Podcasts about Holland

July 19, 1999 Meye, Holland

RUNDOWN   Mitch and Hotshot Scott open Episode 391 by previewing football season for patrons before a laugh about Scott's father-in-law hijacking the family's evening. They hit the Mariners' 100-game .500 mark, reminisce about the Big Red Machine, then shift to the World Cup, where both stayed hooked long after Team USA's exit. Mitch and Scott rave about teenage phenom Lamine Yamal, poke fun at FIFA's halftime show, preview Seahawks camp, Ryan Fox's British Open win, and Bryson DeChambeau's penalty. Ray Roberts and Mitch discuss Seattle's new ownership, why the defending Super Bowl champs still seem overlooked, and what the Seahawks gained—and lost—this offseason. Roberts also shares hilarious training camp stories, from sneaking home to sleep in his own bed to finally meeting childhood hero Ed "Too Tall" Jones, the player who inspired him to wear No. 72. Mitch, Joe Doyle, and Brady Farkas break down another uneven Mariners series as Seattle reaches the 100-game mark at 50-50. They argue Dan Wilson has become an unfair scapegoat for a flawed roster, praise Cole Young's continued rise, and discuss Julio Rodríguez's return, Colt Emerson's progress, and looming roster decisions. Mitch welcomes three beat reporters who know the Mariners' top draft picks better than anyone. Sam Sklar breaks down first-round slugger Ace Reese, Koki Riley explains why LSU outfielder Jake Brown could become a second-round steal, and Scott Springer profiles Cincinnati right-hander Nathan Taylor, whose bulldog mentality and dominant slider made him one of the draft's best values. Together, they provide an inside look at Seattle's newest wave of talent and what fans can expect from each prospect.   GUESTS   Ray Roberts | Former Seahawks offensive lineman and Seahawks Radio Network Analyst Brady Farkas | Host, Refuse to Lose podcast Joe Doyle | MLB analyst, Over-Slot Sam Skylar | Mississippi State beat reporter, Clarion Ledger Koki Riley | LSU beat reporter, The Daily Advertiser and USA Today Scott Springer | Cincinnati Bearcats beat reporter, The Enquirer   TABLE OF CONTENTS   0:00 | World Cup Wrap, British Open Chaos & Birthday Trivia 26:378 | Ray Roberts; Training Camp Memories, New Seahawks Ownership & Barry Sanders Stories 55:12 | Mariners No-Table; Mariners Tread Water as Trade Deadline Decisions Loom 1:13:03 | Sam Skylar, Koki Riley, Scott Springer [Beat Reporters]; Inside the Mariners' Top Three Draft Picks 1:39:34 | Other Stuff: Josh Kerr breaks the 27-year-old mile record with a blistering 3:42, Roger Bannister's four-minute mile legacy, Alex Rodriguez's factually disastrous Justin Verlander interview during the All-Star Game, Mike Tyson's viral ESPYs moment after learning Shohei Ohtani is a man, Baron Davis sued by his sister over an alleged real estate fraud, suspended Cardinals executive Ryan Gold denies violating the NFL gambling policy, Matt Fitzpatrick says legalized sports betting is fueling fan abuse of golfers, JPMorgan executive Lorna Tsoujini countersues after denying allegations she tried to make a coworker her "sex slave." HEADLINES 93-year-old truck driver seeks Guinness World Record, naked man arrested for surfing atop a moving locomotive, reports claim Donald Trump's biological waste was transported back to the United States after a trip to Turkey, woman prescribed Diet Coke for an Ozempic-related stomach blockage, Peru sees a surge of babies named Holland and Erling Haaland after the Norwegian soccer star. RIPS Sam Neill (78), Brenda Fricker (81), Janice McNair (89).

July 18, 1999 Meye, Holland

Luis de la Fuentes mandskab besejrede Argentina i VM-finalen, men festen blev overskygget af voldsomme scener efter slutfløjt. Flere spillere og folk omkring holdene røg i slagsmål. Vi samler op på finalen, reaktionerne og ser også nærmere på, hvad fremtiden kan bringe for Lionel Messi. Derudover har vi sat Daniel Wass stævne til et stort interview i vores nye Superliga Magasin om karrieren, livet efter fodbolden og den rolle, han håber at få i Brøndby, når støvlerne bliver lagt på hylden. Til sidst vender vi blikket mod Holland, hvor NEC Nijmegen har hentet endnu en profil med superliga fortid og en ny er snart på vej. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Great Chicago Fire between October 8 - 10th, 1871 is the topic of this episode. During this same time fires in Holland and Manistee, Michigan destroyed those cities. I explore the impact of those fires, the effects and reaction across Southwest Michigan following the event, as well as first hand accounts of the reporters.For more information on Michael Delaware, visit:https://michaeldelaware.com

Researchers at this camp overlooking Greenland's Helheim Glacier have some bad news.俯瞰格陵兰赫尔海姆冰川的营地研究人员带来了一些坏消息。This glacier has retreated more than 10 kilometers or so in the last decade or so, from that position far off and to my left to where you see it today.这条冰川在过去十多年间已退缩了10公里左右，从我左侧远处的位置退到了如今你们所见的地方。It was here in 2018 that researchers captured this footage of large chunks of ice breaking away in a process called calving.2018年，研究人员正是在这里拍摄到了大块冰体断裂脱落的画面，这一过程被称为裂冰作用。Scientists like New York University's David Holland measured and observed climate change. This summer Holland saw record-shattering heat and ice melt.纽约大学的戴维·霍兰德等科学家对气候变化进行了测量和观察。今年夏天霍兰德目睹了破纪录的高温和冰层融化现象。Large glaciers are retreating. We can detect this with satellite, with effectively cameras in space.大型冰川正在消退，我们可以通过卫星，也就是太空中的高效摄像头，观测到这一现象。And we're seeing a very large signal of melt coming from this one particular glacier out in West Antarctica called Thwaites.我们正观测到来自南极洲西部斯维斯冰川发出的非常强烈的融化信号。NASA and the European Space Agency or ESA released the study in December美国国家航空航天局（NASA）和欧洲航天局（ESA）于12月发布了这项研究，showing the Greenland icesheetrapidly melting, having lost nearly four trillion metric tons between 1992 and 2018.研究显示格陵兰冰盖正在迅速融化，在1992年至2018年期间已损失了近4万亿公吨。Holland says a similar fate appears underway in Antarctica.霍兰德说南极洲也出现了类似的情况。That glacier is holding back several other glaciers of the West Antarctic IceSheet.那座冰川阻挡着南极西部冰盖的其他几座冰川。So all told, it is conceivable and not that it will happen but it could happen, that up to 3 meters of global sea level could be unleashed unto us.综上所述，可以想象——虽然并非必然发生但确实存在可能性——全球海平面上升幅度可能高达3米。Cities like Alexandria, Egypt take countermeasures to slow crashing waves because of rising sea levels near ice shelves affect sea levels everywhere.由于冰架附近海平面上升会影响全球海平面，埃及亚历山大等城市采取应对措施以减缓海浪冲击。Warmer waters around retreating glaciers like the one in Antarctica expedite the process.南极洲等地冰川消退，周围水域温度上升，进而加速了这一过程。This glacier is perhaps unstable. It is certainly retreating now at a rapid rate.这座冰川或许不稳定。它现在确实在快速消退。It has raised its stuff to the point of now using physics, mathematics and observation.它已将研究提升至运用物理学、数学和观测的层面。It's actually credible, plausible that this thing could cause a major change in sea level.实际上可信的是，这可能导致海平面发生重大变化。A study published April in the journal Nature showed glaciers worldwide annually lose 369 billion metric tons of snow and ice.《自然》杂志四月发表的一项研究显示，全球冰川每年流失3690亿吨冰雪。The Greenland icesheetalone holds enough water to raise sea level by nearly seven and a half meters. 仅格陵兰冰盖所含的水量就足以使海平面上升近7.5米。

André Holland, Wendell Pierce and director Sheldon Candis join Nerdtropolis Mayor Sean Tajipour on Reel Insights to discuss They Fight, the powerful boxing drama based on the 2018 documentary of the same name. The film follows a reformed former inmate who returns to the boxing gym while trying to rebuild his life and reconnect with his family.In They Fight, Holland plays Walt Manigan, who struggles to reintegrate into society and find a path forward. His only opportunity comes from a place he thought he had left behind when he begins coaching a group of teenage boys at a local Washington, D.C., youth gym.Holland, Pierce and Candis reflect on the people who believed in them before they fully believed in themselves. Pierce credits his parents with giving him the confidence to believe he could accomplish anything, while Holland remembers how his mother encouraged his creativity and enrolled him in his first drama class.Candis discusses growing up in a home filled with movies and having parents who supported his dream of moving to Los Angeles to become a filmmaker. He explains why having people invest in that dream was essential during the difficult journey of building his career.The conversation also explores how safe spaces can change the direction of a young person's life. Pierce remembers Coach Mack and the New Orleans playground that became his sanctuary, while Candis shares how his experiences at a YMCA and his connection with the Batey family transformed his understanding of himself and his history.Holland opens up about high school drama teacher Darryl Revel, who helped him recognize that acting could become a real career. He explains that without his teacher's guidance, he may never have realized that performing professionally was possible.The interview closes with Pierce discussing his upcoming return as Perry White in Man of Tomorrow and the passion of DC fans. Holland, who voiced Harvey Dent in Batman Unburied, also responds to the possibility of joining the live-action DC Universe.Visit Nerdtropolis.comFacebook.com/nerdtropolisInstagram.com/nerdtropolisTwitter.com/nerdtropolisTikTok.com/@nerdtropolis

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president could still fire commissioners, as the Court now permits, but if those firings broke quorum, the agency would be unable to proceed until replacements were confirmed. The guardrail would

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.There was an issue with this only going to paid subscribers, so sending it again. Apologies to those who get it twice. I appreciate being paid so feel free to upgrade if you enjoy TWTW.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president

July 20, 1999 Meye, Holland

"Most végre tudhatunk erről is, és tehetünk, segíthetünk" – Szabó Zsófi egyetlen mondattal állt ki a kórházban hagyott csecsemők mellett Meghalt Szemethy Imre 7 népszerű nyaralóország árait hasonlították össze: ez lett a legolcsóbb Mégis összebarátkozott Holland és Haaland Cristiano Ronaldo visszatér – az EA Sports FC borítójára Tízmilliószoros nap érkezik: ezt üzeni a horoszkóp Augusztusban ismét mozikban Sylvester Stallone 80-as évekbeli klasszikusa, a Kobra Zendaya szó szerint istennőként hódított az Odüsszeia premierjén: egy mélyen dekoltált arany szettben érkezett 12 év után újra filmet készít A Gyűrűk Ura legendás rendezője Gáspár Evelin eltávolíttatta a tetoválásait, megbánta őket: "Mai fejjel nem csináltatnék..." Meghozta a döntést Szigligeti Ivett: nevet változtat Dudás Miklós menyasszonya A további adásainkat keresd a podcast.hirstart.hu oldalunkon. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

"Most végre tudhatunk erről is, és tehetünk, segíthetünk" – Szabó Zsófi egyetlen mondattal állt ki a kórházban hagyott csecsemők mellett Meghalt Szemethy Imre 7 népszerű nyaralóország árait hasonlították össze: ez lett a legolcsóbb Mégis összebarátkozott Holland és Haaland Cristiano Ronaldo visszatér – az EA Sports FC borítójára Tízmilliószoros nap érkezik: ezt üzeni a horoszkóp Augusztusban ismét mozikban Sylvester Stallone 80-as évekbeli klasszikusa, a Kobra Zendaya szó szerint istennőként hódított az Odüsszeia premierjén: egy mélyen dekoltált arany szettben érkezett 12 év után újra filmet készít A Gyűrűk Ura legendás rendezője Gáspár Evelin eltávolíttatta a tetoválásait, megbánta őket: "Mai fejjel nem csináltatnék..." Meghozta a döntést Szigligeti Ivett: nevet változtat Dudás Miklós menyasszonya A további adásainkat keresd a podcast.hirstart.hu oldalunkon. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On this episode of the Giants Huddle podcast, John Schmeelk is joined by the Giants’ safeties, Tyler Nubin, Jason Pinnock, Elijah Campbell, and Jevón Holland, to discuss the offseason so far and their goals for the 2026 season. Presented by Citizens. 00:00 - Tyler Nubin 5:30 - Jason Pinnock 10:40 - Elijah Campbell 17:15 - Jevón HollandSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

July 18, 1999 Meye, Holland

In this episode, Josh speaks with Dr. Dru Johnson on the topic of Biblical Epistemology and how the bible teaches us about knowledge, wisdom, and how to truly know God. Dr. Johnson is the Templeton senior research fellow at Wycliffe Hall (University of Oxford), visiting professor of religion at Hope College in Holland, MI (previously a professor at The King's College in New York City),  director of the Abrahamic Theistic Origins Project, director of the Center for Hebraic Thought, editor at The Biblical Mind, host of The Biblical Mind podcast, and co-host of the OnScript Podcast. Before that, he was a high-school dropout, skinhead, punk rock drummer, combat veteran, IT supervisor, and pastor. Yeah, what a wild ride huh? We hope you enjoy the conversation!________________________________________________________Connect with Dr. Dru:https://drujohnson.comCheck out his books on Amazon:Get: "Epistemology and Biblical Theology: From the Pentateuch to Mark's Gospel", and many more!________________________________________________________Connect with us:Social: Instagram.com/behindthecurtainpcYoutube.com/btcmysteriesTikTok.com/btcmysteriesEmail: behindthecurtainpc@gmail.comMusic in this episode: Opening & Closing track"Computer Mind" by JoshG

