Podcasts about hi phi nation

Rules are good. Discretion is better. So argues philosophy professor Barry Lam in his new book, “Fewer Rules, Better People.” While Lam acknowledges law as the backbone of society, he says America has forgotten the good of discretion. Be it a sports referee, a parent, a police officer or a prosecutor, decision makers need the freedom to exercise discernment about how the rules get applied. Lam joins Kerri Miller on this week's Big Books and Bold Ideas for a philosophical and practical discussion about how discretion greases the wheels of our culture and why removing it creates a lumbering bureaucracy. Guest:Barry Lam is a professor of philosophy at UC Riverside and host of the podcast Hi-Phi Nation. His new book is “Fewer Rules, Better People: The Case for Discretion.” Subscribe to Big Books and Bold Ideas with Kerri Miller podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, RSS or anywhere you get your podcasts.Subscribe to the Thread newsletter for the latest book and author news and must-read recommendations.

Background: In this webinar I'll be making the case that we should give more, not less, discretionary power to those who are in charge of implementing and enforcing rules in a firm or society. These are people like police officers, prosecutors, judges, and also doctors, nurses, and everyday workers. The argument rest on a case against Legalism, the political philosophy that job titles, roles, rules, laws, policies, and procedures must be detailed, explicit, and blindly administered to ensure an efficiently functioning and fair society. Instead, my view is that basic tenets of what makes for a good person and a society of good people requires that we build into rules and regulation the ability for people in charge of those rules to ignore or bend them.Speaker:Professor Barry Lam is Professor of Philosophy at University of California, Riverside, and host and producer of Slate's Hi-Phi Nation podcast, a documentary series about the connection between philosophy and the law, science, technology, and everyday life.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Astronomical Cake, published by Richard Y Chappell on June 6, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. There's one respect in which philosophical training seems to make (many) philosophers worse at practical ethics. Too many are tempted to treat tidy thought experiments as a model for messy real-world ethical quandaries. We're used to thinking about scenarios where all the details and consequences are stipulated, so that we can better uncover our theoretical commitments about what matters in principle. I've previously flagged that this can be misleading: our intuitions about real-world situations may draw upon implicit knowledge of what those situations are like, and this implicit knowledge (when contrary to the explicit stipulations of the scenario) may distort our theoretical verdicts. But it's even worse when the error goes the other way, and verdicts that only make sense given theoretical stipulations get exported into real-life situations where the stipulations do not hold. This can badly distort our understanding of how people should actually behave. Our undergraduate students often protest the silly stipulations we build into our scenarios: "Why can't we rescue everyone from the tracks without killing anyone?" It's a good instinct! Alas, to properly engage with thought experiments, we have to abide by the stipulations. We learn (and train our students) to take moral trade-offs at face value, ignore likely downstream effects, and not question the apparent pay-offs for acting in dastardly ways. This self-imposed simple-mindedness is a crucial skill for ethical theorizing. But it can be absolutely devastating to our practical judgment, if we fail to carefully distinguish ethical theory and practice. Moral distortion from high stakes A striking example of such philosophy-induced distortion comes from our theoretical understanding that sufficiently high stakes can justify overriding other values. This is a central implication of "moderate deontology": it's wrong to kill one as a means to save five, but obviously you should kill one innocent person if that's a necessary means to saving the entire world. Now, crucially, in real life that is not actually a choice situation in which you could ever find yourself. The thought experiment comes with stipulated certainty; real life doesn't. So, much practical moral know-how comes down to having good judgment, including about how to manage your own biases so that you don't mistakenly take yourself to have fantastically strong reasons to do something that's actually disastrously counterproductive. This is why utilitarians talk a lot about respecting generally-reliable rules rather than naively taking expected value (EV) calculations at face value. Taking our fallibility seriously is crucial for actually doing good in the world. Higher stakes make it all the more important to choose the consequentially better option. But they don't inherently make it more likely that a disreputable-seeming action is consequentially better. If "stealing to give" is a negative-EV strategy for ordinary charities, my default assumption is that it's negative-EV for longtermist causes too.[1] There are conceivable scenarios where that isn't so; but some positive argument is needed for thinking that any given real-life situation (like SBF's) takes this inverted form. Raising the stakes doesn't automatically flip the valence. Many philosophers don't seem to understand this. Seth Lazar, for example, gave clear voice to (what we might call) academic philosophy's high stakes distortion when he was interviewed on Hi-Phi Nation last year.[2] Lazar claimed that it's "intellectually inconsistent" to simultaneously hold that (i) there are astronomical stakes to longtermism and x-risk reduction, and yet (ii) it's also really important that you act with integrity....

