Podcasts about Indirect

Happy Valentine's Day Weekend! Need to Outperform Your Competitors in 2026? Favour Obasi-ike, MBA, MS delivers an insightful masterclass on outperforming your competition through applied and actionable SEO marketing tactics. The discussion covers the critical distinction between direct and indirect competitors, strategic approaches to competitive analysis using tools like SimilarWeb.com and SparkToro.com, and the importance of focusing on long-term performance over short-term rankings.Favour emphasizes the value of understanding customer intent, the difference between pre-purchase and post-purchase behavior, and how to leverage both Google search and social media platforms like Instagram for comprehensive market visibility. The session includes live Q&A with participants discussing real-world challenges in SEO strategy, website validation, and go-to-market approaches for startups in niche markets.Book SEO Services | Quick Links for Social Business>> ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Book SEO Services with Favour Obasi-ike⁠>> Visit Work and PLAY Entertainment website to learn about our digital marketing services>> ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Join our exclusive SEO Marketing community⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠>> Read SEO Articles>> ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe to the We Don't PLAY Podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠>> Purchase Flaev Beatz Beats Online>> Favour Obasi-ike Quick LinksDetailed TimestampsIntroduction & Topic Overview00:00 - 02:02 - Opening: Outperform competitors with applied search everywhere optimization (SEO marketing tactics)02:02 - 03:10 - Understanding your competitors: National, international, local, and regional competitionDirect vs. Indirect Competitors03:10 - 04:46 - Defining direct and indirect competitors in your market04:46 - 06:17 - Market share dynamics and competitive positioningPractical Example: Flower Business Case Study06:17 - 09:13 - Using a Valentine's flower business as a practical example09:13 - 11:47 - Time-based pricing strategies and customer behavior patterns11:47 - 14:22 - Applying competitive insights to pricing and positioningSEO Strategy & Competitive Analysis14:22 - 17:35 - Understanding competitor strengths and weaknesses17:35 - 20:48 - Using competitive intelligence for content strategy20:48 - 23:19 - Keyword research and search intent analysisTools & Resources for Competitive Research23:19 - 25:42 - Introduction to SimilarWeb, SocialBlade, and SparkToro25:42 - 27:58 - Cost-effective alternatives for competitive analysis27:58 - 30:16 - Building long-term visibility through strategic toolsLive Q&A Session Begins•30:16 - 31:02 - Mohsen introduces himself: Software engineer starting a startup in the tattoo field31:02 - 32:34 - Question: How to approach SEO when there's no competition in your field?Google vs. Instagram Strategy Discussion32:34 - 35:05 - Why Google is the most unsaturated platform for search-based marketing35:05 - 37:15 - Instagram as a feed-based platform vs. Google as intent-based search37:15 - 40:30 - Pre-purchase vs. post-purchase intent: Amazon vs. YouTube analogyWebsite Validation & Trust Building40:30 - 43:12 - The importance of having a website for business credibility43:12 - 45:38 - Off-page SEO: Connecting Instagram to your website45:38 - 48:05 - Building relationship models across platformsAdvanced SEO Tactics48:05 - 50:21 - Running ads effectively: Brand awareness before advertising spend50:21 - 52:47 - Understanding audience targeting and customer journey mapping52:47 - 54:26 - Closing remarks and how to stay connected on ClubhouseFrequently Asked Questions (FAQs)1. What is the difference between direct and indirect competitors?Direct competitors are businesses that offer the same products or services within your niche or market. They target the same customer base and operate in similar ways. For example, if you sell red roses, other florists selling red roses are your direct competitors.Indirect competitors are businesses that offer different products or services but satisfy the same customer need or compete for the same market share. Using the flower example, supermarkets and farmer's markets selling flowers would be indirect competitors to a specialized florist.2. How do I find out who my competitors are?Favour recommends using several competitive analysis tools:SimilarWeb: For website traffic and audience insightsSocialBlade: For social media analytics and competitor trackingSparkToro: For audience intelligence and content discoveryYou can also identify competitors by searching for your target keywords on Google and seeing which businesses rank for those terms. Consider both national, international, local, and regional competitors depending on your market scope.3. Should I focus on Google or Instagram for my business?According to Favour, Google is the most unsaturated platform because it's based on search intent—people actively looking for specific solutions. Instagram is a feed-based platform better suited for brand awareness and showcasing visual results (before/after transformations, product demonstrations).Best approach: Use both strategically. Google captures pre-purchase intent (people researching solutions), while Instagram provides post-purchase validation and builds brand awareness. Having a website connected to your Instagram profile adds credibility and improves your off-page SEO.4. What's more important: ranking or performance?Favour emphasizes that performance is more important than ranking. Rankings fluctuate constantly (like stock prices or gas prices), but performance focuses on long-term outcomes:How quickly can you serve customers?What value do you provide beyond just appearing in search results?Can customers find your information when they need it?Anyone can rank with AI-generated content today, but what makes your business different is the experience, speed, and value you deliver to customers.5. How do I approach SEO if I have no competition in my field?When you're in a niche market with little to no competition, Favour suggests:Reverse engineer your success: If you're getting traction on Instagram, create corresponding website content (10 Instagram posts = 10 website articles)Focus on search volume: Research if there's search demand on Google for your servicesBuild credibility: Having a website validates your business more than social media aloneCreate content ecosystems: Connect your social media to your website through embedding posts and cross-linking6. Why is having a website important if I already have Instagram?A website provides business validation and credibility. As Favour's example illustrated: if three businesses offer the same service but only one has a website, customers will trust the one with a website because it demonstrates investment in human resources, infrastructure, and long-term commitment.Additionally, a website enables off-page SEO—when your Instagram links to your website, you're building relationship models between platforms that improve your overall search visibility.7. What is pre-purchase vs. post-purchase intent?Pre-purchase intent: Customers researching before buying (e.g., reading Amazon reviews, comparing products on Google)Post-purchase intent: Customers who already bought and need guidance (e.g., watching YouTube tutorials on how to use an air fryer they purchased)Understanding this distinction helps you create appropriate content for each stage of the customer journey. Google and review sites capture pre-purchase intent, while platforms like YouTube and Instagram serve post-purchase needs.8. Should I run ads if people can't find my business organically?Favour advises: Don't run ads first if people can't find you organically. If the answer to "Will they find my business without ads?" is no, then focus on building organic visibility first through SEO and content creation.If people can already find you organically, then running ads becomes more cost-effective because you're amplifying existing brand awareness rather than starting from zero.9. What are applied SEO marketing tactics?Applied SEO refers to search everywhere optimization—not just optimizing for Google, but creating a comprehensive presence across all platforms where customers might search:Google searchInstagram searchYouTube searchSocial media platformsReview sitesLocal directoriesIt's about understanding customer behavior across multiple touchpoints and ensuring your business is discoverable wherever customers are looking.Additional Resources MentionedSimilarWeb: Competitive website analyticsSocialBlade: Social media statistics and trackingSparkToro: Audience research and insightsChatGPT: AI content generation tool (mentioned in context of ranking vs. performance)See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Security doesn't fail because you missed a tool, it fails because “secure today” tricks you into relaxing tomorrow. This episode exposes why the real fight isn't compliance… it's whether your defenses hold up once attackers hit you with machine-speed pressure. Ron sits down with Sonali Shah, CEO of Cobalt, to talk about how human-led, AI-powered penetration testing is evolving into full-spectrum offensive security. Sonali shares how Cobalt can start a test in 24 hours, push findings directly into Slack/Teams and Jira, and use learnings from 5,000+ pentests a year to continuously sharpen what gets caught. The big takeaway: automation finds the easy stuff as humans find the business-logic traps and attack chains that actually break companies. Impactful Moments 00:00 - Introduction 02:21- Sonali's unexpected CEO path 06:10 - Compliance isn't real security 10:19 - PTaaS: start in 24 hours 12:33- 5,000 pentests yearly scale 17:01 - Humans beat automation limits 20:16 - AI behavior vulnerabilities emerge 27:54 - Indirect prompt injection explained 30:51 - Why juniors + AI is risky 38:27 - 2026 becomes AI battleground Links Connect with Sonali on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sonalinshah/ Check out Cobalt: https://www.cobalt.io   ____ Check out our upcoming events: https://www.hackervalley.com/livestreams Join our creative mastermind and stand out as a cybersecurity professional: https://www.patreon.com/hackervalleystudio Love Hacker Valley Studio? Pick up some swag: https://store.hackervalley.com Continue the conversation by joining our Discord: https://hackervalley.com/discord Become a sponsor of the show to amplify your brand: https://hackervalley.com/work-with-us/    

ぶひん、ブカ、ボインゴ、okaでシーズン2の幕開けを高らかに宣言しました。 (2025/12 収録) 以下の Show Notes は簡易版です。完全版はこちら0:00 シーズン2マニフェスト04:16 近況Interaxion 50.5: My Home as a Startup家の話をした回21:20 エルデンリングELDEN RING NIGHTREIGNELDEN RINGエルデンリング ツインウエハース28:47 暗黒物質の間接探索暗黒物質がついに見えた！？ー天の川銀河のハローから高エネルギーガンマ線放射を発見ー - Press Releases - 東京大学 大学院理学系研究科・理学部20 GeV halo-like excess of the Galactic diffuse emission and implications for dark matter annihilation - IOPscienceInteraxion 51: Brightest of All Time暗黒物質間接探索の専門家が出演した回暗黒物質 - Interaxion KeywordsXMM-Newton - Wikipedia3.5_keV_line - Indirect detection of dark matter - Wikipedia43:50 Nano Banana論文を捏造しよう！～Googleの画像生成AI「Nano-Banana」を利用したグラフ編集の可能性と人間力向上～ - ぶひんブログDias さんによるロチェスター大学による調査に対する反論52:07 サイエンス・オブ・サイエンスサイエンス・オブ・サイエンスInteraxion Blog: はじめようポアニュネップリお知らせ出演して頂ける方、感想などお待ちしております。 #interaxionエンディング BGMオリエンタルで爽やかなトラック - Audiostock(オーディオストック)曲名: 林道

In this episode of Just Press Record, two very (VERY) different investors meet for the first time.Tony Greer, a short-term macro trader who lives in the rhythm of the tape, and Bogumil Baranowski, a long-term investor focused on owning great businesses for years, sit down to explore what really drives decision-making in markets and in life.What unfolds is a thoughtful and often hilarious conversation about psychology, time horizons, money, community, and the deeper motivations behind building something that lasts.Plus — they're two of my favorite podcast/YouTube hosts and I couldn't believe they'd never met before!Main topics covered:• The psychology of selling and why parting with a winning position is so difficult• Trading versus long-term investing and how time horizon shapes behavior• The difference between a perfect stock and a perfect business• Growing up in very different environments and how that shapes risk tolerance• Lessons from options trading and learning what fits your temperament• Using time as an edge in both trading and investing• Building a business around community, trust, and recurring relationships• Client alignment and the idea of managing forgotten money• The tension between idea lunches and disciplined process• Indirect success and why focusing on relationships often leads to better outcomesTimestamps:00:00 Introduction and why these two had to meet00:01 The hardest part of investing is knowing when to sell00:03 Meet Bogumil and Tony00:06 How they each found their way into markets00:14 The Microsoft story and thinking about stocks vs businesses00:18 The long-term investor's dilemma with overheated stocks00:22 Trading psychology and emotional attachment00:24 Options trading lessons and knowing your temperament00:29 Time as a weapon in markets00:33 Owning a business vs watching a stock price00:34 Building TG Macro and the power of community00:46 Blue Infinity and managing forgotten money00:56 The danger of idea lunches and forced stock picks00:59 Talking Billions and building a platform around conversationsAnd if the written word is more your thing, sign up for my mailing list and you can grow your network of ideas and people alongside me:https://cultishcreative.com/

Sermon TextJohn 15:18–16:4If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: They hated me without a cause. But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me. But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you. I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you.Cross-referencesJohn 7:7The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil.2 Timothy 3:12Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,Matthew 5:11-12Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.Sermon NotesWho Does the World Hate?Jesus: The world hates Him because He testifies that its works are evil.Christians: Because we are chosen out of the world and follow a Master who was also persecuted.If you are not hated by the world, why?Conformity to the WorldFear of ManResidual Cultural ChristianityNot yet KnownHow does hatred from the world manifest?Direct (persecution/violence)Indirect (marginalization/social pressure)How should Christians respond to the hatred of the world?Keep Talking about Jesus (bearing witness through the Holy Spirit).Don't Fall Away (remembering that Jesus warned us these things would happen).

