Podcasts about International Association

For decades, large corporations have privatized their massive profits while quietly shifting environmental, social, and health costs onto the public. Unpacking these systemic costs is central to the discussion in The Profiteers, which diagnoses how business practices impact society at large. In this episode, host Corinna Bellizzi speaks with Christopher Marquis, Professor of Chinese Management at the University of Cambridge Judge Business School and author of Better Business, to analyze the hidden mechanics of corporate externalities. From plastics lobbying and regulatory co-optation to visionary models of regenerative agriculture and foundation ownership, they explore why exposing systemic corporate abuse is the first crucial step toward real reform. Discover how innovative enterprise models, policy levers, and conscious consumer choices can help build a truly sustainable and regenerative economy. About Guest: Professor Marquis' research and teaching focus on how some of the biggest crises of our day – including climate change, inequality, and discrimination – are intimately connected to how our current economic and societal systems prioritize accumulating and concentrating wealth for the few over the concerns and needs of everyone and everything else. His research and writing focus on the need to rebalance the interactions between corporations, governments, and civil society to deliver socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes to all. Marquis is the author of The Profiteers: How Business Privatizes Profits and Socialize Costs. His earlier books include the award-winning Better Business: How the B Corp Movement is Remaking Capitalism and Mao and Markets: The Communist Roots of Chinese Enterprise, which was a Financial Times Best Book of 2022. He has also authored more than 20 peer-reviewed academic articles and more than 50 Harvard business cases on topics related to social innovation, sustainable business and doing business in China. Professor Marquis served 2 terms as an Associate Editor at Administrative Science Quarterly and has also been a Senior Editor at Organization Science and Management and Organization Review. He has also served a term as Representative at Large for the International Association for Chinese Management Research (IACMR) and Organization and Management Theory Division, Academy of Management. Before returning to academia, Marquis was a Vice President and Technology Manager at JP Morgan Chase. He currently is on the sustainability advisory board of the French multinational Sanofi Consumer Healthcare. Guest Website & Socials: https://chrismarquis.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-marquis-3884834/ https://x.com/Chris_Marquis_ https://substack.com/@chrismarquis Resources Mentioned: BOOK: The Profiteers https://amzn.to/4zbwM66 BOOK: Better Business https://amzn.to/4crRPHF Key Topics Discussed (with time stamps): 01:32 Who Really Pays For Corporate Externalities? 07:22 The Plastic Dilemma: Rethinking Packaging In Sustainable Business 11:57 Privatizing Profits & Socializing Costs: Unpacking Corporate Externalities 20:37 Lessons From GE: How Shareholder Primacy Distorts Business Ethics 30:17 Big Tech And Algorithms: Profit Growth Vs. Corporate Accountability 36:30 Unpacking The Policy Debate: Plastic Lobbying & Chemical Recycling 44:19 Rethinking Lifecycles: Circularity And Extended Consumer Responsibility 51:58 Regenerative Agriculture: How Purpose-Driven Brands Restore Soil & Systems 01:00:02 Building A Regenerative Economy: Purpose-Driven Governance & Ownership 01:07:15 Conclusion & Takeaways: Empowering Individual Action and Policy Reform CONNECT & SUPPORT CARE MORE BE BETTERSubstack: https://caremorebebetter.substack.comYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/caremorebebetterTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@caremorebebetterInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/caremorebebetterFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/CareMoreBeBetterLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/care-more-be-betterCAUSE PARTNER: If you value open dialogue, sustainability, and social equity, I invite you to support our new cause partner —Prescott College. To learn more about this effort and to support the show, visit: https://caremorebebetter.com/support/ Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions is investigating reports that a union representing roughly 600,000 workers is pushing to advance the interests of the Cuban regime. The committee is demanding information from the International Association of Machinists (IAM) about its possible links to the Cuban government. A report claims that IAM has traveled to Cuba, taken policy positions aligned with the regime, and union members have been addressed by a Cuban diplomat at a local union hall. FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Christine Balling, Senior Vice President & Adjunct Professor at The Institute of World Politics, who says its an influence campaign to sway American voters to support the foreign policy goals of a country hostile to the U.S. Click Here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Victorian Legislative Assembly Legal and Social Issues Committee has published their final reports from the Parliamentary Inquiry into the recruitment methods and impacts of cults and organised fringe groups, which commenced in April 2025. There are two parts, Volume 1: ‘Crossing the line' and Volume 2: ‘In their words'. They set out 39 Recommendations which the Victorian Government now has six months to respond to. In this interview episode, lead author of the Beyond Belief submission and advocate Patrick McIvor shares his insights into the landmark report which includes a recommendation of criminalising group-based coercive control, and what the next steps will be.LinksReports from the Inquiry into the recruitment methods and impacts of cults and organised fringe groups — Parliament of VictoriaPatrick McIvor — Patrick's websiteBeyond Belief — Inquiry submission, 31 July 2025 (plus Sarah's submission here, 29 July 2025)SOCCHG — Survivors of Coercive Cults and High Control GroupsStop Religious Coercion Australia — website, Facebook group, TikTok and InstagramAustralian Cult Survivors Network — Facebook groupCredits:Produced by Sarah SteelMusic by Joe GouldYou can support Let's Talk About Sects here. Sarah will be appearing at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Sydney on Saturday 22 August, chairing Anke Richter's session which also features Laura McConnell, more info about that here. And Joe Gould who you'll know as the composer of this podcast is touring with his band The Crooked Fiddle Band for their 20th anniversary – they count Brian Eno amongst their fans. More info about that here.If you have been personally affected by involvement in a cult, or would like to support those who have been, you can find support with or donate to Cult Information and Family Support if you're in Australia (via cifs.org.au), and you can find resources outside of Australia with the International Cultic Studies Association (via internationalculticstudies.org). If you or someone you know is in crisis or needs support right now, please call Lifeline on 13 11 14 in Australia, or find your local crisis centre via the International Association for Suicide Prevention website at iasp.info. Find Sarah's audiobook Do As I Say here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This encore episode of The Joyful Friar podcast has over 10,000 views! This episode features Dr. Raymond Moody's groundbreaking book, "Life After Life." As the International Association for Near Death Studies (IANDS) Conference begins next week, Fr. Nathan and Dr. Moody reflect on the origins of this influential research and share insights into what first inspired the study of near-death experiences. My Prayer Partner Kimberly Sharp, LMFT, is speaking at the IANDS Conference on Saturday, August 29, 2026, at 3:15 pm on a panel: "Mental Health Support for Near-Death and Related Experiences." It qualifies for the Academic and Professional Track.Dr. Raymond Moody Jr. is an American psychiatrist, philosopher, and author widely known as the "father of the near-death experience" (NDE). He coined the term "near-death experience" and wrote the 1975 landmark bestseller "Life After Life," which sold over 13 million copies.Connect with Dr. Raymond Moody: https://www.lifeafterlife.comhttps://www.facebook.com/DrRaymondMoodyhttps://www.instagram.com/Life__AfterLifehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYbMoyl1QHvJVidKWIOiVbghttps://www.tiktok.com/@afterlifeexplorersClick this link and let us know what you love about The Joyful Friar Podcast! Support the show​Connect with Father Nathan Castle, O.P.: http://www.nathan-castle.com https://www.facebook.com/fathernathancastle https://www.instagram.com/father_nathan_castle https://www.youtube.com/@FatherNathanCastleOPListen to the podcast: https://apple.co/3ssA9b5Purchase books: https://tinyurl.com/34bhp2t4Donate: https://nathan-castle.com/donateMy Dominican brothers and I live a vow of poverty. That means we hold our goods in common. If you enjoy this podcast, please donate https://nathan-castle.com/donate. 501©3 of the Western Dominican Province.Father Nathan Castle, O.P., is a Dominican Friar, author, podcast host, and retreat leader. Over the past 27 years, his unique ministry rooted in the Catholic Church's mystical tradition has helped more than 700 souls transition from one afterlife plane to a more joyful one. Father Nathan believes that providing such help is something the Holy Spirit has given him and his prayer partners to do.     Theme music: Derek Gust      ...

In this episode, Niall speaks with Dr. Marjorie Woollacott, Professor Emerita of Neuroscience at the University of Oregon and former President of the Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Sciences. After more than 30 years of NIH-funded research on motor control, balance, and rehabilitation, a profound meditation experience led her to question her understanding of consciousness and reality. In this conversation, they explore: — Why Dr. Woollacott's research with nonverbal autistic children is raising questions about telepathic abilities — How the brain may act as a filter that limits our perception of a much larger reality — The scientific evidence for reincarnation from researchers including Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker — What synchronicities may reveal about the interconnected nature of consciousness — Why pursuing a parallel line of research allowed Dr. Woollacott to study consciousness while building her academic career You can learn more about Dr. Woollacott's work at https://marjoriewoollacott.com. --- Marjorie Woollacott, Ph.D., is an Emeritus Professor of Human Physiology at the University of Oregon and a renowned neuroscientist specializing in human movement, attention, meditation, and consciousness. She has received more than $7.2 million in research funding and has conducted research in child development, aging, rehabilitation, meditation, tai chi, balance, and attentional abilities. Woollacott has published over 200 scientific articles and authored or co-edited eight books, including the widely used textbook Motor Control: Translating Research into Clinical Practice. She is Research Director of the International Association of Near-Death Studies and President of the Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Sciences. Her book Infinite Awareness explores the relationship between neuroscience, consciousness, and spiritual experiences, reflecting her work at the intersection of scientific research and questions about the nature of the mind. --- Interview Links: — Dr. Woollacott's website: marjoriewoollacott.com — Dr. Woollacott's books: https://marjoriewoollacott.com/books/ — Dr. Woollacott's events: https://marjoriewoollacott.com/events/

AMEE is the International Association for Health Professions Education. This year the annual conference is on in Vienna, Austria from August 22 – 26. Each year – the AMEE Simulation Committee has a session in which 4 nominated papers are presented and judged.  Leizl Nayahangan and Ross Scalese are on that committee and spoke to us about the event, the process and the papers.  If you want to go to AMEE 2026… https://amee.org/events/amee-2026/.  The Simulation Committee Journal club is on Tuesday 26th 0900. Turn up early !  Our guests  Ross Scalese is a practicing General Internal Medicine physician; Professor of Medicine and Medical Education at the University of Miami (UM) Miller School of Medicine in Florida, USA; and Director of Educational Technology Development at UM's Gordon Center for Simulation and Innovation in Medical Education.  Leizl (LIEzl) Nayahangan is chair of the AMEE Simulation Committee, and a research scientist at the Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES) in Copenhagen, Denmark. She is currently completing her PhD, focusing on the implementation of simulation-based education.    The finalists !    Schram A, et al. Exploring the relationship between simulation-based team training and sick leave among healthcare professionals: a cohort study across multiple hospital sites. BMJ Open. 2023;13:e076163.   Petrosoniak A, et al. Moving beyond projects: a logic model evaluation of an established translational simulation program. Adv Simul (Lond). 2026;11:39. doi:10.1186/s41077-026-00434-x.   Weller JM, et al. Effects of a national team training intervention for operating theatre teams on patient and staff outcomes: a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial and mixed-methods study. Br J Anaesth. 2026;136(4):1361-1370.   Tallentire VR, McColgan-Smith S, Stewart F, McIntyre S, Smith SE. The delicate dance of debriefing: exploring how behavioural marker systems influence the socio-emotional dynamics of simulation practice. Adv Simul (Lond). 2026;11:20.     Congratulations to all the finalists and – if you're not attending – we'll let you know the winner next month on Simulcast 

Nick is joined by criminologists Cassie Pedersen and Stephen Burrell to discuss gender and animals. Some more specific topics we cover are: petromasculinity and intersections between gender and the environment, veganism as a feminist practice but also the way some vegans attempt to distance themselves from emotion/femininity, and representations of gender in the documentary Game Changers.  Links: You can hear Cassie and Stephen discussing masculinity and caring for nature on Stephen's podcast Now and Men: https://nowandmen.net/episode/care-for-nature Check out the blog of the International Association of Vegan Sociologists for short, accessible articles from vegan sociologists: https://www.vegansociology.com/blog/  Music: Animal Liberation by Los Fastidios. Baby, Does Your Heart Sink? By Martha. You Hear Yes by Destroy Boys, featuring Mannequin Pussy and Scowl. The Scars of the Land by King Apathy.