Who is Gwen?Gwen Acton, PhD, has built her career helping “rocket scientists”—the brilliant scientists, engineers, and technical experts behind today's most innovative companies—become extraordinary leaders. With a background spanning everything from biology to technology, Gwen was inspired by the crucial roles these experts play in industries like biotech, aerospace, AI, big pharma, and government research labs. She saw that while technical leaders are essential for organizational success, many find themselves suddenly tasked with leading teams, often without the tools or training to do so. Gwen made it her mission to bridge this gap, coaching and advising growth-stage companies and R&D groups so their top technical minds can excel both as experts and as leaders.Key TakeawaysSummaryStuart Webb and Gwen Acton PhD discuss* Why technical expertise doesn't equate to leadership proficiency* Common pitfalls technical leaders face (like micromanagement and letting go of control)* The mindset shift required to move from individual contributor to successful team leader* The most essential skills and behaviors for leadership in science and technology-driven organizations* Practical advice for influencing up, engaging teams, and leading transformation* Insights from Gwen's career and highlights from her book, “Leadership for Scientists and Engineers”* Audience questions on changing leaders' minds and the hallmarks of great leadershipWhether you're a new leader, a technical expert on the rise, or simply curious about the bridge between science and leadership, this episode delivers actionable tips and inspirational stories.Timestamps & Overview* 00:00 - Tech glitches and introductions:Stuart Webb kicks off, introducing Gwen Acton PhD, her background, and the episode setup.* 01:24 - Defining the technical leader's challenge:Gwen explains who she helps and the need for leadership skills in technical organizations.* 04:10 - Why technical backgrounds don't prepare you for leadership:Gwen highlights the crucial differences between technical problem-solving and managing people, and why logic alone isn't enough for people problems.* 07:04 - The confusion and blind spots of technical leaders:Discussion about why what worked as a technical expert often fails in leadership, and the importance of learning new interpersonal skills.* 09:16 - Letting go and the pains of delegation:Gwen addresses micromanagement, the struggle to trust others, and methods for successful delegation in high-precision environments.* 11:29 - One piece of leadership advice:Why great leaders ask more (and better) questions instead of always trying to provide answers.* 13:24 - Audience Q&A – Changing minds and influencing up:Gwen shares tips for helping leaders change direction, including the power of genuine questions and one-on-one influence.* 17:05 - Gwen's journey from scientist to leadership expert:Personal story about her path, why group dynamics and leadership in science are so important, and practical solutions for the technical world.* 20:20 - About the book “Leadership for Scientists and Engineers”:What readers will find inside and why it's designed as a practical guide for technical leaders.* 21:34 - What makes a good leader or role model?:Key traits and behaviors ranging from strategic alignment to offering feedback and motivating teams.* 26:48 - The killer question: What separates great leaders from those who plateau?:Gwen's reflections on lifelong learning, intentional skill development, and the humility to accept feedback.* 29:28 - Closing remarks and staying in touch:How to subscribe for future episodes, more about Gwen, and reaching out with questions.Resources and Links*

durée : 00:59:22 - par : Nathalie Piolé - La playlist jazz de Nathalie Piolé. - équipe : Emmanuelle Lacaze, Fabien Fleurat Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

On this episode of Talking Shop we are joined by Barb Hyman, Founder and CEO of Sapia.ai - the platform helping brands like Starbucks, Costa, and Holland & Barrett streamline and humanise how they hire. Barb recently returned from the World Retail Congress with a pretty stark takeaway: retail bosses are spending millions to shave two seconds off a checkout queue, yet they still treat their hiring process as a back-office task. We explore why your recruitment strategy directly impacts your bottom line, the commercial boost you get when you treat job applicants—who are often also customers— well, and how technology can actually make the application process feel more human.

Anne Hathaway talks her third pregnancy, Holland & Haaland, Matt Damon rules out one thing for the rest of his career and the great Kardashian name drop...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Braunes Thermalwasser, Strandbars in Holland und eine Flughafenlounge, die ihre besten Zeiten hinter sich hat - Alex und Zsolt sind zurück und haben einiges zu erzählen. Zwischen Familienbesuchen, Geburtstagsüberraschungen und Omegaful gibt es ein Thema, bei dem Alex keinen Spaß versteht: Pfandflaschen.Viel Spaß mit der Folge!

We're back from the 4th of July and Jamie's neighborhood had quite an incident happen, Alyssa shares Bush's newest flavors of beans and we got a little Bamboozled corner.  Write us some of your cringe stories at nervouslaughterpodcast@gmail.comThe socials: Instagram | Facebook | Twitter

Website

In this episode of Season 2 of The Language Question ~ Ceist na Teangan, host Finghin Mac Cárthaigh (Flor McCarthy) sits down with Nuala Ní Dhomhnaill, one of the most celebrated poets writing in the Irish language and a former Ireland Professor of Poetry.Together, they explore how learning Irish (Gaeilge) can go far beyond grammar and vocabulary, opening powerful pathways into identity, heritage, and belonging.Thanks for your interest in The Language Question ~ Ceist na Teangan! Subscribe for free to receive priority notification on future episodes and to access valuable Irish language learning resourcesThanks for your interest in The Language Question ~ Ceist na Teangan! Subscribe for free to receive priority notification on future episodes and to access valuable Irish language learning resources.Throughout the conversation, they reflect on the emotional power of Irish — from family connections and memory to the deep cultural meanings embedded within words.This episode reminds us that Irish is not simply something to learn — it is something to experience, feel, and live.A Note on TimingThis episode was recorded on 29 March 2026. During the conversation, Finghin refers to an interview with Gabriel Rosenstock that had appeared in the Sunday Independent the week before, as well as to a documentary that was due to air the following Sunday, which was Easter Sunday.Since the recording of this episode, Gabriel Rosenstock has sadly passed away. Beannachtaí Dé airThis Episode Celebrates:* The role of storytelling in learning Irish* The power of etymology and folklore to unlock meaning* The emotional connection between language, identity, and heritage* The importance of accessibility and community in language revivalIf you've ever felt disconnected from Irish — or unsure where to begin — this episode will inspire you to start again.Thanks for your interest in The Language Question ~ Ceist na Teangan! Subscribe for free to receive priority notification on future episodes and to access valuable Irish language learning resources. Podcast NotesGrowing Up Between LanguagesNuala Ní Dhomhnaill reflects on her childhood between England and Ireland and her early immersion in Irish upon returning to the Gaeltacht in West Kerry. Her experience highlights how language shapes identity and belonging from an early age.The Gaeltacht and the Power of StorytellingInfluenced by the rich oral traditions of the Gaeltacht, Ní Dhomhnaill developed a deep appreciation for folklore and storytelling. These formative experiences would later inspire her distinctive poetic voice.Thanks for your interest in The Language Question ~ Ceist na Teangan! Subscribe for free to receive priority notification on future episodes and to access valuable Irish language learning resources. Mythology, Folklore, and the Creative ImaginationDrawing from Irish mythology and the National Folklore Collection, her work explores themes of transformation, memory, and the subconscious. Her iconic mermaid (merrow) poems exemplify her ability to bridge ancient tradition with contemporary thought.Writing in Irish: A Lifelong CommitmentNí Dhomhnaill discusses her decision to write primarily in Irish, describing it as a language of discovery, creativity, and authenticity. Her work has brought Irish-language poetry to international audiences through translation and has played a pivotal role in the modern literary revival.Free Irish Learning ResourcesIf you enjoyed this episode of The Language Question ~ Ceist na Teangan and want to continue your Irish language journey:Access free Irish learning resources, stay updated on upcoming episodes, and receive exclusive content.Sign up here:Free ResourcesThe Language Question ~ Ceist na Teangan Free ResourcesYou can also follow my writing on Substack:Thanks for your interest in The Language Question ~ Ceist na Teangan! Subscribe for free to receive priority notification on future episodes and to access valuable Irish language learning resources. A newsletter and community for anyone learning the Irish language as an adultSlán tamall,Finghin Mac CárthaighHost – The Language Question ~ Ceist na TeanganMore on Nuala Ní DhomhnaillNuala Ní Dhomhnaill is one of the most celebrated poets writing in the Irish language and a former Ireland Professor of Poetry. Renowned for her lyrical and myth-infused work, she explores themes of identity, folklore, femininity, and cultural memory through the medium of Gaeilge.Born in Lancashire, England, in 1952 to Irish physicians, she was sent at age 5 to live with relatives in the Kerry Gaeltacht. This experience profoundly shaped her linguistic and cultural identity. She later studied English and Irish at University College Cork in 1969, where she became a central figure in the influential Innti school of poets. Ní Dhomhnaill spent seven years living abroad in Holland and Turkey with her husband, Doğan Leflef, before returning to County Kerry in 1980. Her first poetry collection, An Dealg Droighin, was published in 1981.Writing exclusively in Irish, Ní Dhomhnaill uses language as a powerful tool to give voice to the marginalised and to challenge traditional narratives within Irish society. Her work often reimagines mythology and folklore through a feminist lens, presenting women as complex, empowered, and multidimensional figures. Through her poetry, she seeks to transcend the fragmentation of Ireland's colonial past and to affirm the vitality and relevance of Irish cultural identity.Her work has reached global audiences through translations by some of Ireland's most distinguished poets, including Seamus Heaney, Paul Muldoon, Medbh McGuckian, Michael Hartnett, and Eiléan Ní Chuilleanáin. Ní Dhomhnaill advocates for creative freedom in translation, believing that English versions should capture the energy, beauty, and spirit of the original Irish.Widely acclaimed both nationally and internationally, her poetry continues to play a vital role in the modern revival of Irish-language literature and in shaping contemporary discussions on language, culture, and identity.Learn more:Poetry Foundation This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit finghinmac.substack.com

This (almost) Fourth of July conversation originally appeared on Jenny Holland's channel, Saving Culture From Itself, but it's really a "collab," as they say in the pod-biz. Meghan has talked with Jenny before on YouTube livestreams, but this is the first time they've done an official podcast together. This conversation kept circling back to the kinds of tripwires and trigger points that cause people to tune out ideas before they even hear them—for instance my advocacy for Spencer Pratt in the L.A. mayoral race a few months ago and Jenny's support of . . . Brexit. (She lives in Belfast in Northern Ireland.) We also talked about how Meghan began her career at the tail end of the golden age of magazine journalism, and what it was like watching that world start to shift around 2012-13. Finally, in the spirit of the season, they talked about American exceptionalism, generosity of spirit, and Jenny's husband's 1987 trip to the US as part of the "Children of the Troubles" program — the trip that made him fall in love with this country.   Catch more of Jenny's cultural critiques directly on her YouTube channel:

HURLING: Turloughmore captain Jamie Holland and man of the match Dara Whelan with Galway Bay FM's Darren Kelly after their Division 1 League Final win over Oranmore-Maree

“My circle decides my ceiling.”Tracy Hollands Top Five Tips For Business Builders1. Stop confusing activity with leverage2. Turn your influence into something tangible3. Build with your community, not just for them4. Simple scales. Complex breaks5. Choose rooms that expand your future TIME STAMP SUMMARY01:23   Doing more with less05:40  Building a brand, no matter what10:20   Include your community in changes13:50   Focus on simplicity 17:10    Who is in your surroundings Where to find Tracy? Website                https://www.innerfifth.com/LinkedIn               https://www.linkedin.com/in/tracyholland Tracy Holland Bio I'm a founder, investor, and operator who has spent more than two decades building brands and businesses with women who lead. I co-founded HATCHBEAUTY and helped scale it to over $750M in cumulative wholesale revenue, launching and growing brands like Naturewell, Nuance by Salma Hayek, BLISS Color, FOUND Active, and Orlando Pita Haircare.Today, I lead the InnerFifth ecosystem, Potential to Powerhouse, Inner Fifth Accelerator, and Goodwill Brands, which is designed to take creators and entrepreneurs from inspiration to product to scale. I believe a woman's greatest asset isn't capital, it's conviction, and the community that amplifies it.My mission is to build rooms where powerhouse women rise together, with clarity, strategy, and support. I'm an EY Entrepreneur of the Year, a Fashion & Beauty Award recipient, and a member of The Committee of 200.

