Podcasts about implications

Steve Fezzik & Ross break down the betting impact of the Rams trading for Browns DE Myles Garrett, and the Eagles trading WR AJ Brown to the New England Patriots. Download the DraftKings Sports Book App and use code ROSS Connect with the Pod Website - https://www.rosstucker.com Become A Patron - https://www.patreon.com/RTMedia Podcast Twitter - https://twitter.com/RossTuckerPod Podcast Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/rosstuckerpod/ Ross Twitter - https://twitter.com/RossTuckerNFL Ross Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/rosstuckernfl/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Steve Fezzik & Ross break down the betting impact of the Rams trading for Browns DE Myles Garrett, and the Eagles trading WR AJ Brown to the New England Patriots. Download the DraftKings Sports Book App and use code ROSS Connect with the Pod Website - https://www.rosstucker.com Become A Patron - https://www.patreon.com/RTMedia Podcast Twitter - https://twitter.com/RossTuckerPod Podcast Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/rosstuckerpod/ Ross Twitter - https://twitter.com/RossTuckerNFL Ross Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/rosstuckernfl/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hour 1 for 6/2/26 Drew welcomes Taylor Black from Microsoft and the Catholic University of America joins Drew to discuss AI data center questions (3:34). Topics: water concerns (7:48), dark energy (10:03), energy crisis (13:09), jobs (14:29), Pope Leo (17:05), air quality (20:40), how AI helps with contracts (21:48), where AI systems are (25:18). Then, Dr. Donald Bungum from University of Mary discusses the morality of AI (36:14). Topics: AI and survivalist instinct (38:37) and why AI behaves the way it does (42:23), and violence (48:11). Links: https://leonum.catholic.edu/ CometoMary.Life

Join Joe Pisapia and Andrew Erickson as they give their instant reactions to the Myles Garrett and AJ Brown trades that shook up the NFL on Monday! Timestamps: (May be off due to ads) Intro - 0:00:00 Myles Garrett Trade Reactions - 0:01:19 Signed Ja’Marr Chase Jersey Giveaway - 0:06:52 AJ Brown Trade Reactions - 0:14:32 Outro - 0:31:02See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

(6) Evan Ellis examines electoral crossroads in Colombia and Peru, with Colombia facing a choice between leftist and pro-U.S. candidates in its upcoming election. In Peru, Keiko Fujimori leads a narrow race with implications for regional security and Chinese influence.1572

Investors continue wrestling with uncertainty, frustration, and the fear of making the wrong move in today's market environment. Jon Penn & Sarah Buenger discuss why waiting for the “perfect” entry point often keeps investors sidelined, how hindsight bias and regret aversion impact decision-making, and why investing does not have to be an all-or-nothing approach Here's a topical rundown of today's show: 0:00 - INTRO 0:20 - We Don't Sleep so You Can 4:11 - World of Roth Preview & Market Summary 10:15 - How to Get Money Into Roth 13:39 -The Back Door Roth 17:21 - IRS Strategies & Prorata Rule 18:23 - Regular Roth Conversions 20:34 - Super-loading Roths 24:49 - 457 Limitations 25:22 - Mega-Backdoor Roths 27:01 - Not Every Employer Plan Includes Roth 31:35 - 529 to Roth Conversions 30:32 - When the IRS is Your "Business Partner" 33:28 - Rules of Roth & Preferred Order 35:28 - Strategies for Spousal Contributions 37:25 - When the Roth Maths don't Math 38:56 - Inheritance Tax Efficiency Considerations 41:17 - Tax Considerations & Implications in Roth Conversions 43:47 - Pre-Tax vs After-Tax considerations Hosted by RIA Advisors Senior Investment Advisor, Jonathan Penn, CFP, w Senior Investment Advisor, Sarah Buenger, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer ------- Do you enjoy our content? Rate us on Google: https://bit.ly/4b9JtEo ------- Watch Today's Full Video on our YouTube Channel: https://youtube.com/live/ZL8lA-xHlMs ------- Articles Mentioned in Today's Show: "15 Investing Rules To Win The Long-Game" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/15-investing-rules-to-win-the-long-game/ "AI Productivity And Innovation: Prosperity Or Engels Pause?" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/ai-productivity-and-innovation-prosperity-or-engels-pause/ ------- Watch today's "Before the Bell" feature, "Tech Rally Risk Rising," here: https://youtu.be/AVXI7TCayvI ------- Watch our previous show, "Is the Semiconductor Trade Going Too Far," https://youtube.com/live/XB3W7awMDZk ------- Get more info & commentary: https://realinvestmentadvice.com/insights/real-investment-daily/ ------- * REGISTER for our next Dynamic Learning Series presentation, "A SimpleVisor Tutorial," Thursday, June 4, 2025 at Noon: https://streamyard.com/watch/MwairsimgmnS --- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN --- Subscribe to SimpleVisor : https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new --- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #RetirementPlanning #Investing #RothIRA #FinancialPlanning #StockMarket

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

(0:00) Mazz, Holley, and Murray open the show discussing how Mike Vrabel handled the questions about his personal life at Wednesday's press conference.(15:58) Discussing the potential consequences of Mike Vrabel's absence from Day Three of the NFL Draft.(26:55) The guys talk about Will Campbell and the left tackle position after the Patriots drafted Caleb Lomu.(38:36) Mazz sets up his tiers on Boston Sports "What If's?"See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Unreliability of Bitemark Evidence: Implications for Forensic Odontology in Legal ProceedingsBy Today's RDH ResearchOriginal article published on Today's RDH: https://www.todaysrdh.com/the-unreliability-of-bitemark-evidence-implications-for-forensic-odontology-in-legal-proceedings/Need CE? Start earning CE credits today at ⁠⁠⁠https://rdh.tv/ce⁠⁠⁠ Get daily dental hygiene articles at ⁠⁠⁠https://www.todaysrdh.com⁠⁠⁠ Follow Today's RDH on Facebook: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/TodaysRDH/⁠⁠⁠Follow Kara RDH on Facebook: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/DentalHygieneKaraRDH/⁠⁠⁠Follow Kara RDH on Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/kara_rdh/⁠

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

US inflation in April reached its highest level in three years, driven in part by the war in Iran. The volume of oil flows affected by the conflict is three times larger than the disruption caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, yet many firms – especially in the US – don't seem too concerned. According to our analysts, they should be. Join us for an enlightening, if not light-hearted, discussion about the impact of this crisis and how it affects the economic future for the US, Europe, and the global economy. Our guests: Jane Foley, Head of Foreign Exchange Strategy, RaboResearch Christian Lawrence, Head of Americas & Energy Market Strategy, RaboResearch Joe DeLaura, Senior Energy Strategist, RaboResearch Relevant time stamps: 2:11 – The US-Israel campaign against Iran and the immediate energy market shock. 6:52 – Why markets could be underestimating the length and impact of the crisis. 14:02 – The macroeconomic, inflationary, and consumer impacts of higher energy prices. 27:04 – Implications of the Iran war for Fed policy and interest rates. 31:21 – How the conflict is shifting our perspectives on globalization and geopolitics. 44:43 – Broader macroeconomic themes: taxes, tariffs, European growth, and the economic growth outlook for the rest of the year. Have a question, qualm, or story to tell? Reach out via email: Bourcard.Nesin@Rabobank.com Sign up to access our written research: RaboResearch sign-up Note: The content and opinions presented within this podcast are not intended as investment advice, and the opinions rendered are those of the individuals and not Rabobank or its affiliates, and should not be considered a solicitation or offer to sell or provide services. Disclaimer: Please refer to our global RaboResearch disclaimer at https://www.rabobank.com/knowledge/disclaimer/011417027/disclaimer for information about the scope and limitations of the material published on the podcast.

On this Land Warfare episode, sponsored by American Rheinmetall, Dr. Gian Gentile, a retired US Army colonel who is now a senior historian at the Rand Corporation think tank's Arroyo Center, joins Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian to discuss the latest on the Ukraine war including on the role of unmanned ground vehicles, lessons from the conflict, how armies learn lessons and whether the US Army is inculcating those lessons in its $252 billion 2027 spending request, how the need for more powerful electromagnetic and air defense capabilities as well as drones for surveillance will shape future vehicles, his new Korea Regional Review article “Ukraine War Ground Combat and its Implications for a Possible Future War Along the Korean DMZ,” the threat posed by Russia as Moscow continues to fight in Ukraine and increasingly provoke NATO's Baltic nations, priorities for Europe as nations rebuild their ground combat capabilities, and the role of land forces in the IndoPacific.