This episode I am reading from JM DeBord's book 'The Science of the Paranormal: The Truth Behind Telepathy, ESP, Reincarnation, and More Mysterious Phenomena'. Discover the truth behind ESP, paranormal powers, and psychic abilities—the perfect gift for curious minds and bold scientists alike. Some paranormal phenomena and powers of the mind are real, but mainstream science dismisses it all as fantasy. The Science of the Paranormal looks toward the overwhelming evidence that something weird and wild lies behind our everyday reality. Credible witnesses have seen paranormal activity with their own eyes. Scientists have studied it in their labs. And everyday we see depictions of it in popular media like Stranger Things and X-Men. Separate fact from fiction in this book and get answers to questions like: Can objects be moved with psychokinesis? Is the future foreseeable? Can we communicate telepathically? What does science say about ESP? Where is the evidence for reincarnation and spirits? Bio Known online as RadOwl, he's published over 25,000 dream interpretations at r/dreams — Reddit's largest dreaming community, which he's led as head moderator since 2014. No other public record of dream expertise comes close. He's the author of DREAMS 1-2-3: Three Steps to Interpret Dreams — the most complete modern guide to dream interpretation — plus The Dream Interpretation Dictionary, RadOwl's Crash Course, and The Science of the Paranormal. Recognized by the International Association for the Study of Dreams. Former dream expert-in-residence at Canyon Ranch Spa. Featured in The Guardian and a recurring guest on Coast to Coast AM. He built the DREAMS 1-2-3 method to give anyone a practical system for decoding what their mind is actually saying at night. Because your dreams are telling you something — and once you know how to listen, everything changes. https://dreams123.net/ https://jmdebord.com/ https://creators.spotify.com/pod/profile/dreamsthatshapeus/ https://www.amazon.com/Science-Paranormal-Reincarnation-Mysterious-Phenomena/dp/1510778160 https://www.pastliveshypnosis.co.uk/https://www.patreon.com/alienufopodcasthttps://simonbown.com/My new book, Aspects of Alien Abduction https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GRRPCT9YZen AI bit.ly/zenAI_bpp_ufo Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What happens when a hardcore materialist and theoretical physicist investigates the ultimate mystery? Today, I'm joined by Dr. Vera Spillner—a philosopher, professor, and expert in string theory who spent years believing the physical brain completely created human consciousness. After studying the profound accounts of near-death experiencers, Vera discovered stunning parallels between what people report from the other side and the fundamental laws of theoretical physics. By applying her scientific background to the ultimate question of what happens when we die, she found incredible evidence that our souls continue on. In this episode, we dive into: * The "Receiver Theory" of Consciousness: Why neurobiology cannot prove the brain creates the mind, and how we might just be antennas tuning into the "music" of the soul. 
 * Entanglement and Oneness: How quantum physics suggests that everything in the universe is fundamentally connected, perfectly mirroring the oneness felt during an NDE. 
 * The Illusion of Time: How Einstein's block universe echoes the timelessness reported on the other side. 
 * The Evolutionary Flaw of the Life Review: Why experiencing a calm, ethical review of your life moments before death is a complete waste of biological energy—and acts as proof that our souls continue on to learn and grow. 
 * The Veridical NDE of Vincenz Henzler: How a German farmer returned from a tragic tractor accident with the unexplainable ability to paint Divinely inspired masterpieces. 
 Dr. Spillner also shares the profound impact of the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS). If you want to dive deeper into this research, hear incredible speakers, and connect with a beautiful community, explore their conference and year-round resources! *Connect with Dr. Vera Spillner: https://hdm-stuttgart.de/person/spillner/ * Explore the IANDS Conference & year-round resources: http://iands.org


 and https://iands.org/events/conference/ * Book about Vinzenz Henzler: I Want to Give You Light on Amazon at https://amzn.to/4xvNGe9 CONNECT WITH SANDRA CHAMPLAIN:  Don't miss my "Shades of the Afterlife' Podcast with the BEST of all topics about the afterlife: https://omny.fm/shows/shades-of-the-afterlife * Website (Free book by joining the 'Insiders Club, Free empowering Sunday Gatherings with medium demonstration, Mediumship Classes & more): http://wedontdie.com *Patreon (Early access, PDF of over 850 episodes & more visit https://www.patreon.com/wedontdieradio Thank you for listening!!!

World-record holder and ultrarunning legend Camille Herron joins AFB and Anna G for one of her most personal and wide-ranging conversations to date. This episode is not just a controversial hot take on Facebook, but is a long run in her fast but sometimes troubled shoes.   Rather than focusing on splits and statistics, this episode explores the experiences that have shaped Camille both on and off the race course. She shares what it was like receiving a late diagnosis of autism and ADHD, how those discoveries helped explain decades of challenges and successes, and why many of the traits she once struggled with have become strengths in elite ultrarunning events. Camille also reflects on her Vermont 100 comeback, racing without crew or pacers, evolving her training as she enters her mid-40s, and managing the effects of perimenopause while continuing to compete at the highest level. The conversation then shifts to several of the sport's biggest topics including race integrity, anti-doping, SafeSport, pacing, record ratification, and what the future of professional ultrarunning might look like. Whether you know Camille through her world records or the recent headlines, this episode offers a thoughtful, honest look at one of ultrarunning's most accomplished and most outspoken athletes. Life is complicated, and we are all wired in our own unique way. Sometimes it takes three hours to start to understand these differences.  Links for this Episode Vermont 100 Spartathlon Comrades Marathon Western States 100 International Association of Ultrarunners (IAU) SafeSport WADA GOMU Get your official Cultra Clothes and other Cultra TRP PodSwag at our store! Outro music by Nick Byram Become a Cultra Crew Patreon Supporter  basic licker.  If you lick us, we will most likely lick you right back Cultra Facebook Fan Page Go here to talk shit and complain and give us advice that we wont follow Cultra Trail Running Instagram Don't watch this with your kids Buy Fred's Book  Running Home More Information on the #CUT112   

Nutrafol's Rooted In series brought to you by The Tease nutrafol.com/stylists Hosted By Johnnell Theresa Nidoh  Beauty runs deep in her roots—literally. Johnnell grew up in her mother's salon, where the sound of dryers and hairspray sparked her passion for the professional hair industry. From sweeping floors to leading brand education and storytelling, she's built a 20+ year career across brands like Bumble and bumble, DevaCurl, and Salon Professional Distribution.  Long before it became mainstream, she saw the shift toward scalp health and whole-body wellness. Today, at the heart & helm of the Salon Channel at Nutrafol, Johnnell is passionate about shaping the future of holistic hair health and helping make inside-out beauty the new standard. Outside of work, she is fueled by travel, connection, yoga, meditation, and a love for new experiences that keep her grounded and inspired, because less stress = healthier hair. Interview with Karen Gordon Karen Gordon, President of Karen Gordon Hair Loss Solutions, is a Certified Trichologist through the World Trichology Society (WTS). She  has served as an advisory board member for WTS and the International Association of Trichologists (IAT). She has also served on the Board of Directors of Intercoiffure America/Canada, and in 2022 was awarded the Ordre de la Chevaliere in Paris, France. She is a Past-President of Cosmetologists Chicago and America's Beauty Show. She is a Bauman Certified Hair Coach. Last year her clinic was named one of the top 10 trichology centers in the United States for CRLab. Karen has a Master's Degree in Applied Business from De Paul University in Chicago.   In 2016, Karen created the Gordon Method of Hair & Scalp Analysis to more accurately uncover the underlying causes of hair loss and scalp conditions, and she teaches the Gordon Method to trichologists worldwide. She sees clients in her Chicago office and has a global clientele that she sees virtually. She is a sought-after speaker and educator on hair loss and scalp health. Links: https://www.instagram.com/karengordonhairloss/  More from TheTease.com   Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/readthetease/ (readthetease) Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/volumeupbythetease/ (volumeupbythetease) Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kellyehlers/ / (KellyEhlers) Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/eljeffreycraig/ (eljeffreycraig) Web: https://www.thetease.com (TheTease.com) Email: VolumeUp@TheTease.com   Credits: Volume Up is a Tease Media production. This episode was produced by Monica Hickey and Madeline Hickey. James Arbaje is our editor and audio engineer. Thank you to our creative team for putting together the graphics for this episode.   Thank you to the team who helped create our theme song. Show them some love and check out their other work! •Josh Landowski https://www.instagram.com/josh_landowski/

This episode is special in so many ways. From July 6th to 11th, downtown Ulaanbaatar was immersed in jazz music from all around the globe. As someone who loves music and the personal stories behind it, I just had to capture these moments. While there is a bit of background noise from the live atmosphere, these raw, touching stories from the visiting jazz musicians and students make it all worth it.A huge thank you to everyone who shared their stories with me, and I feel incredible gratitude to have been part of the International Association of Schools of Jazz (IASJ) 2026 conference.Note: This is Part 1! Stay tuned for Part 2, featuring conversations with Danilo Pérez, Ignasi Terraza, Sunny Kim, Massimo Cavalli, and more. Timestamps:01:00 – Seta Ramaroson (Madagascar)06:29 – Oscar Wisnia (USA)09:30 – Pedro Moreira & Gonçalo Marques (Portugal)15:10 – Alicia Lindberg, Maria João Leite, Irene Lovato, & Reese Pike (Sweden, Portugal, Italy, USA)25:30 – Derek Coombs & Liam Kimball (USA)31:03 – Martin Zenker (Germany)36:32 – Carl Hammond (USA)

Erin tried to become a "better" speaker. She got the coach. Did the reps. Rehearsed the lines. Followed the advice. And then realized she may have accidentally polished the magic right out of herself. In this solo episode, Erin shares what happened when a huge speaking opportunity pushed her into full preparation mode, why over-rehearsing made her feel less connected on stage, and the old coaching advice that came back swinging: Trust your creative process. This one is for anyone who has ever tried to improve themselves and accidentally started sanding down the exact thing that made them stand out. In this episode you'll hear: -Why "best practices" are only useful if they actually work for you -How over-preparing can make you technically better but less you -Why Erin had to 50% Rule her own speaking proces -The difference between memorizing words and connecting to the message -Why your weird little way of doing things might be the whole damn point Book Erin to speak Ready to modernize your culture, liberate your leadership, and differentiate your business without sounding like every other company on LinkedIn? Bring Erin Hatzikostas in to show your team how authenticity can become an actual strategic advantage, not just another corporate buzzword. Book Erin to Speak If you'd like quick tangible tips and practical corporate career advice to level up your authentic leadership, download the 10 simple "plays" to stop selling out and start standing out at https://bauthenticinc.mykajabi.com/freebie If you like jammin' with us on the podcast, b sure to join us for more fun and inspiration! Follow Erin on LinkedIn or Instagram Take our simple, fun and insightful "What's your workplace superhero name?" quiz Unleash your Authentic Superpower with Erin's book, You Do You-ish Throw out half the playbook and start competing in a league of your own. Check out Erin's book, The 50% Rule. Work with Us Or just buy some fun, authentic, kick-ars merch here To connect with Erin and/or Nicole, email: hello@bauthenticinc.com DISCLAIMER: This episode is not explicit, though contains mild swearing that may be unsuitable for younger audiences. Tweetable Comments "Trust your creative process." "I spent more time searching for the words than searching for the feeling and the passion." "What's worked for you in the past actually might work in the future." "Constantly look for ways to improve without throwing away what makes you you." Trust Your Creative Process Editor's note: This transcript has been edited for clarity, length, and readability. In this solo episode, Erin Hatzikostas shares what happened when she followed traditional public speaking advice so closely that she lost some of the authenticity that made her effective. She explores over-preparation, creative confidence, the 50% Rule, and how to improve your work without abandoning the process that makes you uniquely good at it. When "Leveling Up" Starts to Change You Erin: Over the last nine months, I've gone through a journey that feels full circle, ironic, and maybe even a little hypocritical. Erin: I preach authenticity. In my second book, I talk about the 50% Rule: whenever you're doing something, keep some of what works, introduce something new, and throw out the pieces that feel inauthentic or simply do not fit you. Erin: I'm also a professional speaker. That's my main occupation, and last summer my speaking career was really starting to pick up steam. Then I was selected to speak at the International Association of Speaking Bureaus conference. These are the people who often help organizations find speakers for major events, so getting the chance to speak in front of them felt like a very big deal. Erin: There were almost 100 applicants, and only six of us were selected. Speaking can be a roller coaster. You are constantly trying to earn the next opportunity, even after you've had success. But this felt like one of those moments where I thought, "Okay, Erin. This is your chance. Get your act together." The Pressure to Rehearse Perfectly Erin: Around that same time, I had started working with a true speech and vocal coach, Darcy Webb. She was wonderful because she did not try to turn me into somebody else. She understood what made me, me, and helped bring more of that out. Erin: She helped me embrace the facial expressions I naturally make. She also told me to stop whispering. I insisted I was not whispering, but then I watched the recordings and realized, "Oh. That is a little weird." Erin: One of the biggest things she taught me was that I needed to rehearse. I needed to put in the hours, record myself, repeat the material, and get the words into my body. Erin: I resisted that advice for a long time. Then this huge speaking opportunity came along, and I only had 20 minutes. In the speaking world, shorter is often harder. You have to be more concise, make stronger choices, and communicate the point in less time. Erin: So I decided it was time to become the polished, mega-professional speaker I thought I was supposed to be. I rehearsed and rehearsed. Why Perfect Preparation Did Not Create a Perfect Performance Erin: I already had some baggage around over-rehearsing. When I did my TEDx talk in 2020, I practiced it so much that the delivery stopped feeling like me. I still love the content, but the performance felt too controlled. My passion did not fully come through. Erin: Still, I prepared heavily for the speakers bureau conference. I used some of my best material, knew what I wanted to say, and felt ready. Erin: Then the event came. I did not flop, but I did not knock it out of the park either. Erin: I am always trying to knock it out of the park, not because I think I work harder than everyone else or because I need people to tell me I'm great. I want to connect. I want people to feel something. That connection is what authenticity can create. Erin: At first, I found other things to blame. Someone after me absolutely crushed it. My necklace was jangling against the microphone. There were all these little details I could point to. Erin: But the deeper truth was that I had over-prepared. I was not fully in the moment with the people in front of me. I was delivering something polished, but I was not drawing from that conviction and energy that usually comes from deep inside me and pours into the audience. When Rehearsal Became the New Habit Erin: The confusing part was that I had also learned how to rehearse. So for the next several months, I kept doing it. Erin: I practiced for events in January, February, and March. I crafted catchy lines. I added new language. I made sure I could nail the material. Erin: The talks went well. I did not bomb. I created customized moments and found creative ways to make each speech feel specific to the audience. Erin: But something was missing. Erin: Usually, I can feel the connection in the room. You can see it in people's faces. You know when the audience does not want the experience to end. These events were successful on paper, but they did not feel the same. Erin: Then I spoke at an event in Chicago. I said everything I meant to say. I did not forget the important parts. Technically, I nailed it. But that thing I care about most still was not there. Words Versus Intent Erin: That was when I realized what over-preparing had taken away from me. Erin: My talks have structure. They are mapped into sections, and I know the points I want to make. I may have specific phrases or stories I want to land, but I have never needed every word written out. Erin: Before I became so focused on rehearsal, I spent more time thinking about the intent of each section. I would ask, "What am I really trying to get across here? What do I need these people to understand or feel?" Erin: Then I allowed myself the freedom to communicate that idea in the moment. Erin: That freedom gave me space to bring in something I heard earlier in the day, respond to the audience, interact more naturally, or follow a thought that came to me while I was speaking. Erin: When I over-rehearsed, I spent more time searching for the exact words than searching for the feeling, the purpose, and the passion behind them. Erin: I cannot do both equally well. Some people can. Actors can deliver rehearsed lines with incredible emotional depth. Some speakers can memorize every beat and still make it feel spontaneous. God bless them. That is a real skill. Erin: But it is not my skill. It is not where I bring the most value. "Why Don't You Trust Your Creative Process?" Erin: This brought me back to something my first executive coach taught me years ago when I was still in corporate. Erin: I was preparing a speech for a leadership event. I had planned the whole talk, but I had not figured out the ending. In my notes, I had essentially written, "And then some bada boom, bada bing ending." Erin: I went into our coaching session and confessed that I thought I had a major flaw. I told her, "I'm a great starter, but I'm not a great finisher. I worked on this talk for hours, and I still could not complete it." Erin: I expected her to give me techniques, hacks, or some process that would fix what I believed was broken. Erin: Instead, she stopped and asked, "Erin, are you typically successful?" Erin: I told her that I was not successful at everything, but yes, especially when it came to public speaking, I was usually better than average. Erin: Then she said, "Why don't you trust your creative process?" Erin: That question has stayed with me for more than eight years. Advice Is Not an Absolute Erin: People love to give advice in absolutes. Never start a conversation this way. Always prepare for an interview that way. Follow this formula to find your career path. Use these exact steps to become successful. Erin: My rule is this: be very cautious about advice that begins with "always" or "never." Erin: There is more information available than ever, and many people make money by selling certainty. They tell you they have the formula. But even excellent advice may not work exactly as prescribed for you. Erin: If you talked to 100 successful speakers, probably 99 of them would tell you that you have to do the reps, practice constantly, and rehearse until the material is locked in. Erin: That may work beautifully for those 99 people. It does not work that way for me. Erin: My mistake was not the rehearsal itself. My mistake was failing to apply my own 50% Rule. I accepted the advice as a total system instead of asking which parts would help me and which parts would erase something important. Improve Without Erasing What Makes You Good Erin: The answer is not to reject coaching, training, or preparation. I have learned so much from all of it. Erin: I am a stronger speaker now. I understand my voice better. I am more aware of my physical presence. I have new ways to customize talks and prepare meaningful openings. I am continuing to evolve. Erin: But I am no longer willing to give up the creative process that works for me. Erin: Now I prepare in my own way. I spend hours thinking, organizing stories, and deciding what each section needs to accomplish. I rehearse important pieces, but I do not force myself to say every sentence exactly the same way every time. Erin: I focus on the intent. I focus on the passion. I focus on the point I want to make and the people I want to reach. Erin: When I returned to that process for events in June and July, I could feel the difference. I felt like myself again. Trust the Evidence From Your Own Life Erin: I want the same for you. Erin: People will tell you how to run a meeting, answer interview questions, build a career, lead a team, create content, or prepare for a major opportunity. Learn from them. Borrow what makes you better. Stay open to coaching and improvement. Erin: But also trust the data from your own life. Erin: What has worked for you in the past may still work in the future. Your process may need to evolve, but evolution does not require you to throw away the qualities that made you effective in the first place. Erin: Use the 50% Rule. Keep some of what works. Add new tools. Throw the pieces that do not fit into the trash. Erin: Constantly look for ways to improve without abandoning what makes you, you. Erin: Trust your creative process.