We're rounding off our little mini-series on “theory of mind” in autism research with episode 5: “New Paradigms, New Values.”You can find a (not Substack-generated) transcript of the episode, as well as a music-free remix, here.We will be on hiatus over the holidays, while we cook up some more episodes about the relationship between empathy and autism. But in the meantime, I'll continue to post here occasionally to let you all know about other fascinating audio projects that tackle issues related to autism and disability.“New Paradigms, New Values”In the last several episodes, we've explored the bizarre history of autism research focusing on “theory of mind deficits.” So at this point, you're probably wondering: “where do we go from here?”We don't have all the answers, but in this episode, Travis and Joe—from the previous episode—describe some fascinating new avenues for autism research, which promise to help us understand autistic perspectival differences without invoking so-called “theory of mind deficits.” Plus, Travis compares the two most common paradigms in autism research (the “pathology paradigm,” and the “neurodiversity paradigm”), and offers some advice for folks who want to start reading up on the philosophy of autism.Topics Discussed* A potential problem with our critique of “theory of mind deficit” research: some autistic people find the theory of mind deficit view of autism helpful for making sense of challenging experiences. (00:29)* A reminder about the problems associated with the “theory of mind deficit” view of autism; in particular, the view dehumanizes autistic people. (02:41)* Problems with Barnbaum's influential book The Ethics of Autism (2008), which assumes the theory of mind deficit view of autism. (04:05)* But again, some autistic people find the “theory of mind deficit” view of autism helpful. (05:54)* So, we need good alternatives for understanding and talking about autistic social differences. (07:41)* The bad news: there's no single unifying “theory of autism” that can simply replace the “theory of mind deficit” view. (08:25)* The good news: there are several alternative research programs that promise to help us better understand autistic people's experiences with perspective-taking. (09:07)* A sociological alternative: the double empathy problem. (10:16)* A psychological alternative: monotropism. (12:20)* Monotropism isn't just “an autistic thing.” (15:41)* Why the double empathy problem and monotropism could both be true (they're not in competition with each other). (17:06)* A physiological alternative: differences in interoception. (19:04) * What all of these alternative theories have in common: they don't have to frame autism in terms of deficits. This focus reflects a shift in value assumptions in autism research. (21:13)* Science can't avoid making some value-laden assumptions. Feminist philosophers of science have been talking about this issue for decades. (22:12)* An example of a value assumption in science and medicine: “classic” heart attack symptoms. (25:02)* Travis contrasts the “pathology paradigm” in autism research with the “neurodiversity paradigm” in autism research. (25:51)* Travis gives an example of how the pathology paradigm can distort autism researchers' interpretation of data. (29:12)* We shouldn't merely “study autistic differences”; we need to study autistic differences with the ultimate goal of improving autistic people's well-being, all while paying close attention to what autistic people say they need. (With a quick call-back to Chloe Farahar.) (33:07)* Travis explains how philosophy can contribute to autism research. (36:21)* But philosophers need to be careful! Travis has advice. (37:50)* Look-ahead to our next topic: empathy and autism. (40:26)Sources Mentioned* Barnbaum, The Ethics of Autism (2008).* Milton, “On the ontological status of autism: the ‘double empathy problem',” Disability and Society, Volume 27, Issue 6 (2012). https://kar.kent.ac.uk/62639/1/Double%20empathy%20problem.pdf* More recent research supporting the “double empathy problem” hypothesis includes:* Morrison, et al., “Outcomes of real-world social interaction for autistic adults paired with autistic compared to typically developing partners,” Autism, Volume 24, Issue 5 (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31823656/* Sheppard, et al., “Mindreading beliefs in same- and cross-neurotype interactions,” Autism (2023). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13623613231211457* Milton, et al., “The ‘double empathy problem': Ten years on,” Autism, Volume 26, Issue 8 (2022). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13623613221129123* Crompton, et al., “Autistic peer-to-peer information transfer is highly effective,” Autism, Volume 24, Issue 7 (2020). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7545656/* Murray, et al., “Attention, monotropism and the diagnostic criteria for autism,” Autism, Volume 9, Issue 2 (2005). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362361305051398* Dwyer, “Revisiting Monotropism” (blog post from 2021): https://www.autisticscholar.com/monotropism/* Joe mentions that autistic people might tend to have heightened sympathetic bodily reactions to others' emotions, but also have more trouble processing those sympathetic bodily reactions (probably because of alexithymia). There is a bunch of research on empathic arousal, alexithymia, and interoception, but as a start:* Fletcher-Watson and Bird, “Autism and empathy: What are the real links?” Autism, Volume 24, Issue 1 (2020). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1362361319883506* Kimber, et al., “Autistic People's Experience of Empathy and the Autistic Empathy Deficit Narrative,” Autism in Adulthood (2023). https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/aut.2023.0001?download=true&journalCode=aut* Fan, et al., “Empathic arousal and social understanding in individuals with autism: evidence from fMRI and ERP measurements” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Volume 9, Issue 8 (2014). https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/9/8/1203/2375393* Butera, et al., “Relationships between alexithymia, interoception, and emotional empathy in autism spectrum disorder,” Autism, Volume 27, Issue 3 (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35833505/* Garfinkel, et al., “Discrepancies between dimensions of interoception in autism: Implications for emotion and anxiety,” Biological Psychology, 114 (2016).* For more on the feminist critique of the “value-free ideal of science,” see Crasnow, "Feminist Perspectives on Science," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-science/* For more on “male norms” in medicine, see: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-march-11-2019-1.5049277/there-s-a-gender-gap-in-medical-data-and-it-s-costing-women-their-lives-says-this-author-1.5049286* Nick Walker, Neuroqueer Heresies (2021). https://neuroqueer.com/neuroqueer-heresies/* The paper in which researchers rely on the “pathology paradigm” when interpreting their results: Hu, et al., “Right Temporoparietal Junction Underlies Avoidance of Moral Transgression in Autism Spectrum Disorder,” Journal of Neuroscience, Volume 41, Issue 8 (2021). https://www.jneurosci.org/content/41/8/1699* Travis's reading recommendations (to get started with the philosophy of autism):* Monique Botha (I love their paper, “Academic, Activist, or Advocate?” in Frontiers in Psychology (2021) https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.727542/full)* Damian Milton (see his two “double empathy” problem paper, listed above)* Ian Hacking* “Making People Up,” London Review of Books, Volume 28, Issue 16 (2006). https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n16/ian-hacking/making-up-people* “Kinds of People: Moving Targets,” Proceedings of the British Academy, Volume 151 (2007). https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/2043/pba151p285.pdf* “Autistic autobiography,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Volume 364, Issue 1522 (2009). https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2008.0329* Robert Chapman* They have a new book out, titled Empire of Normality (2023)! https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745348667/empire-of-normality/* “The Reality of Autism: on the metaphysics of disorder and diversity,”Philosophical Psychology, Volume 66, Issue 6 (2020). https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/241133636/Reality_of_autism_final_edit.pdfCreditsHosting, Research, Fact-Checking, Script-Editing: Amelia Hicks and Joanna LawsonGuests: Travis LaCroix and Joe GoughMusic and Audio Production: Amelia HicksThank-YousMany thanks to Travis LaCroix and Joe Gough for speaking with us—again!—about new avenues in autism research, and about the roles of values in autism science.I also want to offer special thanks to the philosopher Barry Lam (of Hi-Phi Nation) for his mentorship. Barry organized a fantastic workshop for philosophers interested in podcasting—which is how Joanna and I met each other. And thanks, too, to Joseph Fridman, who has also provided incredible ongoing mentorship while Joanna and I put this project together. Speaking of Joanna—I want to highlight just how much support she has offered me over the past couple years. Joanna is an amazing editor, explainer, and provider of moral support, and she has made NeuroDiving so much better. Thank you Joanna!