Today's episode is a heartfelt dive into the wild, wonderful world of rural health care, featuring the utterly inspiring Tami DeCoteau. We explore everything from Native American trauma to the magic of telemedicine and, of course, the political circus affecting mental health funding. Why does Tami love her rural practice? How do social media and AI impact our minds? And what's the deal with farmers feeling more stressed than a coffee addict on decaf? Heidi and Joel also discuss upcoming Senate and governor races, focusing on Sherrod Brown's potential return to the Senate, the political landscape in Ohio, and insights into key electoral strategies. They analyze the implications of recent political developments and candidate choices, providing you with a comprehensive understanding of the current US political climate.In this episode:The explosive need for mental health services in rural and Native American populationsHow telemedicine is becoming the unsung hero in rural mental health careChallenges of attracting providers to North Dakota—money, roads, and reputationThe importance of trauma-informed care and how childhood experiences shape nervous systemsThe impact of economic stress, especially on farmers, and rising political tensionsHow social media and AI are rewiring our brains—think of it as mental cord-cutting gone wrongThe future of rural health policy (more resources, better pay, and less stigma)The missing link: the pipeline of Native American psychologists and why rural providers are hard to findPlus, a quick political roundup, because who doesn't love some political banter?Guests:Tami DeCoteau - DeCoteau Trauma-Informed Care & PracticeAnd don't forget to tell your friends, especially the ones who believe mental health is just "a phase," because Tami proves it's a lifelong mission.The Hot Dish is brought to you by the One Country Project. To learn more, visit OneCountryProject.org, or find us on Substack (Onecountryproject.substack.com), and on YouTube, Bluesky, and Facebook (@onecountryproject). (00:00) - Introduction to Rural Health Care Challenges (03:01) - The Importance of Telemedicine in Rural Areas (05:43) - Understanding the Demographics of Mental Health Clients (09:00) - Building Trust in Rural Communities (11:43) - The Impact of Trauma on Mental Health (14:52) - Economic Stress and Mental Health in Farming Communities (17:58) - The Role of AI in Mental Health (20:57) - Policy Changes for Rural Mental Health (23:27) - The Need for More Mental Health Providers (26:37) - Future Directions for Rural Mental Health Services (33:52) - Sherrod Brown's Senate Race Prospects (36:46) - Political Landscape and Implications for Ohio

Recorded live at the Florida Ruminant Nutrition Conference, this episode of the Real Science Exchange explores how improving nitrogen efficiency can enhance both dairy performance and environmental sustainability. Featuring Dr. Kelly Nichols (UC Davis), Dr. Jonas de Souza (Perdue Animal Nutrition), and Dr. Ben Wenner (Feed Works), the conversation brings together leading perspectives on how nitrogen utilization continues to shape modern dairy nutrition programs.

We examine the constitutional amendment proposals in North Carolina and discuss if they could boost voter participation at the polls. We'll also get an update from South Carolina on how their redistricting plan has panned out.

If you enjoy this episode, we're sure you will enjoy more content like this on The Occult Rejects.  In fact, we have curated playlists on occult topics like grimoires, esoteric concepts and phenomena, occult history, analyzing true crime and cults with an occult lens, Para politics, and occultism in music. Whether you enjoy consuming your content visually or via audio, we've got you covered - and it will always be provided free of charge.  So, if you enjoy what we do and want to support our work of providing accessible, free content on various platforms, please consider making a donation to the links provided below.  Thank you and enjoy the episode!Links For The Occult Rejectshttps://linktr.ee/theoccultrejectsOccult Research Institutehttps://www.occultresearchinstitute.org/Cash Apphttps://cash.app/$theoccultrejectsVenmo@TheOccultRejectsBuy Me A Coffeebuymeacoffee.com/TheOccultRejectsPatreonhttps://www.patreon.com/TheOccultRejectsBibliographyThe Mechanics of Magick: Singing Bowls and the Ritual Physics of ResonanceCore Singing Bowl ResearchStanhope, Jessica, and Philip Weinstein. “The Human Health Effects of Singing Bowls: A Systematic Review.” Complementary Therapies in Medicine 51 (2020): 102412. Use for the honesty frame: promising findings around mental health and cardiovascular measures, but limited evidence and need for stronger study design.Cai, Yiqing, Guo-Yan Yang, Yibo Liu, Xiang-yun Zou, Heng Yin, Xinyan Jin, Xue-han Liu, Chenlu Wang, Nicola Robinson, and Jian-Ping Liu. “Therapeutic Effects of Singing Bowls: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.” Integrative Medicine Research 14, no. 2 (2025): 101144. Use for the newer clinical overview. Important correction: this appears as 101144, not 101176. Good for anxiety, depression, sleep quality, cognition, autistic behavior, and EEG-related outcomes while still keeping the evidence cautious.Lin, F. W., et al. “Effects of Tibetan Singing Bowl Intervention on Psychological and Physiological Health in Adults: A Systematic Review.” 2025. Useful as another recent review angle, especially for psychological health, physiological measures, HRV, and brainwave-related discussion. Keep it secondary behind Stanhope and Cai.Landry, Jayan Marie. “Physiological and Psychological Effects of a Himalayan Singing Bowl in Meditation Practice: A Quantitative Analysis.” American Journal of Health Promotion 28, no. 5 (2014): 306–309. Use for the controlled relaxation study: 51 participants, randomized crossover design, singing bowl exposure or silence before directed relaxation.Goldsby, Tamara L., Michael E. Goldsby, Mary McWalters, and Paul J. Mills. “Effects of Singing Bowl Sound Meditation on Mood, Tension, and Well-Being: An Observational Study.” Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine 22, no. 3 (2017): 401–406. Use for reductions in tension, anger, fatigue, depressed mood, anxiety, and stress after singing bowl meditation. Good, but frame as observational, not definitive.Rio-Alamos, Cristina, et al. “Acute Relaxation Response Induced by Tibetan Singing Bowl Sounds: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 13, no. 2 (2023): 317–328. Use for Tibetan singing bowl treatment compared with progressive muscle relaxation and a waiting-list control in anxious nonclinical adults.Walter, Nina, et al. “Neurophysiological Effects of a Singing Bowl Massage.” Medicina 58, no. 5 (2022): 594. Use for EEG, ECG, and respiration during singing bowl massage; the authors interpret the results as a shift toward a more mindful or meditative state.Goldsby, Tamara L., et al. “Mood, Emotional, and Spiritual Well-Being Interrelationships.” Religions 13, no. 2 (2022). Useful follow-up for spiritual well-being, emotional interpretation, and how people understand sound-healing experiences.Sound, Anxiety, HRV, and Brainwave CautionMallik, Adiel, and Frank A. Russo. “The Effects of Music & Auditory Beat Stimulation on Anxiety: A Randomized Clinical Trial.” PLOS ONE 17, no. 3 (2022): e0259312. Use this carefully for the broader point that sound-based treatments can reduce somatic and cognitive state anxiety. Do not use it as proof that singing bowls automatically entrain brainwaves.Ingendoh, Ruth Maria, Ella S. Posny, and Angela Heine. “Binaural Beats to Entrain the Brain? A Systematic Review of the Effects of Binaural Beat Stimulation on Brain Oscillatory Activity, and the Implications for Psychological Research and Intervention.” PLOS ONE 18, no. 5 (2023): e0286023. Very useful caution source. Use it when warning against overclaiming “brainwave entrainment” and frequency-healing claims.Vilímek, et al. 2022. Low-frequency sound / HRV / vibroacoustic-related research. Use cautiously if you want to discuss low-frequency vibration, body sensation, and autonomic response. I'd keep this as a secondary source unless you want a dedicated paragraph on vibroacoustics.Physics, Resonance, and CymaticsTerwagne, Denis, and John W. M. Bush. “Tibetan Singing Bowls.” Nonlinearity 24, no. 8 (2011): R51–R66. Use for the physics section: wall vibrations, water-surface waves, Faraday-wave effects, droplet motion, and the visible demonstration of resonance.Jenny, Hans. Cymatics: A Study of Wave Phenomena and Vibration. Newmarket, NH: MACROmedia, 2001. Use carefully for visual sound-pattern history. Good for imagery and occult imagination, but don't overuse it as clinical proof.Rossing, Thomas D. The Science of Sound. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Addison Wesley, 2002. Useful general acoustics source for resonance, overtones, vibration, sound waves, and instrument physics.Sound Baths, Wellness Culture, and Modern RitualSobo, Elisa J. “Sound Baths, Trauma Talk, and the Wellness Paradox in the USA.” Medical Anthropology 43, no. 5 (2024): 367–382. Excellent for the modern sound-bath/wellness-culture angle, especially trauma language, nervous-system talk, ritual performance, and how providers frame sound baths.Sobo, Elisa J. “A Beginner's Guide to Sound Baths — What They Are, How to Choose a Good One and What the Research Shows.” The Conversation (2024). Useful for accessible show-note language and ethical/practical framing.Sobo, Elisa J. “Healing Vibrations.” Anthropology News 64, no. 5 (2023): 28–32, 49. Good anthropology/public-facing source for sound healing and wellness culture.Tibetan Singing Bowls, History, and Cultural CommodificationGrimes, Samuel. “Where Did ‘Tibetan' Singing Bowls Really Come From?” Tricycle (2020). Use for the contested-history section. Strong source for questioning popular origin stories around “Tibetan” singing bowls.Joffe, Ben. “Anthropology and Tibetan Buddhism / Cultural Commodification / Tibetan Mystique.” 2015. Use for the larger argument about how Tibetan/Himalayan aura gets packaged in Western spiritual markets. Good support for the “Tibet as imagined storehouse of hidden wisdom” point.Scheidegger, Daniel A. “Tibetan Ritual Music.” Use for actual Tibetan Buddhist ritual sound: bells, cymbals, long horns, drums, chant, and liturgical soundscape. This helps separate real Tibetan ritual sound from overblown modern singing-bowl mythology.Lopez, Donald S. Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Excellent support for Western romanticization of Tibet.Bishop, Peter. The Myth of Shangri-La: Tibet, Travel Writing, and the Western Creation of Sacred Landscape. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Very useful for the “Tibet as fantasy geography” angle.Ritual, Sound, and Religious ExperienceEliade, Mircea. Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964. Use carefully. Good for altered-state technologies and ritual sound/trance, but don't treat it as the final word on shamanism.Rouget, Gilbert. Music and Trance: A Theory of the Relations Between Music and Possession. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Excellent for sound, music, trance, possession, rhythm, and ritual performance.Becker, Judith. Deep Listeners: Music, Emotion, and Trancing. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004. Strong source for deep listening, music, emotion, trance, and the body.Husserl, Edmund. On the Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Time. Useful if you want to get philosophical about tone, decay, waiting, and how sound reveals time.Ihde, Don. Listening and Voice: Phenomenologies of Sound. Albany: SUNY Press, 2007. Good for sound as experience, listening, voice, and embodied perception.Placebo, Meaning Response, and Healing RitualMoerman, Daniel E. Meaning, Medicine and the “Placebo Effect.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Use for “meaning response” instead of treating placebo as “fake.”Benedetti, Fabrizio. Placebo Effects: Understanding the Mechanisms in Health and Disease. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Useful for placebo mechanisms, expectation, physiology, and therapeutic context.Kaptchuk, Ted J., and Franklin G. Miller. “Placebo Effects in Medicine.” New England Journal of Medicine 373 (2015): 8–9. Good short medical source for placebo effects as real psychobiological phenomena.Csordas, Thomas J. The Sacred Self: A Cultural Phenomenology of Charismatic Healing. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Useful for healing, embodiment, ritual, and religious experience.Embodied Cognition, Extended Mind, and Ritual ToolsClAlso want to remind people about the website, if you're into reading we have tons of information by multiple contributors, and we got t-shirts up on the site if you're interested. Fun fact, the art is all based on the eyeball. A