Eileen Koval, CDBC, CBCC-KA, CPDT-KA, MSc (in Operations Management) is a fully certified dog behavior consultant with the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC). She is currently pursuing an M.S. in Applied Animal Behavior and Welfare at Husson University (graduates in summer 2026). Eileen believes that understanding each dog as an individual is the foundation of a good cross-species relationship. She enjoys helping humans and dogs communicate more effectively to create brilliant relationships filled with joy, purpose, and fulfillment for all involved. Eileen offers private consulting for serious dog behavior issues, obedience/manners, and agility training. She developed a unique online course to help pet parents and trainers teach reliable snake avoidance behavior off-leash through positive reinforcement techniques. These techniques have been applied by trainers worldwide to teach dogs to avoid dangerous environmental hazards and respect off-leash property boundaries. Eileen lives on a small ranch in Las Vegas, Nevada, with her husband and their Nederlandse Kooikerhondjes.Legal Disclaimer: This podcast is intended for educational purposes only and does not constitute advice or professional services by either the host nor any of the guests. info@confidentcaninesdogtraining.comWebsite: https://www.confidentcaninesdogtraining.comThank you for listening to the Enlightened Pet Behavior Podcast. I hope that you and your beloved pets have found valuable insights for a more harmonious life together. Please remember that this podcast provides educational information only and is not a substitute for professional veterinary or behavioral advice. If you need personalized support, please don't hesitate to contact me to explore how we can work together to achieve your pet behavior goals. You can reach me at www.enlightenedpetbehavior.com or via email at susan@enlightenedpetbehavior.com. Special thanks to Mac Light for composing the podcast's music; you can find him at www.maclightsongwriter.comIf you find the show helpful and enjoyable, please consider showing your support! Subscribing, following, rating, reviewing, and sharing with friends takes just a moment but significantly boosts the show's visibility, helping more pet parents discover it. Thank you for your support! 

Erin tried to become a "better" speaker. She got the coach. Did the reps. Rehearsed the lines. Followed the advice. And then realized she may have accidentally polished the magic right out of herself. In this solo episode, Erin shares what happened when a huge speaking opportunity pushed her into full preparation mode, why over-rehearsing made her feel less connected on stage, and the old coaching advice that came back swinging: Trust your creative process. This one is for anyone who has ever tried to improve themselves and accidentally started sanding down the exact thing that made them stand out. In this episode you'll hear: -Why "best practices" are only useful if they actually work for you -How over-preparing can make you technically better but less you -Why Erin had to 50% Rule her own speaking proces -The difference between memorizing words and connecting to the message -Why your weird little way of doing things might be the whole damn point Book Erin to speak Ready to modernize your culture, liberate your leadership, and differentiate your business without sounding like every other company on LinkedIn? Bring Erin Hatzikostas in to show your team how authenticity can become an actual strategic advantage, not just another corporate buzzword. Book Erin to Speak If you'd like quick tangible tips and practical corporate career advice to level up your authentic leadership, download the 10 simple "plays" to stop selling out and start standing out at https://bauthenticinc.mykajabi.com/freebie If you like jammin' with us on the podcast, b sure to join us for more fun and inspiration! Follow Erin on LinkedIn or Instagram Take our simple, fun and insightful "What's your workplace superhero name?" quiz Unleash your Authentic Superpower with Erin's book, You Do You-ish Throw out half the playbook and start competing in a league of your own. Check out Erin's book, The 50% Rule. Work with Us Or just buy some fun, authentic, kick-ars merch here To connect with Erin and/or Nicole, email: hello@bauthenticinc.com DISCLAIMER: This episode is not explicit, though contains mild swearing that may be unsuitable for younger audiences. Tweetable Comments "Trust your creative process." "I spent more time searching for the words than searching for the feeling and the passion." "What's worked for you in the past actually might work in the future." "Constantly look for ways to improve without throwing away what makes you you." Trust Your Creative Process Editor's note: This transcript has been edited for clarity, length, and readability. In this solo episode, Erin Hatzikostas shares what happened when she followed traditional public speaking advice so closely that she lost some of the authenticity that made her effective. She explores over-preparation, creative confidence, the 50% Rule, and how to improve your work without abandoning the process that makes you uniquely good at it. When "Leveling Up" Starts to Change You Erin: Over the last nine months, I've gone through a journey that feels full circle, ironic, and maybe even a little hypocritical. Erin: I preach authenticity. In my second book, I talk about the 50% Rule: whenever you're doing something, keep some of what works, introduce something new, and throw out the pieces that feel inauthentic or simply do not fit you. Erin: I'm also a professional speaker. That's my main occupation, and last summer my speaking career was really starting to pick up steam. Then I was selected to speak at the International Association of Speaking Bureaus conference. These are the people who often help organizations find speakers for major events, so getting the chance to speak in front of them felt like a very big deal. Erin: There were almost 100 applicants, and only six of us were selected. Speaking can be a roller coaster. You are constantly trying to earn the next opportunity, even after you've had success. But this felt like one of those moments where I thought, "Okay, Erin. This is your chance. Get your act together." The Pressure to Rehearse Perfectly Erin: Around that same time, I had started working with a true speech and vocal coach, Darcy Webb. She was wonderful because she did not try to turn me into somebody else. She understood what made me, me, and helped bring more of that out. Erin: She helped me embrace the facial expressions I naturally make. She also told me to stop whispering. I insisted I was not whispering, but then I watched the recordings and realized, "Oh. That is a little weird." Erin: One of the biggest things she taught me was that I needed to rehearse. I needed to put in the hours, record myself, repeat the material, and get the words into my body. Erin: I resisted that advice for a long time. Then this huge speaking opportunity came along, and I only had 20 minutes. In the speaking world, shorter is often harder. You have to be more concise, make stronger choices, and communicate the point in less time. Erin: So I decided it was time to become the polished, mega-professional speaker I thought I was supposed to be. I rehearsed and rehearsed. Why Perfect Preparation Did Not Create a Perfect Performance Erin: I already had some baggage around over-rehearsing. When I did my TEDx talk in 2020, I practiced it so much that the delivery stopped feeling like me. I still love the content, but the performance felt too controlled. My passion did not fully come through. Erin: Still, I prepared heavily for the speakers bureau conference. I used some of my best material, knew what I wanted to say, and felt ready. Erin: Then the event came. I did not flop, but I did not knock it out of the park either. Erin: I am always trying to knock it out of the park, not because I think I work harder than everyone else or because I need people to tell me I'm great. I want to connect. I want people to feel something. That connection is what authenticity can create. Erin: At first, I found other things to blame. Someone after me absolutely crushed it. My necklace was jangling against the microphone. There were all these little details I could point to. Erin: But the deeper truth was that I had over-prepared. I was not fully in the moment with the people in front of me. I was delivering something polished, but I was not drawing from that conviction and energy that usually comes from deep inside me and pours into the audience. When Rehearsal Became the New Habit Erin: The confusing part was that I had also learned how to rehearse. So for the next several months, I kept doing it. Erin: I practiced for events in January, February, and March. I crafted catchy lines. I added new language. I made sure I could nail the material. Erin: The talks went well. I did not bomb. I created customized moments and found creative ways to make each speech feel specific to the audience. Erin: But something was missing. Erin: Usually, I can feel the connection in the room. You can see it in people's faces. You know when the audience does not want the experience to end. These events were successful on paper, but they did not feel the same. Erin: Then I spoke at an event in Chicago. I said everything I meant to say. I did not forget the important parts. Technically, I nailed it. But that thing I care about most still was not there. Words Versus Intent Erin: That was when I realized what over-preparing had taken away from me. Erin: My talks have structure. They are mapped into sections, and I know the points I want to make. I may have specific phrases or stories I want to land, but I have never needed every word written out. Erin: Before I became so focused on rehearsal, I spent more time thinking about the intent of each section. I would ask, "What am I really trying to get across here? What do I need these people to understand or feel?" Erin: Then I allowed myself the freedom to communicate that idea in the moment. Erin: That freedom gave me space to bring in something I heard earlier in the day, respond to the audience, interact more naturally, or follow a thought that came to me while I was speaking. Erin: When I over-rehearsed, I spent more time searching for the exact words than searching for the feeling, the purpose, and the passion behind them. Erin: I cannot do both equally well. Some people can. Actors can deliver rehearsed lines with incredible emotional depth. Some speakers can memorize every beat and still make it feel spontaneous. God bless them. That is a real skill. Erin: But it is not my skill. It is not where I bring the most value. "Why Don't You Trust Your Creative Process?" Erin: This brought me back to something my first executive coach taught me years ago when I was still in corporate. Erin: I was preparing a speech for a leadership event. I had planned the whole talk, but I had not figured out the ending. In my notes, I had essentially written, "And then some bada boom, bada bing ending." Erin: I went into our coaching session and confessed that I thought I had a major flaw. I told her, "I'm a great starter, but I'm not a great finisher. I worked on this talk for hours, and I still could not complete it." Erin: I expected her to give me techniques, hacks, or some process that would fix what I believed was broken. Erin: Instead, she stopped and asked, "Erin, are you typically successful?" Erin: I told her that I was not successful at everything, but yes, especially when it came to public speaking, I was usually better than average. Erin: Then she said, "Why don't you trust your creative process?" Erin: That question has stayed with me for more than eight years. Advice Is Not an Absolute Erin: People love to give advice in absolutes. Never start a conversation this way. Always prepare for an interview that way. Follow this formula to find your career path. Use these exact steps to become successful. Erin: My rule is this: be very cautious about advice that begins with "always" or "never." Erin: There is more information available than ever, and many people make money by selling certainty. They tell you they have the formula. But even excellent advice may not work exactly as prescribed for you. Erin: If you talked to 100 successful speakers, probably 99 of them would tell you that you have to do the reps, practice constantly, and rehearse until the material is locked in. Erin: That may work beautifully for those 99 people. It does not work that way for me. Erin: My mistake was not the rehearsal itself. My mistake was failing to apply my own 50% Rule. I accepted the advice as a total system instead of asking which parts would help me and which parts would erase something important. Improve Without Erasing What Makes You Good Erin: The answer is not to reject coaching, training, or preparation. I have learned so much from all of it. Erin: I am a stronger speaker now. I understand my voice better. I am more aware of my physical presence. I have new ways to customize talks and prepare meaningful openings. I am continuing to evolve. Erin: But I am no longer willing to give up the creative process that works for me. Erin: Now I prepare in my own way. I spend hours thinking, organizing stories, and deciding what each section needs to accomplish. I rehearse important pieces, but I do not force myself to say every sentence exactly the same way every time. Erin: I focus on the intent. I focus on the passion. I focus on the point I want to make and the people I want to reach. Erin: When I returned to that process for events in June and July, I could feel the difference. I felt like myself again. Trust the Evidence From Your Own Life Erin: I want the same for you. Erin: People will tell you how to run a meeting, answer interview questions, build a career, lead a team, create content, or prepare for a major opportunity. Learn from them. Borrow what makes you better. Stay open to coaching and improvement. Erin: But also trust the data from your own life. Erin: What has worked for you in the past may still work in the future. Your process may need to evolve, but evolution does not require you to throw away the qualities that made you effective in the first place. Erin: Use the 50% Rule. Keep some of what works. Add new tools. Throw the pieces that do not fit into the trash. Erin: Constantly look for ways to improve without abandoning what makes you, you. Erin: Trust your creative process.

