening to us, the investment period for a VC fund is normally between the first 3 to 5 years of the fund, which is when you build your portfolio, when you can invest in new companies. After that time period, everything that you do up to normally what would be year 10 is follow-ons. You put more money into the companies that you’re already invested in, that you already constructed portfolio with during those 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand Yeah, that’s a pretty scary change. And obviously, I guess we’ll come to it, but the time it takes to fully liquidate investments is getting longer and longer. In the old days, we used to talk about VC funds having a 10-year life, maybe a +1/+1 in terms of extension of the fund life. But it looks like it’s taking 16 to 18 years actually to get full liquidity from a fund investment.   Nuno LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation And I think that’s the scariest piece. I mean, just to share some numbers, we in venture capital talk about vintages, right? Which year did your fund start in? Normally when you did your first close onto the fund, as we were saying before, close is when you get all your investors at that moment in time to come in and you do your first close so the next fund starts running. 2018 vintage funds, right? This is now almost 7 years ago. So you should start having— actually 8 years ago almost at this point in time. You should start already getting distributions or you start getting cash back if you’re a limited partner and investor in those funds, you should start getting cash back. Half of all 2018 vintage funds have returned $0 to their LPs. So they’ve had no distributions to their LPs. 2020 vintage, which was a very hot vintage, only 42% have begun any distribution. So 58% have distributed $0, right? 2021, only 25% have done any distributions. Now, I happen to have a 2018 vintage fund and a 2021 fund. My 2018 fund has already distributed over 3x net of fees in distributions, and my 2021 fund’s already over 10% distributed back in distribution. So we’re very proud of that. But in general, the numbers are awful. There’s no liquidity back to LPs. And to your point, that’s kind of a big deal because some of these funds have been going on for 7, 8 years, and where’s the liquidity going to come from? On the other hand, if you look at TVPI, so DPI is distributions to paid-ins cash on cash. But if you look at TVPI, which is total value to paid-in, which also includes the book value or the value that you’re marking it on your books, basically the paper value as we call it for the company, even on that, the median 2017 fund, so 2017 vintage fund has a TVPI, total value to paid-in, of only around 1.76x, which is well below what should be, which is sort of the 2 to 3x benchmark of a really good performing fund. So the median funds are doing very, very poorly overall. So if you add that to the fact of what’s happening and distributions are taking a long time, back to your point, Bertrand, it’s taking like— this should be a 10-year asset class, maybe 11, 12 years, and now it’s looking a little bit like a 15, to 18-year asset class, which is not what most limited partners sign up for. Part of this dynamic, I think, is that we’ve had tremendously overvalued private companies over the last few years, right? Secondly, these companies have just stayed private longer. And I was having a discussion recently with a friend of mine, it’s like, hey, what’s this thing about companies are staying private much longer? Is there some dynamic around secondaries? And the reality is there is a dynamic around secondaries, right? Because if I’m a very large fund and I can get away with doing secondaries on my portfolio, I will get liquidity at some point, right? But someone else is stuck with private stock, which hopefully will IPO, but who knows, right? And so there’s this funny dynamic right now of because of secondaries, because of a couple of other things that are happening in the market, actually a lot of these startups are staying private for tremendous amounts of times, and some of them will IPO and they’ll be huge deals. Some of them might not and might not warrant the latest private valuations that they’ve exercised. And so there’s this tremendous noise that we’re seeing in the mid to late funnel of privately held companies where some are just waiting to be public. Some of them might not be able to go public at anything that is an up round versus private valuations that they’ve had in previous moments and in previous rounds.   Bertrand And obviously the 2 to 3x returns that funds are targeting, and obviously more 3x than 2x, I mean, that was good and nice if it’s a 10-year fund, but if it’s the same 3x for 15 to 18 years, it’s not at all the same rate of return annualized. So it’s a really, really, really big issue if you keep the return the same, but you extend the duration of the fund. Concerning going IPO, there is a lot of complexity going public, the IPO process itself, but also after that when you’re a public company. It changed how you can run the business. Some would argue that we have had an issue with more companies delisting than companies listing on the public market. So I think there might be also separate issues about the efficiency of the public market and maybe a need for change. We went very strongly in one direction for the public market, have post and run, but was it really ultimately the right thing to do? I’m actually not so sure.   Nuno Yeah, I mean, just to be clear, this is anecdotal, but when we tell prospective LPs at Chameleon about our returns, the last few funds, 2018, 2021, the first reaction is, “You must be lying, right? Surely you can’t have distributions already for 2021,” et cetera, et cetera. So clearly there’s almost a state of disbelief right now from limited partners. And liquidity does matter. So clearly you have to move forward. So how did we get to this point where we had this bubble 2021 all around that time space and now things don’t look so good. Well, the macro conditions have changed dramatically. I mean, rates when they were near zero, safer assets yield nothing or yield nothing. So basically you had to push capital into longer duration risk assets like venture capital. And so you had to push it. So the opportunity cost of capital also has fundamentally shifted. Obviously a 3x VC return in 15 years over 10 actually competes very poorly against 5% annual credit returns over several years. So there’s been a readjustment of stuff. And then the public equities in particular, the tech public equities have had a lot of volatility, but some of them have done extremely well, right? Chipsets, things like NVIDIA, the Amazons of the world, Alphabets, et cetera, et cetera. They’ve done very, very well. So why would I invest in a long-term illiquid asset that takes now longer to give me money back, and in some case doesn’t give me back, if I can invest just in public equities, and a variety of other things. The venture debt costs have increased dramatically. The burn rates that were sustainable back in the day with sort of the addition of venture debt, private credit, et cetera, now are overblown at this moment in time. At the end of the day, there’s been a lot of movements also overall in the pipeline in terms of valuations, et cetera, et cetera. Now, I would put a grain of salt into all the numbers I just told you. There still is a little bit of the haves and have-nots in startup land. Certainly in early stage where if you’re a hot AI company, you can get away with raising a Series C or $480 million. This is actually a true story. Series C, right? Not Series C, a $480 million at $4 billion pre-money valuation. Whereas if you are maybe in a space that’s less hot, you’ll have more difficulty in raising money at this point in time, might not be able to even raise a Series C, right? So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots happening on the VC side in early stage that has been really amplified by the macro regime and where we’re at, which is actively zero-rate era is done and now the new regime is quite different. And so I can get better returns by doing something else.   Bertrand Kind of makes sense. I mean, if you have some ways the SaaSpocalypse in the public market because there is that fear that AI is going to completely change the game for especially for the more typical software companies. Good luck raising private money to quote unquote just build traditional software companies. You cannot expect a warm embrace from the private market if the public markets are completely destroying that category. I’m not saying that this is there forever, uh, things might change over time, but for sure what’s happening on the public markets always have a very strong impact on the private market.   Nuno Indeed. So what’s happening in this relationship between limited partners and VCs, the general partners? Again, limited partners are the people that give venture capital firms and venture capital funds their capital to actually deploy. And they are a variety of different players, right? Could be endowments, like university endowments, pension funds, family offices, very high net worth individuals, fund of funds, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, in particular, if you look at the institutional investors, the endowments, the pension funds, the fund of funds, they have allocations that they do to different asset classes typically. And the feedback that we’ve received from the market is they are increasingly frustrated with what’s happening in terms of distributions. They’re not getting capital back. It’s like, I gave you capital 8 years ago, 9 years ago, 2017, 2018 vintages, and I’m not getting any capital back. So what the hell’s happening? On paper, it looks maybe the fund’s doing okay or it’s doing great in some cases, but where’s my money? And so that creates a little bit of wait-and-see kind of game on portfolio allocation. As we’re thinking through their re-ups, putting more capital into funds that they’re already actually put capital or putting in capital into new slots, into new fund managers that they want to put money into. They’re like, well, let’s wait and see. I want to get my money back or get some money back first before I redeploy it. Again, this is a little bit the haves and have-nots because we’ve seen, for example, a couple of top-end LPs in terms of returns that have a little bit the opposite problem, right? Because they are into funds that are performing extremely well. They actually are over that period and they want to actually redeploy. But to be honest, the average in the industry right now is a wait-and-see game. It’s like, I want to wait and see, which leads to what can only be characterized— I was hearing someone the other day, one of the top advisors in the LP community, saying this is the worst fundraising environment ever for venture capital. Not the last 20 years, 30 years, like ever, right? Since this became an asset class more institutionally in the late ’60s, early ’70s, Pulse Robo 2 as it was created, this is the worst fundraising environment ever. Oh, wow.   Bertrand And concerning TVPI, let’s not forget that typically it’s not mark-to-market. So the metrics in terms of TVPI, correct me if I’m wrong, you know, but the metrics in TVPI are based on typically the last fundraise. So if the valuation went down but there was no additional fundraise, we wouldn’t know by looking at the TVPI metrics. It will only be updated if there is a new Financing, equity financing, or an exit.   Nuno Yeah, normally most funds act like that. Some funds are a little bit more aggressive and do do mark-to-market, but normally funds would be conservative and say, hey, I’m being conservative, it’s whatever is the last known valuation of the company. And if there wasn’t a priced round, it’s a little bit more obscure than that, right, Bertrand? Because it might actually be the company has raised money on a note, or either convertible note or a SAFE note, and that wouldn’t count as a priced round. So I would say actually, even if it was a cap that’s below with a significant discount, I won’t recognize the assets as a down round. I won’t recognize the asset with a lower valuation because formally it wasn’t a price round. So it’s on the one hand conservative, on the other hand, it’s only relating to price rounds or exits to your point. So it’s sort of, you can be like, hmm, well, we opt to do that because we think it’s actually the most conservative route. Mark-to-market is extremely difficult to do. And who would do the mark-to-market for you, right? It’s like it’s some valuation firm, et cetera.   Bertrand I’m not saying a mark-to-market is easy, but I’m not sure I would call using the last valuation something conservative in the context that most startups will fail. So it’s not clear.   Nuno Well, in some cases it is, some cases it’s not, right? Depends on the startup situation, to be honest. Yeah, yeah.   Bertrand But yeah, at least that’s how it’s done. So for instance, to evaluate the impact of the SaaS apocalypse, it’s tough to know. We will have on the private market. I mean, we will see that in a few quarters. Because if companies still exist in that environment, if they still do additional truly price rounds after that, that’s when I will start to know.   Nuno I mean, just to share a little bit more data, like VC fund close time stretched to 15 months. Basically, it’s just taking a long time to raise money. It’s taking a long time to do your first close, get your fund running. When entrepreneurs complain to me that their fundraising is difficult, I always say, you have no clue how difficult it is compared to ours. First-time funds have collapsed. We had some numbers that only 77 first-time funds actually closed. I assume this is in 2025 versus 215 in 2023. So that’s a huge number. We did some internal analysis on our side and we did some analysis that emerging fund managers, emerging fund managers are normally people that are in their first one or two funds. Basically emerging fund managers gained some ground until 2017. Reaching by then a slice that was 63.7% of all capital raised in 2017. But since then, the capital deployed to emerging managers has been largely reduced to actually 24.2%, right? So it’s gone from 63.7% in 2017 to 24.2%. So this has been a culling of sorts on emerging managers and almost like a slaughterhouse of emerging managers. Compared to previous situations, which is obviously incredibly concerning if you’re an emerging manager starting your VC firm, et cetera, et cetera. So really tremendously problematic for those. We think capital’s not leaving VC. I think we see a lot of the institutionals saying— there’s some numbers as high as 33% of institutional investors plan to invest more in venture in the next 12 months. So I don’t think capital’s leaving VC. I think it’s really concentrating. We’ll come back to the concentration issue later in the episode. And part of that concentration comes from a topic that has been widely spoken in venture capital recently, which is differentiation. How do you differentiate in venture capital if you’re talking to a limited partner, right? How does my firm differentiate versus the firm next to mine? And that’s incredibly, incredibly challenging. Bertrand, what are your thoughts on that?   Bertrand Differentiation is always a question. I mean, if you’re an entrepreneur, Typically, you think fully about the best possible partner for your stage and for your type of business model. You want a VC who understands fully your business model, because if they don’t, then it’s going to be troubled down the line. But that’s true that another piece of the puzzle is that the best VCs help you get more visibility in terms of achieving potential customer deals, in terms of attracting the best talent. And that’s where VCs’ brand names can help. If you can say you have backing by some of the top, most visible names in the industry, and usually these are the mega funds because others have trouble to be as visible, then they have some sort of unfair advantage compared to others. So I can see that there is some level of concentration happening naturally, especially in the later stage from Series B onwards.   Nuno What Really Matters: Performance… Returns Yeah, I mean, we did some analysis internally about What are the top funds that invested in the top performing companies in early stage, Series C, Series A? And we looked at it by size of fund and the top performing normally are funds below $100 million, but in some cases very closely followed by funds between $100 and $500 million. And actually funds above $500 million, so $500 million to $1 billion and then $1 billion and above are actually tremendously underperforming. So this notion of the industry that says, well, the mega funds still see The top investments early on, because they still deploy in Series C and Series A opportunistically, in some cases even spray and pray if they have their own incubation and acceleration programs, is not true. Actually, we verified that over the last 12 to 13 years. It is not 12 to 13 years in vintage, right? So up to a 2021 vintage fund. So we went basically 12, 13 years back from there. And it’s not true. Actually, the most performing are 0 to 100 and then 100 to 500. And as I said, there’s 100 to 500 in a couple of years actually are a little bit better. Than the $0 to $100 million ones. So that’s the first thing that’s a conclusion. And actually, that’s not shocking. If we remember back in the day, Kleiner Perkins used to raise funds up to $600 million, Benchmark raised their $425 million funds. It seems like the sweet spot for a VC fund would be around $500 million at the top end, like maximum. And now somehow people are saying, well, I’m raising a $3 billion VC fund. It’s like, well, it can’t be a VC fund. The return profile is totally different, right? You can’t deploy that capital just based on early stage investing. And by the way, you’re not seeing the guys at early stage, all that you’re seeing, you’re going to make your returns in mid to late stage, right? Back to what we said at the beginning of the episode. So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots there. The big guys are raising more and more money, but they’re no longer venture capital. And I think limited partners that are a little bit more evolved, that are a little bit more conscious of this, that have been in the market longer, are realizing that shift. So it’s like if they want to have the alpha of venture capital, they need to deploy to the sub-$100 million funds or the sub-$500 million funds, right? That’s where they need to actually focus their VC capital. They can still deploy to mega funds, but they’re deploying to a different asset class. They’re deploying to a private equity, mid to late stage asset class, which looks maybe a little bit more like a growth fund or something like that. The second part of differentiation is the honest truth is most VC funds are like, I have proprietary network access, right? I’m ex-Stripe or I’m ex-Google or I’m ex-Facebook or whatever, and I have access to that. I mean, we know proprietary networks from that standpoint are no longer true. The whole thing that created Silicon Valley back in the ’70s of what I used to call the country club deals where there were a few people coming out of the big companies, the Fairchilds of the world, later on the Intels of the world, et cetera, et cetera, that made some money along the way that sort of bootstrapped their next companies, were well-known quantity to the existing VCs and raised money relatively easy on ideas, that doesn’t work anymore. Someone was telling me the other day one interesting thing that I wasn’t quite aware of, a lot of it had to do with the NDAs. I don’t know if you knew this, Bertrand, but like the fact that in California, it was sort of the Silicon Valley community sort of imposed this, we don’t sign NDAs thing and Boston continued signing it. And this whole NDA enforcement issue and non-compete, actually not the NDA thing, but more strongly that California did not enforce non-competes. I could leave Fairchild and start a company that magically was doing something that could be considered competitive to Fairchild. And that was sort of part of the acceleration actually of venture capital in California versus, for example, Boston, which was sort of hand in hand at the beginning.   Bertrand Yeah, I mean, I’m a big, big believer in California success coming from not enforcing or banning non-compete agreements. I think it’s a key part of the game. If you lock people into not doing something similar in the next 6 months to 24 months. And the industry has always been moving fast. So this is a significant time where you are blocked to do something very similar. I think it was really an issue. So I think it’s a key part of the game and it has been there. I don’t know how it started, but I think that non-enforcement of non-compete has been a key part of the success of California. I’m actually pleased to say that Washington State is going in the same direction. They are just signing a non-compete ban. And you might remember that at the federal level, I think in 2024, there was also a ban that was put in place to ban non-compete, but this has been reversed by the courts. So this is not there anymore. So that’s why we see a state like Washington State putting their own ban, and we might see more state by state moving in that direction. I think it was not helping at all, this non-compete. I mean, there is obviously stuff that needs to be done, like you cannot steal secrets, you cannot steal IP.   Nuno Yeah.   Bertrand Even stealing employees, there should be some restraints. We need to find the right balance, but you have to be careful there. That was key for the success of California, and I’m glad to see that this is a trend that’s going to go beyond California. And I hope most states will have a ban on non-compete.   Nuno Maybe just to close on the differentiation process, two things. One, I think there’s this notion When you talk to some LPs, that seems to be a little bit ingrained, some LPs that prefer specialized funds. We’ve also done some significant analysis internally and have talked to a couple of datasets other than our own, or people that own datasets other than our own, and the feedback has actually been not so fast. Actually, generalist funds over time cannot perform specialist funds. There seems to be a little bit of a sweet spot around generalist funds. We like to call ourselves multi-specialized at Chameleon, but ultimately from the perspective of specialized versus Generalist funds, the picture’s not as clear as specialized funds outperform generalists or generalists outperform specialized. We’ve seen there are pockets where actually generalists outperform specialized, in other pockets where specialized of a certain size can outperform generalists. So that’s one topic on differentiation that is a little bit broader. And then the final topic on differentiation, it’s really an industry that hasn’t innovated dramatically on where it creates the most value, which is really the picking stage, right? So it’s having great deal flow, very optimal, productive, efficient due diligence with very few resources and the ability to then get into those deals. That’s where most of the value is created. And then hopefully liquidating the asset if there’s an opportunity to do so at the right time, either through secondary trade sales or an IPO or something else. And what we’ve seen is the industry has innovated very little. I mean, the only thing I could point out in terms of core innovation at the top of the funnel has been the creation of the mega funds, the well-known funds, right? Like a16z, Union Square Ventures, et cetera, et cetera. But there needs to be more innovation on that cycle. And that’s why we certainly at Chameleon believe that the future is to have quant and AI-native VC firms that develop their own tooling, their own platforms. We have Mantis in our case that allow you to have this unfair advantage in how you source deals and how you do due diligence, how you get into the deals, et cetera, and how you take it to the next level. And we think that’s the beginning of the next stage is that the industry becomes more tech-enabled, shockingly enough, an industry that has made all its returns on tech or almost all of its returns on tech. That we need to be more tech-enabled ourselves. But I think the writing is on the wall there, and that will be a source of differentiation certainly over the next 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand One thing the industry has innovated somewhat and maybe could innovate even more is providing liquidity beyond trade sale and an IPO, because it’s clear that if VCs want more liquidity without waiting 18 years, you need that liquidity at different stage, not just when it’s time to do an exit, a full exit for the business. And for employees as well. I mean, it’s one thing to stay for a company for 4 years, which is your typical vesting. Maybe you extend that to 6 years, to 8 years, you have a great time at the company. But to think that maybe you have to stick around for 15 to 20 years in order to get liquidity on your stock options. I mean, that’s too much to ask for most people. I mean, people have a life, they have other things to do, other plans, they might want to move, they come at a different stage of life. So you need to provide them liquidity. The new game is we are not going to exit until 15 to 20 years, else it’s truly unfair. It’s not just unfair, but people will say, you know what, I’m going to go across the street, go work for Amazon or Google. I will have RSUs at best regularly that are liquid, and why bother? I mean, we need to find pathways to liquidity for both investors but also employees. There has been a change in that direction, but I think we need more of this change, and maybe not just reserved for the absolute biggest, most successful companies like OpenAI or SpaceX, but also us as well. Hopefully we can find a way.   