This week we're joined by Willa Paskin, the creator and host of Decoder Ring. It's a show that takes the questions on culture you never knew you had, and always finds the answer. Leah and Willa talk about solving cultural mysteries, that time Peter Falk quelled a Romanian uprising, and Willa's favourite podcasts. Featuring: Decoder Ring, The Turning: Room of Mirrors, Appearances, Hi-Phi Nation, Terrestrials For links and more info, head to http://cbc.ca/podcastplaylist.

In which Andrew talks with Chris Freiman (of William and Mary) and Michael Fitzpatrick (of Stanford, De Anza College, and Menlo College) about one of the most famous political philosophers of the 20th Century: John Rawls. We also discuss a number of critiques one might bring against Rawls' system of thinking about justice.Episode Link to Share:https://shows.acast.com/reductio/30-the-veil-of-ignoranceChris Freiman's Book:Link to Taylor and Francis sitePodcasts mentioned:Hi-Phi NationThe Philosopher and the NewsElucidationsOverthinkOur Patreon if you want to help us keep paying our hosting billsPatreon Link Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this show we explore three different AI and machine-generated music technologies; vocal emulators that allow you to deep fake a singer or rapper's voice, AI-generated compositions and text-to-music generators like Google Music LM and Open AI's Jukebox, and musical improvisation technologies. We listen to the variety of music these technologies generate, and two guitarists face off against an AI in improvised guitar solos.  Along the way, we talk to philosophers of music Robin James and Theodore Gracyk about what musical creativity is and whether machines are more or less creative than human musicians, and Barry gives his take on each of the technologies and what they mean for the future of musical creativity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this show we explore three different AI and machine-generated music technologies; vocal emulators that allow you to deep fake a singer or rapper's voice, AI-generated compositions and text-to-music generators like Google Music LM and Open AI's Jukebox, and musical improvisation technologies. We listen to the variety of music these technologies generate, and two guitarists face off against an AI in improvised guitar solos.  Along the way, we talk to philosophers of music Robin James and Theodore Gracyk about what musical creativity is and whether machines are more or less creative than human musicians, and Barry gives his take on each of the technologies and what they mean for the future of musical creativity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this show we explore three different AI and machine-generated music technologies; vocal emulators that allow you to deep fake a singer or rapper's voice, AI-generated compositions and text-to-music generators like Google Music LM and Open AI's Jukebox, and musical improvisation technologies. We listen to the variety of music these technologies generate, and two guitarists face off against an AI in improvised guitar solos.  Along the way, we talk to philosophers of music Robin James and Theodore Gracyk about what musical creativity is and whether machines are more or less creative than human musicians, and Barry gives his take on each of the technologies and what they mean for the future of musical creativity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this show we explore three different AI and machine-generated music technologies; vocal emulators that allow you to deep fake a singer or rapper's voice, AI-generated compositions and text-to-music generators like Google Music LM and Open AI's Jukebox, and musical improvisation technologies. We listen to the variety of music these technologies generate, and two guitarists face off against an AI in improvised guitar solos.  Along the way, we talk to philosophers of music Robin James and Theodore Gracyk about what musical creativity is and whether machines are more or less creative than human musicians, and Barry gives his take on each of the technologies and what they mean for the future of musical creativity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Curtis is setting aside a large chunk of money to donate to charity, and it is up to us to persuade him where he should donate it. Luckily, philosophers, economists, and the nonprofit world has been thinking a lot about this issue in recent years. On this episode, effective altruism's defenders and critics try to persuade Curtis of where he should donate. Who is the most effective in persuading an ordinary person as to the right way to donate to charity? And do the recent scandals involving effective altruism's biggest donor implicate its philosophical foundations?  We start with arguments that you should always try to save the most lives possible, no matter where they are on the planet. We then hear a critic of that view, who argues that local giving can also be a good. We then turn to the view that we should save humans from extinction from threats like pandemics, nuclear war, and AI takeover. And finally, we hear from a critic of that view, who says we should not blow future risks out of proportion.  Guests include philosophers Richard Yetter-Chappell (Miami), Savannah Pearlman (Indiana), Shakeel Hashim (Center for Effective Altruism), and Seth Lazar (Australia National University). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Curtis is setting aside a large chunk of money to donate to charity, and it is up to us to persuade him where he should donate it. Luckily, philosophers, economists, and the nonprofit world has been thinking a lot about this issue in recent years. On this episode, effective altruism's defenders and critics try to persuade Curtis of where he should donate. Who is the most effective in persuading an ordinary person as to the right way to donate to charity? And do the recent scandals involving effective altruism's biggest donor implicate its philosophical foundations?  We start with arguments that you should always try to save the most lives possible, no matter where they are on the planet. We then hear a critic of that view, who argues that local giving can also be a good. We then turn to the view that we should save humans from extinction from threats like pandemics, nuclear war, and AI takeover. And finally, we hear from a critic of that view, who says we should not blow future risks out of proportion.  