It's time to build your family's future on a foundation of true health and freedom. Join us at Future Foundations—because your future generations deserve the best start to the mission that will outlive us… Check it out here. Use code FREEDOM25 for 25% off!    Whether you're looking for tinctures, topicals or teas or a deeper connection to your INNATE healing capacity, Noble Task Homestead is here to serve you. Join the movement. Visit NobleTaskHomestead.com/noblestan today and enjoy a 10% discount on your order.   San Diego area residents, take advantage of our special New Patient offer exclusively for podcast listeners here. We can't wait to experience miracles with you!   Welcome to a new episode of the Future Generations Podcast. In this conversation, we sit down with Dr. Cassie Huckaby, a naturopathic doctor and founder of Grit Natural Medicine, who radically challenges the premise of modern medicine. She shares how a devastating reaction to the Gardasil vaccine shattered her faith in conventional medicine and led her to a new premise: there is no flaw in the body, and every expression is by design. Through story, analogy, and hard-earned experience, Dr. Huckaby unpacks the difference between fixes and true change, why your beliefs and daily inputs matter more than any protocol, and how reclaiming your power as "the most advanced quantum machine on the planet" is the real revolution in health freedom.   Highlights: "You can't be the most powerful thing on the planet and the victim to everything at the same time."   "It doesn't matter if we're good or right. It matters if we're true."   "If your body is doing it, it's by design and it's trying to save your life."   "Most people never get to 'the day' because they don't have the grit to get there."   Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction 02:31 Dr. Cassie's First Public Talk & "Inputs" Concept 05:52 The Two Premises of Medicine 07:10 Horror Movie Thought Experiment 09:29 Choosing Truth Over Being Right 12:46 Gardasil Injury & Losing Faith in Conventional Medicine 14:20 Jumping into Naturopathic Medicine with Grit 18:00 "The Day" Everything Finally Feels Different 21:57 Fix vs. Change: Why Quick Fixes Keep You Imprisoned Resources:   Remember to Rate, Review, and Subscribe on iTunes and Follow us on Spotify!   Learn more about Dr. Stanton Hom on:   Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drstantonhom    Website: https://futuregenerationssd.com/  Podcast Website: https://thefuturegen.com  Twitter: https://twitter.com/drstantonhom   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stanhomdc   Stay Connected with the Future Generations Podcast:   Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/futuregenpodcast   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/futuregenpodcast/     About Dr. Cassie Huckaby: Dr. Cassie Huckaby, Founder of Grit Natural Medicine is a Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine, Clinical Immunology and Integrative Approaches to Autoimmune Disease, The Institute for Specialized Medicine, Functional Neurology, International Association of Functional Neurology and Rehabilitation, Bachelor of Science in Nutrition & Chemistry The desire to go off grid and have the ability to grow your own food has never been stronger than before. No matter the size of your property, Food Forest Abundance can help you design a regenerative layout that utilizes your resources in the most synergistic and sustainable manner. If you are interested in breaking free from the system, please visit www.foodforestabundance.com and use code "thefuturegen" to receive a discount on their incredible services.   Show your eyes some love with a pair of daylight or sunset (or both!) blue-light blocking glasses from Ra Optics. They have graciously offered Future Generations podcast listeners 10% off any purchase. Use code FGPOD or click here to access this discount, and let us know how your glasses are treating you!   One of the single best companies whose clean products have supported the optimal wellness of our family is Earthley Wellness. Long before there was a 2020, Kate Tetje and her team have stood for TRUTH, HEALTH and FREEDOM in ways that paved the way for so many of us. In collaboration with this incredible team, we are proud to offer you 10% off of your first purchase by shopping here.   Are you concerned about food supply insecurity? Our family has rigorously sourced our foods for over a decade and one of our favorite sources is Farm Match and specifically for San Diego locals, "Real Food Club PMA". My kids are literally made from their maple breakfast sausage and the amazing carnitas we make from their pasture raised pork. We are thrilled to share 10% off your first order when you shop at this link.   Another important way to bolster food security is by supporting local ranchers. Our favorite local regenerative ranch is Perennial Pastures. They have the best nutrient-dense meats that are 100% grass-fed and pasture-raised. You can get $10 off of your first purchase when you use the code: "FUTUREGENERATIONS" at checkout. Start shopping here.

What do Shakespeare, dream journals, live theater, and spiritual imagination have in common? In this episode of The Dream Journal, host Katherine Bell speaks with dream researcher and author Dr. Kelly Bulkeley about the spirit of dreaming in Shakespeare, the power of dreams as play, and how long-term dream journaling reveals patterns of meaning over time. Kelly Bulkeley, PhD, is a psychologist of religion, director of the Sleep and Dream Database, senior editor of the journal Dreaming, and a former president of the International Association for the Study of Dreams. His books include The Scribes of Sleep, 2020 Dreams, Lucrecia the Dreamer, Big Dreams, The Spirituality of Dreaming, and his forthcoming book, The Spirit of Dreaming in Shakespeare. In this wide-ranging conversation, Kelly and Katherine explore how Shakespeare used dreams throughout his plays, why live theater can feel like a shared dream, how dreams and waking life blur in A Midsummer Night's Dream, and what recurring dream themes can teach us about growth, creativity, and self-understanding. Topics Covered Dreams as play, performance, imagination, and creative rehearsal How Shakespeare gave language to positive and negative views of dreaming A Midsummer Night's Dream, Puck, trickster consciousness, and the dreamlike quality of theater Why live theater can create a shared imaginal or shared-dream experience Recurring dreams, stage dreams, and how dream themes evolve over time The Sleep and Dream Database and how large dream collections reveal patterns Elsewhere dream journaling app and ethical uses of AI-assisted dream reflection Lucrecia the Dreamer, prophetic dreams, history, and the Spanish Inquisition The Jeremey Taylor Dream Library Foundation and preserving important dreamwork resources Guest and Resources Guest: Dr. Kelly Bulkeley Learn more: bulkeley.org Explore the Sleep and Dream Database: sleepanddreamdatabase.org Show: The Dream Journal with Katherine Bell / Experiential Dreamwork Suggested Keywords dreams, dream interpretation, dream journaling, Shakespeare and dreams, Kelly Bulkeley, Sleep and Dream Database, A Midsummer Night's Dream, spiritual dreaming, dreams as play, recurring dreams, dream research, prophetic dreams, dreamwork, Jungian dreams, consciousness, live theater, shared dreaming, Experiential Dreamwork, The Dream Journal podcast Call to Action If this conversation sparks your curiosity, subscribe to The Dream Journal, share the episode with a dream-loving friend, and follow Experiential Dreamwork for more conversations about dreams, imagination, consciousness, and the wisdom of the night. This show, episode number 374, was recorded during a live broadcast on August 1, 2026 at KSQD.org, community radio of Santa Cruz. SHARE A DREAM FOR THE SHOW or a question or enquire about being a guest on the podcast by emailing Katherine Bell at katherine@ksqd.org. Follow on LI, IG, YT, FB, & LT @ExperientialDreamwork #thedreamjournal. To learn more or to inquire about exploring your own dreams go to ExperientialDreamwork.com. Video podcast available at youtube.com/@experientialdreamwork. Popular playlists: “Dream Journal shorts” and “FULL LENGTH VIDEOS”. Here are links to some other Dream Journal episodes you might be interested in: Are We Dreaming Reality? Paul Levy on Wetiko, Carl Jung, Quantum Physics, and Lucid Dreaming A Midsummer Night’s Dream with Bernard Welt Intro and outro music by Mood Science. Ambient music new every week by Rick Kleffel. Archived music can be found at Pandemiad.com. Many thanks to Rick for also engineering the show and to Erik Nelson for answering the phones. The Dream Journal aims to: Increase awareness of and appreciation for nightly dreams. Inspire dream sharing and other kinds of dream exploration as a way of adding depth and meaningfulness to lives and relationships. Improve society by the increased empathy, emotional balance, and sense of wonder which dream exploration invites. A dream can be meaningful even if you don’t know what it means. The Dream Journal is produced at and airs on KSQD Santa Cruz, 90.7 FM. Catch it streaming LIVE at KSQD.org 10-11am Pacific Time on Saturdays. Call or text with your dreams or questions at 831-900-5773 or email at onair@ksqd.org. Podcasts are available on all major podcast platforms the Monday following the live show. The complete KSQD Dream Journal podcast page can be found at ksqd.org/the-dream-journal/. Thanks for being a Dream Journal listener! Available on all major podcast platforms. Rate it, review it, subscribe, and tell your friends.

This episode I am talking to JM DeBord about his book 'The Science of the Paranormal: The Truth Behind Telepathy, ESP, Reincarnation, and More Mysterious Phenomena'. Discover the truth behind ESP, paranormal powers, and psychic abilities—the perfect gift for curious minds and bold scientists alike. Some paranormal phenomena and powers of the mind are real, but mainstream science dismisses it all as fantasy. The Science of the Paranormal looks toward the overwhelming evidence that something weird and wild lies behind our everyday reality. Credible witnesses have seen paranormal activity with their own eyes. Scientists have studied it in their labs. And everyday we see depictions of it in popular media like Stranger Things and X-Men. Separate fact from fiction in this book and get answers to questions like: Can objects be moved with psychokinesis? Is the future foreseeable? Can we communicate telepathically? What does science say about ESP? Where is the evidence for reincarnation and spirits? Bio Known online as RadOwl, he's published over 25,000 dream interpretations at r/dreams — Reddit's largest dreaming community, which he's led as head moderator since 2014. No other public record of dream expertise comes close. He's the author of DREAMS 1-2-3: Three Steps to Interpret Dreams — the most complete modern guide to dream interpretation — plus The Dream Interpretation Dictionary, RadOwl's Crash Course, and The Science of the Paranormal. Recognized by the International Association for the Study of Dreams. Former dream expert-in-residence at Canyon Ranch Spa. Featured in The Guardian and a recurring guest on Coast to Coast AM. He built the DREAMS 1-2-3 method to give anyone a practical system for decoding what their mind is actually saying at night. Because your dreams are telling you something — and once you know how to listen, everything changes. https://dreams123.net/ https://jmdebord.com/ https://creators.spotify.com/pod/profile/dreamsthatshapeus/ https://www.amazon.com/Science-Paranormal-Reincarnation-Mysterious-Phenomena/dp/1510778160 https://www.pastliveshypnosis.co.uk/https://www.patreon.com/alienufopodcasthttps://simonbown.com/My new book, Aspects of Alien Abduction https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GRRPCT9YZen AI bit.ly/zenAI_bpp_ufo Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Recorded live in New Orleans during an unprecedented week that brought together the Louisiana Restaurant Association Expo, Bocuse d'Or USA, and the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP), this special edition of Inside Food Safety explores the unseen systems that protect some of the world's greatest restaurants. Host Carl Fiadini is joined by Chef Sean "Pooch" Rivera and Eric Moore of Testo North America for a conversation on why food safety has become one of the most critical ingredients in modern hospitality. From New Orleans' centuries-old restaurant buildings and aging infrastructure to large-scale convention center operations serving thousands of guests, the discussion examines the real-world challenges chefs and operators face every day. The team also explores how technology is helping restaurants monitor refrigeration, cooking oil quality, food temperatures, and inventory—protecting both guests and businesses from costly failures. Along the way, Carl reflects on the incredible opportunity to film the world's top chefs during Bocuse d'Or, including icons like Emeril Lagasse, Daniel Boulud, and many of today's most celebrated culinary professionals, while highlighting the often-overlooked role food safety plays in supporting culinary excellence. Whether you own a restaurant, work in hospitality, or simply want a behind-the-scenes look at what keeps world-class kitchens operating safely, this episode offers valuable insights from the heart of one of America's greatest food cities. Topics include: Food safety in historic restaurant cities Why New Orleans presents unique operational challenges Temperature monitoring and refrigeration protection How automation helps reduce human error Protecting inventory during storms and power outages Cooking oil management and food quality The connection between culinary excellence and food safety Behind the scenes at Bocuse d'Or, LRA Expo, and IAFP 2026 Inside Food Safety is hosted by Carl Fiadini and presented in partnership with Testo North America, exploring the people, technology, and best practices shaping safer kitchens across the foodservice industry.

Discover how a jazz pianist turned niche entertainment work into a powerhouse advertising, privacy, and tech practice—and why treating business development as a marathon, not a sprint, has allowed him to build a loyal, decades‑long client base. In this episode, you'll hear practical, battle‑tested strategies for specialization, client relationships, and training the next generation of rainmakers.   In this episode, Steve Fretzin and Jamie Rubin discuss: Lawyer's journey as a marathon, not a sprint Building a niche/specialist practice and moving firms Impact of legal operations, budgets, and alternative fee arrangements Personal branding vs. firm branding and the “Info Law Group way” Training younger lawyers in organized, non-salesy business development   Key Takeaways: Treating a legal career like a marathon allows room for ebbs and flows in work while staying confident that consistent effort will pay off over time. Specializing deeply in a niche practice area or industry builds trust and makes it easier for clients to follow you, even when you change firms. Modern in‑house legal operations demand sharper budgeting, clearer estimates, and more flexible fee arrangements, forcing outside counsel to become better business partners. Strong client loyalty grows from genuine personal relationships—helping clients succeed, understanding how they are judged internally, and making them look good in front of their own stakeholders. Younger lawyers can learn business development by following a structured, organized process that avoids pushy “sales” tactics and instead focuses on thoughtful questions, careful listening, and well‑practiced messaging.   "My big mistake is not truly understanding my client's perspective." —  Jamie Rubin   Check out my new show, Be That Lawyer Coaches Corner, and get the strategies I use with my clients to win more business and love your career again.   Join the Be That Lawyer Community and connect with ambitious lawyers who are serious about growing their book of business, strengthening their brand, and becoming confident, consistent rainmakers.   Ready to go from good to GOAT in your legal marketing game? Don't miss PIMCON—where the brightest minds in professional services gather to share what really works. Lock in your spot now: https://www.pimcon.org/   Thank you to our Sponsor! LEX Reception: https://www.lexreception.com/partners/bethatlawyer Rankings.io: https://rankings.io/ Lawyer.com: https://www.lawyer.com/   Ready to grow your law practice without selling or chasing? Book your free 30-minute strategy session now—let's make this your breakout year: https://fretzin.com/   About Jamie Rubin: Jamie Rubin is an advertising, technology, and privacy lawyer who guides clients through bringing traditional and emerging campaigns from initial concept to execution. Ranked as a Leader by Chambers and Partners and recognized by Best Lawyers, his practice covers national and digital advertising, celebrity agreements, sweepstakes, social media marketing, and claim substantiation. Certified as an Artificial Intelligence Governance Professional (AIGP) and a member of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), Jamie previously practiced as a partner at Wildman Harrold Allen & Dixon LLP and was named one of the "40 Illinois Attorneys Under 40 To Watch" by Law Bulletin Publishing Company.   Connect with Jamie Rubin:   Website: https://www.infolawgroup.com/jamie-rubin LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jrubinadlawyer/   Connect with Steve Fretzin: LinkedIn: Steve Fretzin Twitter: @stevefretzin Instagram: @fretzinsteve Facebook: Fretzin, Inc. Website: Fretzin.com Email: Steve@Fretzin.com Book: Legal Business Development Isn't Rocket Science and more! YouTube: Steve Fretzin Call Steve directly at 847-602-6911   Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it. 