His perfect morning is surprisingly simple: a couple cups of black coffee, one decaf to round out the trio, and then it's off to tackle whatever impossible challenge lands on his desk. Somewhere between leading a national tax practice, advocating for thousands of Texas tenants, and occasionally grabbing a karaoke microphone, he's also managed to build one of the largest eviction advocacy organizations in the country.This week on Counsel Brew, Nicola and Shereen sit down with attorney and published author Mark Melton, co-chair of Holland & Knight's Tax and Executive Compensation & Benefits Practice Group and founder of the Dallas Eviction Advocacy Center.What starts as a conversation about coffee, karaoke, and whether fantasy novels belong on a lawyer's bookshelf quickly turns into one of the most powerful stories we've shared on the podcast.Before becoming a nationally recognized attorney and housing advocate, Mark was a young husband and father who lost everything after his employer collapsed. He experienced eviction firsthand, packed his family into a car, and drove to Dallas with little more than hope for a fresh start. Years later, one Facebook post during the uncertainty of COVID-19 unexpectedly launched what has become one of the country's largest tenant advocacy organizations, helping thousands of families navigate one of the hardest moments of their lives.Along the way, Mark shares why access to justice is about far more than knowing the law, how one mentor changed the trajectory of his life, and why he believes a single conversation—or a single Facebook post—can change everything.Of course, because this is Counsel Brew, there are plenty of laughs mixed in with the deeper moments. From meeting his wife at karaoke and building his own office during the pandemic to debating bookshelf etiquette and admitting that work-life balance isn't exactly his strong suit, Mark proves that even people doing extraordinary work still appreciate a good cup of coffee and a great story.In this episode, we discuss:Growing up in Tulsa and rebuilding life after losing everything.The mentor who changed the course of his future.Why he accidentally became both a CPA and tax attorney.Founding the Dallas Eviction Advocacy Center during the pandemic.The hidden ripple effects of housing instability on families and children.Expanding tenant advocacy efforts beyond Dallas into Houston.Writing his newly released book, Injustice of the Peace.Whether you're a lawyer, law student, policymaker, or simply someone who believes in using your skills to help others, this episode is a powerful reminder that some of the biggest changes begin with a single push of a button.Grab your favorite brew and join us for one of our most inspiring conversations yet.Find Mark at https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-melton-144b225/Message us at hello@counselbrew.com  Visit us at http://www.counselbrew.com And Follow us @counselbrew & https://www.linkedin.com/company/counsel-brew/Send us Fan Mail Explicit Rating is for the occasional use of colorful language.

Olympiacos are back for 2026/27 and the first preseason friendly already gave us plenty to talk about.We were in Holland to watch Olympiacos beat Raków 2–1 after going behind, with Kostas Fortounis scoring a trademark free-kick and Roman Yaremchuk completing the comeback in stoppage time.In this video: first impressions from Olympiacos' opening preseason match, Rodinei's sharp return, Pablo Maffeo's first minutes, Clayton's struggles, Scipioni and Mouzakitis in midfield, the Yaremchuk striker question, and why Fortounis could be one of the most important “signings” of the summer.

We go all the way back to the 1994 World Cup with legendary UMBC head coach Pete Caringi, who joins Nestor to assess just how far American soccer has come during his lifetime and the joy that this 2026 tournament has brought to this country and an new entire generation of fans of The Beautiful Game from Highlandtown to Holland and your town. The post Legendary UMBC soccer coach Pete Caringi joins Nestor to discuss the US World Cup journey of his lifetime first appeared on Baltimore Positive WNST.

Now the author of two books and many articles in major publications, Eva Holland was just getting started in 2012. That's when she was offered a 10-month back-fill position with Up Here magazine. “It was the break I was waiting for,” she says, “and I spent those months in an informal feature-writing boot-camp.”In this episode, Eva chats with The YUKON Magazine's co-publisher, Tammo Walter, about her evolution as a northern writer and what it means to “write the North.” She then reads a timeless story titled “I Found the Sweet Life,” which chronicles a week she spent among Skagway's seasonal workers during her “boot-camp” era more than a decade ago. Originally published in Up Here, this piece also appears in Eva's collection No Sleep ‘Til Fairbanks."This story,” she explains, “was my first foray into the sort of immersive first-person reporting that would become my trademark.”The rest is history.CREDITSInterview by Tammo WalterReading by Eva HollandMixed and edited by Mark KoepkeIntro/outro music and stings by Major FunkOther music:acoustic primitive guitar open C by yunclas -- License: Creative Commons 0MORE FROM THIS SERIES((Poetry)) by Peter Jickling((Theatre)) by Larrikin Entertainment((Radio)) by JAM Live!((Music)) by the august arrival((Fiction)) by Nadine Sander-Green((Moosic)) by Cows Go Moo((Music)) by The Lucky OnesSend us Fan MailCONNECT WITH USSend a text or voicemail Website: theyukonmagazine.comInstagram: @the.yukon.magazineFacebook: @TheYukonMagazineLinkedIn: @theyukonmagazineEmail: podcast@theyukonmagazine.comSUBSCRIBE TO THE MAGAZINESubscribe for yourself or as a gift for that special person who needs a little more Yukon in their life. Four issues every year, delivered right to your door.

This is the 298th episode of my podcast, 'Soccernostalgia Talk Podcast'. For this episode, I interview Dutch Football fan Mr. René Seedorf and Mr. Jan Roskott, as we discuss the Holland National Team during the 1998 World Cup. Mr. Seedorf is a teacher, translator, aspiring scout, and avid collector of classic football matches. Mr. Jan Roskott is the administrator of http://dutchsoccersite.org/. For any questions/comments, you may contact us:You may also contact me on this blog, on twitter @sp1873 and on facebook under Soccernostalgia.https://linktr.ee/sp1873 Mr. Paul Whittle, @real1888letter on twitter and https://the1888letter.com/contact/https://linktr.ee/BeforeThePremierLeague You may also follow the podcast on spotify and Apple podcasts all under ‘Soccernostalgia Talk Podcast'Please leave a review, rate and subscribe if you like the podcast.Mr. Seedorf's contact info:Twitter (X): @911RL1Link: https://rl119.wordpress.com/over/Link: https://rl119voetbalt.wordpress.com/Article link: https://rl119.wordpress.com/2025/04/22/the-legacy-of-jose-pekerman/ Mr. Roskottt's contact info:Email: jroskott@gmail.comTwitter (X): @DutchSoccerSiteWebsite: http://dutchsoccersite.org/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dutchsoccersite Listen on Spotify / Apple: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3jAzTf7rNHkoyrwFgSjpzD?si=jRp5VJqLRRiyfoJ82FlQhw&utm_source=copy-link&nd=1&dlsi=a96ed848994c4305https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/soccernostalgia-talk-podcast-episode-298-interview/id1601074369?i=1000776046098 Youtube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPTG5Ew-03Q Blog Link:https://soccernostalgia.blogspot.com/2026/07/soccernostalgia-talk-podcast-episode_01579195664.htmlSupport the show

We're back!! This week, we're talking about Mr. Holland's Opus, a movie about a bad man and his worse opus! We discuss how Mr. Holland has to be taught that *checks notes* other people have feelings, hear a SHITTY opus, and Kat tells a story that breaks Jocelyn.   Produced by Andrew Ivimey as part of The From Superheroes Network   Visit www.FromSuperheroes.com for more podcasts, articles, video series, web comics, and more.

Tampons in an Ice Cream TubIn this episode of Brand Growth Heroes, I'm joined by Tara Chandra and Susan Allen, co-founders of Here We Flo, the organic, sustainable period care brand turning one of the most shame-coded categories in consumer brands into something loud, funny, feminist and brilliantly visible on shelf. We talk about how two friends from LSE spotted a gap in women's intimate products, started with a period care idea in a Hackney flatshare, and built a challenger brand now stocked across major retailers including Boots, Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, Superdrug and Holland & Barrett.Here We Flo shows us the power of brand strategy to create value when the category ITSELF is broken. Tara and Susan didn't just create organic cotton tampons, pads and liners; they questioned why period care was hidden, clinical and functional when other parts of consumer life had already moved towards better materials, better design and better conversations. We cover packaging as a growth lever, why their ice cream tub became a “trolley magnet”, how they think about rate of sale rather than just chasing distribution, and why their mission now stretches across cycle care, bladder care and sexual wellness.What You'll Learn Why Here We Flo used packaging as their first “billboard” before they could afford media.  How starting in independent Hackney stores helped them build product market fit.  Why brand tone of voice matters so much in categories shaped by shame and stigma.  How they think about growing rate of sale with existing retail partners.  Why product reliability is non-negotiable in period care and bladder care. Key Topics Discussed Building a feminist challenger brand  Organic and sustainable period care  Packaging as a shelf strategy  Launching in independent retailers  Breaking into WHSmith Travel, Boots and Tesco  Making taboo categories emotionally accessible  Period care, bladder care and sexual wellness  Growing through rate of sale, not just distribution  Education on shelf and in-store communication  Sports partnerships, stigma and period confidence  Building a team of 31 women  Scaling towards 50–100% growth ambitions Like this episode? PLEASE share the love by sharing this episode with another founder building a challenger brand, a colleague or a mate who loves brilliant non-alcoholic drinks, or anyone trying to work out how to build a sharper, more focused growth model.Don't forget to FOLLOW or SUBSCRIBE to Brand Growth Heroes on your favourite podcast app, and even LEAVE A REVIEW - both of these actions make a MASSIVE difference to our mission to help more founders just like you.Join our community Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/brandgrowthheroes) LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/company/brand-growth-heroes/?viewAsMember=true) Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/@brandgrowthheroes)Find out more about the programmes and courses Fiona runs here (https://www.brandgrowthheroes.com/mini-mba-2026)AND Do you want to lean in to unlock value from AI? We have a whatsapp group -the  NextGen CPG WhatsApp group for founders leaning in to the value that a leadership approach to engaging with AI can unlock for businesses like yours. Do you want to join? *** A massive thanks thanks to Brand Growth Heroes' podcast sponsor -  Joelson, the commercial law firm ***If you're a founder, you already know how much energy goes into building the perfect product, creating standout branding and connecting with consumers.But scaling a CPG business also brings legal complexities that can make or break your growth journey - from contracts and regulatory compliance to protecting your intellectual property.That's why we're proud to partner with Joelson, the leading commercial law firm specialising in helping founders of scaling consumer brands.Joelson works with brands like Little Moons, Trip, Eat Natural, Bear Graze and Pulsin, and advised the innocent founders on their landmark sale to Coca-Cola - and still work with them at JamJar Investments today!Joelson is offering a FREE LEGAL CONSULTATION to all BGH listeners (mailto:hello@joelsonlaw.com) - we highly recommend you take them up on it!CREDITSThanks to our Sound Engineer Gyp Buggane at Ballagroove.com and all the rest of the Brand Growth Heroes team.

Rudi Carrell war strahlender Showmaster, Perfektionist und Studiotyrann. Der Niederländer revolutionierte das deutsche Fernsehen - sein Publikum liebte ihn dafür bis zu seinem Tod 2006. Von Herwig Katzer.

We end our journey through Colossians by celebrating the people we're thankful for. You can find out more about us at our website www.vineandbranch.church It is a priority for us at Vine & Branch to make LGBTQIA+, all ethnicities and races, those with disabilities, and other marginalized people groups feel accepted, included, and valuable to the life of our community!

About a year into widowhood, Krisy was given a gift from someone she hardly knew at just the right time. "I will greatly rejoice in the LORD; my soul shall exult in my God, for He has clothed me with the garments of salvation; He has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress, and a bride adorns herself with her jewels." Isaiah 61:10 (ESV)"Fear not, for you will not be ashamed; be not confounded, for you will not be disgraced; for you will forget the shame of your youth, and the reproach of your widowhood you will remember no more. For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is His name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth He is called." Isaiah 54:4-5 (ESV)Krisy Holland is the founder of GenHerosity, a meeting space for single women to discover their God-given and to connect with aligned Kingdom Impact Partners already doing the work He's placed on her heart. She is an entrepreneur and has worked with several ministries, most recently Oak Tree Ministries in Gate City, Alabama.Krisy on Instagram - @kh.hopeslinger_Meet Me in Isaiah on Instagram: @meetmeinisaiahThank you to Project of Love for the beautiful music on this episode! You can learn more at projectoflove.com.

