Podcasts about Indirect

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

A clear, practical overview of indirect fire prevention on Shabbos in the Mishnah Berurah. This episode clarifies when one may prevent a fire's spread through indirect actions, such as placing wet materials, vessels of water, or protective barriers near a blaze. We examine extinguishing when clothing catches fire, using plates to block flames, concerns of laundry when wetting garments, and distinctions between acceptable indirect causation vs. direct extinguishing.Additionally discussed: when a non-Jew may extinguish a fire on Shabbos for a Jew, why a child must be stopped, and how intention affects halachic status. Essential guidance for applying the laws of Shabbos during fire-related emergencies, property loss, or safety concerns.

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

LOVE, LIES & LAMBORGHINIS In this wild episode of "Podcasts and Portraits: Undercover," host,  Ariane Jaschke, and guest Heather dive deep into a whirlwind story of love, betrayal, and resilience. What begins as a glamorous tale of romance, business success, and yacht parties quickly unravels into a raw account of infidelity, manipulation, and the painful loss of both a marriage and a close friendship. Heather shares her journey from falling deeply in love and building a life with her husband, to discovering the ultimate betrayal by her best friend. Through candid conversation, she exposes the red flags she missed, the challenges of navigating narcissism and gaslighting, and the importance of trusting your intuition. Along the way, Heather reflects on the power of true friendship, the lessons learned from heartbreak, and the strength it takes to rebuild after everything falls apart. This episode is a must-listen for anyone who's ever faced betrayal, struggled to find closure, or needed a reminder that even in the darkest moments, there's hope for healing and new beginnings.   If you didn't get enough tea from Heather in this episode, follow her on TiKTok or Instagram @wildpinkheather  FOLLOW @PODCASTSANDPORTRAITS on instagram to see portraits of my guests!! FOLLOW @Capture Photography.Studio for more about Ariane's photography!  Time to step out of the comfort zone, and be a part of a unique experience!!  Do you want to share your story but maybe you are a bit shy?  SEASON 2 - UNDERCOVER Podcasts + Portraits, gives you the option to hide your identity, or share it with the world!!! We will do a creative portrait that hide your identity…so you can share personal stories openly without the fear of judgement! If you can talk passionately about something for 45 minutes, reach out and be on my podcast!!  Call or text me 604-537-7706 OR email ariane@capturephotography.studio General Information Disclaimer: All content is for informational purposes only and not guaranteed to be accurate or complete, the information provided is for general informational and entertainment purposes only and is not a substitute for professional advice.   Limitation of Liability Disclaimer: Podcast is provided "as is" Podcasts + Portraits, and Host, Ariane Jaschke  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.   Guest Opinions Disclaimer: Guest views are their own and not reflective of the host or podcast. The views and opinions expressed by guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the host or the management. This podcast should not be considered professional advice, and listeners should consult appropriate professionals for advice tailored to their specific needs.   Intellectual Property Disclaimer: All podcast's branding, content, is copyright 2024 Podcasts + Portraits, Capture Photography.Studio This podcast and all its content, including but not limited to audio recordings, show notes, artwork, and branding elements, are protected by copyright laws. All rights reserved. No part of this podcast may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted without prior written permission from the copyright holder.   Professional Advice Disclaimer: This podcast isn't a substitute for expert advice in areas like health, finance, or law. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal, health, tax, or professional advice. Always consult a licensed professional for specific advice related to your situation.  

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.