EMS workers are mourning the loss of one of their own. Longtime paramedic and inventory technician Chuck Brady died by suicide earlier this month. He worked with Allina Health EMS for 17 years. Paramedics are one of the many professions that experience unique mental health challenges. EMS providers are 1.39 times more likely to die by suicide than the public according to the CDC. Joining Minnesota Now to remember Chuck and talk about the mental health challenges EMS providers face is Brett Hopper. He is a paramedic and union president for the International Association of EMTs and Paramedics Local 167.

In Episode 370 of The Canine Paradigm, Glenn and Pat begin with a quick recap on The Bear and the lessons carried over from the previous conversation. However, the main focus quickly moves into a topic that always seems to stir emotion in the dog training world: punishment. Recently, parts of the training community have been poking holes in each other's understanding of punishment, learning theory, and how these concepts apply in real dog training. Some of those conversations have been useful. They have encouraged trainers to think harder, define terms more clearly, and question whether they truly understand the concepts they discuss. In that sense, good critique can improve the industry. At the same time, not all of it has been helpful. Some discussions have looked less like education and more like performance. When the goal shifts from clarity to clicks, the conversation can quickly become personal, hostile, and unproductive. In this episode, Glenn and Pat try to stay out of the cheap shots while still spitballing their own thoughts on punishment, communication, consequence, and education. The aim is not to win an argument. Instead, it is to think more clearly about a difficult topic and encourage better conversations around training. Further Details Are you in search of top-tier dog trainers and steadfast supporters of the Canine Paradigm? Below is a comprehensive list of individuals and businesses that stand by our mission, contribute to our operational costs, and make significant contributions to the canine community. Glenn Cooke oversees a wide range of canine-related services at Pet Resorts Australia. Pat Stuart offers a full suite of coaching and dog training services through Serious dog business We invite you to support our show and access exclusive content on our Patreon page. Your contributions directly support the show's ongoing production, and we deeply appreciate the wonderful community that has formed around it. If you're unsure how to contribute, feel free to reach out to us for assistance. Explore our complete range of merchandise at our Teespring store. You can also help by spreading the word within the canine community or suggesting special guests for future interviews. For information on how to listen to our podcast, please visit this link. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for video content and updates. If you enjoyed the podcast, we would greatly appreciate your reviews on iTunes, Spotify, and other podcast directories. Details on joining the International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP) can be found here. We highly recommend membership for anyone serious about advancing in the canine industry. We also encourage you to check out Dogs Playing for Life, a transformational rescue process making a positive impact on dogs across the USA. Support Our Supporters Narelle Cooke hosts her own podcast, Natural Health for People and Pets, available on all major podcast platforms. Be sure to listen in. For the finest human-grade supplements for your dogs, visit Canine Ceuticals. Now available in the USA. SHOW SPONSOR Jason Firmin of Einzweck Dog Quip is another proud SHOW SPONSOR. The innovative motorcycle dog kennel can be found at Rowdy Hound. SHOW SPONSOR For daycare and heartfelt training services, check out From the Heart Dog Training. SHOW SPONSOR Our dear friend and frequent contributor, Birdy O'Sheedy, can be found at The magic in dogs Special Thanks A huge thanks to all our contributing artists. Please take a moment to support their amazing work: Jane Stuart Avery Keller Zoie Neidy

Not speaking is not the same thing as not having something to say. In this episode, I'm joined by Elizabeth Vosseller, founder of Spelling to Communicate and Executive Director of I-ASC, the International Association for Spelling as Communication. And we are talking about communication. Not the easy kind. Not the "say what you mean with your mouth and everyone understands what is happening" kind. We are talking about what happens when a person has thoughts, language, ideas, preferences, humor, opinions, and vocabulary, but cannot reliably use speech to share them. Elizabeth explains that Spelling to Communicate (S2C) is a method of teaching communication to nonspeaking people. And nonspeaking is the word we want here, not nonverbal. Because nonverbal means without words. And the people Elizabeth works with are not without words. They may have no speech, very few spoken words, or lots of speech that is not reliable or communicative. They may script, loop, say the opposite of what they mean, or struggle to get their bodies to do what their brains are asking them to do. Which brings us to one of the biggest themes in this conversation: communication is motor. Speech is motor. Typing is motor. Pointing is motor. Signing is motor. Getting an idea out of your brain and into the world requires the body to participate. And for some kids and adults, that is where things get complicated. Elizabeth walks us through praxis, which is the process of having an idea, making a plan, executing the plan, and adapting when something does not go the way it was supposed to go. For people with apraxia or dyspraxia, the idea may be there. The plan may be there. But the message between the brain and the body may not move smoothly. And if we do not understand that, we can make some very big mistakes. We can look at a child who is not following a direction and assume they are being noncompliant. We can look at a child who is hitting, grabbing, bolting, or making sounds and assume the behavior is intentional in a way it may not be. We can look at a nonspeaking child and assume there are no words inside. That is a dangerous assumption. Elizabeth and I also talk about rich language environments, spelling, reading, communication regulation partners, and why support does not automatically mean influence when the support is trained, careful, and ethical. This conversation is especially close to my speech therapist heart because it asks us to slow down and separate language from speech, communication from behavior, and intention from motor access. Which is not always easy. But it matters. Because when we assume a child has nothing to say, we may stop offering them enough to think about. When we assume a behavior tells the whole story, we may miss what the body is struggling to do. And when we assume speech is the only real path to communication, we may miss the person who has been there the whole time. Key Takeaways Nonspeaking is different from nonverbal. Nonspeaking means a person cannot use speech reliably and effectively. Nonverbal means without words, which can wrongly suggest a person does not have language, thoughts, or vocabulary. Spelling to Communicate (S2C) teaches nonspeaking people to use pointing to letters as a motor-based way to communicate. Communication depends on the body. Speech, typing, pointing, signing, and texting all require motor planning and motor execution. Praxis involves having an idea, making a plan, executing the plan, and adapting when something does not work. Apraxia and dyspraxia can create a breakdown between what a person intends to do and what their body is able to do on demand. A purely behavioral lens can lead adults to misunderstand kids whose bodies are not reliably following their intentions. Rich language and literacy exposure matter, even when a child is not speaking. Communication regulation partners provide motor coaching, sensory feedback, and regulation support when they are properly trained. Assuming competence means being careful about what we say, what we offer, and what we believe may be possible. About Elizabeth Vosseller Elizabeth Vosseller is the founder of Spelling to Communicate and Executive Director of I-ASC. Since 1995, she has worked clinically with individuals with complex communication and sensory-motor differences across hospital, university, and private settings. Her work focuses on motor-based access to communication, advancing education, training, and research for nonspeaking individuals. About Your Host, Gabriele Nicolet I'm Gabriele Nicolet, toddler whisperer, speech therapist, parenting life coach, and host of Complicated Kids. Each week, I share practical, relationship-based strategies for raising kids with big feelings, big needs, and beautifully different brains. My goal is to help families move from surviving to thriving by building connection, confidence, and clarity at home. Complicated Kids Resources and Links Website: https://www.gabrielenicolet.com Schedule a free intro call: https://calendly.com/gabrielenicolet/free-15-minute-1-1-session YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@complicatedkids/featured Tell the Story (Anti-Anxiety Tool for Kids): https://www.gabrielenicolet.com/tell-the-story Blog: https://www.gabrielenicolet.com/blog Live Workshops: https://www.gabrielenicolet.com/live-workshops On-Demand Workshops: https://www.gabrielenicolet.com/workshop-replays Instagram: https://instagram.com/gabriele_nicolet Facebook: https://facebook.com/gabriele.nicolet LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gabrielenicolet/ Free "Orchid Kid" Checklist: https://www.raisingorchidkids.com/orchid-kid-check-list-sign-up/ Enjoying the Show? If Complicated Kids has been helpful, the best way to support the podcast is to follow, rate, and leave a quick review. It helps other parents find the show, and it means a lot. If there's a topic you'd love to hear covered on a future episode, you can always reach out at podcast@complicatedkids.com. I love hearing what's on your mind and what would support your family. Thank you for being here.

Татьяна Иванова — кандидат экономических наук, бизнес-психолог, групп-аналитик и эксперт по организационным и социальным системам. У неё 30 лет профессионального опыта, включая 14 лет на руководящих позициях в крупных компаниях. Основатель и преподаватель центра системного анализа «Динамика», экс-вице-президент и член МАПБО. Разрабатывает программы для собственников, руководителей и коучей по групповой динамике, изменениям и кризисам организаций.Tatyana Ivanova, PhD in Economics, is a business psychologist, group analyst and expert in organizational and social systems. She has 30 years of professional experience, including 14 years in senior corporate roles. She founded and teaches at the Dynamics Center for Systems Analysis and is a former vice president and current member of the International Association for Psychoanalysis of Business and Organizations. Her programs focus on group dynamics, change and organizational crises.Стать участником подкаста: https://form.jotform.com/Podcast10K/become-a-podcast-guestТемы выпуска:0:00 - Кандидатская как пропуск: степень получила и почти сразу о ней забыла 10:43 - Не объяснили интегралы третьекласснику — значит, сами их не поняли 17:51 - Невинность без детства: как снова увидеть мир впервые 22:10 - Сутки капитуляции: сегодня всё идёт не так — и это нормально 39:39 - Катастрофа начинается с двух оранжевых лепестков 42:47 - Бог как должностное лицо, которому психика поручает хаос 56:35 - Конфликт иерархий: почему маркетолог становится подушкой для битья 1:07:10 - Системность едет с подругами: win-win или контроль с доставкой продуктов? 1:15:34 - Услышать конфликт до взрыва: внутреннее напряжение как сигнализация 1:26:43 - Ясность ранит: жить в иллюзии иногда безопаснее 1:31:46 - Кому позволено играть на струнах вашей уязвимости? 1:38:09 - Ненамеренное доминирование: когда знания давят без единого приказа 1:53:47 - Муравей перед человеком: зачем помнить своё место в системе 2:04:36 - Инфлюенсер приходит с пьедесталом и считает его частью себя 2:15:19 - Задеть и удержать: диалог как спарринг без права на побег

Fran Costigan, Your Oven is Lying to You! Are Veggies Safe to Eat? Long-time friends catching up on the news.   Fran Costigan, culinary instructor, cookbook author, pastry chef, consultant, and the Director of Vegan Pastry at Rouxbe Culinary School, is internationally renowned as the authority on vegan desserts. Professionally trained, Fran was a chef in both traditional and vegan pastry kitchens before moving into teaching over 25 years ago. Her unapologetically luscious confections lack nothing — except dairy, eggs, white sugar, and cholesterol. Fran's vegan desserts are appropriate for everyone who loves dessert, whether or not dietary restrictions are an issue. She developed and leads the 90-day Essential Vegan Desserts Course at Rouxbe, the world's leading online Culinary School, where she mentors international students of all skill levels, from beginners to professionals.   Fran's cookbook, Vegan Chocolate Dessert: Unapologetically Luscious and Decadent Dairy-Free Desserts, is available in German, French and Italian editions, and follows the classic, More Great Good Dairy Free Desserts. A native New Yorker, Fran moved to Philadelphia, PA and is enthusiastically visiting Philly's many renowned plant-forward restaurants. (Go Birds!) A sought-after speaker, you can find Fran sharing her passion across North America and Europe, at schools, conferences, festivals, and corporations such as Google, at resorts, spas and on cruise ships too. A professional member of the International Association of Culinary Professionals, ACF: American Culinary Federation, and Les Dames d'Escoffier, Fran is proud to serve on the advisory boards of the New York Coalition for Healthy School Foods, and Main Street Vegan Academy.

In this episode, we speak with Matthew Daus, President of the International Association of Transportation Regulators about our shared challenges and initiatives in this partner spotlight. Host: Ian Grossman Producer: Claire Jeffrey, Chelsey Hadwin, and Kayle Nguyen Music: Gibson Arthur

What happens when a three-year-old child dies, crosses into a realm of infinite love, encounters angels, and returns with memories that never fade? In this deeply moving conversation, I sit down with psychotherapist, regression therapist, and bestselling author Jacob L. Cooper to explore his extraordinary Near-Death Experience, the reality of consciousness beyond the physical body, and what these experiences can teach us about living a more meaningful life. Jacob L. Cooper was just three years old when he stopped breathing from pertussis and crossed beyond the veil. What he experienced changed the course of his life forever. In this fascinating episode of Dr. Lotte: Science with Soul, Jacob shares his vivid memories of his NDE, entering a realm of divine light, unconditional love, angelic presence, and what felt like a true home for his soul. Drawing from his extraordinary Near-Death Experience, Jacob offers profound insights into life after death, soul purpose, healing, past lives, and the deeper meaning behind our earthly journeys. As a licensed psychotherapist, regression therapist, and bestselling author, he also brings a grounded clinical perspective to some of life's biggest spiritual questions. Jacob and I also discover remarkable parallels in our own Near-Death Experience journeys, creating a heartfelt and inspiring conversation that explores the mysteries of consciousness, destiny, and the soul's path with warmth, wisdom, and authenticity. If you've ever wondered what happens after death, why we're here, or how to connect more deeply with your soul's purpose, this episode is for you. What You'll Hear & Learn ✦ What Jacob experienced during his Near-Death Experience at age three ✦ His encounter with angels, divine light, and a realm beyond the physical world ✦ Why Near-Death Experiences often feel more real than ordinary reality ✦ The emotional and spiritual aftereffects of returning from an NDE ✦ How the fear of death can transform after a glimpse beyond the veil ✦ What life contracts and soul purpose may reveal about our journey here ✦ How to experience greater connection, love, and "heaven on earth" ✦ The difference between past-life regression and between-life soul regression ✦ Why certain soul memories emerge for healing and growth ✦ Insights into consciousness, reincarnation, and the meaning of life If this conversation resonates with you, be sure to like, subscribe, and share this episode with someone who may benefit from it. Your support helps us continue bringing inspiring conversations about spirituality, healing, consciousness, and transformation to the world. Enjoy the episode! ✨  