Kathy Boden Holland is the CEO of Mindr, a national leader in substance detection, monitoring, and safety solutions. The newest addition to their portfolio of products is Keepr Drive, a proactive driving tech aimed at helping families protect young drivers and make roadways safer. Mindr is focused on making communities safe through innovative technologies that empower individual with the tools to make better decisions. The 4th of July holiday weekend marks one of the key points of the "100 Deadliest Days of Summer," in which road crashes, many involving alcohol, tend to tick up. For that measure, "Keepr Drive" is a timely addition to our vehicles and available in Washington state. https://mindr.com https://yourkeepr.com See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Boys ONLYTim "Red Hawk" Welch is joined by the legend Joe "Diesel" Riggs as they break down Conor McGregor vs Max Holloway, Joe's Jail stint in the Mexican slammer, Paddy Pimblett vs Benoit Saint-Dennis, and more!Timecodes00:00 Prize Picks CODE: TIMBO00:46 Welcome Riggs!1:32 We Threw A BBQ…2:39 D-Rod's INSANE Mexican Jail Stint3:28 Riggs Jail Story6:29 Riggs' P*** Hacks8:26 McGregor vs Holloway BREAKDOWN11:09 Conor's HILARIOUS Ad Post13:13 McGregor Potential Win Matchups16:19 Paddy vs Benoit BREAKDOWN 17:54 Bautista vs Sandhagen BREAKDOWN 18:54 Sug vs Yan In PHOENIX?!19:18 Merab's Nose Is No Good Boys21:06 Whittaker vs Krylov BREAKDOWN22:45 Gable Stevenson UFC Debut22:53 Garbrandt vs Yanez BREAKDWON23:10 Riley vs Kamaka23:14 DDP Vs Usman23:22 Ewing INJURED 24:17 DDP vs Usman BREAKDOWN25:25 Cannonier vs Duncan25:44 Holland vs Smith25:49 Hooper vs Ramirez 25:52 Tommy Gun vs Montes BREKADOWN27:48 Delgado vs Bashi BREAKDOWN28:30 Riggs New Content Room29:16 Nick Goes To Europe 32:00 Little Joey Riggs Quit His Job33:22 Red Almost Killed His Boss!?34:22 Diego Lopez Going Up Lightweight35:12 Jared Cannonier Is A FREAK35:42 Sterling vs Silva BREAKDOWN36:22 Riggs vs Dog S*** 37:38 Crypto Isn't Looking Too Good Boys38:22 Pickle Dojo Is An Expensive Hoot39:54 Riggs Quit Smoking The Herb41:05 Pike Gets The BKFC Dub43:27 Confidential Sneak Peek ⚡️Check out PrizePicks! Sign up with code "TIMBO" to play $5 and WIN $50 INSTANTLY Click https://link.prizepicks.com/LME0/TIMBO

Our recap episodes, which offer a synthesis of our 1792-1804 coverage one year at a time, have reached 1799 - a year in which Napoleon Bonaparte achieves an astonishing turnaround in fortunes which ends with him in power. Chris Sloan talks presenter Alex Stevenson through specific key clips he's picked out from our old episodes grouped around four themes which, we argue, help frame the period and shape our understanding of it in a whole new way. We hope this will provide a helpful refresh for longstanding listeners - whilst at the same time offering an 'entry ramp' to the podcast for those who want to get up to speed relatively easily before we crash full-speed into the intensity of the Napoleonic Wars.This episode covers a 12-month period in which Bonaparte's failed Syrian campaign leads him to attempt the desperate gamble of a return to France - which dramatically pays off when, somehow, he emerges as the country's ruler after the coup of Brumaire. That is the culmination of a remarkable year of fighting in Italy and Switzerland, with Russian heroics under the leadership of Suvorov and gritty French defence led by Massena. There really is so much going on - from the Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland to the fall of Naples, from the siege of Malta to the diplomacy of the Second Coalition - what a year 1799 truly is. Help us produce more episodes by supporting the Napoleonic Quarterly on Patreon: patreon.com/napoleonicquarterly