Nuno Well, now we have these AI companies that actually grow so fast that they will IPO in one year. Now, isn’t that what’s going to happen? They raise They raised $500 million in Series C or $1.4 billion in Series C, and they’re going to IPO in 2 years. No? Is that not the new reality? I’m being facetious.   Bertrand At the same time, I mean, there are rumors that some of them are going to IPO this year. I mean, we talk about OpenAI, about Anthropic. I mean, OpenAI is quite old, but Anthropic is a relatively new business, quote unquote. So I think it’s a good time.   Nuno The Mega Fund Question So maybe it will be true after all. Moving to the next section, are mega funds still venture capital, Bertrand? Are they still venture capital funds?   Bertrand Yeah, I guess venture capital is a term that can encompass from small to very big funds. I truly don’t know. I mean, once you reach a growth stage, are you truly a VC fund? I don’t know. I think some of these definitions are kind of arbitrary from my perspective. What is clear is that you as a business need different providers of capital. And as we just discussed, you as a business, probably need to keep going and stay private for longer. One reason being, again, there is a tremendous cost to being a public company. There are some true strategic disadvantages. And at the same time, just practically, I mean, you need to get bigger and bigger in order to have a chance of a successful IPO. So you cannot just go IPO at a $500 million valuation. I mean, that’s like committing suicide, at least in the US market on NASDAQ. So my point is, you truly have no choice. You need to extend and If you need to extend, then you need to have capital providers that are there at later stage and therefore have more money. Is it still true venture capital? Is it true venture? I don’t know. At some point, it makes sense that from the startups to the capital providers, everyone adjusts to a reality where the life cycle is getting longer.   Nuno We don’t think it is. We don’t think mega funds are venture capital. We have actually some data that shows that they’re not in terms of actual returns. The alphas you can generate, the IRR that you can generate is actually not comparable. We did some analysis again with some of our datasets and from 2012 to 2022, so that’s the datasets that we used so that we had actual distributions and stuff we could take into account and so on and so forth. And looking at IRR, just to share some numbers in terms of IRR over those 10 years on sub-$100 million funds versus above $1 billion funds, the differences are incredibly stark. And this is true for global and US IRR, right? So just to quote some numbers in terms of average, sub-$100 million funds, global IRR of 22.9%, US IRR of 21.6% versus above $1 billion, 9.1% and 9.0%. Median IRR, if we just looked at median, 7.3% and 16.6% for sub-$100 million funds, 7.5% and 8.1% above $1 billion. Top quartile IRR, sub-$100 million, 31% versus 30.4% US IRR. And then above $1 billion funds, 14.7%, 15.5%. So it’s very clear if you sort of cut this in different ways, averages, medians, top quartiles, et cetera, over all these years that sub-$100 million funds are in a very different asset class than above $1 billion funds. They’re in different alpha that you can generate and so on and so forth. Now to the point you made, Bertrand, I don’t fully disagree with the point you made of the bigger funds should become bigger. I just think they’re becoming different things. Now, again, some of these funds will hide under the facts like, well, wait a second, we have all these assets under management, but they’re over different funds. Sequoia, we’re still raising small early-stage funds, $500, $600 million funds. And then we have larger funds for growth, et cetera, et cetera. Andreessen Horowitz, a little bit less clear what they’re actually doing. We heard that they’ve raised $15 billion across funds. I’m not sure if that’s the exact number at the end of the day. But the point is, if I’m a multi-asset class manager, like early growth, et cetera, et cetera, then it still applies what Nunu is saying. I’m still going after the $500 million, $600 million early-stage funds. Well, not so fast, right? Because you still have all this capital with managing general partners that are maybe across funds for which their incentives in particular, both carry and management fees are coming from the larger funds. Et cetera, et cetera. So there’s necessarily conflicts of interest. In many cases, the funds are just straight up big, right? And so they are above a billion. And so I don’t think a lot of these guys are in early-stage investing anymore, right? It may appear that they are, but I don’t think that’s where the returns necessarily are going to come from. And so if you are a limited partner, if you’re looking at your asset class allocation, again, you’re absolutely free to put money into mega funds because that’s the kind of asset class you want to play in. In terms of a blended private equity asset class that has a little bit of growth, a little bit of whatever, or actually a lot of growth, a lot of late stage, and maybe a little bit of early stage. And I want something that’s a little bit more blended, right? But if I still want the alpha venture capital, I need to deploy to funds that are early stage, right? And that’s like up to $100 million, up to $500 million. I think that’s my two cents on that topic. We see crossover things coming around, like guys who do both public and private markets. Again, that starts feeling a bit like a hedge fund. A lot of these funds have also become RAs, as we discussed earlier. So I feel the writing’s on the wall. The mega funds are going more and more after either some mechanism of edging or a mechanism that’s a little bit more blended in terms of private equity than classic venture capital.   Bertrand Yes, I think a few things. One, if you’re an LP, I can imagine that dealing with multiple $100 million funds might be more difficult. You, you need to know the partners, you need to have some background, uh, visibility. You need potentially to change regularly of VC investments. So I can see some level of simplicity if you just focus on the bigger ones, especially if you have a lot of assets you have to put to work. Another piece of the puzzle, I would guess that the bigger funds are able to return money faster because they are at later stage of the cycle. So instead of that 15 to 18 years, maybe they are more in a 5 to 10 year range, while the smaller funds being there more early might be the one who are taking longer to deliver. So I can see that Yes, there is an IRR picture, but there is also time to liquidity that is not the same. So that can probably also influence. And in terms of crossover PE hybrid model, I mean, for sure we have seen some of the public equity investors doing crossover, meaning going into private equity firms like Coatue, like Tiger Global and others. And for companies that are preparing for IPO, there is a lot of value to work with these firms because they have very good visibility and understanding of the public markets. And their presence in the cap table is also a sign of quality, typically for public market investors. So there is a lot of value and logic for them to be there on both sides of the puzzle. But again, the fact that firms keep delaying IPOs, that the market is not so much startup-friendly, makes this model a bit more difficult. But personally, I think there is value there.   Nuno Yeah, I think on the mega fund, just so that I’m not boo-booing everything, I mean, but there’s definitely angles in terms of the asset class that make a lot of sense. And there’s the scalability of the model. The ability to go after Series B, Series C, as well as mid-stage, as well as late-stage, even secondaries over time, to your point, in some cases even public equities. And that level of skill I think matters. We’ve also seen, as we’ve known, we won’t mention any brands, but people will know who they are, that late-stage hedge funds and investors, even if they’ve done okay-ish in growth in private equity, don’t necessarily do well in venture. So it’s clearly a very different asset class, right? So once you start getting venture teams together, The returns are not quite the same. Actually, sometimes they’re not even quite the same as the growth investments. So clearly they’re very good at the growth side, but not so good in early stage. But definitely there is a case for it. The Case for Smaller…Rightsized Funds But if we switch gears maybe to the small, or I would call right-sized funds, maybe just to quote a couple of numbers and then open up the discussion. Small funds do seem to outperform larger funds. There’s a lot of data in the market that shows some of that dynamic outperformance frequency. All the Very historical numbers from Cambridge Associates from 1981 to 2010. 19 out of 30 vintages were won by sub-$150 million funds. We did our own analysis as I was sharing before. Funds between $0 and $100 won most years between around 2010 and 2021. And the years that they didn’t outperform in terms of investing in the top-performing companies in early-stage Series C, Series A, they were outperformed by the $100 to $500 million funds. The $500 to $1 billion funds and $1 billion or above were never even in the same league in terms of performance, of having identified those top performers in terms of quantity over those early-stage investments. Top 10 funds by vintage, 2004 to 2006, 2016 numbers. Top 10 funds, 73% were sub-$100 million. 2004 to 2016, top 10 funds by vintage, 73% of those were sub-$100 million. So there seems to be a little bit of a case that actually smaller funds, sub-$100 million, sub-$500 million in some cases, are outperforming the larger funds over time. Now, these funds are complex in and of itself. The positive of it is small fund GPs like myself, we are deeply invested in our own funds. We’re not there to just make management fee monies. I mean, we’re not making $1 million, $2 million a year in management fees of salary ourselves, like some of the larger funds. So we are there to really get the carry and be less focused on management fees. And so I think there’s a little bit of alignment around that and really taking that kind of perspective on portfolio construction and liquidation, being also more aggressive on the individual time that we spend with our startups. On the negative side, obviously a lot of these smaller funds, not the case of Chameleon, but others out there are single GPs, very little teams or very small teams. And so it’s sometimes difficult to actually do a lot for portfolio companies as well. And this is where the mega funds, for example, a16z notably would say, hey, we have 600+ people that can support you, right? On market development, business development, communications, talent recruiting, all this stuff. Question mark whether that’s the right way to do it in terms of operating model, if technology is not a better way of supplying that value back to your portfolio companies, or if there’s no better way of doing it. But still, that’s one of the appeals of actually dealing with a larger mega fund if you’re a startup, right? That they will have the resources, also the financial resources to put more capital in you. But also, again, if there’s entrepreneurs listening to this right now, and hopefully there are, it’s a two-edged sword, right? Because if you have Andreessen Horowitz putting money in you, or NEA, or General Catalyst, or whatever, putting money in you on a Series C and then not doubling down on the Series A or the Series B, there will be questions, right? Because like they have the capital, they have other funds, so why the hell are they not putting more money in? Um, so, so it’s a little bit of a two-edged sword.   Bertrand Yeah, I think that one is a pretty big one. And on top of it, as we discussed, some of these big firms have multiple funds managed technically by different teams. So you might have convinced the early-stage teams, they have investors, they’re happy, but you don’t convince the growth-stage firm. As you say, it might raise questions because people might think that there is some communication between the early-stage team and the growth-stage team. So why the heck are they not deciding to invest? And as we also discussed, even worse possible situation, what happens if the growth-stage team has invested in your competitor? It’s even more trouble. So I think trying to understand how firms behave, what’s the reputation of the firm, what’s the reputation of the partner you are working with, I mean, can have tremendous importance and impact. When it’s time for you to work with a firm.   Nuno Indeed. I mean, at the end of the day, we still believe that the smaller fund— we at Chameleon discuss the notion that our limit should be $500 million per fund, right? And that’s the logic of it. We think that model is the model that works well in venture capital. We do recognize, as I said before, why mega funds keep raising more and more money, right? It becomes a harm’s race at that end of the market. As I said, probably a slightly different asset class, or if not a significantly different asset class as well. So seeing a little bit both sides of the market, I mean, we often compete with the mega funds, but honestly, a lot of the mega funds are kind to us and they let us in. And this whole notion of elbows out, we haven’t felt it that much in the market. And people see our value at the table. And in many cases, I, I do see the larger funds more and more seeing the value of smaller funds coming in on the same rounds and even in some cases co-leading early stage rounds like Series C. So it’s not like elbows are out everywhere across the board. So I don’t mean to say this is like an all-out war between small funds and big funds and the small funds need to win or the big funds need to win. I think actually there’s a lot of potential for coexistence. My point is more that the asset classes and the returns are quite different over time, and that’s how I would think through it. And if you’re an entrepreneur, you should think about that as well, right? What are the implications of taking money from certain funds versus others in terms of the expected returns, expected time allocated to you? For example, if you’re not doing very well as a as a company, right? Will the big funds spend the same amount of energy on you if you’re not doing great and all of that? So it’s a little bit sort of a beware, open your eyes, both for limited partners and for startups. What do you actually want, right? What do you want from your VC firm if you’re a startup? And what do you want from your VC firm if you’re an LP?   Bertrand I must say, as an entrepreneur, uh, a board member, I have seen some situations where the bigger funds are actually trying sometimes to elbow out the existing investors. Like, uh, we have that much money to put to work, we cannot do less. And you’re like, yeah, but I don’t need that much money. And then they’re like, okay, just don’t let your existing investors do their pro rata. I don’t think it’s great because an entrepreneur, if your investors, your VCs, trusted you earlier stage when it’s more risky, and when it’s becoming less risky, you don’t give them the right to their pro rata because you have to let this big guy come in. That’s not great. Or even if there is not this pro rata issue, when an investor tries to put more money to work than it’s really necessary, it’s also not a good idea as an entrepreneur to take more capital than you could use. It will dilute you more, it will set higher expectations in terms of valuation, it will push you to use that capital faster than maybe would be reasonable. So I think that’s something you want to be careful with the bigger funds. So don’t talk to funds that are in some ways beyond your stage and try to make it work in that context. Or don’t accept to have your strategy change dramatically for no good reason by funds that just want to put too much money to work in your business. And that for me is surprising because it should also be in their best interest not to invest in businesses that are not ready to accept that much capital. But as we have seen, there were in the past some funds that believe that capital is a moat. Was a good idea. So hopefully, I guess we’re a bit behind that. But yeah, I would say entrepreneurs, be careful, find partners that are the right partners for you at your current stage. Sometimes some big names look great, but at the same time, if it comes with a lot of issues, from too much capital to also taking the risk that these partners don’t understand the stage of the business you are in or your industry, Just be careful. There is a lot of value to have firms that are very focused on your stage, on your industry, are finely attuned to that situation.   Nuno What Comes Next? Maybe to end in terms of sections, what comes next? And maybe we can come up with some predictions that are a little bit provocative on what’s going to happen to the market. You, if you’re listening to us, feel free to interact with us on LinkedIn, on X. If you have our email address, shoot us an email as well. We’d love to hear from you if you think these are the right predictions or if we’re totally off. Maybe I’ll throw in the first one, Bertrand, and we’ll go one by one. So we’ll each put one at the table and see where we head. My first one is that we’ll have a huge culling of VC investors. We had this rapid expansion of the VC asset class with arguably at least tens of thousands of firms globally, maybe even over 10,000 in the US. I think we’ll have a culling and the culling will continue and we’ll have several firms sort of getting eliminated over the next couple of years that will have either because they’re having tremendous difficulty doing their first close in their next fund, or the returns are not there, or it’s a firm that has done 3, 4 funds, but for some reason the returns have just gone out of whack in the last few years during the bull years. And so therefore, actually they can’t justify to raise more funds out there. So I predict there will be a significant elimination of active firms in the next at least 2 to 3 years. So maybe by 2028, and we’ll be below, I don’t know, 30% of number of active firms that we are today. The other side of it is I do think if we look beyond that, 2029, 2030, and so on, we’ll have the reemergence of not micro funds, but nano funds where people will start deploying capital very, very early and writing small angel checks, but doing it in a way that it’s sort of not this cottage industry that we’ve had of angel investors. So I think angel investment will be disrupted by people that will use more and more of the AI toolification out there to actually manage their portfolios of 10, 15, 5K investments in a way that is a lot more professional, creating sort of an advent of nano funds.   Bertrand Yeah, makes sense. On my side, in terms of prediction, I think there is a possibility that the mega fund model keeps expanding and looks more similar over time to some PE models. So do we have the top 10 VC firms that look more like a Blackstone than a Kleiner Perkins or Sequoia used to be? That for me will be an interesting question and development. I think that there is some possibility that it keeps going in that direction. A lot of incentives are pushing things that way.   Nuno My next prediction is that DPI, distributions to paid-in cash on cash, just cash back, will become essential for limited partners. I think TVPI, total value to paid-in, that also has in there, as we just said, paper valuations. There’s a lot of disbelief now around the TVPI metric if there isn’t distributions going alongside it. For those who, again, don’t know what TVPI is, it’s total value paid in, but it also includes DPI. So it’s cash on cash component plus a remaining valuation to paid in, an RVPI. And the problem is the RVPI really, in reality, it’s that kind of on-paper valuation that never gets attributed. I think LPs, they’ve seen the writing on the wall and they’re like, dude, just show me your DPI numbers. I don’t care about TVPI. Some LPs will still ask about TVPI just to make sure that the rest is sort of looking in order. Like, show me the money, show me the cash. Actually, it’s not money, show me the cash, right? I want money back.   Bertrand But that’s an issue. I mean, if you’re supposed to raise financing every 3 or 4 years, good luck getting DPI to show for that. So you need to be at least on your third fund in order to be able to show DPI, I guess.   Nuno I mean, my corollary to that, Bertrand, is if you allow me just to have a corollary kind of prediction, is that we’ll see certainly for funds like $50 million and above, $100 million, $200 million, et cetera, even increased concentration, right? I really need to have anchors that believe in me over time. And we might start having, again, the advent— we had it some decades ago, the advent of cap table kind of VCs, right? Like Sutter Hill Ventures, right? Where they’re not really raising funds anymore. And so we might have the advent of that, that we’ll have structures that are created that have more permanent capital allocated to them, or at the very least more concentrated capital by very few players.   Bertrand Interesting. Me on my side, as I shared before, I believe secondaries are, are important and here to stay. Um, in the past, some could argue, is it a distress signal or something? I, I don’t think it’s true anymore. In a world where your average startup might take 15 to 18 years to exit through M&A or IPO, we need to have other options. For funds, for employees, they cannot be expected to stick around for so long and have no liquidity. I mean, it’s just pure madness. It’s just bad alignment at some point to do that. So I think secondaries are becoming the third liquidity pathway for VCs, for employees, and it should be more and more a key part of the game, a key infrastructure in the VC/startups tech industry.   Nuno I mean, on specialized versus generalist funds, I believe we’ll continue seeing the coexistence of those two models where the specialized funds will in many pockets actually outperform generalist funds, but where we’ll continue seeing that the large franchises, the tier one franchises will likely be generalist funds. I mean, we just saw it in the cycle. The AI cycle went upon us. We had a 2021 fund. We could easily adapt and go into AI and figure out that AI was growing very fast. I mean, if you have an ultra-specialized fund and that’s your remit and that’s the only thing you can invest on, very difficult to change even during our investment period. I will put a caveat on that. We don’t call, for example, ourselves at Chameleon generalist. We call ourselves multi-specialized because our scoring models for the verticals that we track are specialized within Mantis. Because the partnership is specialized, we all focus on different areas. And because we have the Kin network that allows us to tap into that level of expertise, Again, I think the world will be specialized coexistence. Some pockets specialized will do very well, certainly on the smaller fund size, but the big franchises will likely look a little bit more generalist. And as I said, multi-specialized from our perspective is the future. We’ll start seeing more and more funds that are multi-specialized like ourselves. Do you want to talk about AI and how it’ll distort the metrics? No.   Bertrand Yes. I think AI is an exciting moment in the tech industry. It feels in some ways that the same way we had a big distortion coming with COVID and work from home in 2020, 2021. 2021, where suddenly everyone and their mother will build a SaaS company or invest in a SaaS company. AI feels a bit of the same. I mean, to be clear, I truly believe it’s deserved. I mean, we are facing a dramatic shift in how computing is being done in terms of value you can get from software. So at the same time, AI will probably distort this matrix for a long time. We clearly see a split where investments are going, in what startups are being created. So I think, yeah, we will see some distortion. And we know that maybe 50% of all deal value is going to AI in 2025. We have seen single rounds reaching 40 billion, like to OpenAI. We have seen, as you discussed, some seed stage investment of 400 million. So AI investing and AI startups are definitely a beast on their own. And will distort VC metrics for a long time. And we might need two sets of metrics in parallel, you know, AI versus everything else. So that would be an interesting bifurcation in the industry in some ways. I would say it’s fair to separate AI versus non-AI. We reach a point where it’s two different beasts.   Nuno Conclusion So in conclusion, AI has changed the world and it’s changing VC as well, as we discussed earlier in the episode. We have a tremendous momentous occasion for the asset class where venture capital is really bifurcating into very large funds, which no longer are in venture capital or seemingly may be distributed between different asset classes, and the smaller funds, sub-$500 million and sub-$100 million, that keep having the better returns, but also with much smaller scale. We’re seeing a culling of the industry where the industry is definitely getting smaller and smaller and more concentrated at both ends, number of VC firms, as well as a number of limited partners per fund and the interest that some of these limited partners have of being more and more concentrated in their own portfolio allocations. And last but not the least, the discussion around specialized versus generalist, where it seems like there’s some clear winners on some asset classes, on some sizes, in some industries, but on others, there’s other kinds of winners. And so maybe the future is multi-specialized, as I framed at the end. Thank you so much for listening. If you want to check us out and if you want to comment, feel free to send us messages on X, LinkedIn, to both myself and Bertrand, as well as send us an email. Thank you so much, Bertrand.   Bertrand Thank you, Nuno.