In this episode of Better Business, Better Life, Debra Chantry-Taylor and Adam Harris explore AI & its implication for businesses, leadership teams, and the future of EOS. The conversation dives into how AI is rapidly moving from being a “future issue” to something businesses must actively integrate into their daily operations. Debra and Adam discuss the growing role AI can play in productivity, accountability, communication, and leadership support, while also acknowledging the risks and limitations that come with it. Debra shares her personal experiences using tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, explaining how AI can dramatically improve efficiency when used properly. At the same time, she highlights the importance of human oversight, noting that AI still lacks the empathy, emotional intelligence, and human connection required for many leadership and people-focused roles. Throughout the episode, Debra and Adam explore whether AI could ever replace EOS implementers, leadership teams, or integrators. While they believe AI will continue transforming workflows and automating repetitive tasks, they argue that trust, empathy, coaching, and difficult conversations still require human interaction. The discussion also touches on the fears many employees and leaders have around AI replacing jobs. Debra emphasizes that AI should be viewed as a tool to augment people, not remove them, freeing teams from repetitive work so they can focus on higher-value thinking, creativity, and leadership. Adam and Debra also discuss the importance of businesses integrating AI intentionally, rather than simply chasing trends. They highlight the need for training, communication, experimentation, and involving the whole organization in the AI journey to avoid resistance and confusion. This episode is a thought-provoking conversation about the future of work, leadership, and EOS, and how businesses can thoughtfully integrate AI in a way that improves efficiency while still protecting the human connection that great businesses are built on. CONNECT WITH DEBRA:    ___________________________________________         ►Debra Chantry-Taylor is a Certified EOS Implementer | Entrepreneurial Leadership & Business Coach | Business Owner ►Connect with Debra: debra@businessaction.com.au ►See how she can help you: https://businessaction.co.nz/ ►Claim Your Free E-Book: https://www.businessaction.co.nz/free-e-book/ ___________________________________________       GUEST'S DETAILS: ► Adam Harris – LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/adam-harris-eos/ ► Website – EOS Worldwide: https://www.eosworldwide.com/adam-harris Episode 273 Chapters:   00:00 – Introduction to AI and EOS Implementation 03:49 – Debra's AI Tools and Initial Insights 08:10 – Human Connection and AI's Limitations 09:24 – AI's Role in EOS Implementation 22:00 – Challenges and Opportunities with AI 31:26 – AI's Impact on Business Culture and People 34:57 – Future of AI in Business 39:58 – Conclusion and Next Steps

This episode explores how AI, specifically OpenAI's recent breakthrough in solving an 80-year-old math conjecture, is transforming the field of mathematics. Featuring insights from Professor Daniel Litt, the discussion covers the implications of AI in mathematical research, the value of human verification, and the future of mathematical practice.Key topicsAI solving long-standing mathematical problemsThe role of human verification in AI-generated proofsImplications of AI breakthroughs in discrete geometryThe future of mathematical research with AINumber theory and algebraic constructions in AI discoveriesChapters00:00 Introduction to the Conjecture and Its Significance01:15 Understanding the Erdős Problem04:34 The Role of AI in Solving Mathematical Problems09:17 The Implications of AI in Mathematics10:32 AI vs Human Mathematicians: A Comparative Analysis17:20 Standards for AI-Generated Proofs21:10 Corporate Interests in Mathematical Research24:42 The Future of Mathematics and AI27:50 Final Thoughts on AI and Mathematics31:37 Revolutionizing Mathematics: AI's Breakthrough in Discrete Geometry37:37 Exploring the Implications: AI and the Future of Mathematics38:03 The Role of AI in Mathematics39:23 Human Value in the Age of AIFollow Daniel Litt onX (https://x.com/maiasz) Website (https://daniellitt.com)Follow Breaking Math onSubstack (https://breakingmath.substack.com/)X (https://x.com/breakingmathpod)Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/breakingmathmedia/)Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/breakingmath.bsky.social)Website (https://www.breakingmath.io/)YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/@BreakingMathPod)Follow Noah onInstagram (https://www.instagram.com/profnoahgian/)X (https://x.com/ProfNoahGian)Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/profnoahgian.bsky.social)Follow Autumn onX (https://x.com/1autumn_leaf)Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/1autumnleaf.bsky.social)Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/1autumnleaf/)Substack (https://substack.com/@1autumnleaf)email: breakingmathpodcast@gmail.com

Welcome to today's Midlife Minute. Today, we're exploring bloating, constipation, and various other midlife gut woes.  Stay tuned as I clarify how midlife changes the gut narrative and review the evidence about how to get things moving again. IN THIS EPISODE, YOU WILL LEARN: Why your gut motility changes in midlife How menopause influences the gut-brain connection Why various types of constipation require different interventions How changes in your gut bacteria affect the way your gut functions in menopause How different types of fiber can either help or worsen constipation symptoms, depending on the type of constipation  The main types of constipation, and how they differ  How estrogen therapy may influence bowel regularity, and why the route of administration matters Lifestyle habits that can stimulate bowel movements Why bloating tends to occur in midlife Connect with Cynthia Thurlow   Follow on X, Instagram & LinkedIn Check out Cynthia's website. Submit your questions to support@cynthiathurlow.com Join other like-minded women in a supportive, nurturing community: The Midlife Pause/Cynthia Thurlow.  Cynthia's Menopause Gut Book is on presale now! Cynthia's Intermittent Fasting Transformation Book The Midlife Pause Supplement Line Links: 1. Menopause Is Associated with an Altered Gut Microbiome and Estrobolome, with Implications for Adverse Cardiometabolic Risk in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos 2. The Intestinal Microbiome and Estrogen Receptor–Positive Female Breast Cancer  3. Estrogen–gut microbiome axis: Physiological and clinical implications 4. Menopausal shift on women's health and microbial niches 5. Gut microbiota has the potential to improve health of menopausal women by regulating estrogen 6. Gut-microbiota-targeted diets modulate human immune status 7. Effect of female sex hormone supplementation and withdrawal on gastrointestinal and colonic transit in postmenopausal women 8. Constipation and diarrhea during the menopause transition and early postmenopause: observations from the Seattle Midlife Women's Health Study 9. Estrogen Rather Than Progesterone Cause Constipation in Both Female and Male Mice 10. Rome IV Criteria 11. Gut-Directed Hypnotherapy for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis  Gut-Directed Hypnotherapy for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PubMed) 12. Randomised clinical trial: the efficacy of gut-directed hypnotherapy is similar to that of the low FODMAP diet for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome 13. Gut-directed hypnosis and hypnotherapy for irritable bowel syndrome: a mini-review 14. Review article: gut-directed hypnotherapy in the management of irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease

Forty-seven cents. That's the edge some Chinese sellers have been exploiting per unit, not through better suppliers or leaner operations, but through tax evasion. Neil Twa dives into China's crackdown on e-commerce tax evasion and its implications for sellers at every level. With the Chinese government ramping up scrutiny on international platforms, the playing field is shifting. Neil shares two scenarios: a kitchen and home category seller pulling $35,000 a month and another at $800,000. The impact is real, and Neil offers three actionable moves to navigate this shift. Whether you're doing $8,000 or $800,000 a month, these strategies are crucial. The High Voltage Business Builders Podcast is here to help you turn these regulatory shifts into opportunities.

Thanks to Southern States Hardin Co-op for sponsoring this week's show! Go visit them at their Hodgenville and Elizabethtown locations. Thanks also to our studio sponsor Biotech Innovations.  Learn more about them at www.biotechinnovationsag.com.

CASE UPDATES: Luigi Mangione - judge rules some evidence from Luigi's backpack will not be allowed at trial due to illegal search.Barry Morphew - he had a hearing yesterday, recapping what happened.D4VD - Finally getting around to reading the preliminary hearing filing which details the crime and the aftermath00:00 Introduction and Overview01:16 Luigi Mangione Case Developments04:51 Barry Morphew's Legal Challenges06:32 David's Case: A Gruesome Discovery12:09 Evidence and Implications in David's Case19:30 Conclusion and Reflections on the CasesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)

Watch Us On YouTube! Announcing a new, ongoing benefit for annual subscribers of our Slack community. Annual subscribers receive a free Points Path Alerts subscription OR a 30% discount on Points Path Pro. A new credit card shows up, a new hotel status gets tested, and airline product delays keep dragging on. This week on Miles To Go, Ed and Richard break down Citi's rollout of the new American Airlines Globe Mastercard, including what happens when your existing Barclays card gets converted — whether you were planning on it or not. They take a closer look at the card's real value, including its ability to accelerate elite status, and whether the benefits justify the $350 annual fee. From there, the conversation shifts to Hilton's new Diamond Reserve status, as early real-world data points start to trickle in. Does it actually deliver better upgrades, or is it too early to tell? They also revisit Delta's ongoing seat certification delays, now stretching years longer than expected, and what that means for aircraft configurations and upgrade opportunities. Plus, a mix of travel updates — from World Cup logistics challenges to Uber dropping Discover cards — and a new personal travel goal that could reshape how Ed approaches trips going forward.  https://thepointsguy.com/hotel/reviews/hilton-elite-status-diamond-reserve-versus-diamond/  https://onemileatatime.com/news/delta-a321neo-flat-beds/ Get hydrated like Ed in Vegas with Nuun Use my Bilt Rewards link to sign-up and support the show! If you enjoy the podcast, I hope you'll take a moment to leave us a rating. That helps us grow our audience! If you're looking for a way to support the show, we'd love to have you join us in our Travel Slack Community.  Join me and other travel experts for informative conversations about the travel world, the best ways to use your miles and points, Zoom happy hours and exciting giveaways. Monthly access Annual access Personal consultation plus annual access We have witty, funny, sarcastic discussions about travel, for members only. My fellow travel experts are available to answer your questions and we host video chats multiple times per month. Follow Us! Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/milestogopodcast/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@milestogopodcast Ed Pizza: https://www.instagram.com/pizzainmotion/ Richard Kerr: https://www.instagram.com/kerrpoints/ ✈️  What We Cover in This Episode ✈️ Citi's AA Globe Mastercard rollout Barclays cards being converted automatically Key benefits and $350 annual fee Loyalty point boosts and status acceleration ✈️ Is the AA card actually worth it? Earning structure and flight-based bonuses Companion certificate timing Who this card makes sense for ✈️ Hilton Diamond Reserve status Early real-world upgrade data Why results may vary by property Whether it's worth chasing ✈️ Hotel upgrade realities How hotel systems handle elite tiers Why even top status isn't guaranteed What to watch for with confirmed upgrades ✈️ Delta's ongoing seat certification delays A321neo seat rollout pushed further out Why certification is taking years Impact on premium cabins and upgrades ✈️ Airline Wi-Fi frustrations Continued reliability issues Starlink vs legacy systems Why this still isn't solved ✈️ World Cup travel logistics in the U.S. High transportation costs Weak hotel demand in some markets Why fan experience may fall short ✈️ Uber drops Discover cards Payment network friction Implications with Capital One changes Rare move in the payments space ✈️ The "Five and Dime" travel goal 5 new destinations + 10 new routes per year Why it's harder than it sounds Cabo Verde as a potential play ⏱️ Timestamps  0:50 – Intro and opening banter 5:20 – AA Globe Mastercard conversion explained 9:30 – Is the AA card worth $350? 14:30 – Hilton Diamond Reserve early results 18:30 – Why hotel upgrades are inconsistent 22:00 – Delta seat delays stretch even further 25:30 – Airline Wi-Fi frustrations 28:30 – World Cup travel logistics issues 31:30 – Uber drops Discover cards 33:30 – "Five and Dime" travel goal  

Missouri knocked off Ole Miss on Tuesday, and then Vanderbilt followed with a win over Kentucky. What did those games mean in terms of hosting implications for Ole Miss (and perhaps Arkansas?), and where does Vanderbilt stand on the NCAA Tournament bubble? Plus, Tennessee takes down South Carolina, ending the Gamecocks' season; where do the Vols stand in the seeing picture? That, and a look at scores from around the country that may have an impact on the SEC. Southeastern 16 Merch: https://se16.printify.me/ HOMEFIELD https://www.homefieldapparel.com/ ROKFORM Use promo code SEC25 for 25% off! The world's strongest magnetic phone case! https://www.rokform.com/ JOIN OUR MEMBERSHIP Join the "It Just Means More" tier for bonus videos and live streams! Join Link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv1w_TRbiB0yHCEb7r2IrBg/join FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA Twitter: https://twitter.com/16Southeastern ADVERTISE WITH SOUTHEASTERN 16 Reach out to se16.caroline@gmail.com to find out how your product or service can be seen by over 200,000 unique viewers each month! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Alex Murdaugh has officially filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill—and legendary trial attorney Neil Rockind is breaking down exactly what this means for the future of this high-profile case.#AlexMurdaugh #BeckyHill #NeilRockind #KillerCrossExamination #JuryTampering #LegalAnalysis #TrueCrime #Lawsuit #MurdaughTrial #ConstitutionalRightsAbout This EpisodeFresh off the heels of the South Carolina Supreme Court's bombshell decision unanimously overturning Murdaugh's double murder convictions, Murdaugh is striking back. His defense team has launched a 17-page federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, accusing Becky Hill of deliberately violating his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair trial before an impartial jury.In this episode of Killer Cross Examination, host Neil Rockind dives deep into the shocking details of the complaint. From allegations that Hill tampered with jurors to secure a quick guilty verdict to boost her own book sales, to the Supreme Court's blistering declaration that she placed her "fingers on the scales of justice," Neil dissects the unprecedented legal maneuvers at play.Neil breaks down the core elements of the lawsuit, including:The Allegations of Misconduct: How Hill allegedly instructed jurors not to be "fooled" or "confused" by the defense and held private, unrecorded conversations with the jury foreperson.The Motive: The shocking claim that Hill compromised a double murder trial for the "siren call of celebrity" and a desire to buy a lake house via book revenue.The $600,000 Damage Claim: Why Murdaugh is suing to recover the massive retirement funds spent on a trial corrupted by state misconduct.The Implication for the Retrial: What happens next now that state prosecutors plan to retry Murdaugh from square one.As a veteran defense attorney who fights daily against government overreach and misconduct, Neil Rockind provides the ultimate masterclass on why protecting constitutional trial rights matters—no matter who the defendant is.About Neil Rockind - Neil Rockind is a trial lawyer. Neil Rockind is often considered a bet the farm/company type of lawyer, taking on cases where the stakes are “all in.” Neil Rockind appears regularly on television and in the news, defends people in serious court cases, is a regular guest on the Law and Crime Network and also discusses popular trials and cases and current events with other top lawyers around the country. Neil Rockind has won just about every award imaginable, has represented athletes, celebrities, musicians, public figures and has obtained acquittals in all varieties of cases. His nickname is "The Rockweiler" and he's known for his cross examination style.Neil Rockind:Https://www.X.com/neilrockindlawHttps://www.instagram.com/rockindlaw https://www.rockindlaw.com/http://www.killercrossexamination.com/*************************************Subscribe to Killer Cross Examination® PodcastAPPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/424RIys...GOOGLE PODCASTS: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...AUDIBLE:https://www.audible.com/pd/Podcast/B0...******************************************Fair Use DoctrineThe contents are under fair use. It may contain copyrighted materials whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This, in our view, is fair use pursuant to section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. We retain no rights to that material. To the extent the videos capture images or likenesses, we do not own the rights to those images, likenesses, etc and only use them pursuant to the fair use doctrine.All other rights are reserved.