Every animal is telling you something. The real question is whether you're paying attention. I sit down with animal behavior expert Hanne Grice to explore what our pets reveal about trust, stress, communication, and even ourselves. Drawing on nearly 20 years of experience, Hanne explains why behavior is never random, why outdated dominance theories continue to harm animals, and how curiosity leads to better relationships with both pets and people. We also discuss guide dogs, emotional regulation, grief, parenting with dogs, and the science behind building trust through predictability and choice. I believe you'll find this conversation valuable whether you share your life with animals or simply want to become a better leader, communicator, and observer of those around you Highlights: 05:47 – The biggest breakthrough in animal behavior starts with changing the human. 09:35 – A common belief about dog dominance is challenged by modern science. 20:34 – Jane Goodall's work transformed how we understand animal emotions and personalities. 31:02 – Hidden medical issues often explain behaviors owners mistake for disobedience. 45:14 – Giving animals more choice can reduce stress and strengthen trust. 58:21 – Remarkable stories show how animals have influenced history in unexpected ways. About the Guest: Hanne Grice is a UK Clinical Animal Behaviourist, Certified Trainer, and award-winning educator who specialises in the science of human–animal relationships. She founded Hanne Grice Pet Training and Behaviour in 2006 and has supported thousands of families across dogs, cats, and small companion animals. Her work centres on evidence informed welfare, behaviour change, and practical strategies that help people and their animals nurture stable, healthy relationships. Alongside clinical practice, Hanne lectures at the postgraduate level in applied animal behaviour, human–animal interactions, and the psychology that shapes how people understand and interact with their pets. She previously served on the Board of the UK's Animal Behaviour and Training Council. When her tenure concluded in July 2025, she was appointed an Honorary Individual Member in recognition of her outstanding contribution to the charity's mission to raise and protect professional standards. Hanne is known for making science accessible. Her “How Does…” series explores everyday behaviour across species, and her “Animals in History” films examine the remarkable roles animals have played across cultures and time. She is the author of Playing with Your Dog (2010), a practical guide to enriching the lives of companion animals through evidence-informed play. Her research includes studies on dog–owner relationships during pregnancy and early parenthood, as well as ongoing work on behaviour change techniques for animal professionals. She continues to develop tools that bring together behavioural science, practical welfare, and effective communication, helping owners and practitioners create environments where animals feel safe, understood, and able to thrive. Ways to connect with Hanne**:** Hanne Grice YouTube: Hanne Grice Pet Training & Behaviour - YouTube Facebook: Hanne Grice Pet Training and Behaviour Instagram: Hanne Grice on Instagram LinkedIn: Hanne Grice | LinkedIn TikTok: Hanne Grice (@hannegrice) | TikTok https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOf6YEUpLhiktobqDFUSrjuXKBQUW_xyz&si=T9593esdANzVVYoM https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOf6YEUpLhik4U80OJWUMHd5JwbDNZbwd&si=atOLyb_foY_7AVjs   https://learn.hannegrice.com/ https://shophannegrice.com/ https://amzn.to/4pxuzfv  About the Host: Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog. Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards. https://michaelhingson.com https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/ https://twitter.com/mhingson https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/ Thanks for listening! Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below! Subscribe to the podcast If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. You can subscribe in your favorite podcast app. You can also support our podcast through our tip jar https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/unstoppable-mindset . Leave us an Apple Podcasts review Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you have a minute, please leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts. Transcription Notes: Michael Hingson  00:03 One of the biggest things holding you back isn't what's in front of you, but rather what you believe. Welcome to Unstoppable Mindset, where inclusion, diversity, and the unexpected meet. I'm your host, Michael Hingson, speaker, author, and advocate for inclusion and possibilities. This podcast explores how the beliefs we carry shape the way we live, lead, and connect with others. Each week, I talk with people who challenge assumptions, face adversity head on, and show what's possible when we choose curiosity over fear. Together we focus on mindset, resilience, and the small shifts that lead to meaningful change. Let's get started. Hi everyone, I am Mike Hingson, or you can call me Michael Hingson, just to make sure you get the Hingson part right. I am the host of Unstoppable Mindset, and today we get to chat with Hanne Grice from over in the well, across the pond, shall we say. So it's later in the evening there, and she was just telling me that her children celebrate Christmas tomorrow because they also have another Christmas to celebrate on Thursday, so I might be jealous. It is being recorded by the way two days before Christmas in 2025 and we're looking forward to it. Hannah is an animal behavior, she's an expert in all of that. She's done a program called How Does, which I'm interested to learn more about. She is also founded other organizations dealing with training, I think, probably more humans than pets, but all about pet training and developing relationships. Just before we came on, we were talking about a couple of our kiddies, and I should tell you, Hanne, I had a guide dog, my second guide dog, Holland, who was a golden retriever, lived 15 years, so he lived a long time, and was actually three weeks from retirement when he collapsed, and I think had a stroke and a heart attack, and the vet said we could bring him back, but he wouldn't have a good quality of life, so, but we were only without a guide dog for three weeks, but anyway, with all that aside, Welcome to Unstoppable Mindset. We're glad you're here. Hanne Grice  02:34 Thank you so much for having me. It's an honor, and I'm sorry to hear about Holland. So, thank you for sharing that. Michael Hingson  02:42 Well, here's a wonderful puppy dog, and now we have Alamo, who will be 10 years old on the 14th of May, and he will have been a guide dog for me for eight years on the 24th of February, and that's especially interesting because the 24th of February is my birthday, so I regard Alamo as a wonderful birthday present, which is kind of cool. Speaker 1  03:17 That is cool. And how long, Michael, would you typically have a guide dog for when do they typically retire. Michael Hingson  03:24 Typically it's an average thing. It really is all a question of how the guide dog is doing, and so on, because it's a very stressful job, but it's also up to me to keep the stress as low as possible. But typically it's, it's six to eight years, and I expect Alamo to work and be around for quite a while, yet he's just doing really well and isn't showing much age, and I'm happy with that. And then Stitch is going to be 16 in January, so we guess we rescued her back in 2015 and and so she's she's been around, and the two get along pretty well together. They don't chase each other or anything like that, but, but they do communicate, and they talk, and they touch noses, and all that. And every so often, Stitch steals Alamos bed, and poor Alamo doesn't know what to do about it, because Stitch has claws, and he knows it. So he just goes and finds another place to collapse until she leaves. Speaker 1  04:20 Yeah, cats and dogs, they find a way, but two of the species that I work very closely with, so yeah, and a testament to the quality and type of relationship that you have with them, that they're aging so well. So that's great to hear. Michael Hingson  04:36 One of the things that I insist on when I'm having to get a new guide dog, which I don't anticipate doing for a long time yet, but one of the things that I insist is that any guide dog I get has to have been raised around cats and get along with cats. I've seen a couple of guide dogs that are cat haters, and I would never want that kind of thing, especially when it's such an. Easy distraction when that happens. Speaker 1  05:02 Yeah, yeah, I can't imagine what it'd be like if suddenly you're finding yourself careering down the street, right? My dog was chasing the neighbor's cat, not good, not good for any of the animals or human involved. So, yeah, Michael Hingson  05:15 my fourth guide dog, Lynn, loved to chase rabbits, now not out of any kind of meanness or anything like that. She just wanted friends, and she loved to visit my first guide dog, Squire, when we were in Boy Scouts, and went to a camp one on a camping trip one weekend. Actually, caught a road runner, and we discovered that the road runner had a broken leg, but we fixed it, and the road runner took off, but again he just wanted to talk. He never hated any animal, and you know, none of my guide dogs have ever done anything, except they've never known a stranger. Everyone is a friend to them, people in and animals, which is great, Speaker 1  05:58 and that's what I love about my job, Michael, because I am, and you said at the start I'm working with animals, but predominantly it's the humans that engage my services, it's the humans that are looking for help and support with their animals, and so when any of my students or young and aspiring clinical behaviorists or trainers say to me, "Oh, I want to do this job because I love animals. I don't like people. I always say, well, you're going to be in the wrong job. You have to like humans as well, because they're the ones that really you're working with to help change their animals' behavior, and they pay the bills. Michael Hingson  06:36 Well, since you do work a lot with training animals and so on. Have you had any success at training politicians? I mean, there's an animal for you. Speaker 1  06:44 I have had all sorts of clients on my books, from the rich and famous to sportsmen and politicians, so I can't disclose names. However, what I will say is I have successfully used my effective consulting skills on humans to reframe, because actually, if we think about when they engage my services, usually it's because there's a fractured pet owner relationship. For example, you might have a dog that's lunging at other dogs, or you know, the cat that's attacking another cat in the household, and by the time they come to me, they're really frustrated. They're labeling their animals as naughty, and actually, my role is to take an investigative approach, look at all the evidence, and help the clients understand, you know, why the animals are doing what they're doing, what's the function, and usually we start to see that human mindset shift when they have that understanding, and that's incredibly powerful, because you know once we get that human understanding, the behavior change in animals then follows, so it really does begin with the insight in the humans. Michael Hingson  08:04 Really good point. I've seen a lot of people interacting with guide dogs, and some of them get very nervous, especially when they get lost or something isn't going exactly the way they want. When the reality is that nervousness translates to the dog, and the fact is that the dog gets stressed out because their person is stressed out, and I think there's a lot of truth to what the dog whisperer, Caesar Milano, says, is that it's that the dogs are looking for a pack leader, they want the humans to do it, but when some of these people get so nervous, they stress out the dogs, and that has a significant effect on the lifespan. A guiding is is very stressful, and the dogs take it very seriously and want to do a good job, and they want to know that they're doing a good job, and if you get stressed, Michael Hingson  08:59 it's a problem. Speaker 1  09:00 Absolutely, what I would say is it's more scientific in the sense that when we look at the evidence out there in terms of how our animals influence us and vice versa, it tends to be much more subtle. Michael Hingson  09:18 Yeah, Speaker 1  09:19 for example, animals do act as a stress buffering mechanism, for example, if we're feeling worried about something or unsettled, if we see our dog lying, you know, calmly by our feet, we're going to pick up on those cues, and that will help us settle, and there's a good amount of evidence, as you'll be aware, Michael, of, you know, how animals can lower our heart rates, our breathing rates, they can reduce our stress hormone levels, but what's interesting is that doesn't happen in isolation, and over time humans and their animals do fall into these shared rhythms, like you're talking about. So essentially, we are synchronizing things like our routine, our movement. Our emotional states, and so that synchrony does work both ways, and when to your point, as our stress levels rise or our routines become unstable, absolutely our animals will often reflect that, and it's not about leadership at all, it's actually about emotional, our emotional regulation, or inability to regulate that, exactly Michael Hingson  10:23 right, Speaker 1  10:24 or have stable routines, and you know, certainly we saw the impact animals had for us during the pandemic, you know, lots of people lost that social contact, they lost their structure, and so their animals became anchors for routine and emotional stability, so this also helps explain why researchers, as well as our lived experiences, show that attachment to our pets can rival or even exceed some of those that we form with people, and that also explains why when we look at grief, when we lose a pet, and you talked about your gorgeous Holland, and you know your previous guide dogs, you know that that loss of a pet can be as intense as you know when we lose a close friend and a partner. So, back to what you were saying, yes, there's lots of evidence to show heart variability synchronizes, you know, cortisol blood cortisol levels will synchronize, you know, but it's, it's more than sort of some of the popular culture would have us believe in terms of alpha and leader, and I think if there's one thing I could burst a bubble on, it would be around that notion about that the dog is trying to dominate us or take control, and the reason being is because it all comes down to some outdated and flawed research from the 1940s that was then attempted to replicate in the 70s, and as I said, the research design was deeply flawed. It was mixing captive balls from different groups together, so, of course, there's going to be fighting, and so I guess for anyone listening, I would like them to just be really aware that dominance isn't a personality trait, it simply describes a relationship between individuals in a specific context, so when your dog is sat next to you at home, they're not plotting to take over the household, they're not like, you know, Dr. Evil in Austin Powers, they're not trying to take over the world, they're when we see the behaviors like the chasing after the road runner, or the lead pulling after the neighbor's cat, or the growling when they're being touched for grooming, or when they're guarding objects, those behaviors are usually linked to fear or frustration, learning history, even pain, and so when we look through things with a dominance lens, that alpha lens, it attempts to explain animal behavior without actually helping the animal. Do you know what I mean? So, yeah, so when we fish shift, I should say our focus to understanding what's actually driving that behavior, how is that environment, or how's the handling from that individual contributing or compounding the issues that people are coming to me to get help with? You know, what does the animal need to learn instead? Then we get actually better welfare outcomes and much more reliable behavior change done in a science-led, ethical, humane way. Michael Hingson  13:45 Well, I was talking about Squire chasing the Roadrunner. It is my, and it's always been my opinion that Squire was the first one to see that that that bird was injured, and I am absolutely certain that he would never have been able to catch the road runner if that road runner had been able to go at full speed, but the, but the bird had a broken leg, and we fixed it, you know, we taped it, we split it, and then the bird ran away, and Squire didn't, didn't follow it, but I think that there was a sense, and I'm still convinced to this day that that was the case, and I don't want my dogs to be afraid. My previous guide dog to Alamo, actually not even Africa, but going back to Roselle, who was with me in the World Trade Center, Roselle was afraid of thunder. Now she didn't start out being afraid of thunder, but we really didn't know how to deal with it, probably correctly, and she developed this phobia, so that she could even sense when a storm was coming before it got to us, and we worked to calm her down as much as we could, but she was our early warning system for. Storms, and you know, but that was also one of the reasons that I knew on september 11 that we were going, you know, that we didn't have to just rush out of the office like crazy people, because she wasn't reacting after the building was struck, she wasn't reacting with any kind of fear evidence at Speaker 2  15:24 all. Michael Hingson  15:24 Mostly she was yawning and going, "Who woke me up? You know, and, and the bottom line is that she didn't sense anything, and I wasn't smelling any smoke, and I knew that whatever was going on wasn't such an imminent emergency that we couldn't try to evacuate in an orderly way, and, and that's what happened, but I, you know, I have a question for you. How did all this start for you? So, tell us a little bit about the early Hanne growing up, and how did you get into the whole idea of dealing with animals and starting this whole process? Speaker 1  15:56 Well, partly stories like yours, fascinating, absolutely fascinating. Um, so as a child I, there's a big age gap between my brother and my sister and I. So I was the youngest, and I was always fascinated with human animal interactions anyway, but because I think my siblings, where they were so much older, my animals were really my constant companions, and so that's where the deep love of a range of species started, and I was very lucky in that I think because there was such an age gap and my brother and sister weren't around, my parents were sort of, yeah, you can have another rabbit, you can have a stick insect, and it was kind of just keep it quiet, and then I'd be busy with my animals, and then as I sort of grew up, became more aware, as you do, into your sort of preteens and then teens, was really interested in watching how people behaved around their pets, which comes back to some of the stuff you were saying earlier, doesn't it, and I became really curious as to why someone could describe themselves as an animal lover, yet use methods or make choices that clearly compromised the animal's welfare, so that really fascinated me, and I can't pinpoint it to a single defining moment, but certainly I wasn't fortunate to, unlike my students nowadays, because I also lecture, they can do what I do as a degree. When I was growing up, it was vet or very nursing, so it took a while before I could viably get onto the degrees and masters to specialize, but I think for me what continues to motivate, and I'll be 20 years in practice in 2026 is the, the impact, positive impact my role can have on the human animal relationship, in the sense that you know they can, they can come to me, and they're at the brink of despair, the clients, because they've maybe looked at the internet, they've asked well-meaning friends, they may have gone to other professionals, and nothing seems to be working. And actually, you know, it takes further exploration. I can detect stuff that might not be picked up before, because I'm taking like a detective approach, looking at medical history, looking at the owner reporting, asking questions, observing the animal, and all of that information can then lead me to determine, okay, what's going on, and how we approach it, and so when done robustly and systematically that shift in the relationship starts to improve, because they better understand one another, and when an animal starts to go, "Hey, you're listening to me, you're getting what I mean when I kind of do x, y, or z in terms of behavior. That's when the shift happens, and for me, the magic and what really motivates me doing this job day in day out is improving the human animal relationship. Michael Hingson  19:06 Was there any defining moment that caused you to say, yeah, this is exactly what I want to do with the rest of my life, or was it just sort of a gradual thing? Speaker 1  19:17 Oh golly, I mean that for me it's it's a bit like, you know, if you ask something, somebody like an artist to do a painting, at the end of it, there's the finished picture, and for me, I liken it, it's like lots of little building blocks to get to that end picture. For me, the magic really is, is seeing a fractured relationship repair and be better than it was, and so there's been many, many moments over 20 years in my career where that's happened, and those glimmers, as I call them, of what I celebrate, and it's very easy for us all, isn't it, to have those negative ninny moments, those imposter sounds. Syndrome moments, and I hold on to all the reviews, or the little texts that I get when my clients go, "Hey, I walked past another dog, and my dog kept his call, you know, yay, you know, they're the things that drive me and motivate me to keep going, because some of the cases I work with are really heavy, you know, take quite a lot of emotional toll, and I guess that's the stuff that you know the every person doesn't see with clinical behaviorists, is that we do lay in bed at night worrying about other people and their animals. Michael Hingson  20:30 Yeah, I know what you're saying. Coincidentally, just this morning I was reading an article about people we lost in 2025 and of course, one of the people mentioned one of the trailblazers, as the New York Times put it, was Jane Goodall. Have did you ever meet her? Have you had any interactions with her? Because one of the things that they talked about was that she took a completely different approach to interacting with chimpanzees and truly developed a personal relationship. She named them, and she became accepted by them. That really was.. I don't want to say amazing, because I don't think that kind of thing is amazing, but that really just told me how much she obviously understood. Did you ever meet her, or get to deal with her at all? Speaker 1  21:20 I really wish that would have been amazing. Jane Goodall is one of the most inspiring people, you know, in my opinion, and I'm really glad you mentioned her, Michael, because she, her work really paved the way for us to understand back in the 70s, really, that animals have personalities. Michael Hingson  21:45 Yeah, Speaker 1  21:46 because it was, it was months and years of taking things really slowly, being really unintrusive, observing. It took many years for her to be accepted around the truth, because they can be really dangerous animals, and so, and that was a really good example, you know. I was saying earlier about taking things slowly and systematically, and she recognized that chimpanzees were individuals, they had different emotions, just like us, they had different personality types that didn't really change as they grew, and it was through her work, particularly with one called David Graybeard, that led to her sort of gaining more public awareness, and she had her critics, you know, at the time they thought she, oh Michael Hingson  22:35 sure, Speaker 1  22:36 she was a bit like Diane Posse, they thought she was some sort of crazy lady who was terribly anthropomorphic, and that wasn't the case at all. No, so you know it's it's real leaders in, in the field, like Jane Goodall and the Diane Fosses, that that has paved the way for the likes of me to then go, yes, our animals have emotions. It wasn't, you know, Darwin led the way in the 1800s with the first idea of this, but you know it's not that long ago that really we thought animals were just unthinking, you know, blobs that you know were incapable of feeling pain, and sadly even today in social media we see some awful advice given out to cat or dog owners about how you deal with problems in order to have a quick fix, you know, and that's not the case at all. So, yeah, I'm really happy you brought her up, because, yeah, amazing lady. Michael Hingson  23:35 Well, I don't remember exactly when it occurred, it was sometime when I was 10 or 11, sometime in the very early 60s. She came and lectured in the area where I grew up, in the Antelope Valley, and my parents and I did go to see her. I don't remember anything about the lecture, but it was.. I know it was.. it was interesting, and I wish I could remember more of it, but that was the only time that we were ever close to her, but it was, it was fascinating, and of course, knowing about her life and the things that she did, I absolutely understand and agree with you. When I worked, which I did for Guide Dogs for the Blind for six and a half years, we lived in Northern California, about seven miles from Guide Dogs for the Blind, and literally just down the street from the Marin Humane Society, which is one of the more famous and well-known organizations of its type in the United States, and talking to some of their people, they, they said, How so often it's not really training the animals that is what we're dealing with here, it's training the humans, and it is because it's the humans that really need to get a clue and understand that these animals have as much of a personality and as much knowledge to share. As we do, and are born with more instincts, and we could learn to listen to our own instincts, if we would observe these dogs a whole lot more, and these animals a whole lot more than we do. Now, I don't know about cats, but you know that's another story. Speaker 1  25:13 Yeah, yeah, we often like to label. Yeah, that's fascinating. That's super cool that you got to see her in the 60s, even if you can't remember what she said, that's really impressive. I remember Michael Hingson  25:28 doing it, but that was about that's about it, actually. Speaker 2  25:32 Yeah, wow, that's Michael Hingson  25:33 kind of fun. Yeah, if Speaker 3  25:38 you enjoy Unstoppable Mindset and would like to help us continue bringing these conversations to you each week. We've created a way for you to support the show. Your contribution helps us cover production costs and continue sharing stories, insights, and ideas that inspire people to live with purpose and possibility. If supporting the podcast feels right for you. You'll find the link in the show notes. Thank you for being part of the Unstoppable Mindset community, Michael Hingson  26:11 but you know the fact is that animals really can contribute a whole lot more to our lives than we think, and we just need to be the ones to take the initiative and develop the relationships. I talk to people all the time about dogs, and I say that dogs, and I firmly believe, do love unconditionally, unless there's some horrible thing that happened to them that that affects their, their views, but dogs love unconditionally, but they don't trust unconditionally. The difference, though, between dogs and people is that dogs are more open to trust, and they want to develop that trusting relationship. And if we would learn to do that as well, it would be such a wonderful thing. Now it can be that you will like with human to human trust, you might find that somebody doesn't earn your trust. That's okay. Then you move on, but we need to learn to be more open to trust than we than we tend to be. Speaker 1  27:14 Yeah, absolutely. Really well said. And you know, in terms of how do we develop secure, healthy bonds between us and our animals. It's built on several things, and that includes predictability, responsiveness, and emotional safety. That's your trust bed, isn't it? And so one of the clearest findings that we have from attachment research is that animals cope better when they can predict how their humans going to respond. Michael Hingson  27:46 Yes, Speaker 1  27:47 and when their attempts at communication are noticed and make sense to the animals. So, for example, in everyday life, you know, this might look like your dog pausing or turning their head when we're reaching out to stroke them, or it might be the cat choosing to leave a stroke as you're attempting to reach out to their cheek, and how we recognize this as the human would be to go, "Oh, okay, I'm going to ease off, because clearly you know you're turning your head, you're lip licking, that's telling me you'd rather I stop trying to reach out to pet your head or the cat walking way, I'm going to allow you to do that pussy cat rather than follow you and try and pick you up and give you a cuddle. So when handlers respond in those ways to their animals responses, the animals learn very quickly, hey, my communication works, and then that understanding strengthens the animal owner relationship, and another thing that plays into that, which is what I'm always talking to clients about, is processing time plays an important role in building healthy, secure relations, because often animals need much longer to take in information or decide how to respond, particularly if they're feeling emotionally aroused, unsafe, or trying to learn something new. And when we rush them, and a real good example of this is some my clients will ask the dog to sit, and if the dog doesn't do it within a split second, they're going sit, sit, they're repeating the cue over and over again, and that unintentionally puts pressure rather than giving clarity to the dog, and it can then often lead to confusion and even frustration, and that's going to show up behaviorally, so for example, we may end up with the dog, then jumping up at the owner or grabbing the lead and ragging it. So, I always say, look, if we slow down, if we allow space for the animal to process what we're asking them to do, if we respond calmly and consistently to their subtle cues that they communicate through body language. And so on, animals begin to expect safety rather than threat from us, and that expectation therefore reduces things like stress. It supports learning, it makes behavior much more resilient, because the relationship itself is secure, and these are the same principles that sit at the heart of child-parent attachment, where there's predictability, there's responsive caregiving, and that helps the child feel safe enough to explore and learn. Michael Hingson  30:32 It's also just as relevant for any kind of teaming relationship, even within companies, and the true leaders of companies who catch on to these kinds of things and learn how to communicate and