Regenerative means understanding the cycles of nature and operating within those cycles of nature, producing a bounty that is true profit created from sunlight, microbial life in the soil and rain water,  generating more than was there. Will Harris practices what he preaches on his family’s White Oak Pastures in Georgia. While specialists may be necessary in many ventures, Will says that it’s better to be a generalist when striving to be a good regenerative farmer  With his daughters, their spouses and employees White Oak Pastures grows, processes and distributes their own cattle, goats, chickens, pigs and vegetables. They don’t want to get any bigger but Will does want more farmers to try regenerative farming and more consumers to seek out food from those farms. Listening to this conversation between Rodger Wasson and Will Harris will make some want to do one or the other of those goals.  www.whiteoakpastures.com

Feel like your firm is scattered and you have to say yes to everything?It might be niching problem. In this episode, I walk through why staying broad makes everything harder, and what actually happens when you narrow your focus. You'll hear why the fear is normal, what changes on the other side, and how niching leads to better clients, easier work, and more confidence. If your firm feels chaotic, this is your starting point.…Link to full shownotes: https://www.businessstrategyforcpas.com/390…Want Pricing Essentials?If you feel trapped by your own accounting firm, it's not because of the work – it's how you've priced the work. Too many accountants are stuck in undercharging, overdelivering, and people-pleasing cycles. Break the pattern with my short PDF guide: 7 Pricing Essentials »It's free and you can read it in 5 minutes.I want to help you get your prices up without losing loyal clients.  …Want to hear what works, from 57+ clients?Check out the Client Interviews podcast: LISTEN »