Indirect talks between Iran and the U.S. have concluded in Oman without an agreement on Tehran's nuclear program.

Indirect talks between the US and Iran took place in Oman as the US seeks to curb Iran's nuclear and missile programmes. The talks were mainly procedural: was anything achieved? We hear from Iran nuclear expert Professor Sina Azodi, Director of the Middle East Studies Program at George Washington University. Also in the programme: a deadly suicide attack on a Shia mosque in the Pakistani capital Islamabad; the EU orders TikTok to redesign its 'addictive' features; and the opening of the 25th Winter Olympics in northern Italy.(Photo: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi visits Oman ahead of Iran-US talks. Credit: OMANI MINISTRY OF INFORMATION/HANDOUT/EPA/Shutterstock)

Comprehensive coverage of the day's news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice. CIA map of Iran US, Iran hold indirect negotiations, with US Admiral attending, as US aircraft carrier patrols Iran coast; Congressmember Lateefah Simon of SF urges dismantling ICE, shutting “police for president of the United States”; January 6th rioter pardoned by Trump pleads guilty over threats to kill House Dem leader Jeffries; Organizers of Gaza aid flotilla say march mission will be biggest civilian-led mobilization against Israel's actions; UN human rights chief blasts Israeli violence against Palestinians in Occupied West Bank; Audience at Winter Olympics in Milan cheer Ukrainian, US athletes, boo Israeli delegation and Vice President Vance   The post US, Iran hold indirect negotiations, as US aircraft carrier patrols Iran coast; Congressmember Lateefah Simon of SF urges dismantling ICE, calls it “police for president of the United States” – February 6, 2026 appeared first on KPFA.

AP correspondent Laurence Brooks reports on indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran in Oman.

In this episode of the All Things Sustainable podcast, we're talking to Vijay Bains, Chief Sustainability Officer and Group Head of Environmental, Social and Governance at Dubai-based Emirates NBD, one of the largest banks in the Middle East.    Vijay says the region and its banking sector are "doubling down on sustainability as a growth driver." He explains the growing focus on water in particular, and how this will influence sustainable finance trends.   "We're going to see a lot more blue finance," Vijay tells us. "It's a really material topic due to the water stress within the region."   In the face of climate change, the bank is also financing adaptation projects. "Adaptation for us is now hitting the mainstream," Vijay says.   This interview is the latest installment in our CSO Insights podcast series, where we interview Chief Sustainability Officers around the world about how they're navigating the changing sustainability landscape. Listen to other episodes in the series here.  Listen to our previous interview with Vijay here: Talking climate finance ahead of COP29 | S&P Global  Read research from S&P Global Sustainable1:  For the world's largest companies, climate physical risks have a $1.2 trillion annual price tag by the 2050s | S&P Global  Copyright ©2026 by S&P Global  DISCLAIMER       By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk.         Any unauthorized use, facilitation or encouragement of a third party's unauthorized use (including without limitation copy, distribution, transmission or modification, use as part of generative artificial intelligence or for training any artificial intelligence models) of this Podcast or any related information is not permitted without S&P Global's prior consent subject to appropriate licensing and shall be deemed an infringement, violation, breach or contravention of the rights of S&P Global or any applicable third-party (including any copyright, trademark, patent, rights of privacy or publicity or any other proprietary rights).    This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties.       S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST.

Timestamps0:28 - Cooper's background2:28 - Exercise technique to maximize hypertrophy and get the most out of your training program6:18 - Realistic rates of progression in a hypertrophy program9:33 - Why insufficient training volume is usually not the bottleneck for progression for most lifters and what lifters should address instead to overcome training/physique plateaus 20:07 - Range of motion for hypertrophy training - how to maximize tension on the muscle while minimizing connective tissue stress28:06 - 2 vs 3x per week frequency programming differences & how to find your ideal training frequency per muscle group36:26 - Post activation potentiation for hypertrophy training45:45 - Indirect work for arms, how training advancement impacts the validity of factoring indirect work with arm volume, and how much direct arm work Cooper recommends per weekHire Cooper/Cooper's Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/cooperlogann/Apply For Coaching - https://adampeeler1.typeform.com/to/elvzT31WGet My FREE Programs - https://linktr.ee/adamdpeelerMy Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/adamdpeeler/Macrofactor Diet Tracking App (Use code PEELER for a 2-Week FREE Trial!) - https://macrofactorapp.com/macrofactor/Leviathan Nutrition (Code: ADAM10) - https://leviathan-nutrition.com/Built Bar (code PEELER for 10% off) - https://builtbar.com/

In this episode of the All Things Sustainable podcast, we explore the geopolitical and macroeconomic issues impacting sustainability, energy and climate strategies in 2026.   We speak to Carlos Pascual, Senior Vice President and Head of Geopolitics and International Affairs at S&P Global Energy and a former US Ambassador to Mexico and Ukraine.  Carlos describes a fragmented geopolitical landscape marked by significant uncertainty about the direction of global climate policy, action and finance — leaving progress largely in the hands of the private sector.  "We have huge changes ahead and look for the private sector to have to play a much more central role in the overall momentum on clean technology and investments in renewable energy," Carlos says.  We speak to S&P Global Ratings Global Chief Economist Paul Gruenwald to understand the macroeconomic factors influencing sustainability. Paul says AI is the dominant story for 2026.   "We're seeing great numbers out of data center and AI-related investment, but almost everything else is flat," Paul tells us.  To understand the outlook for climate change and the growing importance of adaptation alongside mitigation efforts, we speak to Dr. Terence Thompson, Chief Science Officer at the S&P Global Climate Center of Excellence. He explains how advances in climate science are helping to better understand the probability of climate hazards.   "Getting at that probability is really key to making those kinds of very practical decisions about how do we allocate limited resources to cope with climate change and adapt to it," Terence says.   And to understand the outlook for the energy transition, we speak to Roman Kramarchuk, Head of Integrated Narratives and Policy Analytics at S&P Global Energy. Roman explains how the world is balancing growing energy demands with sustainability priorities in an increasingly fractured global landscape.  "There's a big regional story here, and this is a regional story that plays out both in the technology, in the supply chains, and in the geopolitical side," Roman says.  Read S&P Global's Top 10 Sustainability Trends to Watch in 2026 | S&P Global Read The Copper Conundrum: Why Meeting AI-Era Electrification Demands Is a Race Against Time Listen to a replay of the Jan. 29 webinar: Sustainability Nexus: S&P Global's Top 10 Sustainability Trends to Watch in 2026 This piece was published by S&P Global Sustainable1 and not by S&P Global Ratings, which is a separately managed division of S&P Global.  Copyright ©2026 by S&P Global  DISCLAIMER       By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk.         Any unauthorized use, facilitation or encouragement of a third party's unauthorized use (including without limitation copy, distribution, transmission or modification, use as part of generative artificial intelligence or for training any artificial intelligence models) of this Podcast or any related information is not permitted without S&P Global's prior consent subject to appropriate licensing and shall be deemed an infringement, violation, breach or contravention of the rights of S&P Global or any applicable third-party (including any copyright, trademark, patent, rights of privacy or publicity or any other proprietary rights).    This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties.       S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST. 

What is an indirect direct approach? In this episode, we talk about one of the most common ways an ex will reach out and "break the ice" after a breakup. Check us out on YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Coach Craig Kenneth⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Get Craig's help personally: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.askcraig.net/take-action/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Get Victoria's help: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.askcraig.net/victoria⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Craig's workbook series: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.askcraig.net/workbooks-1/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Get Started on the Creative Healing Course: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://courses.askcraig.net/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, has written a new essay on his thoughts on AI risk of various shapes. It seems worth reading, even if just for understanding what Anthropic is likely to do in the future. Confronting and Overcoming the Risks of Powerful AI There is a scene in the movie version of Carl Sagan's book Contact where the main character, an astronomer who has detected the first radio signal from an alien civilization, is being considered for the role of humanity's representative to meet the aliens. The international panel interviewing her asks, “If you could ask [the aliens] just one question, what would it be?” Her reply is: “I'd ask them, ‘How did you do it? How did you evolve, how did you survive this technological adolescence without destroying yourself?” When I think about where humanity is now with AI—about what we're on the cusp of—my mind keeps going back to that scene, because the question is so apt for our current situation, and I wish we had the aliens' answer to guide us. I believe we are entering a rite of passage, both turbulent and inevitable, which will test who we are as a species. Humanity [...] ---Outline:(00:24) Confronting and Overcoming the Risks of Powerful AI(15:19) 1. I'm sorry, Dave(15:23) Autonomy risks(28:53) Defenses(41:17) 2. A surprising and terrible empowerment(41:22) Misuse for destruction(54:50) Defenses(01:00:25) 3. The odious apparatus(01:00:30) Misuse for seizing power(01:13:08) Defenses(01:19:48) 4. Player piano(01:19:51) Economic disruption(01:21:18) Labor market disruption(01:33:43) Defenses(01:37:43) Economic concentration of power(01:40:49) Defenses(01:43:13) 5. Black seas of infinity(01:43:17) Indirect effects(01:47:29) Humanity's test(01:53:58) Footnotes The original text contained 92 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: January 26th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kzPQohJakutbtFPcf/dario-amodei-the-adolescence-of-technology --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

In this episode (in the absence of Harriet) Grahame discusses indirect taxation with Stephen Hodgson of the UK's Betting and Gaming Council.They talk through what an indirect tax is, discuss VAT, how it works and why it is so popular globally. They touch on the US interaction with and misconceptions about VAT and whether VAT can be used as a digital service tax by the back door.

Audio note: this article contains 73 uses of latex notation, so the narration may be difficult to follow. There's a link to the original text in the episode description. Epistemic status: This post is a synthesis of ideas that are, in my experience, widespread among researchers at frontier labs and in mechanistic interpretability, but rarely written down comprehensively in one place - different communities tend to know different pieces of evidence. The core hypothesis - that deep learning is performing something like tractable program synthesis - is not original to me (even to me, the ideas are ~3 years old), and I suspect it has been arrived at independently many times. (See the appendix on related work). This is also far from finished research - more a snapshot of a hypothesis that seems increasingly hard to avoid, and a case for why formalization is worth pursuing. I discuss the key barriers and how tools like singular learning theory might address them towards the end of the post. Thanks to Dan Murfet, Jesse Hoogland, Max Hennick, and Rumi Salazar for feedback on this post. Sam Altman: Why does unsupervised learning work? Dan Selsam: Compression. So, the ideal intelligence [...] ---Outline:(02:31) Background(09:06) Looking inside(09:09) Grokking(16:04) Vision circuits(22:37) The hypothesis(26:04) Why this isnt enough(27:22) Indirect evidence(32:44) The paradox of approximation(38:34) The paradox of generalization(45:44) The paradox of convergence(51:46) The path forward(53:20) The representation problem(58:38) The search problem(01:07:20) Appendix(01:07:23) Related work The original text contained 14 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: January 20th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Dw8mskAvBX37MxvXo/deep-learning-as-program-synthesis-1 --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:

In this episode of All Things Sustainable, we're exploring the role that private markets play in global supply chains.   We speak to Alex Friedman, Co-Founder and CEO of Novata, a sustainability data management platform for the private markets that partners with S&P Global.   In the interview, Alex explains the significance of small and medium-sized private companies in global supply chains — and why high-quality private markets data is important for understanding supply chain risks.  "Big public companies have been the ones that have been in the focus when it comes to sustainability," Alex says. "Yet a big public company can't figure out its overall sustainability footprint and how to improve things if they can't get their arms around their supply chain."  We also explore how private markets will evolve in 2026 in the face of advances in AI technology and a fragmented regulatory landscape.   "It's a multispeed story at the regulatory level," Alex says. "But big companies ... they work in so many jurisdictions that they have to collect information when it comes to sustainability. They have to make sense of it and you have to report on it. So that's not changing."  S&P Global is part of the consortium of organizations that supported Novata upon its launch in 2021.  Read S&P Global's Top 10 Sustainability Trends to Watch in 2026  Register for an S&P Global webinar about sustainability trends to watch on Jan. 29: Sustainability Nexus: S&P Global's Top 10 Sustainability Trends to Watch in 2026   Copyright ©2026 by S&P Global  DISCLAIMER       By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk.         Any unauthorized use, facilitation or encouragement of a third party's unauthorized use (including without limitation copy, distribution, transmission or modification, use as part of generative artificial intelligence or for training any artificial intelligence models) of this Podcast or any related information is not permitted without S&P Global's prior consent subject to appropriate licensing and shall be deemed an infringement, violation, breach or contravention of the rights of S&P Global or any applicable third-party (including any copyright, trademark, patent, rights of privacy or publicity or any other proprietary rights).    This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties.       S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST.