In this week's episode of China Insider, Miles Yu discusses the two-day summit held in Beijing between Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping. The discussion covers the strategic objectives and red lines negotiated by both leaders during the summit, and breaks down the various outcomes on key issues covered in the bilateral meetings related to the US-China trade relationship, the Iran War and conflict in the Strait of Hormuz, and US policy toward Taiwan including pending arms sales. Lastly, Miles provides his assessment of the larger implications toward the evolving strategic competition dynamic between the US and China, and what to expect in future talks between the two leaders over the course of this year. China Insider is a weekly podcast project from Hudson Institute's China Center, hosted by China Center Director and Senior Fellow, Dr. Miles Yu, who provides weekly news that mainstream American outlets often miss, as well as in-depth commentary and analysis on the China challenge and the free world's future. 

In last month's episode we learned that there is no evidence that time limits that impose any sort of pressure on even a small percentage of students improves test validity and that, in fact, there is ample research showing that they make tests less valid and less equitable.   In this episode we discuss how, despite the data, the NBME denies accommodations on the USMLE exams to over half of medical students who have a documented learning disability and are approved for accommodations at their medical school (e.g., extra time). We talk with a leading medical educator who is co-author (along with last month's guest and co-host Saul Weiner), of a paper published last month in the journal Medical Education, titled The myth that slow test-takers are worse students: Implications for time-limited testing. The publication is Open Access, so fully accessible to everyone. In this episode, originally aired in 2023, our guest discusses a published national survey she and her colleagues conducted to assess the scope and harmful impact on medical schools and their students of current NBME policy on accommodations. We conclude with a discussion about how the NBME could make the test fair and valid for everyone by functionally eliminating time limits. 

Aubrey Masango speaks to Claire Thomson, a Private Practice Attorney what actually happens when you add your partner’s surname to your child’s birth certificate and what parents need to know before they sign. Tags: 702, Aubrey Masango show, Aubrey Masango, Bra Aubrey, Claire Thomson, Birth certificate, Unmarried couples, Acrimonious relationship, Minor child, Child’s surname, Mother’s surname, Father’s surname The Aubrey Masango Show is presented by late night radio broadcaster Aubrey Masango. Aubrey hosts in-depth interviews on controversial political issues and chats to experts offering life advice and guidance in areas of psychology, personal finance and more. All Aubrey’s interviews are podcasted for you to catch-up and listen. Thank you for listening to this podcast from The Aubrey Masango Show. Listen live on weekdays between 20:00 and 24:00 (SA Time) to The Aubrey Masango Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk between 20:00 and 21:00 (SA Time) https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk Find out more about the show here https://buff.ly/lzyKCv0 and get all the catch-up podcasts https://buff.ly/rT6znsn Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfet Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It only took until his second episode of co-hosting duties to claim his territory in fantasy MLR as NA Rugby DB's James Deeley takes down the TFR boys to snatch a playoff spot...and it all happened in MLR 2026's Week 8 that shook up the league's postseason picture! On this week's episode of The Fantasy Ruckers Show, Ryan and James recap the weekend's three matches, discuss what they learned and how it changes their perception as we inch closer to playoffs. They also breakdown the players that helped get fantasy managers to elimination time, and ultimately keep their fantasy MLR championship hopes alive!Check out our website to stay up to date with the latest fantasy MLR stats, top players and league updates: www.thefantasyruckers.comAlong with the most comprehensive North American Rugby Database curated by James Deeley: https://narugbydb.com/For the video version of the show head to our channel on Youtube.Interact with The Fantasy Ruckers community and stay up to date with The Fantasy Ruckers Rugby League on our discord channel!Stay up to date with the league by following us on socials!X: @FantasyRuckers/@NARugbyDB  Instagram: @thefantasyruckers/@MLRStats  Facebook: thefantasyruckers   Bluesky: @thefantasyruckers.bsky.social/@narugbydb.com

Analysts Don Kellogg and Roger Entner discuss the new satellite joint venture agreement in principle between Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, exploring its massive implications for satellite providers and consumers alike.00:00 Episode intro 00:25 Details of the potential joint venture 02:23 Universal connectivity is on the horizon 03:36 Implications for Starlink 05:37 The U.S. may set the global standard 06:18 Are the coverage wars over? 08:22 Future satellite tech upgrades 09:23 Intent does not always materialize 10:13 Episode wrap-upTags: telecom, telecommunications, wireless, prepaid, postpaid, cellular phone, Don Kellogg, Roger Entner, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, D2D, device-to-device, spectrum, satellite, rural, dead zones, AST, Leo, Starlink, Elon Musk, coverage, urban, 5G, VoLTE, video

Hold onto your seats, this episode cracks open the truth about AI and the workforce like never before! Mike Ohata shares his bold insights on how AI isn't here to replace us but to transform how we lead, learn, and live. This isn't just about automation; it's about human capability, culture, and daring to rethink everything. In this episode:  Why AI's doom-and-gloom narrative is superficial and how human leadership remains vital  The real impact of AI on task automation versus redesigning work systems  How to cultivate systems thinkers instead of linear learners in a rapidly evolving workplace  The critical importance of judgment, empathy, and entrepreneurial skills in tomorrow's workforce  Rethinking talent development: from skills inventories to ontologies that connect competencies  The role of leaders in embracing AI with agility, curiosity, and ethical responsibility  How AI can enable trade skills and encourage entrepreneurial thinking among trade professionals  Navigating the tension between short-term cost cuts and long-term talent sustainability  Why cultural fit and values matter more than ever in AI-driven organizational change  Timestamps: 00:00 - Introduction: Why this episode changes your view on AI and the future of work 01:22 - Mike's background: Learning environments in professional services and talent development 03:30 - Fun fact about Chuck Todd and political anthropology as a lens for leadership insights 04:49 - The core dilemma: Is AI a threat or an opportunity for organizations? 05:01 - Debunking the AI doom narrative: Tasks vs. systems redesign 06:10 - The integral role of human-AI collaboration in future work 07:26 - Are current automation efforts just "lift and shift"? Or are they a chance to reinvent work? 08:49 - The profound implications of AI for leadership and systemic thinking 09:45 - Risks of resistance and misconceptions about AI adoption in the workplace 10:16 - Human skills like prompting, framing, and judgment as key in AI utilization 11:49 - Protecting institutional knowledge and combating ageism in AI integration 13:24 - Educational shifts: From memorization to systems thinking 14:34 - Leadership development for a connected, systemic mindset 15:07 - How easy answers can mislead us in AI's era of complexity 16:41 - Redefining success: Outcome over process in a world of AI tools 17:08 - The evolving nature of regulated and unregulated work with AI 18:43 - Customer empathy, judgment, and the lasting importance of human touch 20:36 - The challenge of engaging frontline and hourly workers with AI and automation 21:53 - Is enterprise AI adoption a short-term cost play or a strategic transformation? 26:17 - What we're really automating: From low-level analysis to high-level talent strategy 30:11 - The essential role of entrepreneurial skills for trade and technical professions 32:23 - Using skills inventories and ontologies to future-proof organizations 36:25 - Reskilling versus layoffs: How purpose and objectives shape talent decisions 37:51 - Beyond short-term profit: The long-term value of investing in people and culture 40:28 - Ethical considerations, collective values, and navigating AI's future challenges Resources & Links:  Book: Human + Machine: Reimagining Work in the Age of AI by H. James Wilson & Paul R. Daugherty  Mike Ohata - LinkedIn  Understanding Ontologies in Skills & Competencies  AI and Leadership: The Next Frontier – Harvard Business Review  The Future of Work in the Age of AI – McKinsey Report  Connect with Mike Ohata:  LinkedIn  Twitter  Note: This episode is a rallying cry to foster human-centric, ethical AI adoption, challenging the status quo and empowering organizations and individuals to adapt boldly. 