At just 27, Ali Hashemizadeh is doing things most dentists twice his age haven't managed — two private associate roles, a growing reputation as an endodontist, and the kind of self-awareness that usually takes a decade to develop. In this episode, Payman sits down with the Newcastle-based, Aberdeen-raised, Iranian dentist to trace the path from a rocky first year on the NHS to finding his feet in private practice. Ali talks candidly about the complaint that rocked him early in his career, the perspective shift it forced, and why he's genuinely glad it happened. It's a conversation about curiosity, resilience, and the quiet power of just cracking on.In This Episode00:00:50 – Introduction: Ali Hashemizadeh00:03:45 – Lifelong learning00:07:25 – The future of dental events00:14:30 – Optimism as a work philosophy00:15:35 – NHS complaint, first job00:19:40 – Resilience and perspective00:21:10 – Going private early00:22:25 – Becoming the endo guy00:25:55 – Generalist or specialist?00:26:50 – The disease of the twenties00:28:30 – Iranian roots in Aberdeen00:38:15 – Foundation year in London00:40:55 – Outdoor pursuits and Ironman training00:46:10 – CBCT and safe-ended files00:50:05 – Endo, implants and aesthetics under one roof00:52:00 – Treatment coordinators and ethical selling00:57:15 – The value of mentorship00:59:00 – Networking and landing the jobs01:02:55 – The two practices compared01:07:35 – Lucas Lassman and the most inspiring lecture01:10:40 – Dental resources: YouTube and Instagram01:15:10 – Being Mortal and Man's Search for Meaning01:16:30 – Modern Wisdom and guilty pleasures01:22:35 – Ten-year plan01:27:40 – Fantasy dinner partyAbout Ali HashemizadehAli Hashemizadeh is a 27-year-old private associate dentist working across two practices in the northeast of England — Middleton Saint George Dental in Darlington and Ken Harris's clinic in Sunderland — where he has developed a particular focus on endodontics. Born and raised in Aberdeen to Iranian parents, he qualified from Newcastle University and completed his foundation year in London before heading back north.

In Pomegranate we go back to some classic episodes from the last ten years that have stood the test of time. The first throwback takes us back to 2017 with episodes 20 and 21 titled “Genomics for the Generalist.” While there's been a flood of genomic discoveries since this story was first published, it's still a good primer on fundamental concepts and everyday challenges for the physician advising a patient. The expert guests include a genetic pathologist, a clinical geneticist, a genetic counsellor and a medical oncologist. The podcast covers the different roles for single gene tests and whole genome sequencing, which has become much more accessible. We tackle question of disease risk and how to present uncertain predictive diagnoses to consumers. This is particularly relevant to using genome-wide association studies, which re finding more and more markers with very small associated risks of disease. This increases the likelihood of picking up diagnoses incidental to the ones a clinician might be looking for. The ethics of consenting patients to genome screening and informing them of incidental findings are also discussed. Chapters3:04 Mendelian vs multi-gene diseases6:42 Whole genome sequencing10:09 Prenatal testing12:38 What do physicians need to know? 17:07 Pharmacogenomics19:52 Genetic counselling22:40 Funding of genetic tests33:46 Incidental findings39:13 Consent and privacy issuesGuests (2026 affiliations)Professor Leslie Burnett FRCPA, FHGSA, FCAP (University of New South Wales; Virtus Health) Professor Michael Gabbett FRACP (Queensland University of Technolgy; Mendel Genetics) Associate Professor Kristine Barlowe-Stewart FHGSA (University of Sydney; Children's Cancer Institute) Prof David Thomas FRACP PhD (University of New South Wales; Omico)ProductionProduced by Mic Cavazzini DPhil. Music courtesy of FreeMusicArchive includes, 'Cloud Line' by Blue Dot Sessions, 'Is That You or Are You You?' by Chris Zabriskie, First Holes' by Cory Gray, ‘Brand New World' by Kai Engel. Music licenced from Epidemic Sound includes ‘Abyss' by Luwaks. Image customised for RACP. Editorial feedback for 2017 podcast provided by members of the podcast editorial group Dr Pavan Chandrala, Dr Tessa Davis, Dr Rebecca Grainger, Dr Michael Herd, Dr Paul Jauncey, Dr Joseph Lee, Dr Marion Leighton, Dr Anutosh Shee and Dr Ellen Taylor, and Advanced Trainee Dr Katrina Gibson.Add educational activity to MyCPD as educational activity or visit web page for a transcript and references. 