Being with the Body in Depth Psychology: Development, Trauma, and Transformation in the Unspoken Realm (Routledge, 2024), featuring a foreword by Donald Kalsched, examines the integration of the subjectively experienced body in the practice of depth psychology. Barbara Holifield draws from philosophical perspectives, neuroscientific and infant research, developmental theory, and trauma studies to offer a comprehensive overview of embodiment within a relationally based psychoanalytic approach. Clinical vignettes demonstrate the critical value of working with the bodily-felt dimension of implicit relational memory and emphasize how bodily-felt sense facilitates access to feelings. The primacy of bodily-based knowing revealed through infant research illuminates an interior world of sensorial apprehension that conceptually based knowing and psychoanalytic thought often overlook. Furthermore, it establishes the body as intrinsic to relational life. Freud's 1923 statement that “The ego is first and foremost a bodily ego,” is as cogent today as it was then (1961, p. 26). It has only been confirmed by infant research and affective neuroscience. Psychic life is born in the body and is sustained by the body. It is in and through the body that relationship begins. Disruptions in one's earliest relationship with the primary caregiver are synonymous with disruption of the integral unity of psyche and body. Further, the book highlights the organizing role that felt sensation, sensory perception, and affective experience have on facilitating the re-establishment of psyche indwelling the soma. Because disruptions of the felt sense of psyche integral to soma occur in infancy, work of this nature falls out of the purview of traditional psychoanalysis. “It requires instead a working-through focused on the present, on the heart of the analytic relationship, and on the activation of an awareness of one's own inner mode of functioning” (Lombardi, 2017, p. 23). Focus on direct sensorial and relational experience in the body is foundational in working with the analysand's unformulated experience. As this occurs, affects are able to be borne, reflected on, and lived as feelings-in-the-body while simultaneously making way for the establishment of new relational organizations. Throughout the book, clinical examples show how the mythopoetic imagination and soma entwine––at times, attention to the somatic dimension stirs the creative unconscious in the form of dreams, active imagination, artworks, and movement. Reciprocally, the imaginal world informs and stimulates somatic experience. In this way, the mythopoetic reality revealed in a depth analysis weaves somatic experience into a tapestry of personal meaning, facilitating deep psychophysical transformation. Here the body serves as a portal to the numinous––healing that goes far beyond the relief of symptoms to a renewed sense of aliveness. This book offers guiding principles for psychotherapists and clinicians of all levels to engage the bodily basis of experience in their clinical practice. It will appeal to general readers interested in integrating mind and body, including those in the healing arts, fine arts, dance, athletics, meditation, yoga, and martial arts. Barbara Holifield, MSW, LMFT, SEP is a Training and Supervising Analyst at the C.G. Jung Institute of San Francisco. With over forty years of clinical practice in depth psychotherapy and somatic healing — and her certification as a Jungian Analyst since 2006 — her work lives at the intersection of Jung and the body, bringing together somatic experiencing, affective neuroscience, relational psychoanalysis, and the wisdom of the bodily-felt sense to offer a path of healing for those who have suffered developmental trauma and its long aftermath. A certified Somatic Experiencing Practitioner (SEP) trained directly by Dr. Peter Levine, Barbara taught Somatic Psychology for approximately twenty years at the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) — one of the foremost graduate programs in somatic and depth psychology in the United States. She is also an internationally recognized teacher of Authentic Movement, a contemplative body practice rooted in Jungian active imagination that she has taught across the United States and abroad for approximately forty years. Her clinical writing explores the relationship of body, trauma, self, and our participation in the dream of the earth. Her articles have been published in Jung Journal: Culture & Psyche, Psychological Perspectives, and the Journal of Analytic Psychology. She has also contributed a chapter to The Body in Psychotherapy (North Atlantic Press) and a chapter to the anthology Authentic Movement: Moving the Body, Moving the Self, Being Moved (Jessica Kingsley Publishers). She maintains memberships in the International Association of Analytical Psychology (IAAP), the United States Association for Body Psychotherapy (USABP), the International Association for Relational Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy (IARPP), and the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT). Helena Vissing, PsyD, SEP, PMH-C is a Licensed Psychologist practicing in California and Associate Professor at California Institute of Integral Studies. She can be reached at contact@helenavissing.com. She is the author of Somatic Maternal Healing: Psychodynamic and Somatic Treatment of Trauma in the Perinatal Period (Routledge, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychoanalysis

Being with the Body in Depth Psychology: Development, Trauma, and Transformation in the Unspoken Realm (Routledge, 2024), featuring a foreword by Donald Kalsched, examines the integration of the subjectively experienced body in the practice of depth psychology. Barbara Holifield draws from philosophical perspectives, neuroscientific and infant research, developmental theory, and trauma studies to offer a comprehensive overview of embodiment within a relationally based psychoanalytic approach. Clinical vignettes demonstrate the critical value of working with the bodily-felt dimension of implicit relational memory and emphasize how bodily-felt sense facilitates access to feelings. The primacy of bodily-based knowing revealed through infant research illuminates an interior world of sensorial apprehension that conceptually based knowing and psychoanalytic thought often overlook. Furthermore, it establishes the body as intrinsic to relational life. Freud's 1923 statement that “The ego is first and foremost a bodily ego,” is as cogent today as it was then (1961, p. 26). It has only been confirmed by infant research and affective neuroscience. Psychic life is born in the body and is sustained by the body. It is in and through the body that relationship begins. Disruptions in one's earliest relationship with the primary caregiver are synonymous with disruption of the integral unity of psyche and body. Further, the book highlights the organizing role that felt sensation, sensory perception, and affective experience have on facilitating the re-establishment of psyche indwelling the soma. Because disruptions of the felt sense of psyche integral to soma occur in infancy, work of this nature falls out of the purview of traditional psychoanalysis. “It requires instead a working-through focused on the present, on the heart of the analytic relationship, and on the activation of an awareness of one's own inner mode of functioning” (Lombardi, 2017, p. 23). Focus on direct sensorial and relational experience in the body is foundational in working with the analysand's unformulated experience. As this occurs, affects are able to be borne, reflected on, and lived as feelings-in-the-body while simultaneously making way for the establishment of new relational organizations. Throughout the book, clinical examples show how the mythopoetic imagination and soma entwine––at times, attention to the somatic dimension stirs the creative unconscious in the form of dreams, active imagination, artworks, and movement. Reciprocally, the imaginal world informs and stimulates somatic experience. In this way, the mythopoetic reality revealed in a depth analysis weaves somatic experience into a tapestry of personal meaning, facilitating deep psychophysical transformation. Here the body serves as a portal to the numinous––healing that goes far beyond the relief of symptoms to a renewed sense of aliveness. This book offers guiding principles for psychotherapists and clinicians of all levels to engage the bodily basis of experience in their clinical practice. It will appeal to general readers interested in integrating mind and body, including those in the healing arts, fine arts, dance, athletics, meditation, yoga, and martial arts. Barbara Holifield, MSW, LMFT, SEP is a Training and Supervising Analyst at the C.G. Jung Institute of San Francisco. With over forty years of clinical practice in depth psychotherapy and somatic healing — and her certification as a Jungian Analyst since 2006 — her work lives at the intersection of Jung and the body, bringing together somatic experiencing, affective neuroscience, relational psychoanalysis, and the wisdom of the bodily-felt sense to offer a path of healing for those who have suffered developmental trauma and its long aftermath. A certified Somatic Experiencing Practitioner (SEP) trained directly by Dr. Peter Levine, Barbara taught Somatic Psychology for approximately twenty years at the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) — one of the foremost graduate programs in somatic and depth psychology in the United States. She is also an internationally recognized teacher of Authentic Movement, a contemplative body practice rooted in Jungian active imagination that she has taught across the United States and abroad for approximately forty years. Her clinical writing explores the relationship of body, trauma, self, and our participation in the dream of the earth. Her articles have been published in Jung Journal: Culture & Psyche, Psychological Perspectives, and the Journal of Analytic Psychology. She has also contributed a chapter to The Body in Psychotherapy (North Atlantic Press) and a chapter to the anthology Authentic Movement: Moving the Body, Moving the Self, Being Moved (Jessica Kingsley Publishers). She maintains memberships in the International Association of Analytical Psychology (IAAP), the United States Association for Body Psychotherapy (USABP), the International Association for Relational Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy (IARPP), and the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT). Helena Vissing, PsyD, SEP, PMH-C is a Licensed Psychologist practicing in California and Associate Professor at California Institute of Integral Studies. She can be reached at contact@helenavissing.com. She is the author of Somatic Maternal Healing: Psychodynamic and Somatic Treatment of Trauma in the Perinatal Period (Routledge, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Local police department evidence rooms are vital, sensitive places, and a lot rides on managing them well. On this episode, we talk with Hope Martin, evidence manager for the Madison Police Department and board member with the International Association for Property and Evidence, who takes us inside the typical evidence room and runs down the best practices and mentalities for smart, secure management. More about Hope Martin and IAPE: https://welcome.iape.org/2024/02/14/hope-martin/

Gurudev Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is a spiritual leader, humanitarian, and peace ambassador. In 1981, he founded the Art of Living Foundation, introducing meditation, yoga, and the Sudarshan Kriya breathing technique through programs now offered in more than 180 countries. In 1997, he co-founded the International Association for Human Values to support humanitarian and peacebuilding initiatives. He has participated in conflict-resolution efforts in regions including Colombia, Iraq, Kashmir, and Côte d'Ivoire, while speaking at institutions such as the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and the European Parliament. He is also the author of numerous books on meditation, spirituality, and personal well-being, including An Intimate Note to the Sincere Seeker. ------ Thank you to the sponsors that fuel our podcast and our team: AG1 https://DrinkAG1.com/tetra ------ Athletic Nicotine https://www.AthleticNicotine.com/tetra Use code 'TETRA' ------ LMNT Electrolytes https://DrinkLMNT.com/tetra Use code 'TETRA' ------ Lectio 365 https://Lectio365.com ------ Sign up to receive Tetragrammaton Transmissions https://www.tetragrammaton.com/join-newsletter

Around 200 wildfires are currently burning across the country and nearly 900 are burning in Canada. Large swaths of the northeastern U.S. are blanketed in heavy, hazardous smoke coming from widespread wildfires burning in northern Minnesota and Ontario. In the neighboring Canadian province, three First Nations communities were forced to evacuate after fires ripped through their remote reserves. Significant drought and decades of hands-off wild land management factor into increasingly severe wildfire seasons that impact Indigenous people the most. We'll get updates from Indigenous fire experts about current wildfire events, smoke impacts, and the vulnerability of Indigenous communities. GUESTS Dr. Amy Cardinal Christianson (Métis), senior fire advisor for the Indigenous Leadership Initiative and board member of the International Association of Wildland Fire Arnold Lazare (Mohawk), interim CEO of the National Indigenous Fire Safety Council and the Indigenous fire marshal for Canada Ferin Davis Anderson (Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians), natural resources manager for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Tim Sexton, fire program manager for the Klamath Tribes Break 1 Music: La Grande Gigue Simple/ Red River Jig/ Big John McNeil (song) Métis Fiddler Quartet (artist) North West Voyage Nord Ouest (album) Break 2 Music: I Know [feat. Sebastian Gaskin] (song) Shub (artist) Heritage [Pt. 2] (album)

The Ohio State Fair is a time-honored, summertime tradition for so many. In this episode Boxer and Sarah go behind the scenes with Alicia Shoults and Adam Heffron of the Ohio Expo Center and State Fairgrounds to learn about what it takes to put on one of Ohio's favorite events. Hear about the history of the fair, what's new, can't miss foods to try and their insider picks for must-do experiences this year. Get your tickets for the Ohio State Fair happening July 29-Aug. 9, 2026.Adam Heffron  is the Executive Director of the Ohio Expo Center & State Fairgrounds.Returning after 30 years, Adam previously worked at the Ohio Expo Center & State Fairgrounds in theRental Department after college. He then went on to work in the fair and event industries beforereturning as the Executive Director of the Ohio Expo Center & State Fairgrounds in 2024.Adam leads a team of approximately 55 full-time staff members dedicated to hosting more than 150events year-round. The staff, as well as and hundreds of part-time staff members also put on the annualOhio State Fair attracting visitors from all 88 counties in Ohio, as well as guests from across the country. With core roots in agriculture and tradition, the Ohio State Fair is a premiere event with quality entertainment, hands-on activities, delicious food, shopping, an 8-acre Natural Resources Park, an exciting Midway, and so much more.Alicia Shoults, CFE, is the deputy director of experience and operations of the Ohio StateFair. She got her start in the fair industry during her youth in 4-H as a county junior fair boardmember, then landed a summer internship at the state fair in college. In 2011, she returnedas the Ohio State Fair's marketing and public relations director, overseeing and executing all the fair's marketing, advertising, public relations and social media efforts. Her role was broadened into the Assistant General Manager role in 2019. Alicia is a member of International Association of Fairs and Expositions (IAFE) Education Foundation Board of Trustees, is a past president of Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) Central Ohio,was a member of the YMCA of Ross County Board of Directors. She is proud to have been named the International Association of Fairs and Expositions (IAFE) Rising Star in 2023, and the Central Ohio Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) Tom Poling Practitioner of theYear Award in 2022. She was recently elected as Second Vice Chair of the International Association of Fairs and Expositions (IAFE), and will serve as Chair of the organization in 2028.