Freddie New is the CEO of BHODL, lawyer, and a key figure in UK Bitcoin advocacy and policy.› https://x.com/freddienewPARTNERS

The most powerful seat in finance just changed hands. In today's episode, we break down the latest vote confirming Kevin Warsh as the new chairman of the Federal Reserve, taking over starting Monday. This is a massive shift for the financial markets—and traders everywhere are trying to figure out what comes next. Because when the Fed changes leadership… policy expectations change, market sentiment changes, and volatility usually follows. We'll discuss: Who Kevin Warsh is and his history with the Fed How his views differ from previous leadership What this could mean for interest rates, inflation, and liquidity Potential impacts on equities, bonds, commodities, and crypto Whether markets should expect a more hawkish or dovish approach going forward This isn't just another political headline. The Federal Reserve influences: borrowing costs asset prices economic growth and ultimately, the direction of global markets. So the big question is: Will Warsh change the game… or continue the same playbook? Listen now:

Financial lines insurance trends are evolving with new legal rulings, DOJ antitrust activity and emerging AI-related risks impacting coverage and compliance. In this episode, Mike Radak and David Finz, Alliant Specialty Claims & Legal, discuss a recent Ninth Circuit decision impacting D&O insurance coverage, recent Department of Justice enforcement signals and a case exploring AI and legal privilege. Together, they break down what these developments mean for policyholders and organizations, including how to challenge coverage denials, prepare for regulatory scrutiny and manage confidentiality risks associated with AI tools.

Molly Nikolas, Ph.D., explores current research on early puberty in youth with ADHD, including how pubertal timing may differ for girls with ADHD, the impact of puberty on ADHD assessment and treatment, and the mental-health consequences of early puberty. Resources: ADHD and Puberty Free Download: Menstrual Cycle Workbook Read: ADHD and the Turbulence of Puberty Read: Protecting the Emotional Health of Girls with ADHD Read: ADHD in Women and Girls: Why Female Symptoms Slip Through Diagnostic Cracks Access the video and slides for podcast episode #6045 here: https://www.additudemag.com/webinar/puberty-girls-adhd-mental-health/ This episode is brought to you by NOCD, the world's leading provider of specialized OCD treatment. Learn more at https://learn.nocd.com/ADHDExperts. This episode is also sponsored by the podcast Hyperfocus with Rae Jacobson. Search for "Hyperfocus with Rae Jacobson" in your podcast app or find links to listen at https://lnk.to/hyperfocusPS!adhdexperts. Thank you for listening to ADDitude's ADHD Experts podcast. Please consider subscribing to the magazine (additu.de/subscribe) to support our mission of providing ADHD education and support.

This lecture discusses the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle' work, On Interpretation, focusing on his discussion of what the implications of modal propositions are, that is, propositions that bear upon possibility, contingency, impossibility, and necessity. He identifies propositions of these sorts that imply each other. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO You can find over 4,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Aristotle's On Interpretation - amzn.to/3nS55ud

Michael Pento, president and founder of Pento Portfolio Strategies (PPS), returns to The Julia La Roche for episode 368 to warn that the three asset bubbles in stocks, credit, and real estate continue growing to unprecedented levels, with total market cap now at 230% of GDP versus a 90% average. He reveals that Powell has quietly printed $170 billion since December in an undeclared QE program, calls Powell's tenure "horrific," and celebrates his departure. Pento explains he's "nervously long" the market using his five-sector inflation-deflation model, currently positioned for stagflation with commodities, precious metals, and energy. He warns that credit markets will fracture first, with private credit now at $2 trillion (bigger than the $1.3 trillion subprime market in 2008), and predicts June redemptions could trigger a death spiral. Pento believes we need a 50% market correction to return to normalcy, warns we could see 15% interest rates like the 1980s but with a far worse debt backdrop, and argues the bottom 80% of Americans are already living in depression-like conditions while crony capitalism enriches the top 20%. He sees two paths forward: voluntary asset price reconciliation or forced hyperinflation leading to currency reset.Links: https://pentoport.com/ https://twitter.com/michaelpento0:00 Introduction - Michael Pento returns after 6 months0:59 Big picture macro view - Bubbles grow bigger2:19 Powell's "horrific tenure" - $4.5 trillion printed3:32 QE program continues - $170 billion since December4:39 Kevin Warsh-led Fed - What changes are coming?5:52 Warsh will punish Wall Street, boost Main Street7:06 Stock bubble metrics - 230% of GDP (average is 90%)8:24 Crony capitalism vs. free market economics9:10 Why capitalism gets a bad name10:01 Home price to income ratio at all-time highs11:01 Disconnect between stock market highs and consumer sentiment lows11:35 Only top 20% doing well - The "i-shaped economy"12:33 AI spending reminds Michael of 1999 tech bubble13:33 Are you confident Kevin Warsh can get us back to normalcy?14:41 What would normal market valuations look like?15:06 Would need 50% correction to return to normal17:05 Wouldn't printing just set us up for more problems?18:57 Either scenario leads to higher rates19:37 Implications of double-digit rates on everything20:38 Are you still nervously long the market?21:19 Michael's not a perma bear - History of market crashes23:02 How dangerous can this bubble be when it bursts?24:03 Michael's 5-sector inflation-deflation model25:14 Precious metals trade - Why only 6% position26:41 Energy thesis - After Iran war27:30 Explaining the 5 sectors - Which is most worrisome?28:25 Stagflation is the base case going forward29:01 Post-recession: $6 trillion deficits, $12 trillion Fed balance sheet29:55 Could we see 15% interest rates like 1980?31:17 What's the end game here?33:21 Are we past the point of no return?34:58 Which bubble bursts first - The epicenter?35:44 Watch credit markets first - Private credit warning36:46 June redemptions could trigger death spiral37:47 Is private credit too big to fail now?38:21 Risk not getting attention - Pressure on middle class40:00 Buy now pay later defaults surging40:29 Bottom 80% living in depression conditions41:18 Preventing tremors creates epic shocks42:48 Has anyone talked about $170 billion of QE since December?43:24 What makes Michael hopeful for the future44:01 Closing thoughts

This hour: Carl Quintanilla, Sara Eisen, and David Faber broke down whether the broader rally has legs here with Evercore's Julian Emmanuel, before diving into whether the wild gains seen in chips can hold with longtime tech investor Ben Reitzes of Melius Research. Plus: the latest developments in the Iran war from Washington along with a fresh read from the head of one global tanker who has ships around the Strait of Hormuz...   Elsewhere this hour: Dr. Vin Gupta breaking down whether growing Hantavirus concerns are warranted here; a look at one commodity riding the AI frenzy; and more on Fox's latest moves when it comes to new NFL games.    Squawk on the Street Disclaimer   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) remains a critical component of addressing the ongoing opioid crisis, and recent federal authorization now allows pharmacists to independently prescribe buprenorphine following appropriate training. This course reviews the regulatory changes, outlines clinical and operational considerations for pharmacist-led MOUD prescribing, and discusses the opportunities and responsibilities that accompany expanded prescriptive authority. You will gain practical insight into how integrating MOUD prescribing into pharmacy practice can improve treatment access while maintaining safe, evidence-based care. HOSTRachel Maynard, PharmDGameChangers Podcast Host and Clinical Editor, CEimpactLead Editor, PyrlsGUESTKorey Kreider, PharmDPharmacist OwnerMedicine ManPharmacists, REDEEM YOUR CPE HERE!CPE is available to Health Mart franchise members onlyTo learn more about Health Mart, click here: https://join.healthmart.com/PRACTICE RESOURCEReceive the exclusive Practice Resource to use as a reference guide for this episode by enrolling in the course. Click here to enroll!CPE INFORMATIONLearning ObjectivesUpon successful completion of this knowledge-based activity, participants should be able to:1. Describe recent federal policy changes authorizing pharmacists to independently prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder.2. Identify clinical, regulatory, and workflow considerations associated with integrating MOUD prescribing into pharmacy practiceRachel Maynard and Korey Kreider have no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies to disclose. 0.1 CEU/1.0 HrUAN: 0107-0000-26-150-H01-PInitial release date: 5/11/2026Expiration date: 5/11/2027Additional CPE details can be found here.