Guests include philosophers Richard Yetter-Chappell (Miami), Savannah Pearlman (Indiana), Shakeel Hashim (Center for Effective Altruism), and Seth Lazar (Australia National University). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Curtis is setting aside a large chunk of money to donate to charity, and it is up to us to persuade him where he should donate it. Luckily, philosophers, economists, and the nonprofit world has been thinking a lot about this issue in recent years. On this episode, effective altruism's defenders and critics try to persuade Curtis of where he should donate. Who is the most effective in persuading an ordinary person as to the right way to donate to charity? And do the recent scandals involving effective altruism's biggest donor implicate its philosophical foundations?  We start with arguments that you should always try to save the most lives possible, no matter where they are on the planet. We then hear a critic of that view, who argues that local giving can also be a good. We then turn to the view that we should save humans from extinction from threats like pandemics, nuclear war, and AI takeover. And finally, we hear from a critic of that view, who says we should not blow future risks out of proportion.  Guests include philosophers Richard Yetter-Chappell (Miami), Savannah Pearlman (Indiana), Shakeel Hashim (Center for Effective Altruism), and Seth Lazar (Australia National University). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Curtis is setting aside a large chunk of money to donate to charity, and it is up to us to persuade him where he should donate it. Luckily, philosophers, economists, and the nonprofit world has been thinking a lot about this issue in recent years. On this episode, effective altruism's defenders and critics try to persuade Curtis of where he should donate. Who is the most effective in persuading an ordinary person as to the right way to donate to charity? And do the recent scandals involving effective altruism's biggest donor implicate its philosophical foundations?  We start with arguments that you should always try to save the most lives possible, no matter where they are on the planet. We then hear a critic of that view, who argues that local giving can also be a good. We then turn to the view that we should save humans from extinction from threats like pandemics, nuclear war, and AI takeover. And finally, we hear from a critic of that view, who says we should not blow future risks out of proportion.  Guests include philosophers Richard Yetter-Chappell (Miami), Savannah Pearlman (Indiana), Shakeel Hashim (Center for Effective Altruism), and Seth Lazar (Australia National University). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Curtis is setting aside a large chunk of money to donate to charity, and it is up to us to persuade him where he should donate it. Luckily, philosophers, economists, and the nonprofit world have been thinking a lot about this issue in recent years. On this episode, effective altruism's defenders and critics try to persuade Curtis of where he should donate. Who is the most effective in persuading an ordinary person as to the right way to donate to charity? And do the recent scandals involving effective altruism's biggest donor implicate its philosophical foundations?  We start with arguments that you should always try to save the most lives possible, no matter where they are on the planet. We then hear a critic of that view, who argues that local giving can also be a good. We then turn to the view that we should save humans from extinction from threats like pandemics, nuclear war, and AI takeover. And finally, we hear from a critic of that view, who says we should not blow future risks out of proportion.  Guests include philosophers Richard Yetter-Chappell (Miami), Savannah Pearlman (Indiana), Shakeel Hashim (Center for Effective Altruism), and Seth Lazar (Australia National University). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey BlurtstarsAnother week gone and there's lot's to cover. On this weeks' show:- Blurt on Society where we chat about things that affect us or question societal issues. Wencee checks out if it is illegal to drive a car without footwear, drive with headphones on and if you can run a red light to let through an emergency vehicle. Kegsta asks if AI will replace human therapists.- We'll review a couple of podcasts in Do Ya Self A Favour. Kegsta reviews Evil Genius with Russell Kane and gives it 4.5 out of 5 blurtSTARS. And Wencee reviews Hi Phi Nation and gives it 4 out of 5 blurtSTARS.- And last but not least we try to blow your mind with our Fun Facts segment. The Kegsta will intrigue you with reptilian facts. And Wencee will bamboozle you about Bluey facts.So, let's get on with the show with Wencee and the Kegsta.Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thenewblurt.substack.com/Subscribe and like our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@thenewblurt7773Blurt On SocietyCan AI (artificial intelligence) replace mental health professionals? →Tatum says he confides in ChatGPT to help his depression. Is it safe to use AI for therapy?In Australia, is it illegal to drive: naked, with headphones on or without footwear? Can you drive through a red light to let emergency vehicles through? Here's the advice →Is it illegal to drive with headphones in Australia?Is it illegal to drive barefoot or in thongs in Australia?Is it legal to drive through a red light to make way for the police?Is it illegal to drive nude in Australia?Do Ya Self A FavourIn this segment, we review other podcasts we listen to. Kegsta reviewed “Evil Genius with Russell Kane” and gave it 4.5 out of 5 BlurtSTARS →BBC Radio 4 - Evil Genius with Russell KaneSpotify podcast linkWencee reviewed “Hi Phi Nation” and gave it 4 out of 5 BlurtSTARS →Official Hi Phi Nation websiteHi Phi Nation podcast linksFun FactsIt's Australia's cult show that is wowing children and adults alike. Here are some fun facts about Bluey →The Guardian UK - The cult of Bluey: how a kids' cartoon became a bible for modern parentingBluey on CBeebies trivia: Cast and crew reveal 11 things you didn't know about the smash hit Australian pre-school seriesHow well do you know reptiles? 21 Fun Reptile Facts: How Many Do You Know?Follow us on our socials:YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI6sah68y5GKhtD-uE4W-FAFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/blurtstar/Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/blurtstar/Twitter - @BlurtNew This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit thenewblurt.substack.com