The direct ones are, well, direct. They are easy to see. Who wouldn't be offended?  Indirect triggers are trickier. If I know the other person well, I may have a good guess at their indirect triggers. I can try not to create problems. I can consider those indirect triggers when I speak or don't – or act or don't.If I don't know the other person well, and I inadvertently hit an indirect trigger, I may know immediately, or not so soon. I could just assume that the other person is overreacting for no reason. That assumption doesn't help either of us.  Instead, we can take a breath, consider the possibility that I have unintentionally hit a nerve and give a little grace. Better for both of us.  Do you have comments or suggestions about a topic or guest? An idea or question about conflict management or conflict resolution? Let me know at jb@dovetailresolutions.com! And you can learn more about me and my work as a mediator and a Certified CINERGY® Conflict Coach at www.dovetailresolutions.com and https://www.linkedin.com/in/janebeddall/.Enjoy the show for free on your favorite podcast app or on the podcast website: https://craftingsolutionstoconflict.com/  

In this week's episode of the All Things Sustainable podcast, we bring you coverage of S&P Global Energy's Global Carbon Markets Conference, which took place in Barcelona, Spain in December 2025.   Nature was a major theme at the event, and topics of discussion included how carbon markets can be a driver of investment in nature and how new data tools can encourage investment in nature-related carbon projects.   In this episode, we sit down on the sidelines of the conference with Cain Blythe, Founder and CEO of CreditNature, a company working to make nature restoration investable.   "We've realized that what we used to do isn't fit for finance," Cain says. "So we developed a system that allows us to collect data in a standardized way ... that can be applied across multiple geographies and that can be cost effective at scale."  We also talk with Douglas Eger, Chairman and CEO of Intrinsic Exchange Group, who explains a model his company created for nature-based investments called a natural asset company (NAC). Capital invested in a NAC finances conservation, restoration, natural infrastructure and nature-based solutions.  "We think that engaging the private markets in an instrument that can scale, that gives the potential for a market rate of return, is what's missing from the market," Doulgas tells us.Listen to our previous coverage of S&P Global Energy's Global Carbon Markets Conference: How trade mechanisms, AI and innovation will influence global carbon markets in 2026  Read S&P Global's Top 10 Sustainability Trends to Watch in 2026   Read nature research from S&P Global Sustainable1: Companies around the world face risks from their reliance on nature | S&P Global  Copyright ©2026 by S&P Global       DISCLAIMER        By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk.        Any unauthorized use, facilitation or encouragement of a third party's unauthorized use (including without limitation copy, distribution, transmission or modification, use as part of generative artificial intelligence or for training any artificial intelligence models) of this Podcast or any related information is not permitted without S&P Global's prior consent subject to appropriate licensing and shall be deemed an infringement, violation, breach or contravention of the rights of S&P Global or any applicable third-party (including any copyright, trademark, patent, rights of privacy or publicity or any other proprietary rights).   This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties.      S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST. 

What if being direct isn't the same as being clear? Shane challenges a core assumption in leadership advice: that directness equals clarity. Drawing on Edward Hall's work on high and low context cultures and a recent conversation with Eunice Okpotu about psychological safety, Shane introduces a quadrant framework that separates directness from clarity. He's seen UK heads who are incredibly direct yet leave staff confused, and Chinese leaders who never directly confront anyone yet maintain crystal-clear standards across their schools. You'll learn the four quadrants of communication (direct and clear, direct and unclear, indirect and unclear, and indirect and clear), when to use each approach, and why indirect clarity is an overlooked leadership tool. Shane explains why indirect communication can preserve face whilst maintaining standards, when directness is essential (performance issues, safety concerns, legal requirements), and how the most effective leaders are fluent in both modes. If you've ever been frustrated by indirect communication or wondered why your direct feedback isn't landing, this framework will change how you think about leadership communication. Resources & Links Mentioned:Edward Hall's work on high and low context cultures Episode PartnersInternational Curriculum AssociationTeaching WalkthrusJoin Shane's Intensive Leadership Programme at educationleaders.co/intensiveShane Leaning, an organisational coach based in Shanghai, supports school leaders globally. Passionate about empowment, he is the author of the best-selling 'Change Starts Here.' Shane is a leading educational voice in the UK, Asia and around the world.You can find Shane on LinkedIn and Bluesky. or shaneleaning.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We kick off the 8th season of the All Things Sustainable podcast by diving into the outlook for carbon markets.  For the first episode of the new season we sit down with several guests on the sidelines of the S&P Global Energy Global Carbon Markets Conference, which took place in Barcelona in December 2025.   We hear how the latest regulatory developments are expected to boost demand in 2026. We learn about the impact of innovation and AI on the market's development. And we hear how carbon markets can act as a tool for companies in developing their decarbonization strategies.   We speak to:   Mandy Rambharos, the CEO of Verra, the world's largest issuer of carbon credits and a standard setter for voluntary credits. She explains how key rules and guidelines for international carbon trading under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement on climate change are affecting the market;   Euan McDougall, the CEO of DelAgua, a Rwanda-based developer of carbon projects. He discusses other frameworks overseeing the issuance of carbon credits, including CORSIA, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation;    Tomas Thyblad, Vice President of Carbon and Sustainability Solutions at Nasdaq. He tells us how he expects innovation and AI to impact carbon markets;  Juan Carlos Gómez, Principal Manager at ACCIONA Carbon Technologies, a division of Spanish infrastructure firm ACCIONA. He explains the role carbon markets play in ACCIONA's decarbonization strategy;   Olivia Albrecht, CEO of carbon investment management firm Artemeter, which worked with football club FC Barcelona on a project using carbon offsets to reduce emissions related to a stadium rebuild;   And Ingo Ramming, Head of Carbon Markets at Spanish bank BBVA. He explains how the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) will impact carbon markets after becoming fully applicable Jan. 1.   Listen to our previous coverage on carbon markets:   What to expect from carbon markets in 2025  After COP29, what's next for carbon markets  Exploring the role of carbon markets in reaching climate targets  What's next for voluntary carbon markets   Copyright ©2026 by S&P Global      DISCLAIMER       By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk.      Any unauthorized use, facilitation or encouragement of a third party's unauthorized use (including without limitation copy, distribution, transmission or modification, use as part of generative artificial intelligence or for training any artificial intelligence models) of this Podcast or any related information is not permitted without S&P Global's prior consent subject to appropriate licensing and shall be deemed an infringement, violation, breach or contravention of the rights of S&P Global or any applicable third-party (including any copyright, trademark, patent, rights of privacy or publicity or any other proprietary rights).     This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties.   S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST.

Reagan Badger, Susan L Fink, Kathleen Hutchinson, Mark H Wener, Chihiro Morishima, Rebecca S Treger. Concurrent Anti-PR3 Immunoassay and cANCA Indirect Immunofluorescence Testing Provide Complementary Information for Clinical Laboratory Detection of Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies. The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine, Volume 11, Issue 1, January 2026, Pages 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfaf168

In this episode Brian Odian discusses indirect prompt injections, a topic that has become a big deal in the world of AI security.