A heartfelt look at why trusting good news is its own creative challenge and how you can build self-belief one win at a time. Have you ever wondered why trusting good things can feel harder than handling the tough stuff? In this solo episode of Your Creative Mind, Izolda pulls back the curtain on what it's like to be a multi-passionate creative navigating growth, self-doubt, and the surprising intensity of things finally going well. She shares her evolving playwriting journey, the emotional roller coaster of receiving meaningful feedback, and the unique challenges that come with being a generalist who cares deeply about many artistic paths at once. If you've ever questioned your creative direction or wrestled with second-guessing your own progress, this episode offers comforting perspective and grounded insights into the creative process for multi-hyphenate artists. Water Mandala Connect with Izolda Website: https://IzoldaT.com Book Your Discovery Call: https://calendly.com/izoldat/discovery-call New Play Exchange: https://newplayexchange.org/users/90481/izolda-trakhtenberg This episode is brought to you by Brain.fm.* I love and use brain.fm! It combines music and neuroscience to help me focus, meditate, and even sleep! Because you listen to this show, you can get a free trial and 20% off with this exclusive coupon code: innovativemindset. (affiliate link) URL: https://brain.fm/innovativemindset Listen on These Channels Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Podbean | MyTuner | iHeart Radio | TuneIn | Deezer | Overcast | PodChaser | Listen Notes | Player FM | Podcast Addict | Podcast Republic | *Affiliate Link

What if you could go from GENERALIST fundraising consultant to a FOCUSED firm with a SCALABLE offer - in just five months? That's exactly what Robin Engle, CFRE, founder of Abundance Catalyst, has done. In this client success episode of the Fractional to Scalable series, Robin shares how she built a scalable Major Gifts offer, narrowed her niche to movement organizations, climbed "Cringe

This post was cross posted to LessWrong TL;DR: One of the largest talent gaps in AI safety is competent generalists: program managers, fieldbuilders, operators, org leaders, chiefs of staff, founders. Ambitious, competent junior people could develop the skills to fill these roles, but there are no good pathways for them to gain skills, experience, and credentials. Instead, they're incentivized to pursue legible technical and policy fellowships and then become full-time researchers, even if that's not a good fit for their skills. The ecosystem needs to make generalist careers more legible and accessible. Kairos and Constellation are announcing the Generator Residency as a first step. Apply here by April 27. Epistemic status: Fairly confident, based on 2 years running AI safety talent programs, direct hiring experience, and conversations with ~30 senior org leaders across the ecosystem in the past 6 months.The problem Over the past few years, AI safety has moved from niche concern toward a more mainstream issue, driven by pieces like Situational Awareness, AI 2027, If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies, and the rapidly increasing capabilities of the models themselves.During this period, over 20 research fellowships have launched, collectively training thousands of fellows, with 2,000-2,500 fellows [...] ---Outline:(01:18) The problem(03:41) Why the pipeline is broken(05:59) Why this matters now(07:31) Counter-Arguments(10:11) The Generator Residency --- First published: April 13th, 2026 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/k3nq7FxBCsrNFmAYi/ai-safety-s-biggest-talent-gap-isn-t-researchers-it-s-2 --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Most teams think leadership at SpaceX is about speed, pressure, and technical brilliance. Hans Koenigsmann, former VP of Build and Flight Reliability and one of the earliest employees at SpaceX, describes something more subtle: it's about constantly operating outside your comfort zone, and learning how to make decisions when everything is changing at once.In this conversation, Hans reflects on what it was like growing with SpaceX from a handful of people to over 14,000 employees, and how that scale forced him to repeatedly shift not just his role, but his identity as a leader. He talks about moving away from being a “generalist who can duct tape things together” toward finding where he could actually be useful at system level.We also get into how he thinks about risk, not as something objective, but as something deeply personal. Hans explains why you should never evaluate risk alone, how teams normalize danger over time, and why diverse perspectives matter more than most formal risk frameworks.There's also a strong theme around leadership humility. Hans shares how SpaceX changed his perspective on ego, company alignment, and what it actually means to put organizational goals ahead of individual ones — especially when decisions get uncomfortable.And throughout the episode, one idea keeps coming up: growth doesn't come from staying in control, it comes from repeatedly stepping into situations where you're not.If you're interested in how high-performance technical organizations actually operate behind the scenes, this one is worth your time.Episode Highlights00:00 Stepping outside your comfort zone03:10 Scaling from early SpaceX to 14,000+ people06:00 Finding where you're actually useful as a leader08:30 Leadership training and what doesn't translate11:30 Why risk is personal, not objective14:05 How teams normalize risk over time15:59 Learning from other people's failures17:54 Thinking about launch costs and competitionKey TakeawaysLeadership roles shift dramatically as organizations scale, even if titles stay the same.Generalists often need to reposition themselves as systems become more specialized.Risk perception is personal and changes based on experience and context.Teams need diverse perspectives to properly evaluate risk.You should never evaluate risk in isolation.Most of leadership growth comes from operating outside your comfort zone repeatedly.Learning from other people's failures is one of the fastest ways to build judgment.Humility and company alignment become more important as organizations scale.Links & ResourcesHans KoenigsmannLinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/hans-koenigsmann-2a141b5Matt GjertsenWebsite: https://www.bettereverydaystudios.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewgjertsen/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@BetterEveryDayStudios

Fühlst du dich oft „zu viel“, „zu sprunghaft“ oder „nicht fokussiert genug“?Dann könnte es sein, dass du ein Scanner-Typ bist.In dieser Folge des Female Leadership Podcasts spricht Vera Strauch darüber, warum Vielseitigkeit, Neugier und viele Interessen keine Schwäche, sondern ein entscheidender Vorteil sind – gerade in einer sich schnell verändernden Arbeitswelt.Du erfährst:was ein Scanner-Typ istwarum der Druck zur Spezialisierung oft nicht zu dir passtwie du deine Vielseitigkeit in Karriere, Leadership und Alltag nutzen kannstund welche konkreten Strategien dir helfen, Fokus und Freiheit zu verbindenWas ist ein Scanner-Typ?Ein Scanner-Typ beschreibt Menschen, die:viele Interessen und Ideen gleichzeitig habenschnell Neues lernen und Zusammenhänge erkennensich ungern auf nur ein Thema festlegeneher generalistisch als spezialisiert arbeitenIm Gegensatz dazu stehen sogenannte „Taucher*innen“, die sich tief auf ein Fachgebiet fokussieren.

This episode is sponsored by Modulate. Most voice AI focuses on transcription. Velma takes it further by actually understanding conversations, analyzing tone, timing, stress, and intent using its Ensemble Listening Model architecture. Explore the live preview: https://preview.modulate.ai/ What does it actually mean to build a foundation model for robots? In this episode of Eye on AI, Craig Smith sits down with Sergey Levine, co-founder of Physical Intelligence and professor at UC Berkeley, to explore a fundamentally different approach to building robots, one inspired not by programming a single perfect machine, but by training AI on the broadest and most diverse data possible so robots can learn, adapt, and operate in the unpredictable real world. Sergey explains why the secret to general-purpose robots isn't perfecting one single machine, but training on massive, diverse data from all kinds of robots and even humans. The more variety the model sees, the better it gets. Just like ChatGPT learned from all the text on the internet, robotic foundation models learn from every robot that has ever moved, grabbed, or interacted with the real world. We also get into the big humanoid robot debate. Are they the future, or is it mostly hype? Sergey gives an honest and technical take on why the form factor conversation is changing now that foundation models exist, and why that actually opens the door for more creativity, not less. Finally, Sergey shares what he's most excited about next, building a true data flywheel where robots get smarter the more they are deployed, creating a continuous learning cycle that could change everything. Subscribe for more conversations with the people building the future of AI and emerging technology. Stay Updated: Craig Smith on X: https://x.com/craigss Eye on A.I. on X: https://x.com/EyeOn_AI   (00:00) Introduction: What Are Foundation Models for Robots? (01:44) Meet Sergey Levine: Physical Intelligence and UC Berkeley (02:51) Breaking Down Foundation Models for Non-Technical People (06:46) Why Real World Data Beats Simulation (15:00) Building a Broad Robotics Foundation From Scratch (24:00) The Open World Problem in Robotics (40:00) Generalist vs Specialist Robots: Which Wins? (47:00) Humanoid Robots: Real Innovation or Just Hype? (55:10) The Future: Continuous Learning and the Data Flywheel (56:23) Guilty Pleasure: Sci Fi and Thinking Beyond the Limits

“The media has its own agenda, completely separate from anything going on in the real world, creating the story themselves.” — Keith TeareLast night, somebody hurled a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's Pacific Heights mansion. I live a couple of hills over, but heard nothing. Meanwhile, the New Yorker hurled its own explosive cocktail at Sam, publishing a 15,000-word hit piece rhetorically entitled “Sam Altman May Control Our Future. Can He Be Trusted?” No, of course, he can't be trusted. Not according to the New Yorker. Especially with something as precious as, gasp, our future.Not everyone, however, is sold on this media cult of personality. In his That Was The Week editorial, Keith Teare tells the media to take their hands off Sam. I don't disagree. Although I'm a bit skeptical of Keith's attempt to demonize what he defines as a “devious” Dario Amodei. Whether it's Altman, Amodei or Google's AI honcho Demis Hassabis, all these guys are prisoners of their company's structures and cultures. They are also victims of today's anti-tech hysteria. It's one thing to blow up Silicon Valley's cartoonish cult of personality, it's quite another to hurl bombs at these people's homes. Enough with all the violence – verbal or otherwise. It never ends well. Five Takeaways•       A Molotov Cocktail at Slippery Sam's House: On Friday night, someone hurled a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's Pacific Heights mansion, according to The New York Times. Andrew lives nearby and didn't hear it. The week's zeitgeist had already turned: a 15,000-word New Yorker hit piece by Ronan Farrow and Andrew Marantz, wall-to-wall coverage, Sam moving into Musk-like media-frenzy territory. Keith's editorial: Hands Off Sam Altman. The personality-driven circus has caught fire. Quite literally.•       Anthropic's Mythic Model Finds Decade-Old Vulnerabilities: The actual AI news this week, drowned out by the personality circus. Anthropic's new “Mythic” model autonomously discovered security holes in software that had eluded human experts for years. Dario refused to release it openly until the patches were complete. Treasury Secretary Bessent commented on the implications for banks and government. The signal: AI is becoming systematically better than the best humans at specialist domains. Generalists can probably relax.•       Slippery Sam vs Devious Dario vs Honest Hassabis: Keith's contrarian take: Altman is honest because he's openly dishonest. Amodei is the devious one — a politically liberal narrative wrapped around a commercial juggernaut. Andrew's third way is yesterday's Mallaby interview: Demis Hassabis, the Spinozan one-faced scientist who would rather be at Princeton. But even Demis must have authorised the firing of Mustafa Suleiman. Everyone has a game plan, said Mike Tyson, until they get punched in the face.•       Post of the Week: Keith Replaces WordPress in Ten Minutes: Keith's tweet: he's run two curation sites — seriouslyphotography.com and seriouslybc.com — on WordPress for over a decade. Last Friday afternoon, he asked Anthropic's tools to rewrite them. Ten minutes later, both sites were rebuilt from scratch, fully responsive, WordPress gone. Cost in the old world: tens of thousands of dollars and several months. The Matt Mullenweg vs Matthew Prince debate is settled by the actual technology while the principals are still arguing.•       The End of Ownership? Keith Goes Marxist: Pure capitalism, Keith argues, will produce so much abundance that scarcity ends and self-interested competition with it. “In the future there will be no ownership, or everything will be commonly owned.” Andrew calls it Marx with Tesla characteristics. Eric Ries's forthcoming Incorruptible argues that Patagonia and Mondragon point a different way — structural ethics rather than abundance utopianism. Two visions of the post-AI economy. Both probably wrong. We'll find out. About the GuestSebastian Mallaby is the Paul A. Volcker senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. A former Washington Post columnist and Economist contributing editor, he is the author of More Money Than God, The Man Who Knew (winner of the FT and McKinsey Business Book of the Year), The Power Law, and now The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence.References:•       The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence by Sebastian Mallaby.•       Episode 2862: Truth Is Dead — Steven Rosenbaum on AI as a spectacularly good liar. Mallaby's quiet counter-argument.•       Episode 2860: We Shape Our AI, Thereafter It Shapes Us — Keith Teare on agency in our agentic age. Hassabis thinks he can still steer.About Keen On AmericaNobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters:(00:31) - A Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's Pacific Heights house (02:41) - The New Yorker hit piece: Ronan Farrow, Andrew Marantz, 15,000 words (05:36) - Slippery Sam and the zeitgeist (07:39) - Brian Merchant: it's open season for refusing AI (08:09) - Anthropic's Mythic model finds decade-old vulnerabilities (10:46) - Why even release it? Dario's narcissism (12:12) - Slippery Sam vs Devious Dario (14:11) - Hassabis as the third way (18:29) - The Mustafa Suleiman question (19:17) - Mike Tyson, Kant, Spinoza, and Hobbes (22:09) - Brian Merchant and the new Luddism (23:34) - Anthropic makes a new generation redundant every week (23:34) - Post of the week: Keith rebuilds his sites in 10 minutes (26:39) - Eric Ries on incorruptible companies (30:12) - Patagonia, Berkeley Bowl, Mondragon (35:43) - The end of ownership? Keith goes Marxist