Willy and Heidi were both gig workers for Shipt, the fast-delivery app for groceries or same-day shopping. In 2020, they both realised: the pay algorithm had changed. Now, they couldn't tell what a job would pay, or whether it would earn or lose them money. Instead of just taking it, they decided to fight back. In the gig economy, companies like Shipt, Instacart, and UberEats all use black box pay algorithms to try and get workers to accept gigs but hide information from them to do so. Early in the pandemic, a rag tag group of gig workers tried to resist, and found someone at MIT to help them. Host Barry Lam talks to them about the steps they took, and political philosopher Daniel Halliday (University of Melbourne) talks about the differences between wage labor and freelance labor and why he thinks the biggest gig economy companies are morally suspect. Then, we talk the future of regulation and worker-owned apps and delivery platforms. Guests include Drew Ambrogi (coworker.org), Dan Calacci (MIT). This is an in-depth, longform version of a story originally done for WNYC studio's Radiolab in their Gigaverse episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Willy and Heidi were both gig workers for Shipt, the fast-delivery app for groceries or same-day shopping. In 2020, they both realised: the pay algorithm had changed. Now, they couldn't tell what a job would pay, or whether it would earn or lose them money. Instead of just taking it, they decided to fight back. In the gig economy, companies like Shipt, Instacart, and UberEats all use black box pay algorithms to try and get workers to accept gigs but hide information from them to do so. Early in the pandemic, a rag tag group of gig workers tried to resist, and found someone at MIT to help them. Host Barry Lam talks to them about the steps they took, and political philosopher Daniel Halliday (University of Melbourne) talks about the differences between wage labor and freelance labor and why he thinks the biggest gig economy companies are morally suspect. Then, we talk the future of regulation and worker-owned apps and delivery platforms. Guests include Drew Ambrogi (coworker.org), Dan Calacci (MIT). This is an in-depth, longform version of a story originally done for WNYC studio's Radiolab in their Gigaverse episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Willy and Heidi were both gig workers for Shipt, the fast-delivery app for groceries or same-day shopping. In 2020, they both realised: the pay algorithm had changed. Now, they couldn't tell what a job would pay, or whether it would earn or lose them money. Instead of just taking it, they decided to fight back. In the gig economy, companies like Shipt, Instacart, and UberEats all use black box pay algorithms to try and get workers to accept gigs but hide information from them to do so. Early in the pandemic, a rag tag group of gig workers tried to resist, and found someone at MIT to help them. Host Barry Lam talks to them about the steps they took, and political philosopher Daniel Halliday (University of Melbourne) talks about the differences between wage labor and freelance labor and why he thinks the biggest gig economy companies are morally suspect. Then, we talk the future of regulation and worker-owned apps and delivery platforms. Guests include Drew Ambrogi (coworker.org), Dan Calacci (MIT). This is an in-depth, longform version of a story originally done for WNYC studio's Radiolab in their Gigaverse episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Willy and Heidi were both gig workers for Shipt, the fast-delivery app for groceries or same-day shopping. In 2020, they both realised: the pay algorithm had changed. Now, they couldn't tell what a job would pay, or whether it would earn or lose them money. Instead of just taking it, they decided to fight back. In the gig economy, companies like Shipt, Instacart, and UberEats all use black box pay algorithms to try and get workers to accept gigs but hide information from them to do so. Early in the pandemic, a rag tag group of gig workers tried to resist, and found someone at MIT to help them. Host Barry Lam talks to them about the steps they took, and political philosopher Daniel Halliday (University of Melbourne) talks about the differences between wage labor and freelance labor and why he thinks the biggest gig economy companies are morally suspect. Then, we talk the future of regulation and worker-owned apps and delivery platforms. Guests include Drew Ambrogi (coworker.org), Dan Calacci (MIT). This is an in-depth, longform version of a story originally done for WNYC studio's Radiolab in their Gigaverse episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Willy and Heidi were both gig workers for Shipt, the fast-delivery app for groceries or same-day shopping. In 2020, they both realised: the pay algorithm had changed. Now, they couldn't tell what a job would pay, or whether it would earn or lose them money. Instead of just taking it, they decided to fight back. In the gig economy, companies like Shipt, Instacart, and UberEats all use black box pay algorithms to try and get workers to accept gigs but hide information from them to do so. Early in the pandemic, a rag tag group of gig workers tried to resist, and found someone at MIT to help them. Host Barry Lam talks to them about the steps they took, and political philosopher Daniel Halliday (University of Melbourne) talks about the differences between wage labor and freelance labor and why he thinks the biggest gig economy companies are morally suspect. Then, we talk the future of regulation and worker-owned apps and delivery platforms. Guests include Drew Ambrogi (coworker.org), Dan Calacci (MIT). This is an in-depth, longform version of a story originally done for WNYC studio's Radiolab in their Gigaverse episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Willy and Heidi were both gig workers for Shipt, the fast-delivery app for groceries or same-day shopping. In 2020, they both realised: the pay algorithm had changed. Now, they couldn't tell what a job would pay, or whether it would earn or lose them money. Instead of just taking it, they decided to fight back. In the gig economy, companies like Shipt, Instacart, and UberEats all use black box pay algorithms to try and get workers to accept gigs but hide information from them to do so. Early in the pandemic, a rag tag group of gig workers tried to resist, and found someone at MIT to help them. Host Barry Lam talks to them about the steps they took, and political philosopher Daniel Halliday (University of Melbourne) talks about the differences between wage labor and freelance labor and why he thinks the biggest gig economy companies are morally suspect. Then, we talk the future of regulation and worker-owned apps and delivery platforms. Guests include Drew Ambrogi (coworker.org), Dan Calacci (MIT). This is an in-depth, longform version of a story originally done for WNYC studio's Radiolab in their Gigaverse episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We explore the lives of people who are in love with their AI chatbots. Replika is a chatbot designed to adapt to the emotional needs of its users. It is a good enough surrogate for human interaction that many people have decided that it can fulfill their romantic needs. The question is whether these kinds of romantic attachments are real, illusory, or good for the people involved. Apps like Replika represent the future of love and sex for a subpopulation of people, so we discuss the ethics of the practice.  Host Barry Lam talks to philosophers Ellie Anderson and David Pena-Guzman of the Overthink podcast about what theories of love would say about these kinds of relationships. AI lovers include Alex Stokes and Rosanna Ramos. Original scoring by Aaron Morgan. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We explore the lives of people who are in love with their AI chatbots. Replika is a chatbot designed to adapt to the emotional needs of its users. It is a good enough surrogate for human interaction that many people have decided that it can fulfill their romantic needs. The question is whether these kinds of romantic attachments are real, illusory, or good for the people involved. Apps like Replika represent the future of love and sex for a subpopulation of people, so we discuss the ethics of the practice.  Host Barry Lam talks to philosophers Ellie Anderson and David Pena-Guzman of the Overthink podcast about what theories of love would say about these kinds of relationships. AI lovers include Alex Stokes and Rosanna Ramos. Original scoring by Aaron Morgan. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We explore the lives of people who are in love with their AI chatbots. Replika is a chatbot designed to adapt to the emotional needs of its users. It is a good enough surrogate for human interaction that many people have decided that it can fulfill their romantic needs. The question is whether these kinds of romantic attachments are real, illusory, or good for the people involved. Apps like Replika represent the future of love and sex for a subpopulation of people, so we discuss the ethics of the practice.  Host Barry Lam talks to philosophers Ellie Anderson and David Pena-Guzman of the Overthink podcast about what theories of love would say about these kinds of relationships. AI lovers include Alex Stokes and Rosanna Ramos. Original scoring by Aaron Morgan. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We explore the lives of people who are in love with their AI chatbots. Replika is a chatbot designed to adapt to the emotional needs of its users. It is a good enough surrogate for human interaction that many people have decided that it can fulfill their romantic needs. The question is whether these kinds of romantic attachments are real, illusory, or good for the people involved. Apps like Replika represent the future of love and sex for a subpopulation of people, so we discuss the ethics of the practice.  Host Barry Lam talks to philosophers Ellie Anderson and David Pena-Guzman of the Overthink podcast about what theories of love would say about these kinds of relationships. AI lovers include Alex Stokes and Rosanna Ramos. Original scoring by Aaron Morgan. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A zoopolis is a future society that philosophers envision where wild, domesticated, and denizen animals have full political and legal rights. What would that look like? In this episode, we look at how animals were put on trial in medieval European courts, and how animal rights advocates and bringing animals back into the courtrooms to sue people and the US government. We then look at what the science of animal minds tells us about how much agency animals have, and envision what political and legal rights various animals would have in a zoopolis. From there, we discuss and debate whether we should be allowed to farm animals, control their reproduction, and have them work for us.  Co-produced with Alec Opperman, guests include historian Gabriel Rosenberg, attorney Monica Miller, and animal minds researcher Professor Kristin Andrews. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A zoopolis is a future society that philosophers envision where wild, domesticated, and denizen animals have full political and legal rights. What would that look like? In this episode, we look at how animals were put on trial in medieval European courts, and how animal rights advocates and bringing animals back into the courtrooms to sue people and the US government. We then look at what the science of animal minds tells us about how much agency animals have, and envision what political and legal rights various animals would have in a zoopolis. From there, we discuss and debate whether we should be allowed to farm animals, control their reproduction, and have them work for us.  Co-produced with Alec Opperman, guests include historian Gabriel Rosenberg, attorney Monica Miller, and animal minds researcher Professor Kristin Andrews. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A zoopolis is a future society that philosophers envision where wild, domesticated, and denizen animals have full political and legal rights. What would that look like? In this episode, we look at how animals were put on trial in medieval European courts, and how animal rights advocates and bringing animals back into the courtrooms to sue people and the US government. We then look at what the science of animal minds tells us about how much agency animals have, and envision what political and legal rights various animals would have in a zoopolis. From there, we discuss and debate whether we should be allowed to farm animals, control their reproduction, and have them work for us.  Co-produced with Alec Opperman, guests include historian Gabriel Rosenberg, attorney Monica Miller, and animal minds researcher Professor Kristin Andrews. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When Justin's mom was diagnosed with cancer, he knew he wanted to keep talking to her after she died. So together they made an AI version of her, training it on her speech patterns and memories. Now he is scaling his findings so that anyone can continue their relationships with loved ones after their deaths. Justin even believes this can one day lead to digital immortality. Grief experts are only now dealing with bereaved people who create digital versions of their loved ones. We look at what they say about the phenomenon, and what philosophers think about whether the best AI version of a person can actually be them. Guests include Alexandra Salmon, Justin Harrison, CEO of You, Only Virtual, Dr. Mary-Frances O'Connor, and Dr. Debra Bassett. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When Justin's mom was diagnosed with cancer, he knew he wanted to keep talking to her after she died. So together they made an AI version of her, training it on her speech patterns and memories. Now he is scaling his findings so that anyone can continue their relationships with loved ones after their deaths. Justin even believes this can one day lead to digital immortality. Grief experts are only now dealing with bereaved people who create digital versions of their loved ones. We look at what they say about the phenomenon, and what philosophers think about whether the best AI version of a person can actually be them. Guests include Alexandra Salmon, Justin Harrison, CEO of You, Only Virtual, Dr. Mary-Frances O'Connor, and Dr. Debra Bassett. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When Justin's mom was diagnosed with cancer, he knew he wanted to keep talking to her after she died. So together they made an AI version of her, training it on her speech patterns and memories. Now he is scaling his findings so that anyone can continue their relationships with loved ones after their deaths. Justin even believes this can one day lead to digital immortality. Grief experts are only now dealing with bereaved people who create digital versions of their loved ones. We look at what they say about the phenomenon, and what philosophers think about whether the best AI version of a person can actually be them. Guests include Alexandra Salmon, Justin Harrison, CEO of You, Only Virtual, Dr. Mary-Frances O'Connor, and Dr. Debra Bassett. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When Justin's mom was diagnosed with cancer, he knew he wanted to keep talking to her after she died. So together they made an AI version of her, training it on her speech patterns and memories. Now he is scaling his findings so that anyone can continue their relationships with loved ones after their deaths. Justin even believes this can one day lead to digital immortality. Grief experts are only now dealing with bereaved people who create digital versions of their loved ones. We look at what they say about the phenomenon, and what philosophers think about whether the best AI version of a person can actually be them. Co-produced with Alexandra Salmon, guests include Justin Harrison, CEO of You, Only Virtual, Dr. Mary-Frances O'Connor, and Dr. Debra Bassett. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Coming April 11, 2023, Season 6 of Hi-Phi Nation will look at the future; of work, of love and sex, life and death, our relationship with animals, creativity in music, and philanthropy. Stories include people trying to create digital avatars of dead loved ones, people in exclusive relationships with AI chatbots, animals who are seeking legal protection in courts, the gig economy, AI music, and effective altruism. The episodes will draw out the most interesting moral and philosophical issues from the current path of artificial intelligence technology, data science, and cultural and legal trends. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Coming April 11, 2023, Season 6 of Hi-Phi Nation will look at the future; of work, of love and sex, life and death, our relationship with animals, creativity in music, and philanthropy. Stories include people trying to create digital avatars of dead loved ones, people in exclusive relationships with AI chatbots, animals who are seeking legal protection in courts, the gig economy, AI music, and effective altruism. The episodes will draw out the most interesting moral and philosophical issues from the current path of artificial intelligence technology, data science, and cultural and legal trends. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Coming April 11, 2023, Season 6 of Hi-Phi Nation will look at the future; of work, of love and sex, life and death, our relationship with animals, creativity in music, and philanthropy. Stories include people trying to create digital avatars of dead loved ones, people in exclusive relationships with AI chatbots, animals who are seeking legal protection in courts, the gig economy, AI music, and effective altruism. The episodes will draw out the most interesting moral and philosophical issues from the current path of artificial intelligence technology, data science, and cultural and legal trends. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Barry Lam is the host of Hi-Phi Nation, which is a much better podcast than this one, and which is devoted to exploring pressing philosophical questions through narrative. He did his graduate work at Princeton, then taught at Vassar, and will soon be picking up a new professorial post at UC Riverside. In this episode Robinson and Barry discuss the philosophical problems posed by certain monsters that were the subject of a three-part series in Hi-Phi Nation (namely zombies, cannibals, and vampires), along with David Lewis, the role of imagination in philosophy, and the risks of devoting time to public philosophy in an academic world that doesn't prioritize it. Instagram: @robinsonerhardt TikTok: @robinsonerhardt Twitter: @robinsonerhardt Twitch (Robinson Eats): @robinsonerhardt YouTube (Robinson Eats): youtube.com/@robinsoneats --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