process to determine whether somebody is truly understanding what they're communicating or not is an extremely important thing, because the fact of the matter is none of this is overly magical, whether it is between human and animal or human and human, but we do need to recognize the values and what it really is is meaning when, for example, we don't react to someone not doing instantly what we say, which isn't the way to do it. Speaker 1  31:17 Absolutely, yeah, really good example using principles that we see in leadership, HR, you know, and that's why when they're recruiting, they spend so much time typically looking at personality types, how that's going to match with the team, you know, so yeah, really good point there, Michael, about leadership and the importance of that people centric approach, which I think, with you know, sadly, you know, not to go too political, we're seeing real crazy times Speaker 2  31:47 at the moment, Speaker 1  31:48 and a lack of true leadership with that empathetic, human-centric approach, whatever side of the political spectrum you sit on. Michael Hingson  31:57 Yeah, and it is, it's all over. I hope something will come and break that pattern and get people to recognize what really should work and what really does work well in your case, even when you walk into a home, what is it that you observe, or how do you determine how an animal feels for the first time when you come in and see them before you really even get a chance to talk with their people. Speaker 1  32:25 Yeah, that's a good question. Animals, you were talking about Brazil and thunder, and she pick up on, you know, atmospheric changes. We know that biometric changes are picked off on by many, many non-human animals, so because they communicate using a combination of sensory information, be it sense, sound, visual signaling. I can walk into a client's house and immediately pick up on something. So, I'll give you some real examples. I recently had a case with Dusty Gorgeous Cocker Spaniel, and I was called in because she had developed severe resource guarding, so she'd get really growly and snappy, and sometimes bite the owner when she'd taken something of theirs, and they were trying to take it off them. As soon as I walked into Dusty's home, I could smell her, I could smell her ears, and that led me to suspect straight away there's some sort of likely infection going on here, and so working collaboratively with the vet, as clinical animal behaviorists do, that was confirmed, and the level of pain she'd been experiencing turned out to be a significant, significant contributory factor in her case for guarding, because guarding of the items provided some form of emotional regulation, whereas you know from an outsider's perspective she might have just been labeled naughty and disobedient, which isn't the case at all. Another example is I'm always watching how an animal moves, or how the owner interacts with them. How the animal, therefore, responds in return. And I touched on, you know, predictability a moment ago. And many stress signs that our animals will give us are really subtle and often misinterpreted. So let's take zoomies, you know, when the dog goes crazy around the lounge, and they may be jumping all over the sofas, etc. or humping the visitor, you know, the leg when the person comes in. Frequently, that's labeled as over excitement, or even dominance. When in reality, these are really often indicators of stress or discomfort, and small details also matter, so for example, the holding of breath or an increased blink rate, turning away from an outstretched hand. You know, these are really kind of brief moments that can be missed, and yet they tell us a huge amount of information. About how that animal was feeling about that interaction at that moment in time, and more recently I had a couple of cats, different cat cases, but urinating around the home, you know, up toasters on beds and sofas and things like that, and when, because I work with clients all around the world, as well as the UK, I can't always physically be there in person, so I'm reviewing the footage, and they managed to capture video of the cats moving around their environment, and then also urinating in their litter tray, and straight away I could spot the position of the whiskers, the eye shape, the ear position, the tension in the muzzle, the posture, and when they're moving around, and these were consistently scoring high on something called the cat groom miss scale, and that's a validated pain assessment Michael Hingson  35:54 tool. Speaker 1  35:54 So all of that information provided further investigation for the bet, and again, medical conditions are identified, and clearly you've got learning occurring anyway. So, there's always the behavior modification side, but these are just with dusty in the cat examples showing how there's often some other stuff like medical bits and bobs that are compounding the issues as well. Often I might be in a situation where you know the dog is belching or they're gnawing at their paws or their franks. Now that in itself can indicate perhaps gustatory issues or skin problems, but also context is critical because that's if that's happening when I'm there it could also be a stress sign, yeah, because an unfamiliar person, me, is present, so I'm looking at patterns, and does that happen when visitors aren't there, and and so on, and so on. So I come back to what I said earlier, really, it's like a detective, you're looking at all the evidence and piecing that together, and that then helps us understand what function is that undesirable behavior serving, whether that's the cat, you know, urinating against the toaster, or the rabbit scratching or biting the human. Michael Hingson  37:14 Well, so I've mentioned Roselle, one of the things that I was told when I first met Roselle, was she likes to steal socks, and, and I found that to be true. She loved to steal them and hide them, and that was it. She never chewed them up, but it, it really was a game, and we, we found socks in very strange places, and she actually, a couple times, stole my wife's slippers, but again, she stole them, and she hid them, and it was, she, she was very proud of herself. She thought it was a fun game, and you know, we never reacted negatively to it, because clearly it wasn't a bad thing. She didn't ever chew them up, so we knew it wasn't a bad thing, and we just accepted it as a game. Speaker 1  38:06 Yeah, yeah, and you know, partly if you think about, you know, her breed and species, partly that could be cashing, you know, partly it's fulfilling an entertainment function, as you said, a game, so yeah, and that will come down to her learning history before she came to you, and so on. So, yeah, really lovely example. She sounds like a complete poppet. Oh, Michael Hingson  38:28 I've always described her as a pixie by any standard, but, but yeah, she was, she was a wonderful dog, and the bottom line was it was also how we reacted to her, because if we had started to react in a negative way, that would have introduced stress, and that wouldn't have been a good thing either. Speaker 1  38:50 Yeah, absolutely. And you know, your story is is remarkable, and you talked about her and fireworks, yet she was so steady on that day, so I wonder, yeah, and I was just wondering, Michael, if, if I can ask you, you know, what do you think helped Friselle remain so steady in those conditions where many humans were being overwhelmed, understandably, on that day in 911 Michael Hingson  39:19 Well, I, I'm sure this won't totally surprise you, but I spent a lot of time before september 11 learning all I could about the World Trade Center, including what to do in the case of an emergency, and so I think that probably the most significant thing was probably Roselle was was looking at me and how I reacted and recognizing the fact that we do work and did work well as a team, so I wasn't panicking, and that helped her focus as well. Speaker 1  39:55 Yeah, and you know that's a really good example where you talked about. Up getting to know the environment, and kind of practicing, you know, going through those drills of what to do in an emergency, because I'm always saying to clients, repetition, consistency is the mother of success, you know. So, my goodness, did that pay off dividends, and you keeping your cool head, and both of you helping each other, amazing. Michael Hingson  40:21 Yeah, you've spent a lot of time studying kind of the transitions that that people go through, parenthood, children, pregnancy, and so on. How do dogs react to that? What are.. what are you.. what do you observe, or.. and what would you advise about that? Speaker 1  40:41 It's really interesting, Michael, because actually there's very little research out there in terms of what happens when a new baby arrives, you know, what happens to the family dog, and that's why I've explored it, and what stood out with my research, which looked at expectant parents and the other group with the postpartum parents, is that once baby arrives, and this won't be a surprise to anyone with children, but you know parents are spending understandably all their time focused on the baby, so what immediately happens is there's less time interacting with dogs, and so the biggest drop tends to be in the quality and type of interactions that are occurring, for example, walking durations, walking frequency, and also play, and the ones that stay in terms of the interactions that remain the same are the low effort ones, the quick ones, which is like stroking the dog or giving them a treat, and also my research found that many parents describe having huge levels of guilt once the baby arrived, because you know they are aware that now their dog, which may have been their fur baby, you know, the kind of surrogate child before the real one arrived, now was sort of come down a peg or two, and also what came out of my research is there's often because new parents are knackered, let's be honest, broken sleep is that they can easily become frustrated and sometimes the dog becomes the one that the frustration is directed at, and then layered on to that, we also have physiological stress synchrony. We were talking about synchrony between ourselves and our dogs, and an example is that research has found that when a baby cries, our blood cortisol level rises in the parents, but it also rises in the family dogs. Blood cortisol levels also rise. So, what that shows is, oh my goodness, you know, there's a significant impact on the new baby that has on the dog's day-to-day life, and it might not be obvious, because the dog may just kind of plod to the bed and rest, but there's all this other stuff going on that might not be obvious. So, the key takeaway from my research is that, you know, if you're having a baby and you have a dog, you know absolutely baby prep your dog for that change that's going to come, you know, especially if your dog has any problem behaviors, you know, be it pulling on the lead, they don't like visitors, you know, build support systems, so in less qualified humane, ethical trainers and behaviorists, dog walkers, so we've got some sort of routine, or in less family support or friends to help out, so there's some predictability, there's some quality one to one time for the dog once baby comes, and all of that, along with really good management of the home environment through dog ate safe zones, etc. for the dog and the baby, that's going to protect the pet's welfare, but it's also going to reduce the risk of behavior problems escalating. Michael Hingson  44:05 The other kind of thing that I can imagine will happen, hopefully more than not, is that the dog will bond or work to develop a bond with the new baby in the family. Speaker 1  44:18 Absolutely, and that's one of the most important things about baby prepping is that if we create some sort of understanding. Okay, I'm being exposed, let's say gently to baby sounds whilst I'm licking on this long-lasting chew, and this is quite nice, hearing this baby cry, you know. This recording, or I have, I joke, I have like a lending library with fake babies, you know, and my clients may think I'm mad to start, and very quickly they're realizing actually it's really good to train my dog to go and station on their mat while I'm carrying a baby or pretending to change the nappy on this fake baby, and the dog's learning I can, I can go to my mat and sit and settle while you know my own is doing this. Yes, and you know, so if we create that sort of learning, it's, it's not then such a shock to the dog, and I even get my clients practicing walking with a pram and the dog, because the dog's got to learn to walk nicely with the pram, you know, and inevitably, you know, the owners are accidentally running over the dog's paws to start, or just simple things, like, oh my gosh, I hadn't even thought about how do I get out the house with the baby, the dog, and the pram. So, sometimes just, just practicing, like you said, about getting to know the environment at the Twin Towers, it's really important to practice these things for real world, Michael Hingson  45:36 and the reality is, even a dog with a big long tongue isn't going to drown a baby, Speaker 1  45:42 of course. You know, and we know, and we absolutely know that those little ones that grow up with animals, particularly dogs, have really strong guts, micro, you know, flora, and so it's, it's helpful, you know, if they're sort of around the animals. So clearly we just got to be sensible in terms of managing the interactions, but absolutely I'm a huge fan of nurturing those dog baby buns, and do you know what one of the best things is when the baby throws some of that food onto the floor from the highchair when they're weeding, that's that's a sure far way for that dog to learn to love that baby, Michael Hingson  46:20 yeah, you know, there's nothing wrong with a little bribe every so often. Speaker 1  46:24 Pennies from heaven, I call it. Michael Hingson  46:27 That's right. What is the one behavior that you wish that people would just get rid of and not not have anymore? Speaker 1  46:37 Well, I talked about earlier in terms of myth busting and the busting, the myth about our dogs wanting to take over the world, and us needing to be sort of leaders, and that's not the case at all. I think, for me, it's the importance about agency and understanding what do we, what do we mean by giving our animals agency, so for example, you know, if our animal has some sort of influence over what happens to them, rather than just being passive receivers of what we're telling them what to do, if we give them choice, behavioral science and lived experience shows that absolutely that reduces uncertainty, and we know that uncertainty is a major driver of stress, so if we look at zoological settings, there's a Copenhagen Zoo, for example, give their guinea pigs choice whether to be petted or not, and how they do that is they bring out a carrier and the guinea pigs know that if they hop in the carrot carrier, it means they're going to go and see the kids, sit on the kids' laps, and they'll be petted, and so you'll have guinea pigs that rush into the carrier, and then you've got other guinea pigs who go, "Heck, not today, and those ones that choose not to go in the carrier are simply not handled, and then I've got peers of mine who work with dolphins, and they will show the dolphin picture of two of the trainers, and they'll let the dolphin decide who do they want to work with in that session. So that's an example of giving a dog adult dolphin and guinea pigs agency. Another one is in the states, so in the Smithsonian National Zoo and Toledo Zoo, they've specifically designed exhibits where orangutans can, by choice, spray the visitors with water. So, basically, the orangutans push a button, and that button causes a shower to go all over the visitors on the other side of the enclosure, so that acts as a form of enrichment, and it also provides a really neat way for the visitors to feel like they're directly connecting with the animals, so in all of those examples stress-related behaviors actually drop because the animals have choice, and so if we apply that principle to our pets at home, you know, agency would look like allowing the family dog to choose which way to walk occasionally, or allowing them the time to stop and sniff, or offering choice between resting places, or letting our cat decide when they want the interaction to end, or I don't know, offering up a choice of different toys or different food stuffs, and seeing which way does your pet go, you know, what do they find motivating, which toy or which food stuff in that moment in time do they want, so these small choices tell animals that they have some sort of control over their environment, and so why that's so important, and why I'd love everyone to be aware of that, is behaviorally this really matters, because when animals are feeling sort of overridden or trapped, Michael Hingson  49:59 yeah. Speaker 1  50:00 They're much more likely to rely on coping strategies that include avoidance or shutdown or even escalating behaviors like grounding and biting, and conversely, when they experience agency, their learning improves, their emotional regulation becomes easier, and their behavior becomes more stable, so agency isn't about letting our animals run the household. It means it means we as humans are deliberately designing interactions so that the animals feel safe and they have appropriate choices, and that balance supports welfare and leads to much more reliable behavior change over time. Michael Hingson  50:43 I think that all too often we are the greatest contributors to stress in our pets' environments, like dogs, and so on. And I know one of the things that is emphasized when we get new guide dogs is guiding itself is extremely stressful. The dogs have been brought up to respect the job, to like to do the job, and they're absolutely committed to doing it as well as they can. Now, to keep that attitude up is our job, and one of the things that I've learned over the years, you know, people will come up, "Well, I want to pet your dog, and my response is, "No, don't pet the dog. Now, if there's time, however, I will stop, and I'll take the harness off and say, "Now you can pet the dog, because the harness is the indicator that the dog is working, but dogs need to relax too, and so I know Alamo, especially, just loves it when the harness comes off, and he'd love to cheat more and visit with people, even when the harness is on, but he does understand the difference, and so I do work to try to make sure that when people want to pet the dog, if I have any time at all, I will stop and I'll take the harness off and say, "Now you can pet the dog. You need to understand why we're doing this, and that gives me the opportunity to explain it. Now, the only difference, the only time that's there's an exception to that, is if a child comes up and wants to pet the dog. I will always stop and take the harness off, because it doesn't matter. I want kids to grow up being comfortable around these dogs, and sometimes the parents will go, "Oh, that dog might bite, and all that, and I'll say, "No, the dog won't, and I'll always take the harness off for children. I may not always have the time to do it for adults, but I'll take the time for kids, because I want them to really understand that these dogs are not mean, and that they have a job to do, and so it gives me the opportunity to talk about that. Speaker 1  52:52 Yeah, that's great that you are promoting those fantastic child dog interactions, and you know what you're talking about is exactly what we've been discussing, in terms of that predictability, that consistency. You know, when the harness is off, you know that that gives the dog a clear signal. So, that's fantastic. Michael Hingson  53:13 Yeah, that's also part of it, that they know that when the harness is on, time to work, at least you're supposed to be serious anyway, no. Now, what? What's one thing that you wish dog owners would understand about cats and small animals that they tend not to pay attention to? Speaker 1  53:31 Yeah, you made me smile earlier, Michael, when you mentioned cats, because I was thinking about this. So, I guess you know, often cats and small animals are characterized as independent or aloof. Yeah, when in fact their communication styles are just maybe less obvious than the dog that's wackling the body, and you know, the tail, etc. And you know, looking really happy when the owner returns home, whereas the cat may sort of slink past, and we think, oh, okay, they're not that fast, but you know, their behavior is shaped by very different evolutionary pressures, and that's particularly around safety and conflict avoidance. So, when cats, for example, you know, act aloof or appear distant, it's much more about de-escalation, so research into feline social behavior shows that cats rely heavily on subtle signals like slow being blinking or head turns or ear position, choosing elevated resting spots to manage sort of social distance and reduce tension, and those behaviors are affiliative or calming, yet they're often missed by our ourselves or misinterpreted, and again, what seems like they're independent or aloof or distant is in reality them simply working hard to regulate proximity in ways that feel safe to them and. So you know, never feel offended if your cat moves away from you in the sofa to perch on a higher spot, because they're just managing their own comfort and control, and similarly, with rabbits or guinea pigs, they're a prey species, so their behavior is organized again differently, and they're neurologically wired to prioritize things like visibility or escape routes or control of space, so research consistently shows that when prey animals feel exposed or they're unable to run away, obviously stress responses are going to escalate quickly, and what people will therefore label as a rabbit, skittish, for example, is in fact a really logical response to feeling unsafe. Michael Hingson  55:47 Yeah, Speaker 1  55:47 so when we, when we stop looking at behavior through our human lens, which is what Jane Goodall and others have, you know, tried to help people understand, when we stop looking at it through human lens and consider what safety looks like for the animal. You know, welfare improves, owner animal relationships tend to strengthen. Michael Hingson  56:10 I don't know how Stitch figures out how to deal with a blind person, because all that link, blinking, and all that goes way over my head, of course. But even so, she's obviously figured it out, because we do have a good relationship, and she, as I've explained earlier, comes and yells at me when she wants to eat, and she'll come up and rub against me, and so on, but I think that overall she's figured out enough that, well, maybe he's a little bit different than some of the people I'm used to, so we figure it out, and we make it work, Speaker 1  56:42 absolutely. And do you know what cats are very clever in that, over the 1000s upon 1000s of years we've been around them, they've developed these unique vocalizations that really, that they don't do to other cats, but they do only to humans, which taps into our sort of caregiving responsibilities to feed them or be attentive, so yeah, brilliant example, when, when she's crying at you to have some sort of interaction or food, Michael Hingson  57:12 yeah. Tell me about your, your program. How does.. Speaker 1  57:17 oh gosh, so basically I'm drawn to sort of questions that people may have the answers to, but can't articulate, or everyday behaviors that we may take for granted. And an example of that might be, you know, why does it take so long for a dog to find the perfect spot to poo? You know, why they twirling around, and that's to do with the Earth's magnetic field. So, the how does series, I deliberately choose questions that sit at the intersection of curiosity and science. Some of the topics are more serious than others, but I do intentionally use some questions or look at some areas that are silly, for example, how does a dog fart, and why does some linger, and that might sound silly, but it's a brilliant entry point into physiology, digestion, dog behavior, and it kind of hooks people in, particularly the younger audiences, as you can imagine, and once they're engaged, then you can start to introduce real, real science without it feeling heavy, and another deciding factor, when I'm looking at subject matters, will be, you know, what's the science behind it? Is there robust research that can explain the science accurately without stripping it of nuance, and then you know, I might look at a different angle, like with my animals and history series, which is another one that I do, where it's still grounded in human animal interactions, but it's about historical moments involving animals, and what do those stories reveal about humans, and how we understood them, how we valued them or misunderstood them, and so on. So those two series, how does is the kind of science behind what animals do, and so on. And the animals in history is still approaching curiosity, but from a different angle. Michael Hingson  59:17 Is there one animal in history that really has changed how you think about animals that you maybe have talked about in your animal history series. Speaker 1  59:26 Gosh, I, at the last look, I think I've done about 67 so far of the animals in history, and there are some that really stick with me, and if I am allowed to have more than one, is that all right, Michael? Michael Hingson  59:43 Oh, sure. Speaker 1  59:44 Okay, so there's ones like Operation Acoustic Kitty, which is completely inhumane and unethical by today's standards, but back during the Cold War, they basically, the US researchers. Tried to create cat spies, and basically fitted them with microphones and listening devices within their bodies, and it was a bit barbaric, to say the least, but that experiment was scrapped. It wasn't very successful in the real world. The cats, when they were experimenting with them out on the street inevitably got run over or distracted. There's other experiments like attaching incendiary devices to bats in an attempt to help with the Second World War effort, which was unsuccessful because the bats didn't always do what the researchers hoped they would do, and then there's Project Pigeon, which is fascinating, and that's where researchers trained pigeons to guide missiles through pecking the screen, and that was scrapped because then Oppenheimer's bomb took over from that project, but you know these are some of the examples about how animals are drawn into human conflict strategy, even technical ambition. And then there's there's fascinating ones like Snowball, who was a Canadian cat, and her DNA was used to solve a crime in a murder case in 19 419 94 and basically it was the first time ever that animal forensics had been used in that way. So fundamentally it changed how we think about animals as part of our human environments, not just emotionally but evidentially, and then there's quirkier stories as well, but you know the stories that stand out include yours, Michael and Roselle. On that day, as I've said to you before, when we first met and chatted, you know that, that to me is just, I mean, it just gets me, your story, so yeah. Michael Hingson  1:02:04 So, what's next for you? Speaker 1  1:02:07 Golly, so there's always many plates spinning. Let's say I'm working on putting the Animals in History series into a book, so my plan is to produce a version of the video series into a form that would be of interest to young kids and adults who are interested in in the quirky and the curious, and then always stay curious, I guess. You know, I think curiosity matters. It's what drives my how does series. It's what interests me with the animals in history, and my articles that are right, my podcasts, etc. So, whether we're talking about humans, whether we're talking about non-human animals, it makes far more sense to pause and ask what might that individual individual be experiencing rather than rushing to explain or correct it, and I think if we're patient, if we're responsive, if we allow animals the time and humans that they need to cope in a world that's often crazy, and for animals largely designed by us, I think will be much better advocates for our animals and each other. So, I always think, stay curious. So, that's what I will stay as my mantra going forward. Michael Hingson  1:03:34 And it doesn't get better than that. And I hope that you stay curious. And I think curiosity is such a wonderful thing that that we should do a whole lot more than we do. Well, I want to thank you for being here with us. This has been fun. Can you believe we've been doing this over an hour? Oh gosh, I can all hold Speaker 1  1:03:53 on forever. So, oh, I'm not Michael Hingson  1:03:55 complaining, I'm not complaining. We'll have to do this again. Speaker 1  1:03:58 Yeah, thank you so much for having me. Well, Michael Hingson  1:04:00 this has been fun, and I want to thank all of you for watching and listening. Love to hear from you and hear what you think, but Hannah, for you, if people want to reach out to you, how do they do that? Speaker 2  1:04:09 It's just my name, Hanne grice.com is my H A Michael Hingson  1:04:14 N N E, not A, Speaker 1  1:04:16 yeah, Danish way, so H A double N E, G G R I C e.com So I'm on the website. You can just Google my name, follow me on socials. If you have any questions, you have any ideas for the how does, or want me to explore a story for the animals in history, always open to suggestions as well as feedback. Michael Hingson  1:04:36 Cool. Well, and I hope all of you will give us some feedback. I'd love to hear from you, feel free to email me at Michael H I M I C H A E L H I at Accessi B A C C E S S I B e.com Please give us a five star rating wherever you're observing our podcast, but more important than a rating, give us a great review. We love reviews, and people who are interested in listening to the podcast. Just really appreciate people who have already heard the podcast reviewing it, so please give us a review, and whatever you do, if you know anyone who ought to be a guest on Unstoppable Mindset, including you, Hannah, we'd love introductions to anyone that you think ought to be a guest on the podcast, and with that, again, I want to thank you, Hannah, for being here. This has been absolutely wonderful. Speaker 1  1:05:24 Thank you again, and take care, everyone listening. Michael Hingson  1:05:30 Thank you for being here with me on Unstoppable Mindset. I hope today's conversation left you with a fresh perspective, a new insight, or at least something worth thinking about. If you're ready to go deeper into the ideas that shape how we see ourselves and others, I have a free gift for you. Head over to Michael hingson.com and download my free ebook, Blinded by Fear. It explores the invisible beliefs that hold us back and shows you how to reframe them, so you can move forward with clarity and confidence. Be sure to subscribe to our podcast, leave a review, and share this show with someone who can use a reminder that growth starts with mindset. When people think differently, we all move forward together. Thanks again for listening. Keep learning, keep questioning, and keep choosing to live with an unstoppable mindset. Thank.