Dr. Jenna Skowronski, Dr. Shazli Khan, and Dr. Alix Barnes discuss the involvement of palliative care throughout the heart failure spectrum with Dr. Sarah Chuzi. Audio editing for this episode was performed by CardioNerds Intern, Dr. Julia Marques Fernandes. In this episode, we discuss utilizing palliative care principles while caring for patients with heart failure, particularly those being considered for advanced therapies. We emphasize utilization of communication frameworks when discussing prognosis and making decisions on pursuing therapies such as palliative inotropes, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), and heart transplant. Additionally, we discuss when to involve specialty palliative care services. Finally, we highlight the difference between palliative care and hospice and how to help patients navigate the transition from life-prolonging care to hospice. Dr. Jenna Skowronski is the Chair for the CardioNerds Heart Failure Council. Dr. Jenna Skowronski and Dr. Shazli Khan are the Co-chairs for the CardioNerds Advanced Heart Failure Therapies Series. Dr. Alix Barnes is the CardioNerds FIT Ambassador at UPMC and member of the CardioNerds Critical Care Cardiology Council. Enjoy this Circulation Paths to Discovery article to learn more about the CardioNerds mission and journey. US Cardiology Review is now the official journal of CardioNerds! Submit your manuscripts here. CardioNerds Heart Success Series PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Pearls Primary palliative care is care provided by a clinician that is not a palliative care specialist, such as a heart failure clinician having a conversation with a patient about their goals and values in clinic.  Taking time to get to know a patient as an individual and learning their goals and values prior to diving into conversations about prognosis and change in treatment plan facilitates more effective goals of care discussions.   Utilizing and practicing a communication framework can improve our skills at goals of care discussions.   Palliative inotropes should be reserved for patients experiencing symptomatic benefit from the therapy that outweighs the associated risks including arrhythmias and infections. The burden of managing these therapies at home should also be considered. Partnerships between cardiologists and hospice agencies can improve the experience for patients with heart failure who enroll in hospice. Cardiologists can continue to see their patients even after hospice enrollment and help with symptom management.   Notes Notes: Notes drafted by Dr. Barnes. 1. What is the difference between primary palliative care and specialty palliative care? Primary palliative care is the delivery of palliative care services that any clinician can deliver. This includes aligning treatment with a patient's goals and basic symptom management. For heart failure patients, symptom management can include cardiac symptoms such as dyspnea and chest pain as well as managing comorbid mood disorders such as adjustment disorder, depression, and anxiety. Advanced palliative care skills take additional training and time to develop. These include leading a difficult family meeting, managing symptoms that are not controlled with standard therapies and responding to emotional and spiritual distress. When these situations are encountered, referral to a specialty palliative care service should be considered. 1 2. How is palliative care integrated throughout the disease trajectory of a patient with heart failure? Heart failure clinicians deliver primary palliative care when assessing a patient's preferences, goals and values or managing symptoms. As a patient's disease progresses, the heart failure team also engages in primary palliative care when delivering news about prognosis. When advanced therapies are being considered, utilization of shared decision-making (SDM) should be employed (see question 3 for further discussion on SDM). For patients being considered for LVAD, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) mandates that patients are seen by a palliative care specialist prior to implantation. 2 Despite this, there remains variability in how institutions involve specialty palliative care in this decision-making process. Thoughtful consideration of what palliative care resources are available at your institution should guide how best to integrate specialty palliative care teams into the LVAD decision tree. One example of a model for meeting this mandate is having a small team of heart failure clinicians with additional palliative care training meet all patient's being evaluate for LVAD. 3. What is shared decision-making (SDM) and how is it utilized when evaluating a patient for advanced therapies? SDM is a collaborative process where patients and clinicians work together to make medical decisions that are aligned with a patient's goals and values.3 There are a variety of communication frameworks that can be used to engage in effective SDM. One framework is the Serious Illness Conversation guide. This is an evidenced based framework that can be used to deliver the news about a patient's current condition and then assess their goals, values and preferences for next steps in their treatment plan.4  This framework can be helpful when discussing prognosis prior to introducing the idea of an evaluation for advanced therapies. REMAP is a second commonly used framework which stands for Reframe, Expect Emotion, Map What's Important, Align, and Plan.5 This framework is similarly helpful when starting a discussion about advanced therapies with a patient. Both frameworks prioritize learning about a patient's goals, values, and preferences prior to making a recommendation for a treatment plan. Listening more than speaking and accepting that a patient and their family may choose a path that is different than what you personally might choose for yourself or your loved ones are vital pillars to engaging in these conversations effectively. When discussing LVAD, it is important to avoid framing the decision as “LVAD or no LVAD,” rather LVAD versus best supportive care. The “Best Case, Worst Case” framework is an effective way to create choice awareness for patients when they are faced with making this decision. This is a way to discuss both the best outcomes after LVAD implantation as well as the potential complications so a patient is better able to understand the full spectrum of possible outcomes. 6 4. How do you select which patients would benefit from home inotrope therapy? There is no data demonstrating a survival benefit with use of palliative inotropes. There may be subsets of patients who derive a survival benefit, such as patients whose renal function worsens when the agent is withdrawn, however there is no concrete data proving this. 7 Therefore, the benefit of home inotrope therapy should be based on if the patient derives symptomatic benefit from these agents. Additionally, risks of the therapy such as arrhythmias and infection as well as the burden of managing these therapies at home should also be weighed in the decision.8 Life expectancy for patients being initiated on palliative inotropes likely ranges from 6 to 9 months. Given this prognosis, concordant palliative care efforts should be intensified when starting patients on these agents. This can either be through involvement in specialty palliative care or increasing primary palliative care interventions. 9 5. How do you determine if a patient would be a candidate for hospice and how do you discuss hospice with patients and their families? Hospice is a comprehensive program that provides supportive care to patients at end of life. This includes a team of physicians, nurses, aids, social workers and chaplains that can deliver care in the home, at a nursing facility, or in an inpatient hospice facility. 10 Patients with a prognosis of 6 months or less can qualify for hospice services. Even if a patient qualifies for hospice based on their prognosis, it is important to assess if a patient's goals and values align with hospice. Introducing hospice to patients who still desire life prolonging care can cause mistrust between the patient and their health care team. When introducing hospice, it is helpful to describe the services hospice offers in addition to naming the service as some patients may have a negative connotation with the word “hospice.” 6. How can cardiologists partner with hospice agencies to provide better care for these patients? Heart failure specialists can continue to see their patients even after they enroll in hospice. Partnering in hospice agencies in this way can help improve symptom management for patients while also allowing them to continue meaningful relationships with providers with whom they've developed a longitudinal relationship with. Guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) and diuretics can be continued while enrolled in hospice as long as they are offering symptomatic benefit. Heart failure specialists can help with adjusting GDMT to cheaper formulations, such as exchanging angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ANRIs) for angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Many hospice agencies cannot accept patients receiving palliative inotropes due to the resources and training required to safely care for these patients. Understanding what hospice agencies in your area can and cannot support allows heart failure specialists to have informed discussions with patients and make appropriate referrals. References Quill TE, Abernethy AP. Generalist plus Specialist Palliative Care — Creating a More Sustainable Model. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(13):1173-1175. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1215620. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1215620 Ventricular Assist Devices for Bridge-to-Transplant and Destination Therapy. Published online August 1, 2013. https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/ncacal-decision-memo.aspx?proposed=Y&NCAId=268 Godfrey S, Barnes A, Gao J, Katz JN, Chuzi S. Shared Decision-making in Palliative and End‑of‑life Care in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. US Cardiol Rev. 2024;18:e13. doi:10.15420/usc.2024.03. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39494405/ Baxter R, Pusa S, Andersson S, Fromme EK, Paladino J, Sandgren A. Core elements of serious illness conversations: an integrative systematic review. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2024;14(e3):e2268-e2279. doi:10.1136/spcare-2023-004163. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11671901/ Childers JW, Back AL, Tulsky JA, Arnold RM. REMAP: A Framework for Goals of Care Conversations. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(10):e844-e850. doi:10.1200/JOP.2016.018796. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JOP.2016.018796 Kruser JM, Nabozny MJ, Steffens NM, et al. “Best Case/Worst Case”: Qualitative Evaluation of a Novel Communication Tool for Difficult in-the-Moment Surgical Decisions. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(9):1805-1811. doi:10.1111/jgs.13615. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4747100/ Tolia S, Khan M, Khan S, et al. Mortality and long-term outcomes of palliative inotropes in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Eur Heart J.  2021;42(Supplement_1):ehab724.0915. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.0915. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/42/Supplement_1/ehab724.0915/6392681 Chuzi S, Allen LA, Dunlay SM, Warraich HJ. Palliative Inotrope Therapy: A Narrative Review. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4(8):815. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2019.2081. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/article-abstract/2737414#google_vignette Chuzi S, Gao J, Thariath J, et al. Characteristics and Outcomes of Palliative Continuous Intravenous Inotrope Support Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure. J Am Heart Assoc. 2025;14(14):e039397. doi:10.1161/JAHA.124.039397. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.124.039397 What is hospice? Published online September 24, 2024. https://hospicefoundation.org/what-is-hospice/

Eric Bugera returns to RX'D Radio with a genuine argument for why specializing too early is one of the worst career decisions a trainer can make, and holds the experience to back it up. https://www.instagram.com/ericbugera/ https://ebugera.com/ Join the PSL1 Waitlist For Our Only Course Discount: https://www.pre-script.com/psl1 FREE Coach's Field Guide: https://www.pre-script.com/coachs-field-guide Spoken Nutrition: 15% Off Your Order! www.spokennutrition.com/RXD We've got a new sponsor! Marek Health is a health optimization company that offers advanced blood testing, health coaching, and expert medical oversight. Our services can help you enhance your lifestyle, nutrition, and supplementation to medical treatment and care. https://marekhealth.com/rxd Code RXD Don't miss the release of our newest educational community -The Pre-Script ® Collective! Join the community today at www.pre-script.com. For other strength training, health, and injury prevention resources, check out our website, YouTube channel, and Instagram. For more episodes, subscribe and tune in to our podcast. Also, make sure to sign up to our mailing list at www.pre-script.com to get the first updates on new programming releases. You can also follow Dr. Jordan Shallow and Dr. Jordan Jiunta on Instagram! Dr. Jordan Shallow: https://www.instagram.com/the_muscle_doc/ Dr. Jordan Jiunta: https://www.instagram.com/redwiteandjordan/