12/16: Evan Ellis examines neck-and-neck presidential races in Peru and Colombia. In Peru, the contest between Keiko Fujimori and Roberto Sanchez carries implications for relations with China. Colombia faces a similar choice between right-wing candidates and the leftist Ivan Cepeda, affecting future security cooperation.11900

The Southeastern 16 crew reacts to Thursday's action in SEC baseball with thoughts on Mississippi State vs. Auburn and NCAA Tournament implications for those teams. Southeastern 16 Merch: https://se16.printify.me/ HOMEFIELD https://www.homefieldapparel.com/ ROKFORM Use promo code SEC25 for 25% off! The world's strongest magnetic phone case! https://www.rokform.com/ JOIN OUR MEMBERSHIP Join the "It Just Means More" tier for bonus videos and live streams! Join Link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv1w_TRbiB0yHCEb7r2IrBg/join FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA Twitter: https://twitter.com/16Southeastern ADVERTISE WITH SOUTHEASTERN 16 Reach out to se16.caroline@gmail.com to find out how your product or service can be seen by over 200,000 unique viewers each month! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Jaeden and Conor explore the high-stakes lawsuit between Elon Musk and OpenAI, uncovering the drama and implications of this legal battle. With Musk claiming his contributions were meant to keep OpenAI a non-profit, they analyze the tension surrounding AI's future and the potential precedent.Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/AkW0hsJgaEUGet the top 80+ AI Models for $8.99 at AI Box: https://aibox.aiConor's AI Course: https://www.ai-mindset.ai/coursesJaeden's AI Business Community: https://www.skool.com/aihustleChapters00:00 The Lawsuit Unfolds: Elon vs. OpenAI03:05 The Implications of AI and Nonprofit Structures06:03 The Future of AI: Legal Precedents and Market Impact Read more on AI Chat Daily: Musk Seeks $134B and Altman's Ouster in OpenAI Nonprofit Lawsuit See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

How Stories Happen is now Why They Resonate. Here's why and what to expect next. Plus, learn the single Italian word which says so much about our creative work — and why it's the driving force behind the show's rebrand and revival. EPISODE CREDITS:Written and produced by me, Jay Acunzo. For more, subscribe to my newsletter→Music by Embleton (Instagram - Facebook).***ABOUT ME, JAY ACUNZOI'm a public speaking and storytelling advisor trusted by bestselling authors, TED speakers, seven-figure coaches, and brands like Mailchimp, Wistia, and Salesforce. Before starting my advisory firm (where I work 1:1 with clients and run group programs), I was a digital media strategist at Google and head of content for 3 organizations, including HubSpot.I've given keynotes across the US and several other countries to marketers and managers, designers and dentists, leaders and landscapers, and my journey as a speaker has been featured in 3 different books.Today, I teach business leaders how to communicate with greater clarity, influence, and resonance.Learn more about my work at jayacunzo.com.***IF YOU ENJOY THE SHOW:Leave a review on Apple Podcasts Leave a rating on Spotify Thanks for your support! Keep making what matters.

India hasn't updated how political power is distributed across its states in five decades—and the consequences are mounting. At the heart of delimitation lies a fundamental tension: should representation follow population, or preserve a delicate federal balance? Successive governments chose to defer the question, freezing India's electoral map even as demographic divides deepened. The Modi government's recent push to overhaul the system brought these tensions into the open but ultimately failed to resolve them. Recently, Milan sat down with Shruti Rajagopalan of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University for a wide-ranging webinar on delimitation, representation, and the reshaping of Indian democracy. The two discussed how India reached the present impasse—and what happens next. Milan and Shruti unpack the constitutional rules governing delimitation, the scale of malapportionment in the Lok Sabha, and the politics behind the Modi government's failed 2026 push to overhaul the system. Plus, they discuss scenarios for the future. On this week's show, we present the audio and video from this recent conversation as a joint collaboration between Grand Tamasha and Shruti's Ideas of India podcast. Episode notes: Shruti Rajagopalan, “India's delimitation battles are costing its poorest voters,” Times of India, April 25, 2026. Shruti Rajagopalan, “Delimitation: At heart of row, value of a vote, fiscal imbalance,” Indian Express, April 23, 2026. M.R. Madhavan, “Implications of increasing the size of the Lok Sabha,” Hindu, April 16, 2024. Shruti Rajagopalan, “Demography, Delimitation, and Democracy,” Get Down and Shruti (Substack), July 3, 2023. Pranay Kotasthane, “India Policy Watch: Delimitation as an Opportunity for a Grand Bargain,” Anticipating the Unintended (Substack), June 18, 2023. Milan Vaishnav and Jamie Hintson, “India's Emerging Crisis of Representation,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 14, 2019.

Social Security is widely portrayed as a self-financed program with a long-term trust fund solvency problem. But for more than a decade, the program has already been financed in part through federal borrowing. The trust fund is a political construct, not a true repository of savings or investments. Since 2010, the Treasury has borrowed more than $1.5 trillion to pay Social Security benefits, and borrowing is projected to rise sharply even before the trust fund is exhausted in 2032. Over the next 75 years, the program's cash-flow shortfall will exceed $28 trillion in present-value terms.This event will examine how trust fund accounting masks Social Security's growing contribution to federal debt, why economic growth cannot solve the problem on its own, why lifting the payroll tax cap will not sustainably close the program's funding gap, and how current benefit design fuels immediate deficits and long-term fiscal imbalance. Experts will discuss reform strategies that address the program's structural flaws and prevent Social Security from worsening the debt crisis. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

David Phillips talks about the effects of providing free public transit. "Eliminating Fares to Expand Opportunities: Experimental Evidence on the Impacts of Free Public Transportation on Economic and Social Disparities" by Rebecca Brough, Matthew Freedman, and David C. Phillips. OTHER RESEARCH WE DISCUSS IN THIS EPISODE: “Getting to Work: Experimental Evidence on Job Search and Transportation Costs" by David C. Phillips. “Public Transit and the Spatial Distribution of Minority Employment: Evidence from a Natural Experiment" by Harry Holzer, John Quigley, and Steven Raphael. “The Effects of the Announcement and Opening of Light Rail Transit Stations on Neighborhood Crime" by Stephen Billings, Suzanne Leland, and David Swindell. "Means-Tested Public Transportation Subsidies: Causal Evidence and Implications" by Seoyoon Ahn, Matthew Freedman, David Phillips, and Atheendar Venkataramani. “The Role of the Fare in Welfare: Public Transportation Subsidies and Their Effects on Low-Income Households" by Seth Chizeck and Oluchi Mbonu. “Do Free and Discounted Fares Increase Transit Use, Well-being, and Employment for Low-Income Residents? Evidence from a Pilot Program in Washington, DC" by Alyssa Huberts, Roxanne Oroxom, Kayleigh B. Campbell, Katherine N. Gan, Danielle Moore, and Sam Quinney. Want more? Check out my new book! The Science of Second Chances: A Revolution in Criminal Justice is available now.