Looking at a weird GDP data point. Calling BS on Russia/Ukraine peace talks. Gold and Silver – WOW! Closing out the year – a good one too! PLUS we are now on Spotify and Amazon Music/Podcasts! Click HERE for Show Notes and Links DHUnplugged is now streaming live - with listener chat. Click on link on the right sidebar. Love the Show? Then how about a Donation? Follow John C. Dvorak on Twitter Follow Andrew Horowitz on Twitter Warm-Up - CTP Cup - All systems go! 9 participants! - Lots to be excited about and anxious too - Looking at a weird GDP data point - Calling BS on Russia/Ukraine peace talks Markets - Gold and Silver - WOW! - Closing out the year - a good one too! - Buyers are still hot to buy any dip - "Diet" pills coming Bitters Making Progress  - Chocolate -Dark Cherry -Infusions - https://highdesertbotanicals.com NYE Celebration - Cities across America ring in the new year by dropping unexpected objects: - Amelia Island, FL drops a giant shrimp. - Nashville drops a 400lb musical note with 28,140 LEDs. - Boise, ID, drops a glowing potato. - Key West, FL, drops an eight-foot ruby-red heel—complete with a drag queen inside! - In Spain, revelers gulp down 12 grapes—one for each midnight chime—to bring luck for each month - Denmark - Danes toss old dishes at friends' doors—large piles of broken crockery at dawn are seen as tokens of good luck. What a year! - So many themes in 12 months - AI, Tariffs, War and Trade War, Fat drugs, Deglobalization - Data centers, semiconductors, and supporting infrastructure like power and cooling systems. - Approx: DJIA +13.5%, SP500 +17%, NASDA +21%, BTCUSD -7.6%, Gold +64%, SLV +145%, $DXY -9.5%, EEM +30% - 2026 - Opportunities and Auld Lang Xiety (Tech still looks frothy in certain names) Top New Year's Resolutions - Exercise More - Eat Healthier - Save More Money/Get Out of Debt - Be Happy/Improve Mental Health - Lose Weight - Spend More Time with Family & Friends - Learn a New Skill/Hobby - Get Organized Active Management (Funds) - Same report annually - A small group of tech super stocks accounted for an outsize share of returns in 2025, extending a pattern in place for the better part of a decade. - Around $1 trillion was pulled from active equity mutual funds over the year, marking an 11th year of net outflows, while passive equity exchange-traded funds got more than $600 billion. - The concentration of gains in a few stocks made it harder for active managers to do well, with 73% of equity mutual funds trailing their benchmarks this year, the fourth most in data going back to 2007. - BUT, there are some areas that it makes sense for active management ---- Equity vs Fixed income and reasoning --- Efficient markets, boots on the ground Fat Pill - The FDA has approved the first-ever GLP-1 pill from Wegovy maker Novo Nordisk. - Novo Nordisk said the starting dose of 1.5 milligrams will be available in early January in pharmacies and via select telehealth providers with savings offers for $149 per month. - The approval gives Novo Nordisk a head start over chief rival Eli Lilly, which is racing to launch its own obesity pill. - Packaged food makers and fast-food restaurants may be forced to overhaul more of their products next year as newly approved, appetite-suppressing GLP-1 pills become available in January PowerBall - A ticket sold in Arkansas scored a $1.8 billion Powerball jackpot after Wednesday night's draw — one of the richest lottery prizes in U.S. history, landing just in time for Christmas. - The payout soared after last Monday's drawing produced no winners, with last-minute ticket sales pushing the jackpot to $1.817 billion. That makes it the second-largest U.S. lottery prize ever and the biggest Powerball of 2025, the lottery website said on Thursday. - The winning numbers — 4, 25, 31, 52, 59 and the Powerball 19 - Odds: one in 292.2 million. Silver - Amazing year! - Sunday night futures - >$83 then turned hard lower| - Down 7% on Monday - Range $83 - $71 (15%) for the day - Some rumors about a bank collapse due to wrong way position on Silver - forced liquidation and covering.... ----- Hard to believe that a bank was short that much silver - but..... SoKo Breach - South Korean online retail giant Coupang said it will offer 1.69 trillion South Korean won ($1.17 billion) in compensation to 34 million users affected by a massive data breach disclosed last month. - That is about 4% of Coupang's annual revenue - but a big chunk of their profit - $34 per user NVDA Deal - Nvidia has yet to issue a public announcement or disclosure regarding its $20 billion Groq deal that CNBC was first to cover on Wednesday. - Groq described the deal as a “non-exclusive licensing agreement,” a tool that's been used by tech giants of late in part to avoid regulatory scrutiny. - Analyst: “Antitrust would seem to be the primary risk here, though structuring the deal as a non-exclusive license may keep the fiction of competition alive,” Bernstein's Stacy Rasgon wrote in a report. - Groq will remain an independent company (?) GDP Consumption - Something is a bit off.... - With the marketplace costs increasing, this may be more than a one-off expenditure Q3 GDP Surge Russia/Ukraine - Less that an hour after the White House claimed great movement toward peace - Russian President Putin told President Trump that Russia will revise its negotiating position, raising questions over prospects for peace deal - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says Ukraine tried to attack Russian President Putin's residence - Does anyone even listen to the crap coming out of the White House anymore? - Did you hear Lutnick trying to explain the 600% reduction in costs for pharmaceuticals? Math wizards! - - For 2026, my wish is that they continue to work on the job at hand and just shut up Just for fun - Who is biggest drinker of spirits? - While there's no single official "heaviest drinker," legendary wrestler Andre the Giant is widely cited as having unmatched capacity, famously downing 119 beers in one sitting (or even up to 156 in other accounts) Oil - Crude oil futures down about 9.5% YTD - Much of the drop due to pick up in production (supply/demand) - Still a floor with as Russia, Nigeria, Venezuela etc - What will it take to move up? Best Auto Stock for 2025? - GM! Better than ford, Tesla and others (up 55%) - best year from coming out of bankruptcy in 2009 - Ford up 35% - Mary Barra, CEO selling into the strength - $73 M sold this year (Position down 73% from what she held last year) - - - Barra has contended for years that stock undervalued. With all of these say what does that say now? --- Would she ever say shares are overvalued? More fun stats - A peer?reviewed 2025 study estimates AI data centers (including indirect usage from electricity generation) consumed 312–765 billion liters of water annually. That's more than all bottled water consumed worldwide each year - Direct (on-site) water is used for cooling servers via systems like cooling towers or liquid loops. Indirect (off-site) water stems from electricity generation—particularly from thermal and nuclear plants, which require significant cooling resources - ??? Estimates suggest a single standard AI prompt (about 100 words) is linked to around 1.5 liters of water—accounting for the entire chain of consumption. (This is total usage from cooling powr consumption, electricity generation) - Global AI workloads consumed 50–60 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2025—roughly the annual electricity use of a medium-sized country like Switzerland. - By 2030, AI-related electricity demand could reach 300–500 TWh annually, according to energy analysts—comparable to the entire electricity consumption of countries like France. Over to Iran - President Trump tells reporters that if Iran is building up its nuclear program, the U.S. will have to "knock them down" again --- Wait - I thought we destroyed all of their nuke aspirations??? - - - AND - Iran's currency hit a record low, triggering wave of protests, according to Bloomberg Fed News - Top Fed Chair Candidate Odds Narrow Again, With Hassett at 43% and Warsh at 35% - President Trump still angry at Powell 0threating to sue for incompetence Odd - Tesla Inc. published a series of sales estimates indicating the outlook for its vehicle deliveries may be lower than many investors were expecting. - The carmaker posted estimates showing analysts on average expect the company to deliver 422,850 cars in the fourth quarter, down 15% from a year earlier. - Tesla is on course for its second consecutive drop in annual vehicle sales, with the company compiling an average estimate for 1.6 million deliveries, down more than 8% from a year earlier. - These are estimates published by analysts - Tesla put on its own site - WHY? End of Year Stat - The U.S. national debt is climbing at a rapid pace and has shown no signs of slowing down despite the growing criticism of massive levels of government spending. - The national debt, which measures what the U.S. owes its creditors, rose to $38,386,384,190,622.68 as of Dec. 30, according to the latest numbers published by the Treasury Department. - That is an increase of about $5.8 billion daily - ~$18 per person in the US per day increase ($7,300) - or about the monthly price of leasing a small Mercedes - Each person in US owes approx $128,000 Love the Show? Then how about a Donation? THE CLOSEST TO THE PIN 2025 Winners will be getting great stuff like the new "OFFICIAL" DHUnplugged Shirt! CTP CUP 2025 Participants: Jim Beaver Mike Kazmierczak Joe Metzger Ken Degel David Martin Dean Wormell Neil Larion Mary Lou Schwarzer Eric Harvey (2024 Winner) FED AND CRYPTO LIMERICKS See this week's stock picks HERE Follow John C. Dvorak on Twitter Follow Andrew Horowitz on Twitter

As we prepare to ring in the New Year, holiday meals are on our minds and on many of our listeners' tables. In this episode of the All Things Sustainable podcast, we're exploring how some companies are working to make food systems more sustainable.  We talk with Ethan Soloviev, Chief Innovation Officer at HowGood, a research and data company focused on food sustainability. He explains the benefits of sustainable farming practices, also known as regenerative agriculture.  Kristina Friedman, Head of Sustainability for North America at Unilever, tells us how the consumer goods giant uses regenerative agriculture practices to support farmers and improve supply chain stability.   And we talk with Paloma Lopez, Chief Sustainability and Communications Officer and Head of Impact, Trust and Ethics at Bel U.S., which is part of food producer Bel Group. Paloma outlines how transitioning to regenerative agriculture is key to the company's decarbonization plan, its efforts to preserve biodiversity and the resiliency of its supply chain.  Listen to our prior episode featuring Kristina Friedman of Unilever here.  Learn about S&P Global's Agriculture Sustainability Service  We conducted these interviews during Climate Week NYC at The Nest Climate Campus, where the All Things Sustainable podcast was an official media partner.  Copyright ©2025 by S&P Global        DISCLAIMER       By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk.    Any unauthorized use, facilitation or encouragement of a third party's unauthorized use (including without limitation copy, distribution, transmission or modification, use as part of generative artificial intelligence or for training any artificial intelligence models) of this Podcast or any related information is not permitted without S&P Global's prior consent subject to appropriate licensing and shall be deemed an infringement, violation, breach or contravention of the rights of S&P Global or any applicable third-party (including any copyright, trademark, patent, rights of privacy or publicity or any other proprietary rights).     This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement.  The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties.   S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST.

Join guest Joshua Moore (Alternative Behavioral Therapy), Dr. Mari Swingle (author of i-Minds), Anthony Ramos, and host Pete Jansons as they dive into practical neurofeedback training, building thriving clinics, alpha wave insights, and potential field changes from policy shifts.✅ Topic 1 Explained: Neurofeedback Technician Training & Clinic BuildingJoshua Moore shares his intensive shadowing method (2 weeks close supervision each way), use of mannequin heads for practice, and why co-locating multiple providers in one building boosts demand and quality through "co-opetition."✅ Topic 2 Deep Dive: Alpha Waves – The Brain BarometerJay Gunkelman legacy discussion: Alpha as a homeostasis measure, down-training effects (fixes asymmetries, coherence unexpectedly), connections to toxicity (e.g., marijuana, chemical sensitivities), and why it accomplishes broad shifts beyond instructed changes.✅ Topic 3 Insights: Future of Neurofeedback – Quality Control, Mentoring & PolicyGreatest threat is external quality control; volunteering trainings raises the field. Debate on RFK Jr. banning drug ads: Indirect boost via unbiased media coverage? Plus cautions on advertising claims (Neurocore fine).

How much do hormonal fluctuations really influence performance and recovery? Should women be adjusting their training and nutrition based on the menstrual cycle? And do female athletes need different protein strategies or recovery protocols than men? These are questions that have fuelled countless online claims, from rigid "cycle syncing" programmes to supposedly gender-specific nutrition rules. But how much of that is actually grounded in evidence? In this episode, the conversation tackles those debates head-on, exploring what we truly know about female physiology, adaptation, and recovery, and where confident narratives outpace the science. You'll hear from four leading experts: Professors Kirsty Elliot-Sale, Stu Phillips, Shona Halson, and Dr. Eric Helms, as they unpack the data on menstrual-cycle variation, autoregulation, and the real determinants of muscle growth and recovery in women. These discussions were originally recorded live as part of "The Inside Advantage" event hosted by Optimum Nutrition at the McLaren F1 Performance Centre in the UK, where Danny Lennon moderated the session. Timestamps [02:07] Introducing the topics of discussion [07:46] Understanding the menstrual cycle [09:22] Recovery and hormonal impact [10:23] Where did "cycle syncing" claims originate? [15:01] Indirect effects of hormones on performance [17:28] Sleep and menstrual cycle [18:46] Training adaptations and hormonal differences [26:29] Do we have research on female athletes? [29:20] Muscle building: are there sex differences? [34:01] Do hormones influence training? [45:08] Key ideas segment (Premium-only) Related Resources Go to episode page (includes study links, guest bios, & more) Join the Sigma email newsletter for free Subscribe to Sigma Nutrition Premium Watch: Optimum Nutrition's 'Inside Advantage' event Previous episodes with these guests: #'s 452, 280, 192, 454

Welcome to the Planet MicroCap Podcast's Due Diligence series. I'm your host, Robert Kraft. My guest today is Dan Goldberger, CEO of electroCore (NASDAQ: ECOR). electroCore is a commercial-stage neuromodulation company developing a suite of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation devices—delivering a two-minute therapy session designed to rebalance the autonomic nervous system. Built around its nVNS platform, the company operates across three channels: prescription medical devices for headache and migraine, the fast-growing Truvaga direct-to-consumer wellness brand, and a specialized military and government division built around its ruggedized tac-stim product.   Founded in 2006 as a non-invasive alternative to implanted vagus nerve stimulators, electroCore has evolved into a multi-indication business with seven FDA authorizations for headache, serving major customers like the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the UK's National Health Service. I invited Dan to the show to discuss all of this, as well as: How nVNS platform works and the science behind vagus nerve modulation electroCore's evolution from implanted alternatives to multi-channel neuromodulation The prescription business model across the VA, NHS, and managed care Truvaga's growth in the wellness market and why awareness is the primary competitor The tac-stim military program and its role as a meaningful revenue stream Strategic priorities heading into 2026—profitability, capital allocation, and commercial execution Challenges around insurance coverage and overcoming the “chicken and egg” problem The path toward becoming a $150–200 million business and the long-term vision for the platform For more information about electroCore, please visit: https://www.electrocore.com/ This podcast was recorded and is being made available by SNN, Inc. (together with its affiliates and its and their employees, “SNN”) solely for informational purposes. SNN is not providing or undertaking to provide any financial, economic, legal, accounting, tax, or other advice in or by virtue of this podcast. The information, statements, comments, views, and opinions provided in this podcast are general in nature, and such information, statements, comments, views, and opinions, and the viewing of/listening to this podcast are not intended to be and should not be construed as the provision of investment advice by SNN. The information, statements, comments, views, and opinions expressed in this podcast do not constitute and should not be construed as an offer to buy or sell any securities or to make or consider any investment or other course of action. The information, statements, comments, views, and opinions expressed in this podcast (including by guest speakers who are not officers, employees, or agents of SNN) are not necessarily those of SNN and may not be current. Reference to any specific third-party entity, product, service, materials, or content does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by the SNN. SNN assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. The views expressed by guest speakers are their own and their appearance on this podcast does not imply an endorsement of them or any entity they represent. SNN does not make any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any of the information, statements, comments, views, or opinions contained in this podcast, which may include forward-looking statements where actual results may differ materially. SNN does not undertake any obligation whatsoever to provide any form of update, amendment, change, or correction to any of the information, statements, comments, views or opinions set forth in this podcast. SNN EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST. By accessing this podcast, the listener acknowledges that the entire contents and design of this podcast, are the property of SNN, or used by SNN with permission, and are protected under U.S. and international copyright and trademark laws. Except as otherwise provided herein, users of this podcast may save and use information contained in the podcast only for personal or other non-commercial educational purposes. No other use, including without limitation, reproduction, retransmission, or editing of this podcast may be made without the prior written consent of SNN.