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

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

Send us Fan MailShelby Dennis is an acclaimed professional horse trainer, equine advocate, International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) certified equine behavior consultant, and cofounding member of the Alliance for Horse Welfare in Sport. A driving force in the equestrian world, she is known for her compassionate approach to horse training and her unwavering commitment to the well-being of horses. With a lifetime of experience in the saddle and a deep understanding of equine behavior, Shelby has dedicated her career to promoting a more empathetic and respectful relationship between horses and humans. Growing up in the picturesque landscapes of British Columbia, Canada, Shelby developed a profound love for horses from an early age. Her journey into the world of horsemanship began when she was four, as a young rider showing Arabian horses. Armed with an Equine Science Certificate from the University of Guelph and years of hands-on experience as a professional horse trainer and educator, Shelby has inspired countless riders to adopt methods rooted in empathy, patience, and respect for the horse's natural instincts and behaviors. As the founder of Milestone Equestrian, she hopes to provide a sanctuary for both horses and riders seeking a deeper connection and a more harmonious partnership. Her innovative training techniques, based largely on the research findings of modern equine scientific study, focus on developing mutual trust and understanding to foster a relationship built on cooperation rather than dominance. Shelby's latest book Secrets of the Horse: A New Approach to Training and Understanding Horses is available for purchase on Amazon and anywhere fine books are sold.theplaidhorse.comThank you so much for joining us today on the Plaidcast. This podcast is a labor of love, and every single episode exists because of this incredible community of riders, trainers, barn managers, parents, and horse lovers who show up in the barn, in the ring, and right here with us.At The Plaid Horse, our commitment goes far beyond the show ring. We believe deeply in the power of literacy and education and that every rider, at every level, deserves access to knowledge, stories, and ideas that make them a better horseperson and a better human being. Reading matters. Learning matters. And the stories we tell each other in this sport matter more than we sometimes realize.Whether you are a junior rider picking up your first copy of The Plaid Horse  Magazine, a professional trainer looking for inspiration, or someone who simply loves horses and everything this world stands for then this community is for you. You belong here.We build this together. Every article, every episode, every conversation is an opportunity to learn something new, to feel less alone in the challenges of this sport, and to be reminded of why we fell in love with horses in the first place.Until next time, keep reading, keep learning, keep riding, and remember that the horse world is better when we build it together. I will see you at the ring!

In Episode 369 of The Canine Paradigm, Glenn and Pat catch up after a run of recent adventures, including PSA trials, Red Team work, and the arrival of a new dog. However, the main thread of this episode comes from two powerful episodes of The Bear, titled Fishes and Forks and the phrase, every second counts. Glenn explains how he interpreted those episodes through a dog training lens. Fishes shows chaos, pressure, poor communication, emotional overload, and the damage that can happen when people are stuck reacting instead of leading. In contrast, Forks shows what can happen when someone is placed in the right environment, given structure, trusted with responsibility, and allowed to discover their own value. From there, we connect those ideas back to dogs, handlers, and trainers. Some dogs live in constant noise, pressure, and confusion. Others begin to change when we give them clarity, standards, purpose, and a chance to succeed. The same applies to people learning the craft. Training is not just about commands. It is about environment, timing, leadership, confidence, and creating moments where the learner starts to believe they can do better. This episode is part catch-up, part television breakdown, and part dog training reflection. If you loved The Bear, or if you care about how pressure and purpose shape behaviour, this one will make sense. Further Details Are you in search of top-tier dog trainers and steadfast supporters of the Canine Paradigm? Below is a comprehensive list of individuals and businesses that stand by our mission, contribute to our operational costs, and make significant contributions to the canine community. Glenn Cooke oversees a wide range of canine-related services at Pet Resorts Australia. Pat Stuart offers a full suite of coaching and dog training services through Serious dog business We invite you to support our show and access exclusive content on our Patreon page. Your contributions directly support the show's ongoing production, and we deeply appreciate the wonderful community that has formed around it. If you're unsure how to contribute, feel free to reach out to us for assistance. Explore our complete range of merchandise at our Teespring store. You can also help by spreading the word within the canine community or suggesting special guests for future interviews. For information on how to listen to our podcast, please visit this link. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for video content and updates. If you enjoyed the podcast, we would greatly appreciate your reviews on iTunes, Spotify, and other podcast directories. Details on joining the International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP) can be found here. We highly recommend membership for anyone serious about advancing in the canine industry. We also encourage you to check out Dogs Playing for Life, a transformational rescue process making a positive impact on dogs across the USA. Support Our Supporters Narelle Cooke hosts her own podcast, Natural Health for People and Pets, available on all major podcast platforms. Be sure to listen in. For the finest human-grade supplements for your dogs, visit Canine Ceuticals. Now available in the USA. SHOW SPONSOR Jason Firmin of Einzweck Dog Quip is another proud SHOW SPONSOR. The innovative motorcycle dog kennel can be found at Rowdy Hound. SHOW SPONSOR For daycare and heartfelt training services, check out From the Heart Dog Training. SHOW SPONSOR Our dear friend and frequent contributor, Birdy O'Sheedy, can be found at The magic in dogs Special Thanks A huge thanks to all our contributing artists. Please take a moment to support their amazing work: Jane Stuart Avery Keller Zoie Neidy

What if the most effective way to prevent crime isn't another arrest—but another conversation? For nearly 30 years, Keeley Knowles lived with a severe heroin addiction, funding it as one of the United Kingdom's most prolific shoplifters. Stuart Toogood spent those same three decades serving as a police officer with West Midlands Police. By every measure, they should have remained on opposite sides of the law. Instead, they formed a partnership that helped save a life. In this powerful episode of Truth Be Told, host Dave Thompson sits down with Keeley and Stuart to explore the human side of addiction, retail theft, and policing. They discuss how the innovative Offender to Recovery program challenged traditional law enforcement approaches by addressing the root causes of repeat offending instead of simply making another arrest. Keeley shares her firsthand experience with addiction, organized retail theft, recovery, and rebuilding her life after believing she would never escape substance use. Stuart reflects on his policing career, why understanding addiction transformed the way he approached investigations, and how compassion, accountability, and evidence-based intervention can work together to reduce crime and change lives. Whether you're a police officer, detective, retail investigator, loss prevention professional, security leader, HR investigator, or simply someone interested in addiction recovery and criminal justice reform, this conversation offers practical insights that extend far beyond shoplifting. Truths: Prevention starts with understanding the person, not just the crime. Addressing the root causes of offending can reduce repeat crime more effectively than enforcement alone. Addiction doesn't discriminate. As Keeley shares, anyone can find themselves "two or three mistakes away" from addiction, making empathy and education essential for investigators, law enforcement, and the public. Compassion and accountability can coexist. Holding people accountable while treating them with dignity creates opportunities for recovery without compromising public safety. Effective policing is about more than making arrests. Stuart explains how helping people access recovery services prevented future crime and ultimately made communities safer. Human connection changes outcomes. One security officer's willingness to care—and one police officer's willingness to do something different—helped save Keeley's life. Retail theft is often a symptom of a deeper problem. Understanding the motivations behind organized retail theft and addiction can help investigators, retailers, and loss prevention professionals develop more effective prevention strategies. Second chances create lasting impact. Recovery isn't just about overcoming addiction—it's about rebuilding relationships, restoring purpose, and helping others find hope through lived experience. Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates and the International Association of Interviewers are proud supporters of the Truth Be Told podcast.  Leaders in evidence-based investigative interviewing for law enforcement, loss prevention, human resources, compliance, security and audit professionals.  Learn more here. This episode is also supported by our friends at ORIS Media, a publications, education and events company, serving the European retail loss prevention industry.

Barbra Banner didn't set out to become a medium. It found her — through flying clocks, flickering lights, and orbs that showed up in her audition tapes, all within the span of a few days. What she didn't know then was that she was stepping into a gift that had quietly run through her family for generations.But before any of that, Barbra spent 35 years showing up for people in the worst moments of their lives — on crisis hotlines, in hospital emergency rooms, and with the LA Crisis Response Team, supporting grieving families at the scene of a loved one's passing. Looking back, it was all training for the work she does now.In this conversation, we talk about the signs from loved ones who passed that most people miss (and how to actually recognize them), what trance mediumship really feels like, why grief and laughter aren't opposites, and what it's really like on the other side. We also get into the guilt and blame that quietly break families apart after a loss — and why it doesn't have to be that way.About Barbra BannerBarbra is a certified medium whose gift emerged during the pandemic after a string of unmistakable paranormal experiences. Before mediumship, she spent decades in advertising, and volunteered for 14 years on crisis hotlines, in hospital ERs, and with the LA Crisis Response Team. Connect with Barbra:

What if the path to healing wasn't a straight line, but a trail — one that combines the physical challenge of hiking with the mindful presence of yoga? That's the vision behind Hike to Yoga, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit blending guided hikes, nature-based yoga therapy, and community connection into what founder Laurie Hang calls a "mini urban retreat." Host Dr. Laura Scherck Wittcoff sits down with Laurie to explore how a self-described non-athletic, first-generation immigrant built a movement now approaching its 100th event — and why she believes self-care is world peace. Guest Laurie Hang, Founder & Executive Director, Hike to Yoga Laurie has been a certified yoga therapist since 2014. As the daughter of Chinese Vietnamese refugees, born in a refugee camp in the Philippines, she grew up with little access to the outdoors, sports, or peer community. After adopting the habit of stretching following daily dog walks in the Baldwin Hills/Culver City area, she noticed her body growing stronger — and a chance conversation with a neighbor led to the first Hike to Yoga program at the park. Founded in 2019, the organization has since grown by word of mouth to more than 100 events, with zero dollars spent on advertising. What is Hike to Yoga? Hike to Yoga is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit community initiative making mindful movement, nature connection, and holistic wellness accessible to all. Here's how a typical event works: Participants gather at Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area (with occasional partner events at Franklin Canyon) every month The morning opens with a group circle where each person shares their name, where they're from, and their roots — a practice Laurie says helps people fully "arrive" The group hikes together, with mindful moments along the trail: listening to sounds, smelling native sage, learning about local plants Upon reaching the hilltop, the group offers a land acknowledgment of the Gabrieleño/Tongva people Yoga is practiced in a circle formation Laurie calls a "yoga wave," so participants can see and connect rather than facing a mirror or instructor No yoga mat is required — a blanket or towel works fine — and modifications are offered for every ability level and age RSVP and optional donations are handled through Eventbrite; no one is ever turned away Key Topics Covered Why hiking before yoga? Laurie explains that walking warms up the body organically — similar to the effect people seek from hot yoga, but without the discomfort of an artificially heated room. Getting the body moving first also helps quiet the mind before settling into stillness and breathwork. Yoga therapy vs. conventional studio yoga: Laurie draws a sharp distinction between commercialized, for-profit yoga studios — which she says often only teach the physical postures, not the deeper practice — and yoga therapy, which considers the whole person and adapts to individual needs. She notes that yoga was historically passed down one-on-one, not to rooms of 20 or 200 people, and stresses that the instructor's own state of mind directly affects what students receive in a class. Nature-based yoga therapy and accessibility research: Laurie presented her first research project at the International Association of Yoga Therapists symposium — a qualitative case study following a blind participant, Tony, who attended one of her hikes. His feedback that describing the surrounding colors and scenery (not just body alignment) would deepen his experience led Laurie to a guiding principle: designing an experience for a visually impaired person makes it more accessible for everyone. She distinguishes her approach from "forest bathing," describing it instead as actively engaging with nature as a participant, not a passive observer. Community, identity, and social justice Every May, Hike to Yoga partners with API-RISE, an organization supporting formerly incarcerated Asian American and Pacific Islander community members, bringing them onto the trail — many for the first time in decades. Laurie, herself a refugee and first-generation immigrant, sees this work as inseparable from social justice: "Yoga is a way to refine this tool... to help us be more clear and focused in our energy." Founder's journey and resilience: Laurie shared candidly that from 2022 to 2024, she took a 16-month hiatus from Hike to Yoga after feeling overextended during the pandemic years. Choosing to step back — rather than run the organization into the ground — allowed her to return in 2024 with renewed clarity. She connects this to her personal "Root to Rise" framework and the metaphor of transmutation: using what you've been through, including pain, to grow into something new, "like the lotus growing in mud." What's Next: Laurie hopes to expand into a second location and eventually relaunch a hike leader training and certification program. She's also interested in developing research and partnerships focused on connecting children — particularly kids without regular access to nature or organized outdoor activity — to the benefits of hiking and yoga. How to Get Involved Attend: Find upcoming hikes and RSVP via Eventbrite, linked at hiketoyoga.org Volunteer: Hike to Yoga is currently seeking volunteers, interns, and board members Shop: Check out the "Rest is Rebellion" merch line on the website Follow: Instagram and Facebook @hiketoyogala Connect with Hike to Yoga Website: HiketoYoga.org Facebook: facebook.com/hiketoyogala Instagram: instagram.com/hiketoyogala Connect with Small & Gutsy Website: SmallandGutsy.org Email: Laura@SmallandGutsy.org Do you know a nonprofit or social enterprise doing incredible work? Send them our way! If you are a nonprofit or want to donate goods directly to a nonprofit, check out Givelink: www.givelink.app/en? Check out this episode!  

In this special replay of a past Psychedelic Coaching Institute webinar, Paul F. Austin is joined by Victoria J. Cvitanovic, attorney and leader of the Psychedelic Medicine and AI Governance practices at Rudick Law Group, for a practical conversation on how AI is reshaping psychedelic practice. Find full show notes and links here: https://thethirdwave.co/podcast/episode-364/?ref=278 Together, Paul and Victoria explore why psychedelic content can get flagged online, how automated moderation systems are changing what practitioners can safely post, and why educational content may still be misread by platforms like Meta. They also discuss payment processor risk, account freezes, client data privacy, AI note-taking tools, website compliance, and the legal nuance practitioners need to understand before building or growing their work online. Victoria J. Cvitanovic is a psychedelic medicine, cannabis, wellness, and tech attorney. In addition to her law degree, Victoria holds CIPP-US and AIGP certifications from the International Association of Privacy Professionals. She leads the Psychedelic Medicine and AI Governance practices at Rudick Law Group, where she also serves as the firm's Data Privacy Officer. Her work covers cybersecurity, data privacy, AI governance, regulatory compliance, corporate formation, licensing, and healthcare integration. Highlights: AI moderation and psychedelic content Why psychedelic posts get flagged online Posting about psychedelics responsibly Payment processors and risk reviews What to do when funds freeze Data privacy in client work AI tools and practitioner liability Website compliance basics Episode Links:  Rudick Law Group Psychedelic Coaching Institute Episode Sponsors:    The Practitioner Certification Program by The Psychedelic Coaching Institute. Golden Rule - Get a lifetime discount of 10% with code THIRDWAVE at checkout Third Wave occasionally partners with or shares information about other people, companies, and/or providers. While we work hard to only share information about ethical and responsible third parties, we can't and don't control the behavior of, products and services offered by, or the statements made by people, companies, or providers other than Third Wave. Accordingly, we encourage you to research for yourself, and consult a medical, legal, or financial professional before making decisions in those areas. Third Wave isn't responsible for the statements, conduct, services, or products of third parties. If we share a coupon code, we may receive a commission from sales arising from customers who use our coupon code. No one is required to use our coupon codes."