  Why do "crash-through" leadership styles fail in Japan?  Force does not embed change. Employees hold a social contract with their firms, and client relationships are prized. Attempts to push damaging directives meet stiff resistance, and status alone cannot compel people whose careers outlast the expatriate's assignment. Mini-summary: Pressure triggers pushback; relationships and continuity beat status. What happens when a foreign boss vents or shows anger? Answer: It backfires. Losing one's temper is seen as childish and out of control. Credible leaders stay composed, persuade, and conceal negative reactions with tactful language and controlled body cues. Venting does not move work forward. Mini-summary: Composure and persuasion equal credibility; anger erodes influence. How should a foreign leader gather input if people will not volunteer it? Answer: Do not ask for open-ended opinions; ask why a proposed step would be "difficult." In practice, "difficult" signals "impossible," inviting detailed critique. Capture objections comprehensively—then pivot to "how could we make it work?" Mini-summary: Elicit critique with "difficult," then redirect to solutions. What keeps change stuck, and how do you unstick it? Answer: Early replies will be half-hearted. Leaders must be politely persistent, repeatedly asking for deeper thinking. Consensus building is time-heavy, but once agreement emerges, execution accelerates because stakeholders are aligned. Mini-summary: Patient iteration builds consensus; agreement speeds delivery. How does language shape leadership effectiveness? Answer: Japanese communication is indirect and skilled at masking true reactions; English is more direct. Effective leaders read subtle cues, avoid blunt dismissals, and use careful phrasing to maintain face while guiding decisions. Mini-summary: Indirect language protects face; nuanced messaging earns traction. Why do headquarters expectations often misfire? Answer: Timelines ignore local trust-building. Without patience for hearts-and-minds work, targets set from afar become fantasy. Expatriate leaders are squeezed by HQ pressure above and local resistance below. Mini-summary: Unrealistic HQ clocks collide with local consensus cycles. What is the typical outcome of short expatriate rotations? Answer: Progress stalls. Just as momentum builds, leaders are reassigned, leaving little legacy and forcing teams to restart under a new boss. Stability and continuity are strategic advantages in Japan. Mini-summary: Short tenures reset progress; continuity compounds gains. Author Bio Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, he is certified globally across leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programmes, and has authored multiple best-sellers including Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery, alongside Japanese editions such as Za Eigyō (ザ営業) and Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人). He publishes daily blogs, hosts six weekly podcasts, and produces three weekly YouTube shows including The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show.

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.

This episode, Soren writes quite a bit about "Indirect Communication" as a reality of Christ willing to be Incognito. The footnote comments by translator Walter Lowrie are helpful in this matter. Also discuss the ramifications of having a Theology of Exaltation versus a Theology of the Cross. How human beings can twist this into dangerous political movements. Using the sword to compel beliefs.

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. 

The United Nations convenes its Climate Change Conference of the Parties in Belém, Brazil Nov. 10-21, and in this episode of the All Things Sustainable podcast we're covering what to expect from COP30.  This annual UN summit convenes world leaders to work together on solutions to tackle climate change, and COP30 is known as the "Implementation COP," which means a focus on turning climate commitments into action. To learn more, we sit down on the sidelines of the PRI in Person conference in São Paulo, Brazil, this week with Marcos Neto. Marcos is Assistant Secretary General at the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and Director of UNDP's Bureau of Policy and Programme Support.   Marcos explains the big themes he's watching heading into COP30 — including the rising focus on adaptation and resilience; the evolving role of insurance in climate conversations; financing needs; and the climate-nature nexus. He also discusses UNDP's work to help countries develop their Nationally Determined Contributions, which are countries' plans for achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement that are updated every five years.    Marcos grew up in Belém, and he says his hometown exemplifies the need to strike a balance between climate goals and economic development.  "Belém is a great symbol of that — because there is poverty, because there are Indigenous peoples, because there are forests ... agriculture, cattle ranchers," he says. "We need to figure out a way to live with all those aspects."   Listen to our podcast interview with Marcos during last year's COP29 conference here: UN official says credibility of climate COPs at stake heading into 2025 | S&P Global  Read more from S&P Global about what to expect from COP30: COP30: Climate governance at a crossroads | S&P Global  Read our latest Road to COP report on the Platts Connect platform (requires log-in): https://plattsconnect.spglobal.com/#platts/previewDocument?id=478c7957-99a9-45de-9382-4c964aa1c023   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

In this episode of the All Things Sustainable podcast, we explore why adaptation and resilience are taking center stage in climate conversations ahead of COP30, the UN's upcoming climate change conference.   We talk to Jeff Gitterman, CEO of Gitterman Asset Management and partner at Gitterman Wealth Management. He explains why adaptation was a big focus during Climate Week NYC in 2025, and where he sees future opportunities to invest in resilience and sustainable infrastructure.    "Every room I was in, everywhere I went around the city, there was a focus around adaptation and resilience like I've never seen before," Jeff tells us.  We also sit down with Alan Brookes, the Chairman and CEO of sustainable design, engineering and consulting firm Arcadis. He explains how the firm's projects worldwide build resilience to climate change while also accounting for the needs of communities and incorporating nature-based solutions — for example, building parks that also provide flood and storm protection.   "Cities need to be more innovative in their approaches," Alan says. "Otherwise, you're just going to build walls around every city, which is not what people want to see."   We conducted these interviews during Climate Week NYC at The Nest Climate Campus, where the All Things Sustainable podcast was an official media partner.   Read S&P Global's key takeaways from Climate Week NYC: 5 Climate Week NYC takeaways setting the scene for decision-making in 2026 | S&P Global  Listen to our interview with CDP CEO Sherry Madera: Water, water everywhere in Climate Week NYC conversations | S&P Global  Read a report from S&P Global Commodity Insights about what to expect from COP30: COP30: Climate governance at a crossroads | S&P Global  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.