This hour: why timekeepers are getting rid of the leap second, how animism is misinterpreted, and whether we should have a spectrum of verdicts beyond “guilty” and “not guilty.” GUESTS:  Judah Levine: Professor of Physics at the University of Colorado and a Physicist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology Justine Buck Quijada: Associate Professor in the Department of Religion at Wesleyan University Barry Lam: Philosophy Professor at the University of California, Riverside, and Executive Producer of Hi-Phi Nation, a philosophy podcast Join the conversation onFacebook and Twitter.Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A pizzeria owner in Kansas realizes that DoorDash is hijacking his pizzas. A Lyft driver conquers the streets of San Francisco until he unwittingly puts his family in danger. A Shipt shopper in Denton, Texas tries to crack the code of the delivery app that is slashing his pay. This week, Host Latif Nasser, Producer Becca Bressler, and Philosophy Professor Barry Lam dive into the ins and outs of a new and growing part of our world: the gig economy. Special thanks to, Julie Wernau, Drew Ambrogi, David Condo, David Pickerell, Cory Doctorow, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Coby McDonald, Bret Jaspers, Peter Haden, Bill Pollock, Tanya Chawla, and Mateo Schimpf. Episode Credits: Reported by Becca Bressler, Latif Nasser, and Barry LamProduced by Becca Bressler, Eli Cohen, and Sindhu Gnanasambandan.Original music and sound design contributed by Jeremy Bloom and Becca Bressler.Mixing help from Arianne Wack Fact-checking by Natalie Middleton Edited by Pat Walters CITATIONSArticles:Subscribe to Ranjan Roy's newsletter, Margins, here. Jeffrey's story was originally reported by Lauren Smiley for WIRED. Check out her piece for an even more in-depth look at his life as a gig driver. Audio:Check out Barry Lam's podcast Hi-Phi Nation, a show about philosophy that turns stories into ideas.  Our newsletter comes out every Wednesday. It includes short essays, recommendations, and details about other ways to interact with the show. Sign up (https://radiolab.org/newsletter)!Radiolab is supported by listeners like you. Support Radiolab by becoming a member of The Lab (https://members.radiolab.org/) today.Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @radiolab, and share your thoughts with us by emailing radiolab@wnyc.org.