Send us a message!In this episode we will be covering Facebook Live Questions 12/15-12/21/25  from Dana's free Facebook Group Registered Dietitian Exam Study Group with Dana RD!Check out the Practice Questions Program here. Get the free RD Exam Prep Masterclass here. test out the recorded classes with the Free Trial.  Looking for additional tutoring service? Visit my website! Shop all recorded courses at https://danajfryernutritiontutoring.teachable.comJoin the RD Exam Prep Mastery Program for access to the Situational Practice Questions,  Key Topics Review, Vocab Classes, Wed 8pest Group tutoring , study guides and a new trouble area video each week!Need a Crash Course before your exam? Check out the 4 part Pre-Exam Crash Course: Key Topics Review.

In this episode of the All Things Sustainable podcast we dive into one of the world's most diverse and valuable ecosystems: Coral reefs. To learn about the benefits of this ecosystem and the risks associated with losing it, we sit down with Sam Teicher, Co-Founder & Chief Reef Officer at reef restoration company Coral Vita.   Reefs "take up less than 1% of the seafloor while sustaining 25% of marine life, the livelihoods of about 1 billion people in 100 countries and territories. And now, conservatively, they generate $2.7 trillion a year," Sam says.  Healthy reefs also protect shorelines from flooding and storms, and they can help treat a variety of diseases. In the episode, Sam explains how Coral Vita is working to restore reefs that are dying due to climate change, pollution and overfishing.   "Restoration is not a silver bullet, but it's also a critical tool in order to keep reefs alive for future generations," Sam says. "Just like we can grow and plant trees for reforestation, we can grow and plant corals for reef restoration."  In 2021, Coral Vita won the inaugural Earthshot Prize in the "Revive our Oceans" category. Prince William of Wales launched the prize to find and scale innovative solutions to the world's biggest environmental challenges.  This interview took place during Climate Week NYC 2025 on the sidelines of The Nest Climate Campus, where the All Things Sustainable podcast was an official media partner.   Read nature research from S&P Global Sustainable1: Companies around the world face risks from their reliance on nature | S&P Global  Listen to our podcast episode featuring Conservation International: The business case for nature conservation at Climate Week NYC | S&P Global  Hear more of our coverage of sustainable agriculture: Infrastructure, food, finance: The complex picture for sustainability in Asia-Pacific markets | S&P Global  Learn about Nature and Biodiversity Solutions from S&P Global  Copyright ©2025 by S&P Global          DISCLAIMER         By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk.     Any unauthorized use, facilitation or encouragement of a third party's unauthorized use (including without limitation copy, distribution, transmission or modification, use as part of generative artificial intelligence or for training any artificial intelligence models) of this Podcast or any related information is not permitted without S&P Global's prior consent subject to appropriate licensing and shall be deemed an infringement, violation, breach or contravention of the rights of S&P Global or any applicable third-party (including any copyright, trademark, patent, rights of privacy or publicity or any other proprietary rights).      This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement.   The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties. S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST.

Notas y referencias en https://www.tierradehackers.com/episodio-140 Puedes apoyar este Podcast en Patreon y obtener beneficios exclusivos. Además, estarás ayudando a que siga publicándose muchos años más. https://www.tierradehackers.com/patreon/ ⭐️ SPONSORS ⭐️ ️‍♂️ Flare Flare es una plataforma de inteligencia de amenazas y monitoreo de la Dark Web que te ayuda a estar un paso por delante de los ciber-delincuentes. Puedes solicitar una prueba gratuita como oyente de Tierra de Hackers aquí:  https://try.flare.io/martin-vigo/ ️ Prowler Audita y mejora tu seguridad en AWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes y M365 con visibilidad centralizada. Solicita una prueba gratuita en el siguiente link:  https://prowler.com/?utm_source=tierra_de_hackers ️ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/tierradehackers  Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/tierradehackers ➡️ Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/tierradehackers ➡️ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/tierradehackers ➡️ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tierradehackers ➡️ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tierradehackers ➡️ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tierradehackers No olvides unirte a nuestra comunidad de Discord:  https://www.tierradehackers.com/discord

On the All Things Sustainable podcast, we talk a lot about challenges like climate change, the energy transition and sustainable supply chain management.   In today's episode, we're focusing on solutions. We sit down with three guests to unpack how their companies use technology to address key sustainability challenges.  We talk to Rajiv Bazaj, Vice President of Energy & Sustainability Solutions at big US utility Constellation Energy Corporation. He explains how Constellation uses technology to address growing energy demand. This includes making better use of current generation and longer-term solutions like small modular nuclear reactors and fusion.   We talk with Christoph Gebald, Founder and CEO of carbon removal company Climeworks. He explains how technology advances are leading to breakthroughs in carbon removal — and why this is a critical solution to address climate change.   And we speak to Jonathan Horn, Founder and CEO of Treefera, a London-based startup that provides clients with insight into their supply chains. He points to the big developments in AI and satellite technology that are enabling more granular insight into supply chains.   "I think of it as monitoring everything, everywhere, all at once," Jonathan says. "Not just because it's a good thing to do from a nature point of view, but because it's an essential bottom line C-suite problem."  We sat down with today's guests on the sidelines of the Nest Climate Campus, where the All Things Sustainable podcast was an official media partner during Climate Week NYC.  Learn about energy transition data and services from S&P Global Energy here.  Copyright ©2025 by S&P Global         DISCLAIMER        By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk.    Any unauthorized use, facilitation or encouragement of a third party's unauthorized use (including without limitation copy, distribution, transmission or modification, use as part of generative artificial intelligence or for training any artificial intelligence models) of this Podcast or any related information is not permitted without S&P Global's prior consent subject to appropriate licensing and shall be deemed an infringement, violation, breach or contravention of the rights of S&P Global or any applicable third-party (including any copyright, trademark, patent, rights of privacy or publicity or any other proprietary rights).     This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement.  The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties.   S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST.

As many parts of the world gear up for the holiday season, we're exploring how companies are innovating to make their products, packaging and shipping more sustainable.  In this episode of the All Things Sustainable podcast, we sit down with a consumer goods company, a company that handles shipping and logistics, and a company responsible for paper and cardboard packaging.  We talk to Kristina Friedman, Head of Sustainability for North America at consumer goods giant Unilever. Kristina explains how the company is embedding sustainability into its business strategy, engaging with consumers and leveraging collaboration within its industry to tackle plastic waste.  We also hear about the importance of collaboration from Heather Loebner, Vice President of Sustainability and ESG for North America at Kuehne+Nagel, one of the world's largest logistics and shipping companies. She outlines how the company is addressing decarbonization challenges.  And to understand sustainable packaging solutions, we speak to Garrett Quinn, Chief Sustainability Officer at paper packaging company Smurfit Westrock. Listen to our previous episode featuring Garrett here.  We conducted these interviews during Climate Week NYC at The Nest Climate Campus, where the All Things Sustainable podcast was an official media partner.  Copyright ©2025 by S&P Global        DISCLAIMER       By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk.    Any unauthorized use, facilitation or encouragement of a third party's unauthorized use (including without limitation copy, distribution, transmission or modification, use as part of generative artificial intelligence or for training any artificial intelligence models) of this Podcast or any related information is not permitted without S&P Global's prior consent subject to appropriate licensing and shall be deemed an infringement, violation, breach or contravention of the rights of S&P Global or any applicable third-party (including any copyright, trademark, patent, rights of privacy or publicity or any other proprietary rights).     This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement.  The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties.   S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST. 