Send us a text

Send us a text      In Joshua chapter 7 Scripture begins with the narrative of Achan's abomination and the damage he caused towards Israel. As the saying goes in the epistle to the  Galatians, "What man sows is what he reaps". May this sermon be of a blessings to you all!  Support the show

This episode of the All Things Sustainable podcast explores the rapidly changing global landscape for the energy transition and how factors like geopolitical tensions, AI and government policies are driving change ahead of COP30, the UN's upcoming Climate Change Conference of the parties.   We examine these dynamics through the lens of the world's two most populous countries: India and China.   We talk with Carlos Pascual, Senior Vice President and Head of Geopolitics and International Affairs at S&P Global Commodity Insights and a former US Ambassador to Mexico and Ukraine. He outlines the complexities of US-China relations, including the competition for technological dominance and energy resources.  "In many ways, China has developed a degree of technology expertise that is having an impact on this relationship in ways that have not been expected," Carlos says.  To understand how India is navigating these dynamics, we talk with Vaishali Nigam Sinha, Co-Founder and Chairperson of Sustainability at ReNew, a decarbonization solutions company deploying renewables and other low-carbon technologies in India. She highlights the importance of international collaboration for accessing technology, critical minerals and financing for renewable projects.  "This clean energy transition is not about individual countries," Vaishali says. "It's about what all of us can do together.”  Vaishali also emphasizes the importance of engaging local communities in the energy transition to ensure that they are equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to participate.  We sat down with Carlos and Vaishali on the sidelines of The Nest Climate Campus, where the All Things Sustainable podcast was an official media partner during Climate Week NYC.  Listen to our interview with the CEO of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, or WBCSD: Kicking off Climate Week NYC in a fragmented global landscape  Read S&P Global's key takeaways from Climate Week NYC: 5 Climate Week NYC takeaways setting the scene for decision-making in 2026 | S&P Global  Read the latest energy and climate scenarios from S&P Global Commodity Insights: Beyond the Energy Transition | S&P Global  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) What is direct game?(01:45) Being natural and genuine(03:30) The biggest mistake guys make in game(08:00) Start by saying THIS(13:50) Downsides of direct game(23:00) Indirect ways of doing direct gameHere are links to the programs mentioned on the podcast:Bootcamps and ImmersionsSubmit questions to todd@toddvdating.com

Ben looks at how we change the structure of sentences when we use indirect questions.Read the episode transcript by joining the Learn English with Ben fan club. You'll get access to transcripts and quizzes plus other bonus content. Visit patreon.com/learnenglishwithben for more information and to join now.Patreon: patreon.com/learnenglishwithben - For transcripts, comprehension quizzes, and video tutorials, join the fan club.Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/learnenglishwithbenInstagram: instagram.com/learnenglishwithbenWebsite: learnenglishwithben.comEmail: learnenglishwithben88@gmail.com - send me an email if you're interested in classes Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