Jody Gelb had a calm, healthy pregnancy — and then, in the span of a single hospital stay, everything changed. A rushed delivery. Forceps. A baby who wasn't breathing. An emergency trip to the NICU before Jody had even held her daughter. Days later, a nurse handed her the poem "Welcome to Holland," a metaphor often given to parents of children with special needs. You planned a trip to Italy, you landed somewhere unexpected, and it turns out to be lovely too. Jody appreciated it. But it didn't fit. Holland was calm. This was a crash landing. In this conversation, Jody — a stage actor with 40 years on New York and San Francisco stages, and author of the memoir She May Be Lying Down, But She May Be Very Happy — tells her daughter Louisa's story on her behalf. She and Cody trace the slow climb from that terrifying first year — hoping for a limp, then a wheelchair, then simply that her daughter would know she was loved — through years of real joy, a tracheostomy, and a worldwide community of families who taught her how to keep her heart open. It's a story about how much a person can survive, and how grace tends to show up exactly when it's needed — in a husband's words, a stranger's kindness, a stage manager who drove a grieving mother home.

Anna Nooshin is ondernemer, presentatrice en modeblogger. In 2011 begon ze het online magazine ‘NSMBL'. In 2015 publiceerde ze haar eerste boek ‘On Top' en later het persoonlijke vervolg ‘On Life'. Ze presenteerde ‘Holland's Next Topmodel' en haar eigen serie ‘Mooier wordt het niet'. Ook begon ze het Instagram- en social media museum ‘The Upside Down'. Samen met Vogue-hoofdredacteur Yeliz Çiçek begon ze de podcast ‘How to get the job (done)' en lanceerde ze het platform Female Initiative Business Academy. Nu is er haar nieuwe boek ‘Je Moeder', waarin ze het taboe rondom de zware kanten van het moederschap wil doorbreken. Femke van der Laan gaat met Anna Nooshin in gesprek.