 If you're a scientist, and you apply for federal research funding, you'll ask for a specific dollar amount. Let's say you're asking for a million-dollar grant. Your grant covers the direct costs, things like the salaries of the researchers that you're paying. If you get that grant, your university might get an extra $500,000. That money is called “indirect costs,” but think of it as overhead: that money goes to lab space, to shared equipment, and so on.This is the system we've used to fund American research infrastructure for more than 60 years. But earlier this year, the Trump administration proposed capping these payments at just 15% of direct costs, way lower than current indirect cost rates. There are legal questions about whether the admin can do that. But if it does, it would force universities to fundamentally rethink how they do science.The indirect costs system is pretty opaque from the outside. Is the admin right to try and slash these indirect costs? Where does all that money go? And if we want to change how we fund research overhead, what are the alternatives? How do you design a research system to incentivize the research you actually wanna see in the world?I'm joined today by Pierre Azoulay from MIT Sloan and Dan Gross from Duke's Fuqua School of Business. Together with Bhaven Sampat at Johns Hopkins, they conducted the first comprehensive empirical study of how indirect costs actually work. Earlier this year, I worked with them to write up that study as a more accessible policy brief for IFP. They've assembled data on over 350 research institutions, and they found some striking results. While negotiated rates often exceed 50-60%, universities actually receive much less, due to built-in caps and exclusions.Moreover, the institutions that would be hit hardest by proposed cuts are those whose research most often leads to new drugs and commercial breakthroughs.Thanks to Katerina Barton, Harry Fletcher-Wood, and Inder Lohla for their help with this episode, and to Beez for her help on the charts.Let's say I'm a researcher at a university and I apply for a federal grant. I'm looking at cancer cells in mice. It will cost me $1 million to do that research — to pay grad students, to buy mice and test tubes. I apply for a grant from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Where do indirect costs come in?Dan Gross: Research generally incurs two categories of costs, much as business operations do.* Direct or variable costs are typically project-specific; they include salaries and consumable supplies.* Indirect or fixed costs are not as easily assigned to any particular project. [They include] things like lab space, data and computing resources, biosecurity, keeping the lights on and the buildings cooled and heated — even complying with the regulatory requirements the federal government imposes on researchers. They are the overhead costs of doing research.Pierre Azoulay: You will use those grad students, mice, and test tubes, the direct costs. But you're also using the lab space. You may be using a shared facility where the mice are kept and fed. Pieces of large equipment are shared by many other people to conduct experiments. So those are fixed costs from the standpoint of your research project.Dan: Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) is how the federal government has been paying for the fixed cost of research for the past 60 years. This has been done by paying universities institution-specific fixed percentages on top of the direct cost of the research. That's the indirect cost rate. That rate is negotiated by institutions, typically every two to four years, supported by several hundred pages of documentation around its incurred costs over the recent funding cycle.The idea is to compensate federally funded researchers for the investments, infrastructure, and overhead expenses related to the research they perform for the government. Without that funding, universities would have to pay those costs out of pocket and, frankly, many would not be interested or able to do the science the government is funding them to do.Imagine I'm doing my mouse cancer science at MIT, Pierre's parent institution. Some time in the last four years, MIT had this negotiation with the National Institutes of Health to figure out what the MIT reimbursable rate is. But as a researcher, I don't have to worry about what indirect costs are reimbursable. I'm all mouse research, all day.Dan: These rates are as much of a mystery to the researchers as it is to the public. When I was junior faculty, I applied for an external grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) — you can look up awards folks have won in the award search portal. It doesn't break down indirect and direct cost shares of each grant. You see the total and say, “Wow, this person got $300,000.” Then you go to write your own grant and realize you can only budget about 60% of what you thought, because the rest goes to overhead. It comes as a bit of a shock the first time you apply for grant funding.What goes into the overhead rates? Most researchers and institutions don't have clear visibility into that. The process is so complicated that it's hard even for those who are experts to keep track of all the pieces.Pierre: As an individual researcher applying for a project, you think about the direct costs of your research projects. You're not thinking about the indirect rate. When the research administration of your institution sends the application, it's going to apply the right rates.So I've got this $1 million experiment I want to run on mouse cancer. If I get the grant, the total is $1.5 million. The university takes that .5 million for the indirect costs: the building, the massive microscope we bought last year, and a tiny bit for the janitor. Then I get my $1 million. Is that right?Dan: Duke University has a 61% indirect cost rate. If I propose a grant to the NSF for $100,000 of direct costs — it might be for data, OpenAI API credits, research staff salaries — I would need to budget an extra $61,000 on top for ICR, bringing the total grant to $161,000.My impression is that most federal support for research happens through project-specific grants. It's not these massive institutional block grants. Is that right?Pierre: By and large, there aren't infrastructure grants in the science funding system. There are other things, such as center grants that fund groups of investigators. Sometimes those can get pretty large — the NIH grant for a major cancer center like Dana-Farber could be tens of millions of dollars per year.Dan: In the past, US science funding agencies did provide more funding for infrastructure and the instrumentation that you need to perform research through block grants. In the 1960s, the NSF and the Department of Defense were kicking up major programs to establish new data collection efforts — observatories, radio astronomy, or the Deep Sea Drilling project the NSF ran, collecting core samples from the ocean floor around the world. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — back then the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) — was investing in nuclear test detection to monitor adherence to nuclear test ban treaties. Some of these were satellite observation methods for atmospheric testing. Some were seismic measurement methods for underground testing. ARPA supported the installation of a network of seismic monitors around the world. Those monitors are responsible for validating tectonic plate theory. Over the next decade, their readings mapped the tectonic plates of the earth. That large-scale investment in research infrastructure is not as common in the US research policy enterprise today.That's fascinating. I learned last year how modern that validation of tectonic plate theory was. Until well into my grandparents' lifetime, we didn't know if tectonic plates existed.Dan: Santi, when were you born?1997.Dan: So I'm a good decade older than you — I was born in 1985. When we were learning tectonic plate theory in the 1990s, it seemed like something everybody had always known. It turns out that it had only been known for maybe 25 years.So there's this idea of federal funding for science as these massive pieces of infrastructure, like the Hubble Telescope. But although projects like that do happen, the median dollar the Feds spend on science today is for an individual grant, not installing seismic monitors all over the globe.Dan: You applied for a grant to fund a specific project, whose contours you've outlined in advance, and we provided the funding to execute that project.Pierre: You want to do some observations at the observatory in Chile, and you are going to need to buy a plane ticket — not first class, not business class, very much economy.Let's move to current events. In February of this year, the NIH announced it was capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% on all grants.What's the administration's argument here?Pierre: The argument is there are cases where foundations only charge 15% overhead rate on grants — and universities acquiesce to such low rates — and the federal government is entitled to some sort of “most-favored nation” clause where no one pays less in overhead than they pay. That's the argument in this half-a-page notice. It's not much more elaborate than that.The idea is, the Gates Foundation says, “We will give you a grant to do health research and we're only going to pay 15% indirect costs.” Some universities say, “Thank you. We'll do that.” So clearly the universities don't need the extra indirect cost reimbursement?Pierre: I think so.Dan: Whether you can extrapolate from that to federal research funding is a different question, let alone if federal research was funding less research and including even less overhead. Would foundations make up some of the difference, or even continue funding as much research, if the resources provided by the federal government were lower? Those are open questions. Foundations complement federal funding, as opposed to substitute for it, and may be less interested in funding research if it's less productive.What are some reasons that argument might be misguided?Pierre: First, universities don't always say, “Yes” [to a researcher wishing to accept a grant]. At MIT, getting a grant means getting special authorization from the provost. That special authorization is not always forthcoming. The provost has a special fund, presumably funded out of the endowment, that under certain conditions they will dip into to make up for the missing overhead.So you've got some research that, for whatever reason, the federal government won't fund, and the Gates Foundation is only willing to fund it at this low rate, and the university has budgeted a little bit extra for those grants that it still wants.Pierre: That's my understanding. I know that if you're going to get a grant, you're going to have to sit in many meetings and cajole any number of administrators, and you don't always get your way.Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison [between federal and foundation grants] because there are ways to budget an item as a direct cost in a foundation grant that the government would consider an indirect cost. So you might budget some fractional access to a facility…Like the mouse microscope I have to use?Pierre: Yes, or some sort of Cryo-EM machine. You end up getting more overhead through the back door.The more fundamental way in which that approach is misguided is that the government wants its infrastructure — that it has contributed to through [past] indirect costs — to be leveraged by other funders. It's already there, it's been paid for, it's sitting idle, and we can get more bang for our buck if we get those additional funders to piggyback on that investment.Dan: That [other funders] might not be interested in funding otherwise.Why wouldn't they be interested in funding it otherwise? What shouldn't the federal government say, “We're going to pay less. If it's important research, somebody else will pay for it.”Dan: We're talking about an economies-of-scale problem. These are fixed costs. The more they're utilized, the more the costs get spread over individual research projects.For the past several decades, the federal government has funded an order of magnitude more university research than private firms or foundations. If you look at NSF survey data, 55% of university R&D is federally funded; 6% is funded by foundations. That is an order of magnitude difference. The federal government has the scale to support and extract value for whatever its goals are for American science.We haven't even started to get into the administrative costs of research. That is part of the public and political discomfort with indirect-cost recovery. The idea that this is money that's going to fund university bloat.I should lay my cards on the table here for readers. There are a ton of problems with the American scientific enterprise as it currently exists. But when you look at studies from a wide range of folks, it's obvious that R&D in American universities is hugely valuable. Federal R&D dollars more than pay for themselves. I want to leave room for all critiques of the scientific ecosystem, of the universities, of individual research ideas. But at this 30,000-foot level, federal R&D dollars are well spent.Dan: The evidence may suggest that, but that's not where the political and public dialogue around science policy is. Again, I'm going to bring in a long arc here. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was, “We're in a race with the Soviet Union. If we want to win this race, we're going to have to take some risky bets.” And the US did. It was more flexible with its investments in university and industrial science, especially related to defense aims. But over time, with the waning of these political pressures and with new budgetary pressures, the tenor shifted from, “Let's take chances” to “Let's make science and other parts of government more accountable.” The undercurrent of Indirect Cost Recovery policy debates has more of this accountability framing.This comes up in this comparison to foundation rates: “Is the government overpaying?” Clearly universities are willing to accept less from foundations. It comes up in this perception that ICR is funding administrative growth that may not be productive or socially efficient. Accountability seems to be a priority in the current day.Where are we right now [August 2025] on that 15% cap on indirect costs?Dan: Recent changes first kicked off on February 7th, when NIH posted its supplemental guidance, that introduced a policy that the direct cost rates that it paid on its grants would be 15% to institutions of higher education. That policy was then adopted by the NSF, the DOD, and the Department of Energy. All of these have gotten held up in court by litigation from universities. Things are stuck in legal limbo. Congress has presented its point of view that, “At least for now, I'd like to keep things as they are.” But this has been an object of controversy long before the current administration even took office in January. I don't think it's going away.Pierre: If I had to guess, the proposal as it first took shape is not what is going to end up being adopted. But the idea that overhead rates are an object of controversy — are too high, and need to be reformed — is going to stay relevant.Dan: Partly that's because it's a complicated issue. Partly there's not a real benchmark of what an appropriate Indirect Cost Recovery policy should be. Any way you try to fund the cost of research, you're going to run into trade-offs. Those are complicated.ICR does draw criticism. People think it's bloated or lacks transparency. We would agree some of these critiques are well-founded. Yet it's also important to remember that ICR pays for facilities and administration. It doesn't just fund administrative costs, which is what people usually associate it with. The share of ICR that goes to administrative costs is legally capped at 26% of direct costs. That cap has been in place since 1991. Many universities have been at that cap for many years — you can see this in public records. So the idea that indirect costs are going up over time, and that that's because of bloat at US universities, has to be incorrect, because the administrative rate has been capped for three decades.Many of those costs are incurred in service of complying with regulations that govern research, including the cost of administering ICR to begin with. Compiling great proposals every two to four years and a new round of negotiations — all of that takes resources. Those are among the things that indirect cost funding reimburses.Even then, universities appear to under-recover their true indirect costs of federally-sponsored research. We have examples from specific universities which have reported detailed numbers. That under-recovery means less incentive to invest in infrastructure, less capacity for innovation, fewer clinical trials. So there's a case to be made that indirect cost funding is too low.Pierre: The bottom line is we don't know if there is under- or over-recovery of indirect costs. There's an incentive for university administrators to claim there's under-recovery. So I take that with a huge grain of salt.Dan: It's ambiguous what a best policy would look like, but this is all to say that, first, public understanding of this complex issue is sometimes a bit murky. Second, a path forward has to embrace the trade-offs that any particular approach to ICR presents.From reading your paper, I got a much better sense that a ton of the administrative bloat of the modern university is responding to federal regulations on research. The average researcher reports spending almost half of their time on paperwork. Some of that is a consequence of the research or grant process; some is regulatory compliance.The other thing, which I want to hear more on, is that research tools seem to be becoming more expensive and complex. So the microscope I'm using today is an order of magnitude more expensive than the microscope I was using in 1950. And you've got to recoup those costs somehow.Pierre: Everything costs more than it used to. Research is subject to Baumol's cost disease. There are areas where there's been productivity gains — software has had an impact.The stakes are high because, if we get this wrong, we're telling researchers that they should bias the type of research they're going to pursue and training that they're going to undergo, with an eye to what is cheaper. If we reduce the overhead rate, we should expect research that has less fixed cost and more variable costs to gain in favor — and research that is more scale-intensive to lose favor. There's no reason for a benevolent social planner to find that a good development. The government should be neutral with respect to the cost structure of research activities. We don't know in advance what's going to be more productive.Wouldn't a critic respond, “We're going to fund a little bit of indirect costs, but we're not going to subsidize stuff that takes huge amounts of overhead. If universities want to build that fancy new telescope because it's valuable, they'll do it.” Why is that wrong when it comes to science funding?Pierre: There's a grain of truth to it.Dan: With what resources though? Who's incentivized to invest in this infrastructure? There's not a paid market for science. Universities can generate some licensing fees from patents that result from science. But those are meager revenue streams, realistically. There are reasons to believe that commercial firms are under-incentivized to invest in basic scientific research. Prior to 1940, the scientific enterprise was dramatically smaller because there wasn't funding the way that there is today. The exigencies of war drew the federal government into funding research in order to win. Then it was productive enough that folks decided we should keep doing it. History and economic logic tells us that you're not going to see as much science — especially in these fixed-cost heavy endeavors — when those resources aren't provided by the public.Pierre: My one possible answer to the question is, “The endowment is going to pay for it.” MIT has an endowment, but many other universities do not. What does that mean for them? The administration also wants to tax the heck out of the endowment.This is a good opportunity to look at the empirical work you guys did in this great paper. As far as I can tell, this was one of the first real looks at what indirect costs rates look like in real life. What did you guys find?Dan: Two decades ago, Pierre and Bhaven began collecting information on universities' historical indirect cost rates. This is a resource that was quietly sitting on the shelf waiting for its day. That day came this past February. Bhaven and Pierre collected information on negotiated ICR rates for the past 60 years. During this project, we also collected the most recent versions of those agreements from university websites to bring the numbers up to the current day.We pulled together data for around 350 universities and other research institutions. Together, they account for around 85% of all NIH research funding over the last 20 years.We looked at their:* Negotiated indirect cost rates, from institutional indirect cost agreements with the government, and their;* Effective rates [how much they actually get when you look at grant payments], using NIH grant funding data.Negotiated cost rates have gone up. That has led to concerns that the overhead cost of research is going up — these claims that it's funding administrative bloat. But our most important finding is that there's a large gap between the sticker rates — the negotiated ICR rates that are visible to the public, and get floated on Twitter as examples of university exorbitance — and the rates that universities are paid in practice, at least on NIH grants; we think it's likely the case for NSF and other agency grants too.An institution's effective ICR funding rates are much, much lower than their negotiated rates and they haven't changed much for 40 years. If you look at NIH's annual budget, the share of grant funding that goes to indirect costs has been roughly constant at 27-28% for a long time. That implies an effective rate of around 40% over direct costs. Even though many institutions have negotiated rates of 50-70%, they usually receive 30-50%.The difference between those negotiated rates and the effective rates seems to be due to limits and exceptions built into NIH grant rules. Those rules exclude some grants, such as training grants, from full indirect cost funding. They also exclude some direct costs from the figure used to calculate ICR rates. The implication is that institutions receive ICR payments based on a smaller portion of their incurred direct costs than typically assumed. As the negotiated direct cost falls, you see a university being paid a higher indirect cost rate off a smaller — modified — direct cost base, to recover the same amount of overhead.Is it that the federal government is saying for more parts of the grant, “We're not going to reimburse that as an indirect cost.”?Dan: This is where we shift a little bit from assessment to speculation. What's excluded from total direct costs? One thing is researcher salaries above a certain level.What is that level? Can you give me a dollar amount?Dan: It's a $225,700 annual salary. There aren't enough people being paid that on these grants for that to explain the difference, especially when you consider that research salaries are being paid to postdocs and grad students.You're looking around the scientists in your institution and thinking, “That's not where the money is”?Dan: It's not, even if you consider Principal Investigators. If you consider postdocs and grad students, it certainly isn't.Dan: My best hunch is that research projects have become more capital-intensive, and only a certain level of expenditure on equipment can be included in the modified total direct cost base. I don't have smoking gun evidence, it's my intuition.In the paper, there's this fascinating chart where you show the institutions that would get hit hardest by a 15% cap tend to be those that do the most valuable medical research. Explain that on this framework. Is it that doing high-quality medical research is capital-intensive?Pierre: We look at all the private-sector patents that build on NIH research. The more a university stands to lose under the administration policy, the more it has contributed over the past 25 years — in research the private sector found relevant in terms of pharmaceutical patents.This is counterintuitive if your whole model of funding for science is, “Let's cut subsidies for the stuff the private sector doesn't care about — all this big equipment.” When you cut those subsidies, what suffers most is the stuff that the private sector likes.Pierre: To me it makes perfect sense. This is the stuff that the private sector would not be willing to invest in on its own. But that research, having come into being, is now a very valuable input into activities that profit-minded investors find interesting and worth taking a risk on.This is the argument for the government to fund basic research?Pierre: That argument has been made at the macro-level forever, but the bibliometric revolution of the past 15 years allows you to look at this at the nano-level. Recently I've been able to look at the history of Ozempic. The main patent cites zero publicly-funded research, but it cites a bunch of patents, including patents taken up by academics. Those cite the foundational research performed by Joel Habener and his team at Massachusetts General Hospital in the early 1980s that elucidated the role of GLP-1 as a potential target. This grant was first awarded to Habener in 1979, was renewed every four or five years, and finally died in 2008, when he moved on to other things. Those chains are complex, but we can now validate the macro picture at this more granular level.Dan: I do want to add one qualification which also suggests some directions for the future. There are things we still can't see — despite Pierre's zeal. Our projections of the consequence of a 15% rate cap are still pretty coarse. We don't know what research might not take place. We don't know what indirect cost categories are exposed, or how universities would reallocate. All those things are going to be difficult to project without a proper experiment.One thing that I would've loved to have more visibility into is, “What is the structure of indirect costs at universities across the country? What share of paid indirect costs are going to administrative expenses? What direct cost categories are being excluded?” We would need a more transparency into the system to know the answers.Does that information have to be proprietary? It's part of negotiations with the federal government about how much the taxpayer will pay for overhead on these grants. Which piece is so special that it can't be shared?Pierre: You are talking to the wrong people here because we're meta-scientists, so our answer is none of it should be private.Dan: But now you have to ask the university lawyers.What would the case from the universities be? “We can't tell the public what we spend subsidy on”?Pierre: My sense is that there are institutions of academia that strike most lay people as completely bizarre.Hard to explain without context?Pierre: People haven't thought about it. They will find it so bizarre that they will typically jump from the odd aspect to, “That must be corruption.” University administrators are hugely attuned to that. So the natural defensive approach is to shroud it in secrecy. This way we don't see how the sausage is made.Dan: Transparency can be a blessing and a curse. More information supports more considered decision-making. It also opens the door to misrepresentation by critics who have their own agendas. Pierre's right: there are some practices that to the public might look unusual — or might be familiar, but one might say, “How is that useful expense?” Even a simple thing like having an administrator who manages a faculty's calendar might seem excessive. Many people manage their own calendars. At the same time, when you think about how someone's time is best used, given their expertise, and heavy investment in specialized human capital, are emails, calendaring, and note-taking the right things for scientists [to be doing]? Scientists spend a large chunk of their time now administering grants. Does it make sense to outsource that and preserve the scientist's time for more science?When you put forward data that shows some share of federal research funding is going to fund administrative costs, at first glance it might look wasteful, yet it might still be productive. But I would be able to make a more considered judgment on a path forward if I had access to more facts, including what indirect costs look like under the hood.One last question: in a world where you guys have the ear of the Senate, political leadership at the NIH, and maybe the universities, what would you be pushing for on indirect costs?Pierre: I've come to think that this indirect cost rate is a second-best institution: terrible and yet superior to many of the alternatives. My favorite alternative would be one where there would be a flat rate applied to direct costs. That would be the average effective rate currently observed — on the order of 40%.You're swapping out this complicated system to — in the end — reimburse universities the same 40%.Pierre: We know there are fixed costs. Those fixed costs need to be paid. We could have an elaborate bureaucratic apparatus to try to get it exactly right, but it's mission impossible. So why don't we give up on that and set a rate that's unlikely to lead to large errors in under- or over-recovery. I'm not particularly attached to 40%. But the 15% that was contemplated seems absurdly low.Dan: In the work we've done, we do lay out different approaches. The 15% rate wouldn't fully cut out the negotiation process: to receive that, you have to document your overhead costs and demonstrate that they reached that level. In any case, it's simplifying. It forces more cost-sharing and maybe more judicious investments by universities. But it's also so low that it's likely to make a significant amount of high-value, life-improving research economically unattractive.The current system is complicated and burdensome. It might encourage investment in less productive things, particularly because universities can get it paid back through future ICR. At the same time, it provides pretty good incentives to take on expensive, high-value research on behalf of the public.I would land on one of two alternatives. One of those is close to what Pierre said, with fixed rates, but varied by institution types: one for universities, one for medical schools, one for independent research institutions — because we do see some variation in their cost structures. We might set those rates around their historical average effective rates, since those haven't changed for quite a long time. If you set different rates for different categories of institution, the more finely you slice the pie, the closer you end up to the current system. So that's why I said maybe, at a very high level, four categories.The other I could imagine is to shift more of these costs “above the line” — to adapt the system to enable more of these indirect costs to be budgeted as direct costs in grants. This isn't always easy, but presumably some things we currently call indirect costs could be accounted for in a direct cost manner. Foundations do it a bit more than the federal government does, so that could be another path forward.There's no silver bullet. Our goal was to try to bring some understanding to this long-running policy debate over how to fund the indirect cost of research and what appropriate rates should be. It's been a recurring question for several decades and now is in the hot seat again. Hopefully through this work, we've been able to help push that dialogue along. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Soren continues to write about "Indirect Communication" so I named this episode Indirect Communication II. I am committed to reading Soren line-by-line so the repetition of themes are unavoidable. Hopefully, you as the listener still find new insights!