One of our key takeaways from Climate Week NYC in 2025 was that the insurance industry is taking a more central role in conversations about climate risk.    As climate change causes more frequent and severe extreme weather events, some insurers are increasing premiums or pulling out of certain regions, with implications for policy and the financial markets.   To learn more about the changing landscape for insurance, we sat down on the sidelines of Climate Week NYC with Martin Powell, Group Sustainability Director at global insurance and asset management group AXA.   “A 2-degree world is still insurable, but it's going to be unaffordable for many, many people,” Martin says. "As we head towards that sort of temperature increase, our job is to try and predict and assess what that's going to mean for society in five years' time and do what we can today to reduce those impacts.”  The urgency is growing to adopt new strategies and practices to assess these climate-related risks, and we heard at Climate Week NYC why this is particularly true in the US homeowners insurance market.   Heather Zichal, the Global Head of Sustainability at JPMorganChase, says the future of homeowners insurance is “very much front and center” for the largest bank in the US.   "Whether you're worried in the state of Florida about sea-level rise, or you are in California and you're worried about wildfires, there's a very healthy recognition that we are going to collectively need new products, services, and policies to help meet that moment,” Heather says.  We also speak to Kingsley Greenland, Head of Strategic Partnerships and Corporate Development at Verisk, a company that works with the global insurance industry to provide data and analytics. He points to the difference between big banks and their smaller peers when it comes to assessing climate risk.  "The largest banks...in a way, they also have the least risk because they're globally diversified and can take the hit,” he says. “It seems to me like it's these really small banks, your credit unions, your small community bankers that retain a lot of this risk and don't have now — nor can we expect them to — really have this full suite of climate risk analytics in their portfolio that would trickle down to their investment decisions.”  Read S&P Global's key takeaways from Climate Week NYC: 5 Climate Week NYC takeaways setting the scene for decision-making in 2026 | S&P Global  Read an S&P Global Market Intelligence analysis of  US insurance rate and rule product filings: At London Climate Week, a bold call for insurers to tackle climate risks | S&P Global  Listen to the full interview with Heather Zichal: How the biggest bank in the US is approaching climate risk | S&P Global  Learn more about S&P Global Sustainable1's Physical Climate Risk data.  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.

It's World Space Week and in this episode of the All Things Sustainable podcast, we're looking at sustainability on the final frontier in an interview with Spire Global CEO Theresa Condor. Spire Global uses satellites the size of wine bottles to collect data in space that helps solve problems on Earth, ranging from climate to weather forecasting to global security. Theresa says use cases for the company's technology are expanding rapidly as satellite technology advances “at an exponential pace.” "We're seeing something like 10x improvements in technology every five years,” she says. This rapid growth means the need for good governance and sustainability strategies is rising. Spire Global is a member of the Sustainable Markets Initiative (SMI) and Theresa explains how the group is focused on sustainability in space through its Astra Carta initiative, which aims to shape a future of responsible and sustainable space exploration, development and cooperation. “People are trying to figure out what is the right level of regulation that continues to protect the space environment,” she says, while also allowing innovation to flourish. This episode is the latest in our Terra Carta Series of the All Things Sustainable podcast in collaboration with the SMI. The SMI is a network of over 250 global CEOs across finance and industry, including S&P Global. SMI facilitates private sector diplomacy with the ambition of making sustainability the driving force of global markets and value creation. Throughout 2025, we're interviewing SMI member CEOs from around the world and across industries about how they're approaching sustainability challenges and opportunities. Listen to all the episodes in the Terra Carta Series of the All Things Sustainable podcast: Terra Carta Series | S&P Global  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 Power Of Being Indirect - A Subtle Artform

My guest today is Sage Berryman, CEO of Aluula Composites (TSXV: AUUA). Aluula is focused on revolutionizing material science. Founded in 2019, the company has developed a patented process for producing ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) composites without glues—fusing at the molecular level to create materials that are lighter, stronger, more durable, and fully recyclable. This “mono-material” design also enables circularity and addresses the growing demand for PFAS-free solutions. The company first gained traction in windsports through its Ocean Rodeo subsidiary, but following a 2023 RTO and a 2024 strategic refocus under Sage's leadership, Alula divested Ocean Rodeo to concentrate on becoming an ingredient brand. Today, Aluula is targeting both premium outdoor markets—packs, tents, wind sports—and larger commercial and industrial applications, where strength, durability, and recyclability are key. Aluula will be presenting at our conference in Toronto, the Planet MicroCap Showcase on October 21-23, and invited her on to discuss: The science behind Aluula's glue-free composites Strategic pivot from Ocean Rodeo to ingredient branding Long but improving sales cycles for adoption Differentiation from commodity materials like polyester and nylon Expansion plans into higher-volume industrial applications Financial discipline, with recent margins of 40–45% For more information about Aluula Composites, please visit: https://aluula.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.

Nueva vuelta de tuerca a los ataques contra la Inteligencia Artificial que cada vez es más capaz, tiene más acceso y ya es una herramienta inevitable en nuestras vidas. Notas y referencias en https://www.tierradehackers.com/episodio-138 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

The second day of indirect talks over a U.S. peace plan to end the war in Gaza has wrapped up in Egypt. A U.S. delegation led by envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to arrive to join the discussions.