Barry hosts Hi-Phi Nation, and his most recent season had a run on David Lewis, America's foremost philosopher of possible worlds.  So we talk about that notion that Hollywood has had so much fun with lately, and then we have fun with it in a couple of variations on a classic diner scene. Cheese salad, anyone? Mark philosophizes at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Bill improvises (and teaches) at chicagoimprovstudio.com. Hear more at philosophyimprov.com. Support the podcast to get all our post-game discussions and other bonus stuff.

Barry hosts Hi-Phi Nation, and his most recent season had a run on David Lewis, America's foremost philosopher of possible worlds. So we talk about that notion that Hollywood has had so much fun with lately, and then we have fun with it in a couple of variations on a classic diner scene. Cheese salad, anyone? Mark philosophizes at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Bill improvises (and teaches) at chicagoimprovstudio.com. Hear more at philosophyimprov.com. Support the podcast to get all our post-game discussions and other bonus stuff.

Peter chats with the hosts of three great philosophy podcasts: Elucidations, Hi-Phi Nation, and the Unmute Podcast.

If you can, please consider donating to my paypal/patreon to keep these debates and conversations going To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/TJump To donate to my PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/TomJump CashApp: $TjumpsChair Youtube Membership Link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHXrvsK33VUEcpa4Ar0c0Sg/join Sponsor: Don Fullman, Skeptics of Middle Georgia https://www.facebook.com/groups/591799015097830/?ref=share TJump merch: https://linktr.ee/TJump.Merch (Mugs) https://www.etsy.com/shop/CustomLaserShop?ref=simple-shop-header-name&listing_id=626272860§ion_id=34163225 (Shirts) https://www.amazon.com/s?rh=n:7141123011,p_4:TJump+Merch&ref=bl_sl_s_ap_web_7141123011 TJump NFT's: https://opensea.io/collection/tjump -----------------------------------------CONNECT------------------------------------------ SOCIAL LINKS: Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/tjump Discord: https://discord.io/tjump Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/TJump_ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tom.jump.982 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tjump_/ LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/tjumpschair Tictok: @tjumpschair TJump Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE6PnoL9QDYnkiUvykmlLQQ ----------------------------------------CONTACT------------------------------------------- Business email: tejump@comcast.net ---------------------------------------- Further Goals ------------------------------------- Publish my book on epistemology and morality Publish academic papers on solving problems in these fields Become President of the United States Solve world's biggest problems World domination #Atheism #Secularism #Humanism

In our final episode on monsters, we investigate why people who eat people are the funkiest people in the afterlife. We talk to a man who has actually eaten parts of other people, many times, about why he thinks consuming human flesh should be normalized. We then consider the age-old question of how God is supposed to resurrect a cannibal and all of his victims when most of the flesh of the victims would also be a part of the cannibal. Some of the best minds in Western philosophy and Christian theology thought about this question, including Leibniz, Aquinas, and Augustine. Co-hosted by Christina van Dyke, featuring artist and cannibal Rick Gibson and philosopher Dean Zimmerman. Sign up for Slate Plus at slate.com/hiphiplus for ad free feeds to all Slate podcasts and unlimited reading of articles at slate.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The second in a three-part series on monsters in philosophy. We trace the cultural history of zombies from voodoo folklore, George Romero films, and the zombies used in philosophical thought experiments. Folklore, film and philosophy seem to converge on the idea that consciousness above all else is what a creature needs to have to be worthy of moral concern, something a zombie lacks. But we have no idea when something crosses over from being a zombie to being conscious, particularly current AI systems. What happens then? Guest speakers are Christina van Dyke (Columbia), David Chalmers (NYU), and John Edgar Browning (Savannah College of Art and Design), and Eric Schwitzgebel (UC Riverside). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The first in a three-part series on monsters in philosophy. We trace the cultural history of vampires from Eastern European folklore to Twilight, and even look at the practices of real vampires, people who seek out and consume blood or psychic energy. The vampire went from demon to attractive monster in the course of a few centuries and raises a deep question for us about how different we can be, the limits of human imagination, and whether we can ever reasonably choose to have a transformative experience. Guest speakers include Christina van Dyke (Columbia), Laurie Paul (Yale), and John Edgar Browning (Savannah College of Art and Design). Sign up for Slate Plus, with adfree podcasts, bonus content, and unlimited reading of Slate.com articles. Go to slate.com/hiphiplus Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When tragedy strikes an individual, a nation, or an entire people, artists and architects are tasked with designing a public display that memorializes the event and its victims. But how do you do that? In this episode, we explore the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin, the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in DC, the 9/11 Memorial, and others, to look at how respecting and remembering loss collides with the demands of history and politics. Why do abstract, rather than representational, memorials resonate more profoundly in recent years? And no matter how well done they are, will they inevitably lose their impact after a single generation? This episode of The Lonely Palette was produced in collaboration with Slate's Hi-Phi Nation. Music Used: The Blue Dot Sessions, “Drone Pine,” “Taoudella,” “The Consulate,” “Our Fingers Cold,” “Slider” Silver Maple, “After the Rain” Megan Wofford, “Awake” Yi Nantiro, “Blue Lantern” Christian Nanzell, “Contraband” Gunnar Johnsen, “Documents 4” Fabien Tell, “Liaison” Arden Forest, “Monastral” Niclas Gustavsson, “My Kind of Illusion 1” Niclas Gustavsson, “Reflection 4” Episode webpage: https://bit.ly/3pkhoCI Support the show: www.patreon.com/lonelypalette

When tragedy strikes an individual, a nation, or an entire people, artists and architects are tasked with designing a public display that memorializes the event and its victims. But how do you do that? In this episode, art historian and podcaster Tamar Avishai examines the Denkmal Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin, the Vietnam War Memorial in DC, and others to look at how respecting and remembering loss collides with the demands of history and politics. We look at why abstract rather than representational memorials resonate better with people in recent years, and whether memorials, no matter how well done, might lose their impact after a single generation. Guest voices include Karen Krolak, James Young, and Michael Hays. Links Listen to Tamar Avishai on The Lonely Palette podcast Better Help-betterhelp.com/nation. Get 10% of your first month by clicking through on the link. Scribd- try.scribd.com/hiphi Slate Plus sale! Get $25 off your first year. Go to slate.com/hiphiplus Are you a philosopher interested in a summer seminar on God and Time at Rutgers University? Apply at godandtime.rutgers.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

First, it's the return of the annual drunken Thanksgiving segment! Tamler and based wicked stepmom Christina Hoff Sommers fight about JFK, systematic racism, corporations, and how to pronounce valium. (We find more common ground than usual though on Covid and Havana Syndrome.) Then podcast auteur Barry Lam joins David and Tamler to talk about David Lewis on time travel, the new season of Barry's excellent podcast Hi-Phi Nation, and then a deep dive on maybe the best time travel movie of all time - Shane Carruth's mind-melting cult classic "Primer." Special Guests: Barry Lam and Christina Hoff Sommers.

When is fiction more important that fact? In this episode with Vassar philosophy professor and host of the Hi-Phi Nation podcast, Barry Lam, you'll learn what the 18th century Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume can teach us about the importance of emotions and storytelling in a polarized world. #TheHappier Hour Website: TheHappierHour.org Facebook.com/TheHappierHour Twitter.com/MissMMcCarthy Instagram.com/MissMMcCarthy