In this episode, we sit down with Dr. Cameron Chesnut to unpack the truth behind today's booming aesthetics industry and what it really means to age well. Dr. Chesnut breaks down the biggest misconceptions surrounding fillers, Botox, dissolving agents, and “quick-fix” medspa culture, while explaining how metabolic health, inflammation, and lifestyle habits directly influence the appearance and function of your skin. The conversation dives deep into regenerative approaches like fat transfers, stem cells, exosomes, and advanced recovery techniques that prioritize natural-looking results over frozen faces or overfilled features. He also shares his nuanced perspective on anesthesia, facial lasers, muscle function, and why preserving authentic facial expression is critical for both emotional communication and long-term health. This fascinating episode challenges conventional beauty standards and explores how true rejuvenation starts with performance, vitality, and a healthy mindset — not a magic pill or syringe.Dr. Cameron Chesnut is a facial plastic surgeon for the world's high-performers. People from all corners of the globe seek his next-level results - with astonishing outcomes from minimally invasive procedures that leave his patients looking natural, rejuvenated, and seemingly untouched. He is renowned for his progressive use of regenerative medicine and postoperative recovery techniques, as well as his dedicated personal preparation for performance readiness.SHOW NOTES:0:40 Welcome to the podcast!3:06 About Dr. Cameron Chesnut3:46 Welcome him to the show!4:45 Biggest misconception around filler8:58 Myths about dissolving filler10:15 What exactly is filler?13:28 Medspa confusion & magic fixes15:00 What is Radiesse? 17:45 How metabolic health impacts your skin18:52 Using your own fat instead of filler22:30 Find the right surgeon26:40 Fat transfers 10130:25 Stem cells & exosomes33:33 *APOLLO NEURO*35:47 Preparing for surgery and procedures40:12 No magic pill41:37 Healthy mindset pre-surgery42:04 The good & bad of Anesthesia48:14 The good & bad of Botox51:15 How Dr. Cameron makes your muscles work better52:20 The importance of facial expressions57:40 Does botox and filler affect everyone negatively?1:02:45 Implications of restricting movement1:04:25 Facial lasers1:10:55 How to work with Dr. Chesnut1:14:01 His final piece of advice1:17:35 Thanks for tuning in!RESOURCES:Apollo Neuro - code: BIOHACKERBABES to save $90 off + Smart Vibes bundleStart Your JourneyAbout Dr. Cameron ChesnutInstagram5 Codes PodcastSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/biohacker-babes-podcast/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Repenting of Unintentional Sin by Autumn Dickson In my last post, we talked about Yom Kippur, the day of atonement. As a quick review in case you missed the last post, this day was a solemn event with an undercurrent of joy. The main ritual of the day included two identical male goats. One goat would be sacrificed with its blood spread on the Holy of Holies and its fat burned on the altar. The priest would lay his hands on the second goat, pronounce the intentional and unintentional sins of Israel upon it, and then send the goat out into the wilderness. The first goat represented the payment of Israel's sins. The second goat represented the guilt being taken away from them. The detail that I want to explore from this ritual is when the priest symbolically transferred the sins of Israel onto the second goat. There are parallels to Christ in all of these steps and details, but that's the one I want to talk about today. Here's the verse that teaches us about this. Leviticus 16:21-22 21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: 22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. Implication one from this detail: It is important to repent of unintentional sin. It is good for us. It makes us happier. I think of when my oldest daughter finally lashes out at my son when he's being purposefully obnoxious. My son often tortures his sisters repeatedly, not hurting them or saying directly mean things, but pushing their buttons until they explode on him. My daughter will hold out as long as she can until she finally explodes in a violent reaction. The violent reaction is more jarring than the relentless teasing, but whose heart is actually sinning (Yes, I recognize that both my kids are young and one isn't even accountable yet. This is about the principle, not the specific details)? My son is the one truly trying to make his sister batty; that's his entire purpose. My daughter never set out to bug or hurt him; she simply has the emotional control of an eight year old. And yet, she still needs to repent. She doesn't need to repent because she's evil and horrible and cursed. She needs to repent because it's going to make her happier. Repenting isn't just about atoning for what you've done; it's about changing so you're protected, close to Christ, and happier. In this specific example, my long-term goal for her repentance is to get to the point where her brother doesn't affect her. She just goes on in her life, unbothered by people who are purposefully trying to make her life harder. That's part of happiness, and therefore, repenting is a gift. Obviously, I need to help my son change too, but my principle here is about repenting of unintentional sins, not intentional ones. I used an example of violence, and I specifically used an example where she made a mistake because she's flawed like the rest of us. It's easy to see how violence needs to be repented of. However, these same principles apply when we're trying to do what's right but not worshiping how the Savior would have us worship. We talked about this recently with the golden calf incident. Maybe Israel wasn't trying to worship a different deity. Perhaps they had just created an idol in hopes of worshiping the God who had just delivered them. Perhaps their hearts were trying to do what's right but were misguided. Even if their hearts were in a good place, repentance of unintentional sin is important. Heavenly Father gives commandments to help us be good people, but He also gives us commandments to protect us from becoming bad. Seems like a silly nuance but let me elaborate. Israel could have very quickly devolved into worshiping the calf rather than the Lord even if their intention had been to worship the Lord in the beginning. They needed to repent because the Lord wanted to protect them. So even if the Israelites had unintentionally sinned (and I emphasize if since we don't know precisely where their hearts were), they still needed to repent! They still needed to repent of unintentional sins so they could remain close to the Lord where they would be happy. So quick recap so we can understand where we're going: The detail we're covering is that the priest symbolically transferred the unintentional and intentional sins of Israel up on the goat that would be released into the wilderness. Implication two from this detail: We're trying to change our sinful nature, not just listing off individual sins and saying sorry. Ultimate repentance is about changing to be like God, not racking up individual points that tip the scales and put us in the Celestial Kingdom. When I write my posts, I often use AI to help me get my details straight. I don't use it to actually write my content in case anyone was wondering, but I do use it to make sure I'm understanding timelines and facts. For example, I asked it to give me a play-by-play of the ritual so I wouldn't accidentally ruin one of the details. I turned to AI as I was writing this early in the morning and asked, “Did the Israelites write down their sins and give it to the priest to transfer over to the goat?” It was only after hitting “enter,” that I realized how ridiculous that question was. I blamed the early morning and brain fog. Anyway, AI responded by saying that no one gave the priest a long list of the sins they committed over the past year. First of all, that's terribly impractical. It's impractical (and unhealthy) to keep a list of all your sins, and it's impractical to list each sin of each individual for the entire society for the entire year. Second of all, a majority of them were illiterate. Like I said, I blame the early morning for my ridiculous question, but I'm actually grateful that I asked it because it led me to a beautiful implication. Because of my question, I more consciously realized that the Israelites weren't listing individual sins. It's not about repenting of individual sins and trying to garner points that put us in the Celestial Kingdom. It's about changing our nature to goodness. The priest didn't transfer each individual sin onto the goat for it to run out into the wilderness; the priest merely acknowledged the sinful nature for the year. Perhaps this seems cheap; it's so easy to go to Heavenly Father and be like, “I sinned a lot last year. Forgive me please.” However, religious rituals are only as cheap as you make them. This ritual wasn't about reliving every mistake and rebellion. This ritual wasn't about rehashing everything you did wrong. This ritual was about recognizing that you can't make it to heaven on your own. It's about fully understanding how lost you are without Christ and rejoicing as you watch that goat be taken away. It's about wanting to change into a new creature, one who is worthy and joyful, a person who can live in heaven and contribute to the atmosphere there and appreciate the atmosphere there. I testify that the Lord was sacrificed for our sins. I testify that He gave us an opportunity to remember that each week with the sacrament. Like with Yom Kippur, we have an opportunity to repent of unintentional and intentional sins so that we can be happier. We have an opportunity to sit with our reality as mortals who live in a fallen world who rely wholly on the merits of Christ and to rejoice that He is willing to carry us. Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR's 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award. The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Exodus 35–40; Leviticus 1; 4; 16; 19 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

Joe Pisapia, Derek Brown, and Scott Bogman go LIVE to break down what every top pick actually means for these franchises going forward. No hot takes for the sake of it — real football, real implications! Timestamps: (May be off due to ads) Intro - 0:00:00 NFL Draft Headlines - 0:01:54 Fernando Mendoza - 0:01:58 Ty Simpson - 0:05:47 Jeremiyah Love - 0:13:52 Jordyn Tyson and Carnell Tate - 0:17:14 Pristine Auction Giveaway - 0:21:04 Makai Lemon - 0:22:47 Omar Cooper Jr. and Kenyon Sadiq - 0:28:45 Denzel Boston - 0:31:30 Mike Washington Jr. - 0:35:34 Hard Rock Bet - 0:37:54 Draft Winners & Losers - 0:39:00 Favorite Draft Moments - 0:52:37 Outro - 0:55:33See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Adam Levitan, Evan Silva and John Daigle provide their reaction and expert fantasy analysis on the fantasy football fallout from night one of the 2026 NFL Draft. They discuss which landing spots they like, which picks they disliked and preview night two for the best bets left on the board.Want ETR on your team this season? Our 2026 NFL Best Ball product has you covered with:Real-Time RankingsResearch & Analysis ArticlesDraft Strategy ContentDraft LivestreamsDiscord CommunityQ&As with ETR TeamSubscribe now at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://establishtherun.com/subscribe/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠DraftKings: Your Home for Early Bird Best Ball DraftKings Early Bird Best Ball keeps the NFL action going all year long. You draft once, and you're set — no waiver wires, no lineup changes, no weekly grind. DraftKings automatically plays your best lineup every week. DraftKings is your home for Early Bird Best Ball, with $1 million in prizes on the line to make it even better.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign Up Now⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://dkng.co/ETRBestBall⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. New York: call 877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY. Connecticut: call 888-789-7777 or visit CCPG.org. 18+ in most states. Restrictions apply. Terms: draftkings.com. Sponsored by DraftKings.FREE NEWSLETTER: Tired of attention-seeking hot takes? Get the highest-quality fantasy football analysis in your inbox, FREE: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://establishtherun.kit.com/email ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠DFS OPTIMIZER: Sign up for THE SOLVER for access to the software we think fantasy players need to win: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://thesolver.com/?ref=etr⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SPORTSBOOK OFFERS: We've partnered with several major sportsbook outlets to help supply you with the best offers in the industry and ensure you're maximizing your bankroll from the start: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://establishtherun.com/offers/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠FOLLOW US: Check out our social media channels for FREE fantasy football & DFS videos, analysis, and more: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://linktr.ee/establishtherun⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