Hoje o papo é sobre generalistas especialistas na era da inteligência artificial! Neste episódio, Paulo Silveira lê e comenta o artigo Generalists vs Specialists, publicado no blog de Martin Fowler. Descubra como, em um cenário cada vez mais moldado por LLMs e mudanças rápidas nas ferramentas, profissionais capazes de combinar profundidade em fundamentos com amplitude entre áreas se tornarão cada vez mais valiosos. Links: Martin Fowler: Expert Generalists Blog do Paulo Silveira Inscreva-se na Hipsters.Builders, a newsletter da comunidade builder. Toda semana, a principal newsletter de quem constrói software no Brasil traz notícias, citações e movimentos da comunidade Builder do X, do Hipsters e do IA Sob Controle, além dos melhores links e eventos. Direto no seu e-mail. Vá para o Vale do Silício com Paulo Silveira, Marcell Almeida, Fabrício Carraro e Marcus Mendes na “Imersão IA Sob Controle e Alura no Vale do Silício“! Vagas limitadas, corra para reservar a sua. TechGuide.sh, um mapeamento das principais tecnologias demandadas pelo mercado para diferentes carreiras, com nossas sugestões e opiniões. #7DaysOfCode: Coloque em prática os seus conhecimentos de programação em desafios diários e gratuitos. Acesse https://7daysofcode.io/ Produção e conteúdo: Alura Cursos de Tecnologia – https://www.alura.com.br Edição e sonorização: Rede Gigahertz de Podcasts

With agentic AI reshaping what it means to work in Salesforce, Mike Gerholdt makes a compelling case for why the role of a Salesforce Admin isn't shrinking, but shifting. The value was never really in the buttons Salesforce admins click, but in the judgments they make.Jack chats to Mike about everything from the principle of least privilege in an agentic world, to whether generalist or specialist skills will win out as the platform keeps expanding. Mike also shares why the admin who hoards their knowledge, whether that's contacts in a Rolodex or config know-how in their head, is ultimately doing their organisation and themselves a disservice. Plus, with TDX just around the corner at the time of recording, Mike gives a preview of what makes that event different from every other Salesforce gathering on the calendar.00:01 Intro & Meet Mike Gerholdt01:32 Why Admins Shouldn't Fear the AI Revolution04:14 Decisioning is Cheap, Judgment is Expensive06:35 What a Salesforce Org Actually Is07:28 The Mundane Stuff vs. The Valuable Stuff10:27 Why Admins Have an Emotional Response to AI11:19 Identity, Expertise & the Evolving Admin Role13:44 Security, Permissions & Principle of Least Privilege17:14 Trust, Vibe Coding & the AI Learning Curve19:51 Why Tools Like Gearset Still Matter21:03 AI Won't Replace Admins — Here's Why23:43 How Engineers Are Actually Using AI Day-to-Day26:48 Security Guardrails in an Agentic World31:02 User Experience as a Specialisation32:47 Generalist vs. Specialist: Where Should You Focus?38:26 You're Not Learning to Drive Until After You Pass Your Test40:59 What to Look Forward to at TDX44:22 Final Bits of Wisdom

Stewart Alsop sits down with Karol, a 3D generalist and digital artist with 25 years of experience, to talk about the evolving landscape of 3D art — from sculpting in ZBrush to the deep technical rabbit hole of Houdini, and how AI tools like Claude are quietly reshaping creative workflows. The conversation wanders into bigger territory: the singularity, accelerationism, the philosophical roots of Silicon Valley's techno-anxiety (including the Roko's Basilisk thought experiment and the writings of Nick Land), the slow unraveling of Hollywood's cultural monopoly, and what decentralized creative tools mean for independent artists. Stewart also points Karol toward the work of Fei-Fei Li and World Labs as a window into where 3D world modeling is heading next.Timestamps00:00 — Karol's 25-year journey from Photoshop and 2D art into Cinema 4D and the world of 3D.05:00 — Why Houdini blew the ceiling off every other 3D program, and how node-based coding changed Karol's creative process entirely.10:00 — The tension between visual thinking and technical thinking, and how constant digital stimuli has degraded Karol's internal imagination.15:00 — Stewart reflects on Claude Code and how AI is about to dissolve the technical barriers in Houdini the same way it did for programming.20:00 — The Sphere in Las Vegas, projection mapping, drone polo, and Stewart's vision for intimate tech-integrated experiences.25:00 — Roko's Basilisk, fear-driven accelerationism, and why Latin America never caught the Silicon Valley doomsday bug.30:00 — Hollywood's cultural machine, shared Western boogeymen, and how decentralized 3D art is replacing the $100M production monopoly.35:00 — Karol's eclectic client roster: Utah Jazz, Apple, League of Legends, and a Buddhist temple in Los Angeles.40:00 — Gaussian splatting, photogrammetry, point clouds, and where world models are taking 3D next.45:00 — The freelance vs. studio dilemma, brutal VFX industry crunch culture, and Stewart's plan to own his entire podcast stack.50:00 — Poland's economic rise, the hollowing out of the Netherlands, and capitalism as an endless infection with no clear cure.Key InsightsHoudini as creative rebirth. After nearly burning out on conventional 3D software, Karol discovered that Houdini's node-based, code-driven architecture gave him something the other tools never could — a blank canvas with no ceiling. Rather than navigating a boat someone else built, he now builds the boat from scratch every time, which keeps the work perpetually challenging and alive.Visual thinking is under attack. Karol noticed his once-vivid internal imagination quietly degrading over the years, and traces it directly to the overwhelming volume of digital stimuli in modern life. His response has been aggressive minimalism — stripping back inputs, physical and digital, to try to recover the creative mental space he once had naturally.AI as a technical collaborator, not a replacement. Karol uses Claude daily, not to generate imagery, but to work through coding problems inside Houdini. He's clear that image generation is his job — what AI earns its place doing is explaining unfamiliar code and helping him push past technical blockers faster.The freelance paradox. Twenty-five years of independence has meant total creative freedom alongside real financial instability — months of silence followed by weeks of 16-hour days. Karol has never resolved this tension, but holds onto the freedom anyway, and sees it as increasingly important as surveillance and corporate control tighten.Roko's Basilisk explains Silicon Valley. Both Stewart and Karol land on the idea that the feverish, fear-driven energy behind tech accelerationism may trace back to this single thought experiment — the notion that if you don't help build the AI, it will punish you retroactively. Latin America, blissfully unaware of it, seems measurably calmer.Decentralization is ending Hollywood's monopoly. The same forces making software cheaper and AI more powerful are quietly dismantling the $100M barrier to cultural creation. Karol's career — spanning album covers, Apple, the Utah Jazz, and a Buddhist temple — is a living proof of concept for what independent 3D generalism can look like outside the studio machine.Owning your tools is a political act. Whether it's Karol resisting the pigeonhole of VFX studios or Stewart rebuilding his podcast infrastructure from scratch, both see the ability to own and control your own software and hardware as essential preparation for whatever comes next.

In this episode, Mike Stromsoe and Jesse Parenti explore the pitfalls of being a generalist in insurance, the power of niche specialization, and strategies to build credibility and authority in the industry. They share insights on how focusing on a niche can accelerate success, leverage technology, and create predictable pipelines.Key Highlights:The pitfalls of being a generalist in insuranceThe importance of niche specialization for growthStrategies to build credibility and authorityLeveraging technology and AI to accelerate successCreating predictable pipelines and high-value relationshipsChapters00:00 Introduction to Specialization in Insurance03:07 The Downfall of Generalists05:48 Building Authority and Credibility08:55 The Power of Niche Marketing11:54 The Quote Machine Trap14:52 Empowering Producers Through Focus17:58 The Importance of Problem Solving21:04 Finding Your Niche24:03 Leveraging Technology for Success26:54 Positioning Language in Sales29:52 The Pathway to Niche Success32:54 Conclusion and Call to Action

Most PT clinic owners assume growth comes from referrals—until those referrals slow down.In this episode, Lex Lancaster breaks down how patients actually find clinics today and why most PT websites fail to convert visitors into patients. This conversation focuses on practical, actionable strategies clinic owners can use immediately.Key Takeaways:• SEO is about getting found by the right patients, not more traffic• Your website must clearly answer: who you help, what you do, how, and where• Generalist messaging kills conversions—specificity wins• Organic traffic builds long-term patient flow without ongoing ad spend• SEO is a 6–18 month play, not a quick fix• Content = answering real patient questions consistently• If your website doesn't convert, ads will only waste moneyWhy This MattersIf your clinic relies only on referrals, you're exposed. SEO and content create a second, scalable pipeline of patients that works even when referrals slow down.Guest LinksWebsite: https://www.lexlancaster.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexlancaster_SponsorsSaRA Health — Automates patient engagement and RTMEMPOWER EMR — Faster workflows built for PTsU.S. Physical Therapy — Career growth and clinic supportFlagler Health - https://www.flaglerhealth.io/Subscribe & FollowApple Podcastshttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pt-pintcast-physical-therapy/id1000443325Spotifyhttps://open.spotify.com/show/3LmMUT64yrUc2iGo9EmafcYouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/@PTPintcastLinkedInhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/jimmy-mckay-pt-dpt-a4207659/Instagramhttps://www.instagram.com/ptpintcastX / Twitterhttps://x.com/PTPintcastWebsitehttps://www.ptpintcast.com/

In this episode, Brian Alvey, CTO of WordPress VIP (Automattic's enterprise platform), reveals how the platform powering NASA, CBS, NBCUniversal, Rolling Stone, Samsung, and the White House is integrating AI into enterprise publishing at massive scale. Brian shares how he's built over 24 content management platforms throughout his career — and why the current AI moment is the most transformative shift he's ever seen in publishing technology.Brian breaks down how WordPress VIP is embedding AI into tools like Parse.ly to give editors conversational content insights, how their AI-powered "editorial recipes" turn hours of manual headline testing and cross-linking into minutes, and how a new tool called Tollbit lets publishers actually charge AI crawlers for accessing their content. He also shares his philosophy on keeping humans in the loop at enterprise scale, how 200-person newsrooms and 11,000-contributor content teams are navigating AI adoption, and why the open web matters more than ever when everyone's fighting for attention in an AI-first world.Key Topics CoveredHow WordPress VIP powers mission-critical content for NASA, CBS, the White House, and hundreds of enterprise brandsBrian's journey building 24+ content management platforms and what he's learned about great CMS architectureHow WordPress VIP takes open-source WordPress and locks it down with enterprise governance for massive newsroomsThe AI tools WordPress VIP is building: conversational analytics, headline testing, engagement optimization, and automated cross-linkingHow Tollbit lets publishers charge AI companies for crawling their content — a new revenue stream for mediaWhat "human in the loop" actually means when you're managing 11,000 contributorsThe Agentforce integration with Salesforce: bringing AI-powered chat and lead generation directly into WordPress sitesWhy the open web still matters in the age of AI and how publishers are fighting backHow enterprise publishing teams are adopting AI without sacrificing editorial qualityBrian's honest take on where AI helps editors vs. where it still falls shortEpisode Timestamps00:00 - Introduction and welcome00:35 - Brian's career building publishing platforms before Google existed03:22 - AI as an equalizing paradigm shift07:20 - Generalist superpower: bridging art and science09:46 - Human skills vs AI: lessons from The Founder13:36 - Career advice for his kids in the AI era16:01 - WordPress VIP and enterprise publishing at scale18:28 - Core mission: speed and stability without breaking things23:06 - AI content intelligence tools and MCP adapters28:39 - Media business fundamentals: attention and monetization35:27 - Customer segments and AI crawler strategies40:12 - Trust and credibility in the AI-generated content era44:25 - From competing against WordPress to leading it48:15 - Obsession with automation and future of work51:51 - Building products in days with AI tools like Claude56:47 - What truly drives him58:40 - Closing and where to find BrianBrian's Socials:LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/brianalvey/Website — https://brianalvey.comPartner LinksBook Enterprise Training — https://www.upscaile.com/Subscribe to our free newsletter — https://www.theaireport.ai/subscribe