In this deeply informative conversation, Ryan Cartlidge is joined by Dot Baisly—the Executive Director for the International Association of Animal Behaviour Consultants (IAABC). With an extensive background in shelter behavior, veterinary medicine, and private consulting, Dot brings a wealth of experience to the table, having previously led behavior programs at major organizations like the North East Animal Shelter and the Animal Rescue League of Boston. Dot holds a Master's Degree in Animal Behaviour from Tufts University and is a Certified Dog Behaviour Consultant, Certified Cat Behaviour Consultant, and Certified Shelter Behaviour Specialist. Together, Ryan and Dot dive into the topic of the Joint Standards of Practice (JSOP), a collaborative initiative aimed at creating a standardized, ethical framework for behavior professionals in an industry that remains largely unregulated. Dot provides much-needed clarity on the structure of the JSOP coalition—explaining the roles of the Steering Committee versus the signatory organizations—and details the massive effort involved in updating the document. She shares the story of how the JSOP recently evolved from a brief, Lima-based guideline into a comprehensive document that now incorporates the five domains of animal welfare and explicitly addresses procedure selection. The conversation highlights why these standards are essential for the future of the industry, moving beyond simple "effectiveness" to ensure that the intervention itself supports the mental and physical well-being of the animal. They discuss the importance of moving toward a recognized profession where practitioners are held accountable, and how collaboration—rather than competition—among certifying and educational bodies is the key to creating a unified, ethical voice. Ryan also announces that the Animal Training Academy has officially become a signatory of the JSOP, reflecting a shared mission to empower professionals with high standards of care. Throughout this episode, we discuss: ✅ The role of the IAABC as a global trade organization and independent certifying body ✅ Defining the Joint Standards of Practice (JSOP) and why it serves as the minimum standard of care ✅ The structure of the JSOP coalition, including the Steering Committee and signatory organizations ✅ The transition from a Lima-based framework to a more comprehensive, science-backed standard ✅ Why self-regulation is a vital step toward professional legitimacy and ethical behavior change ✅ The difference between "assent" and "consent" in supporting learner well-being ✅ How professional standards protect both the animal and the practitioner from burnout ✅ The importance of industry-wide collaboration in raising the bar for animal welfare Whether you are a seasoned consultant or a professional just starting your career, this episode provides a clear roadmap for understanding the ethical foundations of our industry and why participating in standardized, collaborative frameworks is a "no-brainer" for those committed to the highest level of animal care. JSOP Signatories 1) Steering committee APDT IAABC IAABC Foundation Karen Pryor Academy (KPA) 2) Existing signatories Victoria Stilwell Inc. (VSI) Assistance Dogs International (ADI) Grisha Stewart Academy Science Matters Academy Understand Horses 3) Newest signatories Peaceable Paws Malena DeMartini Atlas Assistance Dogs Carefree Companion Academy of Pet Careers  Animal Training Academy Canine Behavior College Good Dog Academy Phenix Advocacy Center for R+ Canine Professionals Links JSOP: https://iaabc.org/standards-of-practice Email director@iaabc.org 

In a sleepy Canberra suburb, Bek Condello was raised in a strict patriarchal Pentecostal movement. The influence of the Geelong Revival Centre extended deeply into the lives of the congregation, promoting discipline and dictating how girls and women behaved, who they socialised with and who they would marry. After finding her way out and discovering her own identity, Bek has written a memoir, out on 14 July, called Can You Handle a Girl Like Me. Through her story she hopes she can inspire others to rebuild and thrive after deep loss.LinksCan You Handle a Girl Like Me — by Bek Condello, Penguin, 2026Secrets We Keep: Pray Harder — Richard Baker's podcast about the Geelong Revival CentreCredits:Produced by Sarah SteelMusic by Joe GouldYou can support Let's Talk About Sects here. Sarah will be appearing at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Sydney on Saturday 22 August, chairing Anke Richter's session which also features Laura McConnell, more info about that here. And Joe Gould who you'll know as the composer of this podcast is touring with his band The Crooked Fiddle Band for their 20th anniversary – they count Brian Eno amongst their fans. More info about that here.If you have been personally affected by involvement in a cult, or would like to support those who have been, you can find support with or donate to Cult Information and Family Support if you're in Australia (via cifs.org.au), and you can find resources outside of Australia with the International Cultic Studies Association (via internationalculticstudies.org). If you or someone you know is in crisis or needs support right now, please call Lifeline on 13 11 14 in Australia, or find your local crisis centre via the International Association for Suicide Prevention website at iasp.info. Find Sarah's audiobook Do As I Say here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, we lost one of the true pioneers of near-death research. PMH Atwater passed away, and as a tribute to her, I'm re-releasing the very first interview I ever recorded with her back in 2019 — before she knew who I was, before I knew what I was doing, and before I understood what a gift those three conversations would turn out to be.If you've ever wondered what death actually feels like, whether thoughts are things, or how a person survives dying not once but three times in a single year — this episode is for you.PMH interviewed nearly 5,000 near-death experiencers over more than four decades. In this conversation, she doesn't just tell you what she found in other people's stories. She tells you her own.In this episode, you'll hear:✨ How PMH's three near-death experiences in 1977 — January 2nd, January 4th, and March 29th — nearly destroyed her body while completely rebuilding her understanding of reality✨ The "litany against fear" she adapted from Dune and chanted by the hour to survive her recovery — and why she's sharing it with you✨ Her encounter with Elizabeth Kübler-Ross at O'Hare Airport that launched her research career — with no university, no funding, no roadmap✨ What she means when she says "thoughts are things," and how she came to that conclusion while dying✨ The voice that told her, "You are to do the research. One book for each death" — and what that meant for the rest of her life✨ Why she made the film As You Die, and why the Catholic Church stepped in to help distribute itA few lines that will stay with you:"Fear is the mind killer. It is the little death. I will pass through my fear. It will go around me and through me. And when it is gone, I will remain.""When you die, you don't become someone else than you were. You are.""Any death in a way is an opening to something else... And if we embrace that, then it can be joyful."About PMH AtwaterPMH Atwater began researching near-death experiences in 1978, becoming one of the founding figures in the field alongside Raymond Moody. Over more than 40 years, she interviewed close to 5,000 adult and child experiencers and authored nearly 20 books, including Coming Back to Life, Future Memory, Beyond the Light, and I Died Three Times in 1977 — The Complete Story. She lectured at the United Nations, appeared on Larry King Live and Geraldo, and remained a leading voice in near-death studies until her passing.Learn more about her work at pmhatwater.com.What resonated with you in this one? I'd love to hear which part of PMH's story stayed with you. Drop a comment below or reach out — I read every one.If this episode moved you, please share it. PMH spent her life making sure these stories didn't get lost. The least we can do is keep passing them on.You've been listening. You're doing the work. But there's still this feeling that you're circling the same place.Maybe you've thought about working with me one-on-one. Maybe something's held you back. I get that. And I want you to know there's still a place for you.All of it, pay what you want. You decide what it's worth. Nobody gets turned away because of money.https://grief2g The International Association for Near-Death Studies or IANDS will host its annual conference at the Hyatt Regency in Bellevue.  The event features an all-star lineup of keynotes like Proof of Heaven Author Eben Alexander, MD, and Dying to Be Me Author Anita Moorjani. I Early bird registration rates are available through July 15. Visit IANDS.org to register The International Association for Near-Death Studies or IANDS will host its annual conference at the Hyatt Regency in Bellevue.  The event features an all-star lineup of keynotes like Proof of Heaven Author Eben Alexander, MD, and Dying to Be Me Author Anita Moorjani. I Early bird registration rates are available through July 15.  Visit IANDS.org to register Want to go deeper? My Substack is where I share solo essays on grief, consciousness, and continuing bonds — thoughts that don't always make it into the podcast. It's also home to a community of listeners who get it, because they're living it too. Free to subscribe. Find it at substack.com/grief2growth.Support the show

Tim was founder member of ITV's Cook Report team and subsequently spent nearly 10 years as producer-director in Yorkshire Television's acclaimed documentaries department making films for series as diverse as First Tuesday, Network First, Dispatches and Secret History. In addition to making high-profile documentaries through Interesting Films, he has also worked within the BBC, ITV and Al Jazeera.His work has been honoured by Amnesty International, the Royal Television Society, The International Association of Broadcasting, The International Documentary Association, UNESCO, The New York Festivals and the US National Academy of Cable BroadcastingThe Interesting Film Company was set up by Tim Tate, a multi- award-winning film maker and best-selling author.The company is now based around a small core of dedicated film-makers who have learned their craft within some of the most prestigious production companies and documentary teams in British broadcasting: Yorkshire Television, the BBC, Granada and Carlton Television; First Tuesday, Network First and The Cook Report.http://interestingfilms.co.uk/Tim Tate : Conspiracy of Silence (Censored Franklin Cover up Documentary Filmmaker)7 years ago #(censored, #conspiracy, #conspiracy of silence, #cover, #documentary, #edopperman, #filmmaker), #franklin, #franklin cover up, #report, #silence, #tate, #tim, #tim tate, #upBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Dr. Barb Rembiesa, founder and CEO of the International Association of IT Asset Management, shares how a small act of kindness on her part led to an enormously outsized impact on the residents of a small Kentucky town.Hear Dr. Rembiesa's full interview in her special bonus episode of The Action Catalyst.

What if the word "coach" isn't big enough for what grief actually needs?In this conversation, Dina Bell-Laroche walks me through the journey that took her from a devastated 29-year-old — grieving her younger sister Tracy, who passed from a rare cancer while pregnant with her first child — to becoming one of the clearest voices in grief and loss literacy today. We talk about why she moved away from calling herself a "grief coach," what a grief doula actually does, and how a disconnected rotary phone in a garden in Japan became the inspiration for a project she's now bringing to a hospice near Ottawa.This one will change the way you think about "getting over" a loss — and about ranking your grief against anyone else's.About Dina Bell-LarocheDina Bell-Laroche is a Certified Thanatologist, grief doula, death educator, keynote speaker, and the author of Grief Unleashed: Moving from the Hole in Our Hearts to Whole-Hearted. Since her sister Tracy's passing in 2001, Dina has built classrooms in Nicaragua and Northern Ontario in Tracy's name, hosted dozens of Grief Cafés, and helped launch Ottawa's first Wind Phone. She writes The Grieving Place on Substack and works with individuals, families, and organizations — including elite athletes and executives — navigating grief and life-altering loss.Connect with Dina: Website: https://www.griefunleashed.ca/ Substack — The Grieving Place: https://dinabelllaroche.substack.com/ Instagram, Facebook & LinkedIn: @griefunleashed Book: Grief Unleashed: Moving from the Hole in Our Hearts to Whole-HeartedIn this episode, we cover:The difference between chronos time and kairos time — and what STUGS (sudden temporary upsurges in grief) really areWhy Dina moved from "grief coach" to "grief doula," and what that shift meansDisenfranchised grief, and why sibling loss so often goes unacknowledgedWhy our culture ranks losses against each other — and why that hierarchy needs to goTalking to children honestly about deathThe story behind the Wind Phone, and Dina's new Wind Phone project at a hospice in OttawaWhat the Grief Companion Program actually looks likeWhat resonated with you? Have you ever felt like your grief wasn't "bad enough" to talk about? Drop a comment and let's talk about it.You've been listening. You're doing the work. But there's still this feeling that you're circling the same place.Maybe you've thought about working with me one-on-one. Maybe something's held you back. I get that. And I want you to know there's still a place for you.All of it, pay what you want. You decide what it's worth. Nobody gets turned away because of money.https://grief2g The International Association for Near-Death Studies or IANDS will host its annual conference at the Hyatt Regency in Bellevue.  The event features an all-star lineup of keynotes like Proof of Heaven Author Eben Alexander, MD, and Dying to Be Me Author Anita Moorjani. I Early bird registration rates are available through July 15. Visit IANDS.org to register The International Association for Near-Death Studies or IANDS will host its annual conference at the Hyatt Regency in Bellevue.  The event features an all-star lineup of keynotes like Proof of Heaven Author Eben Alexander, MD, and Dying to Be Me Author Anita Moorjani. I Early bird registration rates are available through July 15.  Visit IANDS.org to register Want to go deeper? My Substack is where I share solo essays on grief, consciousness, and continuing bonds — thoughts that don't always make it into the podcast. It's also home to a community of listeners who get it, because they're living it too. Free to subscribe. Find it at substack.com/grief2growth.Support the show

Today's show features: - Brian Baker, President Automotive at Stream Companies - Zach Slabinski, Director of Retail Ready at Stream Companies - Brian Hoang, CEO & Co-founder at Mia Labs - George Ripley, VP at International Association of Auto Theft Investigators This episode is brought to you by: Haig Partners – When it comes to selling your life's work, trust the only advisors who have built a reputation for maximizing value for family-owned dealerships. The team at Haig Partners has achieved record-setting values across multiple franchises and has represented more owners in the sale of their Toyota dealerships than any other firm. If you are considering a sale, divestiture or looking to grow, begin a confidential conversation at http://haigpartners.com/ Check out Car Dealership Guy's stuff: CDG Circles ➤ ⁠⁠https://cdgcircles.com/⁠⁠ CDG News ➤ ⁠⁠https://news.dealershipguy.com/⁠⁠ CDG Jobs ➤ ⁠⁠https://jobs.dealershipguy.com/⁠⁠ CDG Recruiting ➤ ⁠⁠https://www.cdgrecruiting.com/⁠⁠ My Socials: X ➤ ⁠⁠⁠https://www.twitter.com/GuyDealership⁠⁠⁠ Instagram ➤ ⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/cardealershipguy/⁠⁠⁠ TikTok ➤ ⁠⁠⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@guydealership⁠⁠⁠ LinkedIn ➤⁠⁠⁠ https://www.linkedin.com/company/cardealershipguy/⁠⁠⁠ Threads ➤ ⁠⁠⁠https://www.threads.net/@cardealershipguy⁠⁠⁠ Facebook ➤⁠⁠⁠ https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100077402857683⁠⁠⁠ Everything else ➤ ⁠⁠dealershipguy.com⁠