If you're learning Spanish, you probably find grammar challenging--especially when it comes to the dozens of verb conjugations. In this episode, you'll learn why most Spanish learners mix up indirect objects with reflexive verbs and other verb conjugations (and why this can be a problem)We'll take a look at examples in the lyrics of the song Casi Te Envidio by Puerto Rican

We kick off this episode of the All Things Sustainable podcast with key takeaways from COP30, the annual UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties that ended last week in Belém, Brazil. You can listen to our previous episode about COP30 here.  Today's episode features Emilio Tenuta, the Chief Sustainability Officer at Ecolab, a provider of water, hygiene and infection prevention solutions to businesses around the world. In the interview, Emilio explains the rising focus on water in conversations about climate and nature.   "The climate crisis is really about a water crisis: The way we're going to experience climate is through extreme weather events and droughts, floods and a number of other activities that impact our businesses," Emilio says. "But it's also about water being an enabler to drive your business performance and impact."  Emilio explains how AI can help companies understand future water risks. "Up to now, we've been looking in a rearview mirror on what water stress really means," he says. "Now we're trying to embed AI so we can look predictively."    This interview is the latest installment in our CSO Insights podcast series, where we interview Chief Sustainability Officers around the world and across industries about how they're navigating the changing sustainability landscape. Listen to other episodes in the CSO Insights podcast series:    CSO Insights: Why consumer goods giant P&G wants to reinvent the business case for sustainability  CSO Insights: How auto giant General Motors is driving EV adoption  CSO Insights: Singapore's biggest bank on the 'business imperative' of climate action  CSO Insights: How a big Malaysian bank balances climate, nature, human rights and economic inclusion  CSO Insights: How sustainability pullback is playing out in Southeast Asia  Read coverage of COP30 key takeaways from S&P Global Energy:  COP30 in review: Key outcomes (requires subscription)  COP30: Support for fossil fuel transition roadmap grows despite 'red line' resistance  Register for a Dec. 3, 2025 webinar about COP30 key outcomes: Decoding COP30: Outcomes and the road ahead for climate policy and action  Read nature research from S&P Global: Companies around the world face risks from their reliance on nature   Listen to our podcast episode featuring Water.org co-founder Gary White: Why Water.org CEO says the world's water challenges are 'inherently solvable'  Listen to our podcast episode featuring CDP CEO Sherry Madera: Water, water everywhere in Climate Week NYC conversations  Learn about the Global Carbon Markets Conference  This piece was published by S&P Global Sustainable1 and not by S&P Global Ratings, which is a separately managed division of S&P Global. Copyright ©2025 by S&P Global DISCLAIMER By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk. Any unauthorized use, facilitation or encouragement of a third party's unauthorized use (including without limitation copy, distribution, transmission or modification, use as part of generative artificial intelligence or for training any artificial intelligence models) of this Podcast or any related information is not permitted without S&P Global's prior consent subject to appropriate licensing and shall be deemed an infringement, violation, breach or contravention of the rights of S&P Global or any applicable third-party (including any copyright, trademark, patent, rights of privacy or publicity or any other proprietary rights). This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties. S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST. 