Kasim Aslam's journey from welfare baby to a seven-million-dollar net worth entrepreneur demonstrates the transformative power of failure combined with calculated risk management. His philosophy centers on a crucial principle: manage downside risk while failing aggressively in all aspects of life. The 2008 financial collapse stripped him of everything, leaving him eating free samples at Costco, yet this crucible taught him that money is fuel, not wealth, fundamentally reshaping his relationship with success and removing the hunger for acquisition that once drove him forward. Beyond his business ventures, Kasim's worldview is shaped by a deep commitment to questioning arbitrary societal systems and advocating for those marginalized by them. His brother's incarceration for nonviolent drug crimes stemming from pharmaceutical addiction highlighted the hypocrisy of legal systems that criminalize individuals while protecting corporations. This injustice informs his broader philosophy about entrepreneurship, education, and human potential—he believes society systematically suppresses entrepreneurial minds through rule-focused education systems and punitive legal structures rather than creating legitimate channels for their ambition. For those seeking to understand the principles of effective delegation, strategic business scaling, and the psychology of entrepreneurial success, Kasim Aslam offers invaluable resources and insights. Visit his website to access his free hiring book, workbooks, cheat sheets, and global job board—democratizing knowledge typically requiring expensive consultants. Explore his mastermind communities designed to support entrepreneurs in building strong teams and implementing effective delegation strategies. For the accessible version of the podcast, go to our Ziotag gallery.We're happy you're here! Like the pod?Support the podcast and receive discounts from our sponsors: https://yourbrandamplified.codeadx.me/Leave a rating and review on your favorite platformFollow @yourbrandamplified on the socialsTalk to my digital avatar Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode, I sit down with Callum Runnegar-Mundy to break down how he went from billing £8K fees as a regional generalist at Michael Page to closing £132K retained searches as top biller at Hubscale in under two years.Connect with Callum here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/callum-mundy/-------------------------Watch the episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/i7E_8W8PATw-------------------------Sponsors - Claim your exclusive savings from our partners with the links below:Sourcewhale - Check Out Sourcewhale & Claim Your Exclusive Offer Here.Atlas - Check Out Atlas & Claim Your Exclusive Offer HereRaise - Check Out Raise & Claim Your Exclusive Offer Here.-------------------------Extra Stuff:Learn more about our online skills development platform Hector here: https://bit.ly/47hsaxeJoin 6,000+ other recruiters levelling up their skills with our Limitless Learning Newsletter here: https://limitless-learning.thisishector.com/subscribe-------------------------Get in touch:Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hishemazzouz/-------------------------

Interview with Stephen Soock, VP Investor Relations & Development of Heliostar MetalsOur previous interview: https://www.cruxinvestor.com/posts/heliostar-metals-tsxvhstr-self-funding-path-from-40k-to-300k-ounces-by-2030-8846Recording date: 2nd March 2026Heliostar Metals is one of the more clearly defined growth stories in the emerging mid-tier gold space. The company is producing approximately 50,000 ounces of gold per year from its La Colorada mine in Mexico and is on a stated path to 300,000 ounces annually by the end of the decade. That growth is to be funded through internal cash flow, without reliance on the equity markets — a commitment management describes with increasing conviction as gold prices remain elevated.The investment case centers on Ana Paula, the company's flagship development asset. A PEA outlined a project capable of producing 100,000 ounces per year over a nine-year mine life at an all-in sustaining cost of approximately $1,000 per ounce. At that cost profile, Ana Paula would rank in the lowest decile of the global gold cost curve, generating substantial free cash flow across a wide range of gold price scenarios. The company is now progressing directly to a full feasibility study, expected in H1 2026, which will serve as the basis for a construction decision. First production is targeted for H2 2028.The geometry of the Ana Paula orebody underpins its economics. Rather than a series of narrow veins requiring extensive underground development, the deposit hosts a wide mineralised breccia flooded with high-grade gold, allowing meaningful ore access with relatively limited lateral development. The high-grade zone grades approximately 5,000 ounces per vertical metre — one of the highest density metrics of any underground gold project globally. Drilling has also confirmed that high-grade mineralisation continues at depth, opening the possibility of expanding Ana Paula beyond its current mine plan toward a potential tier-one scale asset.Beyond Ana Paula, the growth roadmap layers in Cerro del Gallo as a third mine, funded by Ana Paula cash flow and targeted to add another 100,000 ounces per year before the end of the decade. La Colorada continues to provide near-term production stability, with the Veta Madre open pit cutback and subsequent Creston pit extending mine life and sustaining cash generation through the Ana Paula development period.The company has also been tidying its portfolio, recently divesting a package of non-core early-stage exploration assets that did not fit the growth pipeline. Underground decline development at Ana Paula is being restarted in H2 2026, providing tangible operational momentum well ahead of the feasibility study and construction decision.On the capital structure side, Heliostar's share register is now approximately 50% institutional. Generalist funds are beginning to participate, viewing the company as a preferred vehicle for gold growth exposure. The re-rating from developer to producer multiple — which management expects to begin as Ana Paula advances through feasibility — is the key valuation catalyst for current investors.Heliostar's Q1 2026 cash flow results, Ana Paula's feasibility study release, and the progress of project finance conversations in mid-2026 are the primary milestones investors should monitor in the near term. The company has built a credible platform. Execution is now the determining factor.View Heliostar Metals' company profile: https://www.cruxinvestor.com/companies/heliostar-metalsSign up for Crux Investor: https://cruxinvestor.com

In this episode of The Distribution, Brandon Sedloff sits down with Travis Pritchett, CEO of HMC, to unpack his unconventional path into alternatives and the evolution of a middle-market investment firm navigating a rapidly changing private markets landscape. From a biology major and fly-fishing enthusiast to leading an $8 billion global real assets platform, Travis shares the inflection points that shaped his career and the strategic decisions that have defined HMC's growth. The conversation spans power generation, European value-add real estate, and the modernization of luxury senior housing, all framed by a focus on asset-level execution and long-term mega trends. They discuss: How Travis transitioned from banking and fly fishing into real estate private equity and ultimately into HMC's CEO role The origins of HMC's power generation strategy and how the firm is capitalizing on AI and data center demand without taking data center risk The evolution of the middle-market value add model and why specialization is becoming a competitive necessity The shift toward luxury, high-amenity senior housing and the demographic forces reshaping the sector Why Europe may present a multi-year opportunity given rebased valuations, capital flows, and competitive dynamics Links: HMC - https://www.harbert.net/ Travis on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/travis-pritchett-1343264/ Brandon on LinkedIn - ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/bsedloff/⁠ Juniper Square - ⁠https://www.junipersquare.com/⁠ Topics: (00:00:00) - Intro (00:02:24) - Travis' background and early career (00:17:37) - Staying 20 years through growth (00:20:45) - HMC today (00:22:55) - Shared services tradeoffs and costs (00:27:27) - AI tailwinds and new competition (00:28:27) - Power investing 201 (00:29:44) - Gas vs renewables cycle (00:31:09) - Where power capital comes from (00:33:31) - Data centers without DC risk (00:36:33) - Value add platform evolution (00:40:07) - US vs Europe opportunity (00:43:54) - Seniors housing strategy shift (00:47:31) - Luxury senior living today (00:52:01) - Generalist versus specialist (00:55:09) - Reimagining with megatrends (00:57:48) - Closing and wrap up

In this episode of Excess Returns, we sit down with Matt Russell of Business Breakdowns to explore how AI is actually being used in investing today. We go beyond the hype and break down practical use cases for AI in portfolio management, stock research, due diligence, monitoring, and idea generation. From deep research models and agentic AI to prompt engineering and workflow design, this conversation walks through how professional investors can use AI tools to increase productivity, improve decision-making, and reduce blind spots without losing their edge. If you are an asset manager, analyst, allocator, or DIY investor wondering how AI will impact investing and stock picking, this episode offers a clear, practical roadmap.Main topics covered:The evolution from early large language models to deep research and agentic AI for investorsLLMs vs agent-based AI and why the distinction matters for investment researchHow AI fits into an investor's workflow, from due diligence to portfolio monitoringUsing AI to monitor KPIs, earnings calls, and cross-industry signals in real timeHow AI can help kill bad ideas faster and surface deal breakers earlyPrompt engineering for investors, including mindset framing, audience targeting, and output designBuilding mental models into AI systems to reflect your investment philosophyAI tech stacks for investors, including writing tools, deep research models, and browser-based AIIteration, experimentation, and standardized testing of prompts across model upgradesThe impact of AI on alpha generation, active management, and generalist vs specialist investorsOrganizational adoption strategies for investment firms considering AICustomization, agentic workflows, and what AI in investing could look like five years from nowTimestamps:00:00 How AI tools increase investor productivity01:16 Why early ChatGPT was a head fake for investors03:07 The inflection point with deep research and agentic AI05:00 LLMs vs agents explained in plain English07:01 Where AI fits inside an investment workflow09:28 Replacing manual earnings transcript work11:40 Real-time monitoring and AI alerts19:24 Using AI to kill bad investment ideas faster22:01 Trust but verify, hallucinations and safeguards25:29 Matt's AI tech stack for investing30:00 Prompt engineering breakthroughs33:00 Standardized experimentation across new AI models36:07 Building idea generation prompts step by step40:15 Using AI as an editor and critical reviewer43:50 Does AI compress investor skill differences46:10 How funds should adopt AI internally50:40 Fear of falling behind in asset management53:05 Generalists vs specialists in an AI world55:18 AI and the pursuit of alpha57:00 Customization, agents and the future of investing01:01:10 Coding agents and building tools with AI

What separates six-figure entrepreneurs from seven-figure icons? Kathryn Porritt breaks down the luxury brand framework that commands premium prices. First, master one hyper-specific skill. Generalists struggle at the top—luxury clients pay for depth, not breadth. Your expertise needs years of proven results, not surface-level knowledge. Second, flip your business model. Most entrepreneurs start cheap and climb up. Luxury brands launch with high-ticket offers ($100K+) immediately, building credibility that flows downward. Third, surround yourself with peers who understand your journey. Isolation kills momentum. Community creates accountability and opens opportunities.

From CSM 2026 in Anaheim, Jimmy sits down with Ben Lindaman to discuss one of the biggest identity tensions in physical therapy:Generalist vs. Specialist.Healthcare rewards depth.Marketing rewards niche positioning.But patient care often demands integration.Ben argues that:Early over-specialization can stunt developmentGeneralist thinking is critical in rural and primary care settingsMost patients don't need hyper-specializationConfidence and competence matter more than credentialsPT's versatility is both a strength and communication challengeIf you've ever felt pressure to define your niche immediately — this episode is for you.???? Key TakeawaysSpecialization has value — but so does breadthYoung clinicians should explore before committingValue-based care demands better triage and integrationRural PTs must be adaptable generalistsClinical identity should be internally driven, not externally pressured???? GuestBen Lindaman, PT, DPTAssistant Professor, Tufts UniversityPRN Clinician, Philadelphia???? Benton.Lindaman@tufts.eduSocial: @ben10dptRecommended Book: Range by David Epstein???? SponsorsSupported by:SaRA HealthEMPOWER EMRU.S. Physical Therapy