We're still chipping away at the remodel and since Amos was already at my house we talked Simon, who was in town, into coming back where it all began, then convinced the Mayor to drop by so one of us could complain about traffic lights. We had a good time with this one cracking jokes on the Mayor, discussing the Miss Virginia Teen Crown now residing in Franklin County with previous guest of the show Caedyn Riddle, getting updates on the town, and a just a good conversation between real, struggling, Appalachian Americans! Hope you enjoy and thank you all for the support!Support the show

Welcome back to The Bourbon Road, recording live from the Bourbon Road Bar in Simpsonville, Kentucky — better known as Jim's basement. Episode 502 brings another overflowing tasting mat, proof that the samples just keep arriving faster than the boys can pour them. This week the lineup spans the full spectrum, from a brand-new family-founded label making its debut on the show to a beloved Illinois estate distillery, a coveted gift-shop-only release from a Northern Kentucky craft powerhouse, a toasted double oak expression from one of Owensboro's finest, and a bonus pour courtesy of a longtime Roadie friend from Ohio — a beer-world icon that crossed over into whiskey and never looked back. On the Tasting Mat: - Wooler Whiskey Kentucky Straight Bourbon (Batch 054): A four-grain, five-year-old small batch Kentucky straight bourbon bottled at 90 proof for $39.99. The mash bill runs 72% corn, 18% rye, 5% wheat, and 5% malted barley, distilled in Bardstown and finished in a number three char new American oak barrel. The nose opens with a pleasant graininess reminiscent of granola or muesli, accented by honey and the faintest dusting of cinnamon. The palate delivers a sweet, full-mouth experience with caramel, vanilla, and a gentle wheat-driven tingle on the finish. A welcoming, approachable bourbon from a family brand founded by Jason Wooler — built on resilience after a life-changing stroke. *(00:01:58)* - Whiskey Acres 7-Year Bourbon: Estate-distilled in DeKalb, Illinois, this 107-proof small batch blends 12 barrels aged between seven and eight years. The mash bill is 75% yellow dent corn, 15% soft red winter wheat, and 10% malted barley, with an MSRP of $74.99. The nose leads with green apple and caramel, evoking a candy-apple at a county fair. On the palate the soft winter wheat delivers a notably smooth texture, with spice building on the back, a whisper of oak and clove on the finish, and a subtle savory note that sets it apart. Whiskey Acres grows every grain themselves — a true seed-to-spirit operation and the show's 2025 Craft Distillery of the Year. *(00:10:22)* - New Riff Silver Grove Bourbon (2026 Release): The inaugural release under the Silver Grove label, this gift-shop-exclusive expression from New Riff Distilling in Newport, Kentucky is aged a minimum of six years and bottled at 116.4 proof for $59.99. Barrels were specifically selected for flavor profiles not typically found in New Riff's standard four- and six-year releases. The nose bursts with spice cake, bright cherry, and a morning-bun sweetness. The palate delivers a bold, full-mouth impact — honey-caramel richness layered with dark berry, cherry, and a long, warming finish. Available exclusively at the New Riff gift shop or via online order for in-store pickup. *(00:20:41)* - Green River Distillery Select Toasted Double Oak Bourbon: The oldest expression ever released by Green River Distilling Company in Owensboro, Kentucky, this eight-year bourbon is bottled at 115.1 proof in a 375ml format for $49.99 and is available only at the distillery gift shop or the Louisville tasting room. The mash bill is 70% corn, 21% rye, and 9% malted barley, aged in Green River's signature clay tile rick houses before a six-month secondary finish in lightly charred, medium-toast new American oak barrels. The nose delivers toasted marshmallow and a hint of campfire smoke. The palate is noticeably sweet — rich caramel and that same toasted marshmallow character carry through without tipping into char. *(00:27:34)* - New Holland Dragon's Milk Origins Small Batch Bourbon Whiskey (Bonus Pour): A gift from Roadie Mark Radliff and his wife Amy, this 95-proof, five-year-old bourbon from New Holland Brewing Company in Holland, Michigan is distilled on a pot still and finished in barrels previously used to age Dragon's Milk stout. The nose is immediately distinctive — chocolate, ripe peach, and a gummy fruit quality that carries straight through to the palate. The palate layers peach pie, a minty rye backbone, and a gentle sweetness unlike anything else on tonight's mat. A beer-world crossover that demonstrates what stout-barrel finishing can do for a well-made pot-still bourbon. *(00:38:25)* Episode 502 is a showcase of American craft whiskey in all its variety — from a $40 debut bottle to a proof-forward gift-shop gem — and a reminder that some of the most memorable pours come from the most unexpected places. If you haven't yet, head over to TheBourbanRoad.com, create a free Roadie account, and join the conversation in the Roadie Bar. Until next time, we'll see you down the Bourbon Road.

No US-Iran talks today. Armenia criticizes "weponization" of the its genocide. Germany and Holland out of the World Cup.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Americans tend to see the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War as milestones in world history that inaugurated the era of modern democracy. But the British, unsurprisingly, see these events quite differently. David Remnick talks with the historians who host the popular podcast “The Rest Is History,” Dominic Sandbrook and Tom Holland. Growing up in Britain, Sandbrook explains, the Revolution seemed like “a parade of quite boring men talking very earnestly about liberty, [with] battles that involved twenty people in a field somewhere. . . . It's not Waterloo!” The King was “annoyed” to lose the thirteen colonies to the new nation, but, for his government, “it could have been a lot worse.” Sandbrook and Holland discuss historical events that overshadow the American Revolution in the British mind; the 1619 Project and the subject of slavery; the “colossally consequential” Presidency of Donald Trump; and the fate of the British monarchy.Further reading :  “Was the Declaration of Independence Better Before the Edits?” by Jill Lepore.  “The American Revolution Wasn't the Main Event” by Daniel Immerwahr. “Two Hundred and Fifty Years of Complicated Commemorations" by Jelani Cobb The Political Scene draws on the reporting and analysis found in The New Yorker for lively conversations about the big questions in American politics. Join the magazine's writers and editors as they put into context the latest news—about elections, the economy, the White House, the Supreme Court, and much more. New episodes are available three times a week. Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Americans tend to see the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War as milestones in world history that inaugurated the era of modern democracy. But the British, unsurprisingly, see these events quite differently. David Remnick talks with the historians who host the popular podcast “The Rest Is History,” Dominic Sandbrook and Tom Holland. Growing up in Britain, Sandbrook explains, the Revolution seemed like “a parade of quite boring men talking very earnestly about liberty, [with] battles that involved twenty people in a field somewhere. . . . It's not Waterloo!” The King was “annoyed” to lose the thirteen colonies to the new nation, but, for his government, “it could have been a lot worse.” Sandbrook and Holland discuss historical events that overshadow the American Revolution in the British mind; the 1619 Project and the subject of slavery; the “colossally consequential” Presidency of Donald Trump; and the fate of the British monarchy.  Further reading and listening:   “The American Revolution Wasn't the Main Event,” by Daniel Immerwahr America at 250, a special issue of The New Yorker “Was the Declaration of Independence Better Before the Edits?,” by Jill Lepore “Scandal, Protest, Goofiness, and Grandeur at the U.S. Bicentennial,” by Jill Lepore “We Could Have Been Canada,” by Adam Gopnik    New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Join host David Remnick as he discusses the latest in politics, news, and current events in conversation with political leaders, newsmakers, innovators, New Yorker staff writers, authors, actors, and musicians. 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, Julie Holland explains why connection may be the medicine we've been missing. She explores how genuine human connection helps regulate the nervous system, why disconnection can keep us stuck in fight-or-flight, and how our phones often give us a synthetic version of connection that never fully satisfies. Julie also discuss oxytocin, stress, loneliness, addiction, psychedelics, and the simple ways we can return to the real relationships and embodied experiences that help us heal. Good Wolf Reminders… A little wisdom, right when you need it. Start receiving free text reminders designed to help you pause, reflect, and take meaningful action. Sign up at oneyoufeed.net/sms. Key Takeaways: Discussion of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems and their impact on mental health. Exploration of the science of human connection and the biological need for social interaction. Personal anecdotes from working in a psychiatric emergency room and the challenges faced in that environment. The effects of social disconnection on physical and mental health, including stress responses. The importance of physical, face-to-face interactions for emotional well-being. Examination of the role of digital communication versus in-person connection. Insights into addiction, including the distinction between classical psychedelics and other substances. Discussion of process addictions and their underlying causes related to existential distress. The therapeutic potential and risks of psychedelics in treating addiction and mental health issues. Emphasis on local action and personal agency in addressing mental health and community well-being. For full show notes, click here! If you enjoyed this conversation with Dr. Julie Holland, check out these other episodes: Neuroscience Behind Our Reality with James Kingsland 232: Michael Pollan This episode is sponsored by: Shopify – The commerce platform that helps you build, grow, and manage your business all in one place. Start your $1/month trial at shopify.com/feed. David Protein bars deliver up to 28g of protein for just 150 calories—without sacrificing taste! For a limited time, our listeners can receive this special deal: buy 4 cartons and get the 5th free when you go to www.davidprotein.com/FEED Alma has a directory of 20,000 therapists with different specialities, life experiences, and identities, and 99% of them take insurance. Visit helloalma.com to learn more! Talkiatry⁠⁠⁠ connects you with licensed psychiatrists for personalized, evidence-based mental health care, all online and covered by most major insurance plans. To get matched with an in-network psychiatrist in just a few minutes, visit ⁠⁠⁠Talkiatry.com/FEED.⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠Tiny Health⁠⁠⁠‘s at-home gut health test provides science-backed insights into your microbiome, along with personalized recommendations to help you improve your digestion, energy, and overall well-being. Get $50 off your first test kit at⁠⁠⁠ tinyhealth.com/FEED⁠⁠⁠ Aura Frames: Named #1 by Wirecutter, you can save on the gifts moms love by visiting AuraFrames.com. For a limited time, listeners can get 25 dollars off their best-selling Carver Mat frame with code FEED. Support the show by mentioning us at checkout! Brodo Broth: Shop the best broth on the planet with Brodo.  Head to Brodo.com/TOYF for 20% off your first subscription order and use code TOYF for an additional $10 off. Rocket Money Let Rocket Money help you reach your financial goals faster. Join at rocketmoney.com/feed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tom Kortbeek and Roos Meerman are the founders of Fillip Studios, a Netherlands-based interdisciplinary design studio whose work sits at the intersection of art, science, technology, and human experience. Together, Tom and Roos have spent more than a decade exploring what happens when artists, designers, engineers and scientists are invited into the same conversation. Their projects explore everything from human connection to healthcare to public ethics, environmental responsibility, and the future role of design in society. There's Tactile Orchestra, an interactive installation that turns touch into collaborative music; there's Kozie, a sensory object that's being used in dementia and Alzheimer's care; Holland's Next Embryo invites the public to grapple with the ethical questions surrounding reproductive technology and genetic selection; Commissioned by Earth explores what changes when the planet itself is treated as the client; Arabidopsis Symphony transforms plant biology into an immersive musical experience. And other projects that challenge audiences to reconsider the relationship between people, nature, materials, technology, and the systems that shape our lives. But beneath all of those projects is a simpler question: How do people come together? Not through argument or instruction, but through touch, play, curiosity, wonder, and shared experience. It's a question that sits at the center of much of Fillip Studios' work and is reflected in its guiding philosophy: Impact Through Wonder. In the studio, this starts with creating an atmosphere where creators are comfortable to explore and discover. Here, Tom and Roos' role involves helping people work through a creative process, uncovering new questions and perspectives along the way. The result is a body of work that invites people to come together, and that some of our most meaningful insights aren't always something we think our way into, they can also be something we feel our way toward.

India consumes more whiskey than Scotland produces. It is a nation of 1.4 billion people, of spirits and celebration, where wine accounts for barely one percent of the alcohol market. And yet, something is shifting. A growing middle class, an expanding cohort of women entering the workforce, and a wave of new free trade agreements with the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Australia have placed India at the threshold of becoming one of the world's most consequential wine markets. In this episode, we speak with Sonal C Holland, India's first and only Master of Wine, about the decade-long journey that took her from a Fortune 500 corporate career to the highest credential in the global wine trade. We explore India's wine scene, the structural barriers of duties and state-by-state distribution, and the quiet revolution underway among a new generation of consumers. Connect with Sonal C Holland, Master of Wine, on Instagram and discover more about her remarkable journey in her new book, One In a Billion: Becoming India's First Master of Wine. Special thanks to Rachel Mamane for putting this piece together and to Jeff for the audio editing. Since 2016, Bottled in China brings you into the food and drink scene through conversations with the some of the most happening personalities. Hosted by Emilie Steckenborn, the show is your one spot for all things wine, food and beverages from across the world. Connect with us on LinkedIn or Instagram @bottled.in.chinaPodcast available on iTunes, Spotify , online or wherever you listen to your episodes! Subscribe to Bottled in China to follow the journey!Check out our new website & find out more at https://www.thebottledshow.com