The Joint Readiness Training Center is pleased to present the one-hundredth-and-seventeenth episode to air on ‘The Crucible - The JRTC Experience.' Hosted by MAJ Marc Howle, the Brigade Senior Engineer / Protection Observer-Coach-Trainer, and MAJ David Pfaltzgraff, BDE S-3 Operations OCT, from Brigade Command & Control (BDE HQ) on behalf of the Commander of Ops Group (COG). Today's guests are senior members of JRTC's fires support enterprise: MAJ Jeff Horn, MSG Esteban Melendez, and SFC Larry Gillispie, Jr. MAJ Horn is the Executive Officer OCT for the Fires Support Task Force. MSG Melendez is the Battery Senior NCO OCT and SFC Gillispie is the Fires Direction Center Senior OCT for the Fires Support TF.   This episode centers on the critical role of indirect fires in enabling brigade and battalion maneuver during large-scale combat operations (LSCO). Discussion emphasized how modern battlefields—defined by continuous observation, rapid enemy counterfire, and contested electromagnetic terrain—demand faster, simpler, and more integrated fires processes. The episode explored the necessity of marrying intelligence, targeting, and maneuver to generate timely and accurate effects, noting that units frequently struggle with building effective EVENTEMPs, aligning priority intelligence requirements with high-payoff target lists, and ensuring fire support elements understand the commander's visualization. Indirect fires are no longer a supporting arm that can be “plugged in” at the end of planning; instead, fires must lead maneuver, set conditions, disrupt enemy reconnaissance, and shape the tempo of operations. Units that succeeded at JRTC did so by developing disciplined fires rehearsals, maintaining digital pathways for observers and FSEs, and employing simple, survivable fire support plans that could be executed under degraded conditions.    The episode also examined common shortfalls in fire support execution and provided practical solutions rooted in LSCO best practices. Many units struggled to connect sensors to shooters, often due to poor task organization, inconsistent digital connectivity, or a lack of rehearsed triggers and decision points. The conversation stressed that fires must be integrated early, beginning at WARNO 1, so that reconnaissance, counter-reconnaissance, and targeting all feed a coherent fires architecture. Leaders must enforce conditions that enable fires in contact: dispersed artillery positions, rapid survivability moves, redundant communications, and timely, accurate reporting. Best practices discussed included using decoys to force enemy action, leveraging sUAS for battle damage assessment and real-time refinement, simplifying TLWS/TTLODAC products, and conducting thorough fires technical rehearsals. Ultimately, the episode reinforced that mastery of indirect fires is inseparable from mastery of LSCO itself—units that can sense, decide, and deliver effects faster than the enemy preserve freedom of maneuver and dominate the fight.   Part of S13 “Hip Pocket Training” series.   For additional information and insights from this episode, please check-out our Instagram page @the_jrtc_crucible_podcast   Be sure to follow us on social media to keep up with the latest warfighting TTPs learned through the crucible that is the Joint Readiness Training Center.   Follow us by going to: https://linktr.ee/jrtc and then selecting your preferred podcast format.   Again, we'd like to thank our guests for participating. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and review us wherever you listen or watch your podcasts — and be sure to stay tuned for more in the near future.   “The Crucible – The JRTC Experience” is a product of the Joint Readiness Training Center.

This is a recap of the top 10 posts on Hacker News on November 25, 2025. This podcast was generated by wondercraft.ai (00:30): Google Antigravity exfiltrates data via indirect prompt injection attackOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46048996&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(01:54): Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been FulfilledOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46051340&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(03:19): Human brains are preconfigured with instructions for understanding the worldOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46042928&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(04:44): Orion 1.0Original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46047350&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(06:08): Trillions spent and big software projects are still failingOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46045085&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(07:33): Jakarta is now the biggest city in the worldOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46042810&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(08:58): Brain has five 'eras' with adult mode not starting until early 30sOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46045661&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(10:23): Most Stable Raspberry Pi? Better NTP with Thermal ManagementOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46042946&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(11:47): FLUX.2: Frontier Visual IntelligenceOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46046916&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(13:12): Show HN: We built an open source, zero webhooks payment processorOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46048252&utm_source=wondercraft_aiThis is a third-party project, independent from HN and YC. Text and audio generated using AI, by wondercraft.ai. Create your own studio quality podcast with text as the only input in seconds at app.wondercraft.ai. Issues or feedback? We'd love to hear from you: team@wondercraft.ai

Aaron Zimbelman, associate professor of accounting at the University of South Carolina, joins the Business Scholarship Podcast to discuss his article Indirect Earnings Management. The article is co-authored with Scott Jackson and Jason Rasso, both also of the University of South Carolina. This episode is hosted by Andrew Jennings, associate professor of law at Emory University, and was edited by Alec Johnson, a law student at Emory University.

In this episode of the All Things Sustainable podcast, we're talking to Procter & Gamble's Chief Sustainability Officer, Virginie Helias. The global consumer goods giant has a market capitalization of more than $343 billion and its products include household staples like laundry detergent, diapers, toothpaste and shampoo. Virginie explains how P&G is navigating sustainability challenges, including cutting emissions in its supply chain, current economic and geopolitical headwinds, and changing customer behavior.   "We need to reinvent the business case," Virginie says. "We need to create new tailwinds and the new tailwinds will be, first, innovation that delivers superior value. And for us, that means where sustainability becomes an amplifier of performance."  The interview took place on the sidelines of The Nest Climate Campus, where the All Things Sustainable podcast was an official media partner during Climate Week NYC 2025.  This interview is the latest installment in our CSO Insights podcast series, where we interview CSOs around the world about how they're navigating the changing sustainability landscape. The sustainability space has been through enormous transformation in recent years and CSOs have a front-row seat to this evolution.  Listen to other episodes in the CSO Insights podcast series:   CSO Insights: How auto giant General Motors is driving EV adoption  CSO Insights: Singapore's biggest bank on the 'business imperative' of climate action  CSO Insights: How a big Malaysian bank balances climate, nature, human rights and economic inclusion  CSO Insights: How sustainability pullback is playing out in Southeast Asia Learn about the Global Carbon Markets Conference from S&P Global Commodity Insights taking place in Barcelona shortly after COP30.  This piece was published by S&P Global Sustainable1 and not by S&P Global Ratings, which is a separately managed division of S&P Global.  Copyright ©2025 by S&P Global       DISCLAIMER      By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk.      Any unauthorized use, facilitation or encouragement of a third party's unauthorized use (including without limitation copy, distribution, transmission or modification, use as part of generative artificial intelligence or for training any artificial intelligence models) of this Podcast or any related information is not permitted without S&P Global's prior consent subject to appropriate licensing and shall be deemed an infringement, violation, breach or contravention of the rights of S&P Global or any applicable third-party (including any copyright, trademark, patent, rights of privacy or publicity or any other proprietary rights).     This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties.   S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST. 

The decision to move from a manual to an automated process has historically been a laborious, lengthy, and capital-intensive endeavor. Calculating the return on investment (ROI) of such a project is critical to the decision-making process. Companies beginning their automation journey tend to look at robots as a 1 to 1 replacement for their workforce leading to expensive over tooled and over automated processes. Focusing solely on labor replacement can lead companies to vastly undervalue some of the less obvious cost savings created by the switch to robotics. In this presentation, we will be discussing some of the best practices and common pitfalls to avoid when calculating the ROI of a robotic implementation, including: Efficient system design for a high-mix manufacturing environment Cost benefits from increased production and decreased waste Indirect cost benefits generated from increased worker satisfaction and safety Long term cost savings from greater traceability, product consistency and redeployability  By considering these concepts, we can move toward considering robots as part of an overall process improvement opportunity versus simply as a direct replacement to workers. Doing so brings into consideration improvements to the production environment, increased product quality, and enhanced company profitability. Ultimately a refocused ROI calculation will help companies pivot from mid-line labor expenses to top-line revenue and bottom-line profitability. Speakers: James Shimano: Product Manager, Epson Robots Sponsored by: EPSON Visit https://advancedmanufacturing.org/webinars for more webinars and an interactive experience with visuals.  

Join Lil' Lo and Big Shot Shae as they the difference between direct and indirect communication and which is more effective, GMC and Cadillac causing people to have engine issues, people being there through the highs and lows, and more ! Email for advice / to be featured: LetMeStayFocused@gmail.com Follow Our Hosts:@lilloworldwide@bigshotshae**DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A COMEDIC PODCAST** Scenarios and responses from this show should be taken with a grain of salt. In other words, this is all a joke. Unless otherwise noted, any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events, is purely coincidental.

In the wedding industry, your clients don't get a test drive. They have to hand over control, spend a lot of money, and trust that it will all work out. That means your real job in the sales process is not to impress people. It is to make them feel safe.In this episode, we talk about what actually builds trust fast. It is not perfection. It is proof, transparency, and humanity. You will learn how to use both direct and indirect trust builders to help clients feel seen, secure, and confident saying yes. We cover how to show credibility without sounding salesy, how transparency builds trust faster than polish, and why consistency across your website, calls, and emails matters more than you think.By the end, you will have a clear framework for building trust in every step of your sales process so clients feel at ease choosing you.Takeaways:Clients do not buy perfection. They buy trust.Trust comes from empathy, authority, and consistency.Direct trust builders include testimonials, press, metrics, and clear process steps.Indirect trust builders include calm confidence, active listening, and transparent communication.Transparency builds trust faster than polish ever will.Every interaction should communicate, “You can trust me to take care of you.”

sales psychology, soft selling, feminine sales, storytelling strategyIG: _thelilyholmes - DM me poddy topic requests!Join FREE broadcast:https://t.me/+OOcH8tl8yygyOWE1Online Mentors, Coaches, Personal Brands

In this episode of the All Things Sustainable podcast, we're talking to Cassandra Garber, Chief Sustainability Officer of General Motors, one of the world's largest car companies.  The interview is the latest installment in our CSO Insights podcast series, where we interview CSOs around the world about how they're navigating the changing sustainability landscape. The sustainability space has been through enormous transformation in recent years and CSOs have a front-row seat to this evolution.  Transportation is considered one of the hard-to-abate sectors because most forms of transportation burn fossil fuels for energy. In the episode, Cassandra outlines GM's commitment to a zero-emissions, all-electric future and how the company is breaking down barriers to electric vehicle adoption — what she calls the "three Cs" of cost, charging infrastructure, and the perception that EVs are complicated.   "Reducing those tailpipe emissions and focusing on EV adoption makes our business strategy and sustainability strategy incredibly aligned," Cassandra says. "That is by far what we're focused on the most: How are we breaking down the barriers to EV adoption because it's good for business and society."  This interview took place on the sidelines of The Nest Climate Campus, where the All Things Sustainable podcast was an official media partner during Climate Week NYC 2025.  Listen to other episodes in the CSO Insights podcast series:  CSO Insights: Singapore's biggest bank on the 'business imperative' of climate action  CSO Insights: How a big Malaysian bank balances climate, nature, human rights and economic inclusion  CSO Insights: How sustainability pullback is playing out in Southeast Asia  Listen to our episode What to expect from COP30 Learn about the Global Carbon Markets Conference from S&P Global Commodity Insights taking place in Barcelona shortly after COP30. This piece was published by S&P Global Sustainable1 and not by S&P Global Ratings, which is a separately managed division of S&P Global. Copyright ©2025 by S&P Global      DISCLAIMER     By accessing this Podcast, I acknowledge that S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in this Podcast. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only and any reliance on the information provided in this Podcast is done at your own risk.      Any unauthorized use, facilitation or encouragement of a third party's unauthorized use (including without limitation copy, distribution, transmission or modification, use as part of generative artificial intelligence or for training any artificial intelligence models) of this Podcast or any related information is not permitted without S&P Global's prior consent subject to appropriate licensing and shall be deemed an infringement, violation, breach or contravention of the rights of S&P Global or any applicable third-party (including any copyright, trademark, patent, rights of privacy or publicity or any other proprietary rights).     This Podcast should not be considered professional advice. Unless specifically stated otherwise, S&P GLOBAL does not endorse, approve, recommend, or certify any information, product, process, service, or organization presented or mentioned in this Podcast, and information from this Podcast should not be referenced in any way to imply such approval or endorsement. The third party materials or content of any third party site referenced in this Podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions, standards or policies of S&P GLOBAL. S&P GLOBAL assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or completeness of the content contained in third party materials or on third party sites referenced in this Podcast or the compliance with applicable laws of such materials and/or links referenced herein. Moreover, S&P GLOBAL makes no warranty that this Podcast, or the server that makes it available, is free of viruses, worms, or other elements or codes that manifest contaminating or destructive properties.   S&P GLOBAL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF, REFERENCE TO, RELIANCE ON, OR INABILITY TO USE, THIS PODCAST OR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS PODCAST. 

In this episode, I discuss the power of doing direct game.Chapters:(00:00) Don't approach like this(04:30) Why indirect game works(06:00) Using indirect game with the HOTTEST girls (08:40) Being man to woman?(10:00) Conversations to nowhere...(10:45) Intuitive?(11:30) Some more constraints...(15:00) Indirect opener masterclass(20:00) Delayed direct?(22:30) Todd's opening strategy!Here are links to the programs mentioned on the podcast:Bootcamps and ImmersionsSubmit questions to todd@toddvdating.com

Send us a text