Delegations convene for talks in Egypt as Israelis gather at the site of the Nova music festival to mark two years since the 7 October attacks.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Andrew Walworth, Tom Bevan and Carl Cannon discuss new revelations about “Arctic Frost,” the probe helmed by Former Special Counsel Jack Smith into the 2020 election and the January 6 2021 Capitol riots. Yesterday, it was revealed that the FBI had obtained phone records of eight Republican senators as part of that investigation, as well as Republican House member Mark Kelly. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) called the scandal, “arguably worse than Watergate.”  They also discuss Attorney General Pam Bondi's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee today. And they talk about the second anniversary of the October 7th massacre in Israel, where Hamas murdered more than 1200 people, including 46 Americans and took 254 hostages. Indirect talks between Hamas and Israel aimed at ending the war in Gaza resumed today in Egypt. They also discuss whether Jay Jones, Democratic candidate for attorney general in Virginia, can survive criticism of his text messages and phone conversations from 2022 where he said the Republican Speaker of the House of Delegates deserved “two bullets to the head” and wished death upon the Speaker's children. Virginia Democrats, including both U.S. Senators and gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger, are standing by Jones and have not asked him to withdraw from the race. And finally, RCP White House correspondent Phil Wegmann joins the guys to talk about his recent RCP article on revelations that in a highly unusual move, the CIA suppressed an internal report on Ukraine in 2016 that would have proven embarrassing to then-Vice President Joe Biden, at the request of Biden's then national security advisor. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Indirect talks between Hamas and Israel in Egypt are underway, with the goal of reaching an agreement on the first phase of U.S. President Donald Trump's Gaza proposed peace plan. It would see the release of all remaining Israeli hostages by Hamas and potentially, over a thousand Palestinians detained by Israel as well as a ceasefire. The overall plan aims to end the war altogether.But after previous hostage exchanges and ceasefires have failed to bring a permanent end to the war, what's different this time? Are they any closer to peace?William Christou, a freelance journalist working for The Guardian currently in Jerusalem, joins Jayme Poissonto parse through Trump's plan, the talks so far and how people in Israel and Gaza are reacting to it all.We'd love to hear from you! Complete our listener survey here.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

On today's podcast:1) With the US government shutdown closing in on the one week mark, President Trump showed signs of cracking Monday, sending mixed messages about the state of talks with Democrats on their biggest demand. Trump, who had remained on the sidelines of negotiations for days, on Monday said he was open to negotiating with Democrats over health care subsidies to bring an end to the funding stalemate, at one point suggesting those talks had already begun. The remarks appeared to mark a shift after days of Republicans maintaining they’d only consider a possible extension of Obamacare subsidies after Democrats first passed legislation to fund the government.2) A federal judge declined to quickly issue a temporary order blocking the Trump administration’s plan to deploy National Guard members to Chicago to counter protests against the US immigration crackdown, while urging the government to delay the controversial plan until she rules. US District Judge April Perry on Monday said she could not rule immediately on a request by Illinois for a two-week halt to the deployment, which would include National Guard troops under federal control from Illinois and Texas. She set a Thursday hearing for arguments.3) President Trump is pressing Israel and Hamas to secure a settlement to the two-year conflict that’s devastated Gaza and destabilized the Middle East, with the warring sides starting mediated negotiations. A key sign of progress in the talks, taking place in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm El-Sheikh, will be whether Hamas frees all the roughly 20 of its live hostages — plus the remains of those who are dead — in return for Israel releasing about 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. Indirect discussions between negotiators about preparing the conditions for that exchange got underway on Monday, AlQahera News reported on its X account, citing unidentified individuals. Egyptian and Qatari mediators are working with both sides to establish an appropriate mechanism.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Israel and Hamas negotiators have begun their talks in Egypt to discuss U.S. President Donald Trump's 20-point peace plan.

Indirect talks between Israel and Hamas continue. Correspondent in Tel Aviv, Blake Sifton has the latest.

① Israel and Hamas open indirect talks in Egypt — but how likely is a Gaza ceasefire? (00:45) ② France sees third PM exit since last December — does this political turmoil pose risks to Europe? (14:46) ③ China set to test asteroid defense system — how could this mission reshape China's growing space economy and global role? (24:45)

Israel and Hamas launched indirect talks in Egypt for a potential ceasefire. The first phase of the U.S.-drafted peace plan calls for the release of the Israeli hostages in exchange for the partial withdrawal of Israeli troops. A second phase envisions the end of the war and a lasting governance plan for Gaza. Nick Schifrin reports. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Take a Network Break! We start with a two-part listener follow-up and sound alarms about a serious flaw in Termix and tens of thousands of still-vulnerable Cisco security devices. Alkira debuts an MCP server and AI copilot for its multi-cloud networking platform; Cato Networks releases a Chrome-based browser extension to help secure contractor and personal... Read more »

Take a Network Break! We start with a two-part listener follow-up and sound alarms about a serious flaw in Termix and tens of thousands of still-vulnerable Cisco security devices. Alkira debuts an MCP server and AI copilot for its multi-cloud networking platform; Cato Networks releases a Chrome-based browser extension to help secure contractor and personal... Read more »

Take a Network Break! We start with a two-part listener follow-up and sound alarms about a serious flaw in Termix and tens of thousands of still-vulnerable Cisco security devices. Alkira debuts an MCP server and AI copilot for its multi-cloud networking platform; Cato Networks releases a Chrome-based browser extension to help secure contractor and personal... Read more »

Israel and Hamas launched indirect talks in Egypt for a potential ceasefire. The first phase of the U.S.-drafted peace plan calls for the release of the Israeli hostages in exchange for the partial withdrawal of Israeli troops. A second phase envisions the end of the war and a lasting governance plan for Gaza. Nick Schifrin reports. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Hamas and Israel will begin their indirect negotiations in Egypt to reach a deal on ending the conflict in Gaza.

En die deal ziet er als volgt uit. OpenAI krijgt van AMD chips én aandelen. En daar staat tegenover: niks. Tenminste, zolang AMD niet presteert. Pas als de chips geleverd zijn, én het aandeel van AMD zo'n vier keer over de kop is gegaan, komt OpenAI met geld op de proppen. Is het het waard voor AMD om zo veel terrein weg te geven, puur om een plekje in het serverrack van OpenAI te krijgen? Dat hoor je in deze aflevering. Die deal brengt ook de nodige fronsen met zich mee. Het is namelijk nog geen twee weken geleden dat AMD's grootste concurrent, Nvidia, zelf miljarden in OpenAI investeerde. Indirect krijgt Nvidia dus zo een belang in een tegenstander. Belangenverstrengeling? Zoeken we uit. Verder hebben we het over Japan. Beleggers daar zijn dolblij met de vrouw die hun nieuwe premier moet worden. In Frankrijk zitten ze juist in de stress omdat er wéér een premier sneuvelt. En in Italië hebben ze hele andere problemen. Ze moeten misschien op zoek naar een nieuwe afzetmarkt voor hun pasta.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Indirect talks on Trump plan to end Gaza war, release all hostages to being Monday in Egypt. Ahead of talks, Israel's coordinator on hostages and missing meets with head of Red Cross delegation. IAF intercepts missile launched at Israel from YemenSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

World news in 7 minutes. Monday 6th October 2025Today : Israel Hamas plan. Japan female leader. Czechia elections. Syria indirect. Georgia, Morocco protests. Ukraine missiles. Germany arrests. DRC Kabila sentence. Brazil methanol. US treasure.SEND7 is supported by our amazing listeners like you.Our supporters get access to the transcripts and vocabulary list written by us every day.Our supporters get access to an English worksheet made by us once per week.Our supporters get access to our weekly news quiz made by us once per week.We give 10% of our profit to Effective Altruism charities. You can become a supporter at send7.org/supportContact us at podcast@send7.org or send an audio message at speakpipe.com/send7Please leave a rating on Apple podcasts or Spotify.We don't use AI! Every word is written and recorded by us!Since 2020, SEND7 (Simple English News Daily in 7 minutes) has been telling the most important world news stories in intermediate English. Every day, listen to the most important stories from every part of the world in slow, clear English. Whether you are an intermediate learner trying to improve your advanced, technical and business English, or if you are a native speaker who just wants to hear a summary of world news as fast as possible, join Stephen Devincenzi, Juliet Martin and Niall Moore every morning. Transcripts, vocabulary lists, worksheets and our weekly world news quiz are available for our amazing supporters at send7.org. Simple English News Daily is the perfect way to start your day, by practising your listening skills and understanding complicated daily news in a simple way. It is also highly valuable for IELTS and TOEFL students. Students, teachers, TEFL teachers, and people with English as a second language, tell us that they use SEND7 because they can learn English through hard topics, but simple grammar. We believe that the best way to improve your spoken English is to immerse yourself in real-life content, such as what our podcast provides. SEND7 covers all news including politics, business, natural events and human rights. Whether it is happening in Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas or Oceania, you will hear it on SEND7, and you will understand it.Get your daily news and improve your English listening in the time it takes to make a coffee.For more information visit send7.org/contact or send an email to podcast@send7.org

Last week the All Things Sustainable podcast was on the ground in New York City bringing you daily episodes from Climate Week NYC. The week included more than 1,000 events and convened an estimated 100,000 attendees from the private sector, governments, nonprofits and the broader climate community.   To understand how financial institutions are showing up in these climate conversations, we sat down with Heather Zichal. Heather is Global Head of Sustainability at the largest bank in the US, JPMorganChase, and she shares her Climate Week key takeaways. She explains why adaptation and resilience are a growing area of focus, and how this is impacting conversations around insurance. She talks about the rising role of AI in climate and energy transition discussions. And she tells us how the landscape for climate and sustainability is shifting heading into 2026.   “There's a very healthy dose of pragmatism that has been layered into the conversations,” Heather tells us.   This conversation took place at The Nest Climate Campus, where the All Things Sustainable podcast was an official media partner during Climate Week NYC. Listen to all our coverage here: All Things Sustainable | S&P Global  Subscribe to The Sustainability Weekly newsletter from S&P Global.   Listen to our interview with Dr. Sarah Kapnick here: How NOAA is working to turn climate science into action | S&P Global  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.

Link to episode page This week's Cyber Security Headlines – Week in Review is hosted by David Spark with guests Brett Conlon, CISO, American Century Investments, and TC Niedzialkowski, Head of Security & IT, OpenDoor Thanks to our show sponsor, Conveyor Still stuck in security review chaos week after week? You're not the only one. But with Conveyor, teams finally get to a place of Questionnaire Zen. Our AI auto-fills answers across any format of questionnaire, even portals, and an enterprise-ready trust center keeps documents and policies ready for instant sharing. No more manual copy-pasting. No more last-minute scrambles. Just calm, clear security reviews that keep deals moving. Find your Zen with Conveyor at www.conveyor.com. All links and the video of this episode can be found on CISO Series.com

I'm tackling the twists and turns of the criminal appellate process—particularly the difference between direct and indirect appeals, also known as post-conviction or habeas corpus actions. I'm drawing directly from my experiences and real questions that come up in my practice, breaking down what I call the “appellate ladder” that anyone must climb after a conviction, especially here in Ohio.I'll explain why you can't just skip steps in the appeal process, even if it feels like it might save time or money. Skipping a rung can create procedural traps, especially if you're hoping to take your case up to the federal courts later on. I know how tempting it can be to jump ahead, but I'll show you why following every step is crucial if you want a real shot at relief.I'm here to cut through the legal jargon and share practical advice for anyone facing an appeal—or just curious about how the process really works. And yes, I'll even throw in a Mario Bros. analogy to make it all a bit more fun. Stick around if you want to understand the true “appeal” of appeals!Moments00:00 Consider indirect appeal first; it's often more successful and cost-effective than the direct appeal, saving time and legal resources.03:30 Habeas corpus in federal court is complex; missing technicalities at the state level can lead to case dismissal.Here are 3 key takeaways from the episode:There Are Two Appellate Ladders: The criminal appellate process includes a direct appeal (challenging errors from the trial as recorded in the official record) and an indirect or post-conviction appeal (addressing issues outside the record). Both play crucial roles.Don't Skip Steps: As tempting as it is to save time and money by jumping straight to the “stronger” argument, skipping any step in the ladder can lead to procedural default—meaning federal courts may not even consider your case.Strategic Foresight is Vital: Allowing each court level to rule preserves your right to seek relief at the federal level (like habeas corpus). Shortcuts, unfortunately, just aren't an option in appellate law.Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm...