Podcast appearances and mentions of John Brockman

John Brockman is a legend in the literary world. He has represented some of the finest minds in science in regards to their written works. His firm is considered the most prestigious. He was also one of Epstein's biggest enablers.Brockman was used by Epstein to open the door to relationships with the top scientists on the planet. The door he used was called the Edge foundation.Who is John Brockman? What was his role in this whole macabre story?To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-enablerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This week Scott and Patrick are joined by superstar investigative journalist Johnny Vedmore to discuss some of his recent work into the Jeffrey Epstein connections with the technocratic elite. This unholy alliance between tech and intelligence seemingly sprang into existence as far back as the 1960s with a futurist group founded by Epstein associate John Brockman and would eventually encapsulate many of the tech movers and shakers we know today as well as a sizeable portion of the supposed "Independent" media and "The Intellectual Dork Web"Check out Johnny's valuable work at www.newspaste.com and follow him on social media @johnnyvedmoreCheck out Patrick's stuff at www.CANTGETFOOLEDAGAIN.comDon't forget to join our Telegram channel at T.me/historyhomos and to join our group chat at T.me/historyhomoschatFor programming updates and news follow us across social media @historyhomospod and follow Scott @Scottlizardabrams and Patrick @cantgetfooledagainradio OR subscribe to our telegram channel t.me/historyhomosThe video version of the show is available on Substack, Rokfin, bitchute, odysee and RumbleFor weekly premium episodes or to contribute to the show subscribe to our channel at www.historyhomospod.substack.comYou can donate to the show directly at paypal.me/historyhomosTo order a History Homos T shirt (and recieve a free sticker) please send your shirt size and address to Historyhomos@gmail.com and please address all questions, comments and concerns there as well.Later homos

John Brockman is a legend in the literary world. He has represented some of the finest minds in science in regards to their written works. His firm is considered the most prestigious. He was also one of Epstein's biggest enablers.Brockman was used by Epstein to open the door to relationships with the top scientists on the planet. The door he used was called the Edge foundation.Who is John Brockman? What was his role in this whole macabre story?To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-enablerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Meet MURR (the Missouri University Research Reactor), a leading facility in the production of life-saving medical isotopes that's redefining what's possible in both energy and healthcare.In this episode, we talk to Mike Hoehn, Program Director for NextGen MURR, and John Brockman, Associate Director of Research and Education at MURR, about how MURR's cutting-edge research is revolutionizing cancer treatment and diagnostic tools with isotopes that are essential for modern medicine. Learn more about MURR: https://www.murr.missouri.edu/Next Gen MURR: https://nextgenmurr.missouri.edu/Visit us at www.nei.org/fissionary.Music used in this episode was created by Beat Mekanik

Jeffrey Epstein had his tentacles slithered into many pies and one of the most fertile hunting grounds for him was always John Brockman's so called Billionaire's dinner. A get together of some of the most powerful people in technology, academia, finance and politics, the dinner provided the perfect place for Epstein to ply his trade and entice people with his offerings. (commercial at 8:28)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://au.news.yahoo.com/jeffery-epstein-billionaires-dinner-john-brockman-photos-sarah-kellen-173443481.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode of the Prepared School Psych podcast, host Jenny interviews Dan Brown, president of K 12 Consulting and co-founder of Evalulogix, and John Brockman, a California-based school psychologist, about their product Evalulogix. Evalulogix is designed to support the report writing process for special education assessments by using technology to save time, improve data usage, and enhance report collaboration among multidisciplinary teams. The guests discuss how Evalulogix addresses challenges faced by school psychologists, such as organizing data and creating clear, concise reports. They also highlight the product's ability to facilitate collaboration among assessment team members and the potential of AI to further improve efficiency and effectiveness in report writing. The episode concludes with advice for new school psychologists and insights into what makes Dan and John feel prepared in their roles. Resources: https://k-12consulting.com/school-psychology FREE 2-Week ACCESS INSIDE THE PREPARED SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST COMMUNITY: Experience the Prepared School Psychologist Community with a 2-Week Free Trial! Join over 300 school psychologists who are equipped with the knowledge and resources they need to excel in their roles. What You'll Get with Your Free Trial: Over 35 Mini-Courses: Access a wide range of topics designed to provide the essential knowledge and skills you need. Monthly Live Q&A Calls: Engage directly with Jenny Ponzuric and a team of veteran school psychologists to get your questions answered and gain insights. Community Forum & Remind App Access: Connect with a network of peers to exchange ideas and get support in real-time. Comprehensive Resources: Explore tools and strategies covering behavior management, executive functioning, counseling, and more. Ready to Equip Yourself with Essential Knowledge and Resources? Click here and use code PODCAST at checkout to start your 2-week free trial. ⁠⁠⁠https://jennyponzuric.activehosted.com/f/159⁠⁠ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe to this podcast now and join our community of dedicated School Psychologists committed to creating inclusive, supportive, and empowering school environments for every child. Let's embark on this journey of professional growth and student-centered advocacy together! Follow us on social media for updates, behind-the-scenes content, and more: Instagram: @jennyponzuric https://www.instagram.com/jennyponzuric/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jenny-ponzuric-1562a8119/ 00:00 Introduction and Guest Welcom 00:04 Meet Dan Brown and John Brockman 01:30 Icebreaker Questions 04:04 The Role of Technology in School Psychology 08:36 Introducing EvaluLogix 08:48 Custom Implementation and Features 13:10 Challenges in Report Writing 20:40 Feedback from Users 23:28 How to Learn More About EvaluLogix 24:24 Personal Investment and Final Thoughts 25:28 Advice for New School Psychologists 26:30 What It Means to Be Prepared 27:44 Conclusion and Farewell The information and advice provided are for guidance purposes only, and all participants are required to follow federal and state law and their school district guidelines and policies.

Jeffrey Epstein had his tentacles slithered into many pies and one of the most fertile hunting grounds for him was always John Brockman's so called Billionaire's dinner. A get together of some of the most powerful people in technology, academia, finance and politics, the dinner provided the perfect place for Epstein to ply his trade and entice people with his offerings. (commercial at 8:28)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://au.news.yahoo.com/jeffery-epstein-billionaires-dinner-john-brockman-photos-sarah-kellen-173443481.html

Jeffrey Epstein had his tentacles slithered into many pies and one of the most fertile hunting grounds for him was always John Brockman's so called Billionaire's dinner. A get together of some of the most powerful people in technology, academia, finance and politics, the dinner provided the perfect place for Epstein to ply his trade and entice people with his offerings. (commercial at 8:28)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://au.news.yahoo.com/jeffery-epstein-billionaires-dinner-john-brockman-photos-sarah-kellen-173443481.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Professor Venki Ramakrishnan, a Nobel laureate for his work on unraveling the structure of function of the ribosome, has written a new book WHY WE DIE which is outstanding. Among many posts and recognitions for his extraordinary work in molecular biology, Venki has been President of the Royal Society, knighted in 2012, and was made a Member of the Order of Merit in 2022. He is a group leader at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology research institute in Cambridge, UK.A brief video snippet of our conversation below. Full videos of all Ground Truths podcasts can be seen on YouTube here. The audios are available on Apple and Spotify.Transcript with links to audio and external linksEric Topol (00:06):Hello, this is Eric Topol with Ground Truths, and I have a really special guest today, Professor Venki Ramakrishnan from Cambridge who heads up the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, and I think as you know a Nobel laureate for his seminal work on ribosomes. So thank you, welcome.Venki Ramakrishnan (00:29):Thank you. I just want to say that I'm not the head of the lab. I'm simply a staff member here.Eric Topol (00:38):Right. No, I don't want to give you more authority than you have, so that was certainly not implied. But today we're here to talk about this amazing book, Why We Die, which is a very provocative title and it mainly gets into the biology of aging, which Venki is especially well suited to be giving us a guided tour and his interpretations and views. And I read this book with fascination, Venki. I have three pages of typed notes from your book.The Compression of MorbidityEric Topol (01:13):And we could talk obviously for hours, but this is fascinating delving into this hot area, as you know, very hot area of aging. So I thought I'd start off more towards the end of the book where you kind of get philosophical into the ethics. And there this famous concept by James Fries of compression of morbidity that's been circulating for well over two decades. That's really the big question about all this aging effort. So maybe you could give us, do you think there is evidence for compression of morbidity so that you can just extend healthy aging and then you just fall off the cliff?Venki Ramakrishnan (02:00):I think that's the goal of most of the sort of what I call the saner end of the aging research community is to improve our health span. That is the number of years we have healthy lives, not so much to extend lifespan, which is how long we live. And the idea is that you take those years that we now spend in poor health or decrepitude and compress them down to just very short time, so you're healthy almost your entire life, and then suddenly go into a rapid decline and die. Now Fries who actually coined that term compression or morbidity compares this to the One-Hoss Shay after poem by Oliver Wendell Holmes from the 19th century, which is about this horse carriage that was designed so perfectly that all its parts wore out equally. And so, a farmer was riding along in this carriage one minute, and the next minute he found himself on the ground surrounded by a heap of dust, which was the entire carriage that had disintegrated.Venki Ramakrishnan (03:09):So the question I would ask is, if you are healthy and everything about you is healthy, why would you suddenly go into decline? And it's a fair question. And every advance we've made that has kept us healthier in one respect or another. For example, tackling diabetes or tackling heart disease has also extended our lifespan. So people are not living a bigger fraction of their lives healthily now, even though we're living longer. So the result is we're spending the same or even more number of years with one or more health problems in our old age. And you can see that in the explosion of nursing homes and care homes in almost all western countries. And as you know, they were big factors in Covid deaths. So I'm not sure it can be accomplished. I think that if we push forward with health, we're also going to extend our lifespan.Venki Ramakrishnan (04:17):Now the argument against that comes from studies of these, so-called super centenarians and semi super centenarians. These are people who live to be over 105 or 110. And Tom Perls who runs the New England study of centenarians has published findings which show that these supercentenarians live extraordinarily healthy lives for most of their life and undergo rapid decline and then die. So that's almost exactly what we would want. So they have somehow accomplished compression of morbidity. Now, I would say there are two problems with that. One is, I don't know about the data sample size. The number of people who live over 110 is very, very small. The other is they may be benefiting from their own unique genetics. So they may have a particular combination of genetics against a broad genetic background that's unique to each person. So I'm not sure it's a generally translatable thing, and it also may have to do with their particular life history and lifestyle. So I don't know how much of what we learned from these centenarians is going to be applicable to the population as a whole. And otherwise, I don't even know how this would be accomplished. Although some people feel there's a natural limit to our biology, which restricts our lifespan to about 115 or 120 years. Nobody has lived more than 122. And so, as we improve our health, we may come up against that natural limit. And so, you might get a compression of morbidity. I'm skeptical. I think it's an unsolved problem.Eric Topol (06:14):I think I'm with you about this, but there's a lot of conflation of the two concepts. One is to suppress age related diseases, and the other is to actually somehow modulate control the biologic aging process. And we lump it all together as you're getting at, which is one of the things I loved about your book is you really give a balanced view. You present the contrarians and the different perspectives, the perspective about people having age limits potentially much greater than 120, even though as you say, we haven't seen anyone live past 122 since 1997, so it's quite a long time. So this, I think, conflation of what we do today as far as things that will reduce heart disease or diabetes, that's age related diseases, that's very different than controlling the biologic aging process. Now getting into that, one of the things that's particularly alluring right now, my friend here in San Diego, Juan Carlos Belmonte, who went over from Salk, which surprised me to the Altos Labs, as you pointed on in the book.Venki Ramakrishnan (07:38):I'm not surprised. I mean, you have a huge salary and all the resources you want to carry out the same kind of research. I wouldn't blame any of these guys.Rejuvenating Animals With Yamanaka FactorsEric Topol (07:50):No, I understand. I understand. It's kind of like the LIV Golf tournament versus the PGA. It's pretty wild. At any rate, he's a good friend of mine, and I visited with him recently, and as you mentioned, he has over a hundred people working on this partial epigenetic reprogramming. And just so reviewing this for the uninitiated is giving the four Yamanaka transcription factors here to the whole animal or the mouse and rejuvenating old mice, essentially at least those with progeria. And then others have, as you point out in the book, done this with just old mice. So one of the things that strikes me about this, and in talking with him recently is it's going to be pretty hard to give these Yamanaka factors to a person, an intravenous infusion. So what are your thoughts about this rejuvenation of a whole person? What do you think?Venki Ramakrishnan (08:52):If I hadn't seen some of these papers would've been even more skeptical. But the data from, well, Belmonte's work was done initially on progeria mice. These are mice that age prematurely. And then people thought, well, they may not represent natural aging, and what you're doing is simply helping with some abnormal form of aging. But he and other groups have now done it with normal mice and observed similar effects. Now, I would say reprogramming is one way. It's a very exciting and powerful way to almost try to reverse aging because you're trying to take cells back developmentally. You're taking possibly fully differentiated cells back to stem cells and then helping regenerate tissue, which one of the problems as we age is we start losing stem cells. So we have stem cell depletion, so we can no longer replace our tissues as we do when we're younger. And I think anyone who knows who's had a scrape or been hurt in a fall or something knows this because if I fall and scrape my elbow and get a big bruise and my grandson falls, we repair our tissues at very, very different rates. It takes me days or weeks to recover, and my grandson's fine in two or three days. You can hardly see he had a scrape at all. So I think that's the thing that these guys want to do.Venki Ramakrishnan (10:48):And the problem is Yamanaka factors are cancer. Two of them are oncogenic factors, right? If you give Yamanaka factors to cells, you can take them all the way back to what are called pluripotent cells, which are the cells that are capable of forming any tissue in the body. So for example, a fertilized egg or an early embryo cells from the early embryo are pluripotent. They could form anything in the body. Now, if you do that to cells with Yamanaka factors, they often form teratomas, which are these unusual forms of cancer tumors. And so, I think there's a real risk. And so, what these guys say is, well, we'll give these factors transiently, so we'll only take the cells back a little ways and not all the way back to pluripotency. And that way if you start with skin cells, you'll get the progenitor stem cells for skin cells. And the problem with that is when you do it with a population, you're getting a distribution. Some of them will go back just a little, some of them may go back much more. And I don't know how to control all this. So I think it's very exciting research. And of course, if I were one of these guys, I would certainly want to carry on doing that research. But I don't think it's anywhere near ready for primetime in terms of giving it to human beings as a sort of anti-aging therapeutic.Aging and Cancer Shared HallmarksEric Topol (12:31):Yeah. Well, I couldn't agree more on that because this is a company that's raised billions of dollars to go into clinical trials. And the question that comes up here, which is a theme in the book and a theme with the aging process to try to artificially, if you will affect it, is this risk of cancer. And as we know, the hallmarks of aging overlap considerably with the hallmarks of cancer. And this is just one example, as you mentioned, where these transcription factors could result in generating cancer. But as you also point out in the book at many places, methylation changes, DNA, repair, and telomeres.Venki Ramakrishnan (13:21):And telomeres.Venki Ramakrishnan (13:24):All of those are related to cancer as well. And this was first pointed out to me by Titia de Lange, who's a world expert on telomeres at Rockefeller, and she was pointing out to me the intimate connection between cancer and aging and many mechanisms that have evolved to prevent cancer early in life tend to cause aging later in life, including a lot of DNA damage response, which sends cells into senescence and therefore causes aging. Buildup of senescence cells is a problem later in life with aging, but it has a role which is to prevent cancer early in life. And so, I think it's going to be the same problem with stem cell therapy. I think very targeted stem cell therapy, which is involved in replacing certain tissues, the kind of regenerative medicine that stem cells have been trying to address for a very long time, and only now we're beginning to see some of the successes of that. So it's been very slow, even when the goal and target is very specific and well-defined, and there you are using that stem cell to treat a pretty bad disease or some really serious problem. I think with aging, the idea that somebody might take this so they can live an extra 10 years, it's a much higher bar in terms of safety and long-term safety and efficacy. So I don't think that this is going to happen anytime soon, but it's not to say it'll never happen. There is some serious biology underlying it.Eric Topol (15:13):Right. Well, you just touched on this, but of course the other, there's several big areas that are being explored, and one of them is trying to deal with these senescent cells and trying to get rid of them from the body because they can secrete evil humors, if you will. And the problem with that, it seems that these senescent cells are sort of protective. They stop dividing, they're not going to become cancerous, although perhaps they could contribute to that in some way. So like you say, with telomeres and so many things that are trying to be manipulated here, there's this downside risk and it seems like this is what we're going to have to confront this. We have seen Venki with the CAR-T, the T-cell engineering, there's this small risk of engendering cancer while you're trying to deal with the immune system.SenolyticsVenki Ramakrishnan (16:07):Yeah, I think with senescent cells, the early in life senescent cells have an important role in biology. They're essentially signaling to the immune system that there's a site that's subject to viral infection or wounds or things like that. So it's a signal to send other kinds of cells there to come and repair the damage. Now, of course, that evolved to help us early in life. And also many senescent cells were a response to DNA damage. And that's again, a way for the body that if your DNA is damaged, you don't want that cell to be able to divide indefinitely because it could become cancerous. And so, you send it into senescence and get it out of harm's way. So early life, we were able to get rid of these senescent cells, we were able to come to the site and then clean up the damage and eventually destroy the senescent cells themselves.Venki Ramakrishnan (17:08):But as we get older, the response mechanisms also deteriorate with age. Our immune system deteriorates with age, all the natural signaling mechanisms deteriorate with age. And so, we get this buildup of senescent cells. And there people have asked, well, these senescent cells don't just sit there, they secrete inflammatory compounds, which originally was a feature, not a bug, but then it becomes a problem later in life. And so, people have found that if you target senescent cells in older animals, those animals improve their symptoms of aging improved dramatically or significantly anyway. And so, this has led to this whole field called senolytics, which is being able to specifically target senescent cells. Now there the problem is how would you design compounds that are highly specific for senescent cells and don't damage your other cells and don't have other long-term side effects? So again, I think it's a promising area, but a lot of work needs to be done to establish long-term safety and efficacy.Eric Topol (18:23):Right. No, in fact, just today in Nature, there's a feature on killing the zombie cells, and it discusses just what you're pointing out, which is it's not so easy to tag these specifically and target them, even though as you know, there's some early trials and things like diabetic macular edema. And we'll see how that plays out. Now, one of the things that comes up is the young blood story. So in the young blood, whether it's this parabiosis or however you want to get at it, and I guess it even applies to the young microbiome of a gut, but there's this consistent report that there's something special going on there. And of course the reciprocal relationship of giving the old blood to the young mice, whatever, but no one can find the factor, whether it's platelet factor 4, GDF11, or what are your thoughts about this young blood story?Venki Ramakrishnan (19:25):I think there's no question that the experiments work because they were reproduced and they were reproduced over quite a long period, and which is that when you connect an old mouse or rat with a young equivalent, then the old mouse or old rat benefits from the young blood from the younger animal. And conversely, the younger animal suffers from the blood from the older animal. And then people were wondering whether this is simply that the young animal has better detoxification and things like that, or whether it's actually the blood. And they gave it just as transfusion without connecting the animals and showed that it really was the blood. And so, this of course then leads to the question, well, what is it about young blood that's beneficial and what is it about old blood that is bad? But the problem is blood has hundreds of factors. And so, they have to look at which factors are significantly different, and they might be in such small quantities that you might not be able to detect those differences very easily.Venki Ramakrishnan (20:40):And then once you've detected differences, then you have to establish their mechanism of action. And first of all, you have to establish that the factor really is beneficial. Then you have to figure out how it works and what its potential side effects could be. And so again, this is a promising area where there's a lot of research, but it has not prevented people from jumping the gun. So in the United States, and I should say a lot of them in your state, California somehow seems to attract all these immortality types. Well, anyway, a lot of companies set up to take blood from young donors, extract the plasma and then give it to rich old recipients for a fee for a healthy fee. And I think the FDA actually shut down one of them on the grounds that they were not following approved procedure. And then they tried to start up under a different name. And then eventually, I don't know what happened, but at one point the CEO said something I thought was very amusing. He said, well, the problem with clinical trials is that they take too long. I'm afraid that's characteristic of some portion of this sort of anti-aging therapeutics community. There's a very mainstream rigorous side to it, but there's also at the other end of the spectrum, kind of the wild west where people just sell whatever they can. And I think this exploits people's fear of getting old and being disabled or things like that and then dying. And I think the fear seems to be stronger in California where people like their lives and don't want to age.Eric Topol (22:49):You may be right about that. I like your term in the book immortality merchants, and of course we'll get into a bit, I hope the chapter on the crackpots and prophets that you called it was great. But that quote, by the way, which was precious from, I think it was Ambrosia, the name of the company and the CEO, but there's another quote in the book I want to ask you about. Most scientists working on aging agree that dietary restriction can extend both healthy life and overall life in mice and also lead to reductions in cancer, diabetes, and overall mortality in humans. Is that true? Most scientists think that you can really change these age-related diseases.Caloric Restriction and Related PathwaysVenki Ramakrishnan (23:38):I think if you had to pick one area in which there's broad agreement, it is caloric restriction. But I wouldn't say the consensus is complete. And the reason I say that is that most of the comparisons are between animals that can eat as much as they want, called ad libitum diet and mice that are calorically restricted or same with other animals even yeast. You either compared with an extremely rich medium or in a calorically restricted medium. And this is not a great comparison. And people, there's one discrepancy, and that was in monkeys where an NIH study didn't find huge differences, whereas a Wisconsin study found rather dramatic differences between the control group and the calorically restricted group. And so, what was the difference? Well, the difference was that the NIH study, the controlled group didn't have a calorically restricted diet, but still had a pretty reasonable diet.Venki Ramakrishnan (24:50):It wasn't given a unhealthy rich diet of all you can eat. And then they tried to somehow reconcile their findings in a later study. But it leads to the question of whether what you can conclude is that a rich all you can eat diet, in other words, gorging on an all you can eat buffet is definitely bad for you. So that's why you could draw that conclusion rather than saying it's actually the caloric restriction. So I think people need to do a little more careful study. There was also a study on mice which took different strains of mice and showed that in some strains, caloric restriction actually shortened lifespan didn't increase lifespan. Now, much of the aging community says, ah, that's just one study. But nobody's actually shown whether there was anything wrong with that study or even tried to reproduce it. So I think that study still stands.Venki Ramakrishnan (25:51):So I think it's not completely clear, but the fact is that there's some calorie dependence that's widely been observed across species. So between the control group and the experimental group, whatever you may, however, you may define it as there's been some effective calories intake. And the other interesting thing is that one of the pathways affected by caloric restriction is the so-called TOR pathway and one of the inhibitors of the TOR pathways is rapamycin. And rapamycin in studies has also shown some of these beneficial effects against the symptoms of aging and in lifespan. Although rapamycin has the same issue as with many other remedies, it's an immunosuppressive drug and that means it makes you more prone to infection and wound healing and many other things. I believe one of them was there's a question of whether it affects your libido, but nevertheless, that has not prevented rapamycin clinics from opening up, did I say in California? So I do think that there's often serious science, which leads to sort of promising avenues. But then there are of course people who jump the gun and want to go ahead anyway because they figure by the time trials are done, they'll be dead and they'd rather try act now.Eric Topol (27:36):Right. And you make a good, I mean the rapamycin and mTOR pathway, you really developed that quite a bit in the book. It's really quite complex. I mean, this is a pleotropic intervention, whether it's a rapalogs or rapamycin, it's just not so simple at all.Venki Ramakrishnan (27:53):Right. It's not at all simple because the TOR pathway has so many consequences. It affects so many different processes in the cell from including my own field of protein synthesis. It's one of the things it does is shut down global protein synthesis, and that's one of the effects of inhibiting TOR. So, and it turns up autophagy, which is this recycling of defective proteins and entirely defective entire organelles. So I think the TOR pathway is like a hub in a very large network. And so, when you start playing with that, you're going to have multiple consequences.Eric Topol (28:37):Yeah, no. And another thing that you develop so well is about this garbage disposal waste disposal system, which is remarkably elaborate in the cell, whether it's the proteasome for the proteins and the autophagosome for the autophagy with the lysosomes and the mitochondria mitophagy. Do you want to comment about that? Because this is something I think a lot of people don't appreciate, that waste management in the cell is just, it's a big deal.Venki Ramakrishnan (29:10):So we always think of producing things in the cell as being important, making proteins and so on. But the fact is destroying proteins is equally important because sometimes you need proteins for a short time, then they've done their job and you need to get rid of them, or proteins become dysfunctional, they stop working, or even worse, they start clumping together and causing diseases for example you could think of Alzheimer's as a disease, which involves protein tangles. Of course, the relationship between the tangles and the disease is still being worked out, but it's a characteristic of Alzheimer's that you have these protein tangles and the cell has evolved very elaborate mechanisms to constantly turn over defective proteins. Well, for example, it senses when proteins are unfolded and essentially the chain has unraveled and is now sticking to all sorts of things and causing problems. So I think in all of these cases, the cells evolved very elaborate mechanisms to recycle defective products, to have proper turnover of proteins. And in fact, recycling of entire organelles like mitochondria, when they become defective, the whole mitochondria can be recycled. So these systems also break down with aging. And so, as we age, we have more of a tendency to accumulate unfolded proteins or to accumulate defective mitochondria. And it's one of the more serious problems with aging.Eric Topol (30:59):Yeah, there's quite a few of them. Unfortunately, quite a few problems. Each of them are being addressed. So there's many different shots on goal here. And as you also aptly point out, they're interconnected. So many of these things are not just standalone strategies. I do want to get your sense about another popular thing, especially here out in California, are the clocks, epigenetic clocks in particular. And these people are paying a few hundred dollars and getting their biologic age, which what is that? And they're also thinking that I can change my future by getting clocks. Some of these companies offer every few months to get a new clock. This is actually remarkable, and I wonder what your thoughts are about it.Venki Ramakrishnan (31:48):Well, again, this is an example of some serious biology and then people jumping the gun to use it. So the serious biology comes from the fact that we age at different rates individuals. So anyone who's been to a high school reunion knows this. You'll have classmates who are unrecognizable because they've aged so much and others who've hardly changed since you knew them in high school. So of course at my age, that's getting rarer and rarer. But anyway, but you know what I mean. So the thing is that, is there a way that we can ask on an individual level how much has that individual aged? And there are markers that people have identified, some of them are markers on our DNA, which you mentioned in California. Horvath is a very famous scientist who has a clock named after him actually, which has to do with methylation of our DNA and the patterns of methylation affect the pattern of gene expression.Venki Ramakrishnan (33:01):And that pattern changes as we age. And they've shown that those patterns are a better predictor of many of the factors of aging. For example, mortality or symptoms of aging. They're a better predictor of that than chronological age. And then of course there are blood markers, for example, levels of various blood enzymes or blood factors, and there are dozens of these factors. So there are many different tests of many different kinds of markers which look at aging. Now the problem is these all work on a population level and they also work on an individual level for time comparison. That is to say, if you want to ask is some intervention working? You could ask, how fast are these markers changing in this person without the intervention and how fast are they changing with the intervention? So for these kind of carefully controlled experiments, they work, but another case is, for example, glycosylation of proteins, especially proteins of your immune system.Venki Ramakrishnan (34:15):It turns out that adding sugar groups to your immune system changes with age and causes an immune system to misfire. And that's a symptom of aging. It's called inflammaging. So people have used different markers. Now the problem is these markers are not always consistent with each other because you may be perfectly fine in many respects, but by some particular marker you may be considered old just because they're comparing you to a population average. But how would you say one person said, look, we all lose height as we age, but that doesn't mean if you take a short person, you can consider them old. So it's a difference between an individual versus a population, and it's a difference between what happens to an individual by following that individual over time versus just taking an individual and comparing it to some population average. So that's one problem.Organ ClocksVenki Ramakrishnan (35:28):The other problem is that our aging is not homogeneous. So there's a recent paper from I believe Tony Wyss-Coray group, which talks about the age of different organs in the same person. And it turns out that our organs, and this is not just one paper, there are other papers as well. Our organs don't necessarily age at the same rate. So giving a single person, giving a person a single number saying, this is your biological age, it's not clear what that means. And I would say, alright, even if you do it, what are you going to do about it? What can you do about it knowing your biological, the so-called number of a biological age. So I'm not a big fan. I'm a big fan of using these markers as a tool in research to understand what interventions work because otherwise it would take too long. You'd have to wait 20 years to see some large scale symptoms. And certainly, if you want to look at mortality, you'd have to wait possibly even longer. But if you were to be able to follow track these interventions and see that these markers slowed down with intervention, then you could say, well, your interventions having an effect on something related to aging. So I would say these are very useful research tools, but they're not meant to be used at $500 a pop in your age.Venki Ramakrishnan (37:02):But of course that hasn't stopped lots of companies from doing it.Eric Topol (37:07):No, it's just amazing actually. And by the way, we interviewed Tony Wyss-Coray about the organ clock, the paper. I thought it really was quite a great contribution, again, on a research level.Venki Ramakrishnan (37:19):He's a very serious scientist. He actually spoke here at the LMB as well. He gave a very nice talk here.Is Aging A Disease?Eric Topol (37:26):He's the real deal. And I think that's going to help us to have that organ specific type of tracking is another edge here to understand the effects. Well, before we wrap up, I want to ask you a question that you asked in the book. Is aging a disease?Venki Ramakrishnan (37:49):That's again, a controversial subject. So the WHO, and I believe the FDA decided that aging was not a disease on the grounds that it's inevitable and ubiquitous. It happens to everybody and it's inevitable. So how could something that happens to everybody and inevitable be considered a disease? A disease is an abnormal situation. This is a normal situation, but the anti-aging researchers and especially the anti-aging therapeutics people don't like that because if it's not a disease, how can they run a clinical trial? So they want aging to be considered a disease. And their argument is that if you look at almost every condition of old age, every disease of old age like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, dementia, the biggest risk factor in all of these diseases is age. That's the strongest risk factor. And so, they say, well, actually, you could think of these diseases as secondary diseases, the primary disease being age, and then that results in these other diseases.Venki Ramakrishnan (39:07):I am a little skeptical of that idea. I tend to agree with the WHO and the FDA, but I can see both sides of the argument. And as you know, I've laid them both out. My view is that it should be possible to do trials that help with aging regardless of whether you consider aging a disease or not. But that will require the community to agree on what set of markers to use to characterize success. And that's people, for example, Tony Wyss-Coray has his proteome, blood proteome markers, Horvath has his DNA methylation clock. There are a whole bunch of these. And then there are people with glycation or glycosylation of various proteins as markers. These people need to all come together. Maybe we need to organize a nice conference for them in some place like Southern California or Hawaii or somewhere, put them together in a locked room for a week so that they can thrash out a common set of markers and at least agree on what experiments they need to do to even come to that agreement and then use that to evaluate anti-aging therapies. I think that would be a way forward.Eric Topol (40:35):Yeah, I think you're bringing up a really valuable point because at the moment, they're kind of competing with one another, whether it's the glycosylated proteins or the transcriptomics or the epigenetics. And we don't know whether these are additive or what they're really measuring.Venki Ramakrishnan (40:53):Some of them may be highly correlated, and that's okay, but I think they need to know that. And they also need to come up with some criteria of how do we define age in an individual. It's not one number, just like we have many things that characterize our health. Cholesterol is one, blood pressures another, various other lipids. They're all blood enzymes, liver enzymes. All these things are factors in defining our so-called biological health. So I don't think there's some single number that's going to say this is your age. Just like there isn't one single thing that says you're healthy, you're not healthy.DNA RepairEric Topol (41:38):Right, that's well put. Last topic on aging is on about DNA repair, which is an area that you know very well. And one of the quotes in your book, I think is important for people to take in. “Nevertheless, they will make an error once every million or so letters in a genome with a few billion letters. That means several thousand mistakes occur each time a cell divides. So the DNA repair enzyme, as you point out the sentinels of our genome, the better we repair, the better we age.” Can we fix the DNA repair problem?Venki Ramakrishnan (42:20):I think maybe, again, I'm not sure what the consequences would be and how much it would take. There's one curious fact, and that is that there was a paradox called Peto's paradox after the scientist who discovered it, which is why don't big animals get cancer much more frequently than say a mouse? In fact, a mouse gets cancer far more readily than an elephant does, and in reality, the elephant should actually get cancer more because it has many orders of magnitude more cells, and all it takes is for one cell to become cancerous for the animal to get cancer and die. So the chances that one cell would become cancer would be larger if there are many, many more cells. And it turns out that elephants have many copies of DNA repair proteins or DNA damage response proteins, not so much DNA repair, but the response to DNA damage and in particular, a protein called p53. And so, this leads to the question that if you had very good DNA repair or very good DNA damage response, would you then live longer or solve this problem? I'm not entirely sure because it may have other consequences because for example, you don't want to send cells into senescence too easily. So I think these things are all carefully balanced, evolutionarily, depending on what's optimized to optimize fitness for each species.Venki Ramakrishnan (44:13):For a mouse, the equation's different than for a large animal because a mouse can get eaten by predators and so on. So there, it doesn't pay for evolution to spend too much select for too much spending of resources in maintenance and repair, for larger animals the equation is different. So I just don't know enough about what the consequences would be.Eric Topol (44:40):No, it's really interesting to speculate because as you point out in the book, the elephant has 20 copies of p53, and we have two as humans. And the question is that protection from cancer is very intriguing, especially with the concerns that we've been talking about.Venki Ramakrishnan (44:57):And it was also true, I believe they did some analysis of genomics of these whales that live very long, and they found sorts of genes that are probably involved in DNA repair or DNA damage response.Eric Topol (45:14):Well, this is a masterful book. Congratulations, Venki. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's very stimulating. I know a lot of the people that will listen or read the transcript will be grabbed by it.Crackpots and ProphetsVenki Ramakrishnan (45:28):I think what I've tried to do is give the general reader a real understanding of the biology of aging so that even a complete non-scientist can get an understanding of the processes, which in turn empowers them to take action to do the sort of things that will actually really help. And also it'll guard them against excessive hype, of which there's a lot in this business. And so, I think that was the goal, and to try and present a balanced view of the field. I'm merely trying to be a realist. I'm not being a pessimist about it, but I also think this excessively optimistic hype is actually bad for the field and bad for science and bad for the public as well.Eric Topol (46:16):Well, and you actually were very kind in the chapter you have on crackpots and prophets. You could have been even tougher on some of these guys. You were very relatively diplomatic and gentle, I thought, I don't know if you were holding back.Venki Ramakrishnan (46:28):I had two lawyers looked at it, so.Eric Topol (46:33):I believe it. And now one thing, apart from what we've been talking about because of your extraordinary contribution on the structural delineation of the ribosome back in the early 2000s and 2009 Nobel Prize. Now, the world of AI now with AlphaFold 3 and all these other large language models, would that have changed your efforts? Would that have accelerated things or is it not really?Venki Ramakrishnan (47:09):Well, it would've helped, but you would still need the experimental data to solve something like the ribosome, a large complex like the ribosome. And the other thing that would really change well has changed our world is the advent of cryo-electron microscopy of which Scripps is one of the leading places for it. And that has really changed it so that now nobody would bother to crystallize a ribosome and try to get an X-ray structure out of it. You would just throw it into an EM grid, collect your data and be off to the races. So new ribosome structures are being solved all the time at a fraction, a tiny fraction of the time it took to solve the first one.Eric Topol (48:02):Wow, that's fascinating. This has been a real joy for Venki to discuss your book and your work, and thanks so much for what you're doing to enlighten us and keep the balance. And it may not be as popular as the immortality merchants, but it's really important stuff.Venki Ramakrishnan (48:19):Yeah, no, I hope actually, I found that many of the public want to read about the biology of aging. They're curious. Humans have been curious ever since we knew about mortality, about why some species live so short lives and other species live such a long time and why we actually have to age and die. So there's natural curiosity and then it also empowers the public once they understand the basis of aging, to take action, to live healthy lives and do that. It's an empowering book rather than a recipe book.Venki Ramakrishnan (49:01):I think a lot of the public actually does appreciate that. And of course, scientists will like the sort of more balanced and tone.Eric Topol (49:13):Well, you do it so well. All throughout you have metaphors to help people really understand and the concepts, and I really applaud you for doing this. In fact, a couple of people who we both know, Max and John Brockman, apparently were influential for you to get to do it. So I think it's great that you took it on and all the power to you. So thank you, and I hope that we'll get a chance to visit further as we go forward.******************Headshot photo credits by Kate Joyce and Santa Fe InstituteThe Ground Truths newsletters and podcasts are all free, open-access, without ads.Please share this post/podcast with your friends and network if you found it informativeVoluntary paid subscriptions all go to support Scripps Research. Many thanks for that—they greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for 2023 and 2024.Thanks to my producer Jessica Nguyen and Sinjun Balabanoff tor audio and video support at Scripps Research.Note: you can select preferences to receive emails about newsletters, podcasts, or all I don't want to bother you with an email for content that you're not interested in.A Poll on Anti-Aging Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

John Brockman is a legend in the literary world. He has represented some of the finest minds in science in regards to their written works. His firm is considered the most prestigious. He was also one of Epstein's biggest enablers.Brockman was used by Epstein to open the door to relationships with the top scientists on the planet. The door he used was called the Edge foundation.Who is John Brockman? What was his role in this whole macabre story?(commercial at 13:34)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Source:https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-enabler

John Brockman is a legend in the literary world. He has represented some of the finest minds in science in regards to their written works. His firm is considered the most prestigious. He was also one of Epstein's biggest enablers.Brockman was used by Epstein to open the door to relationships with the top scientists on the planet. The door he used was called the Edge foundation.Who is John Brockman? What was his role in this whole macabre story?(commercial at 13:34)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Source:https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-enablerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein had his tentacles slithered into many pies and one of the most fertile hunting grounds for him was always John Brockman's so called Billionaire's dinner. A get together of some of the most powerful people in technology, academia, finance and politics, the dinner provided the perfect place for Epstein to ply his trade and entice people with his offerings. (commercial at 8:28)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://au.news.yahoo.com/jeffery-epstein-billionaires-dinner-john-brockman-photos-sarah-kellen-173443481.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Chapter 1 What's This explains everything Book by John Brockman"This Explains Everything" is a book edited by John Brockman, which features contributions from leading scientists and thinkers on a wide range of topics. The book aims to provide insights and explanations on various complex and intriguing subjects, from physics and biology to philosophy and psychology. It offers readers a glimpse into the cutting-edge ideas and theories that are shaping our understanding of the world around us.Chapter 2 Is This explains everything Book A Good BookIt depends on what you are looking for in a book. "This Explains Everything" edited by John Brockman is a collection of essays from leading scientists and thinkers exploring and explaining various topics in science, culture, and philosophy. If you are interested in a broad range of topics and perspectives, this book may be a good choice for you. However, if you are looking for a more focused or in-depth exploration of a specific topic, you may want to consider a different book. Ultimately, the decision of whether this book is good for you depends on your interests and reading preferences.Chapter 3 This explains everything Book by John Brockman Summary"This explains everything" is a book edited by John Brockman that features essays from leading scientists, thinkers, and intellectuals exploring the big questions and mysteries of life. The book covers a wide range of topics including consciousness, evolution, technology, ethics, and the nature of reality.The essays in the book delve into the latest research and insights from various fields such as physics, biology, psychology, and philosophy, offering different perspectives on the fundamental questions that have puzzled humanity for centuries. The contributors provide thought-provoking ideas and theories that challenge conventional wisdom and push the boundaries of our understanding.Overall, "This explains everything" offers a diverse range of perspectives on the mysteries of existence and encourages readers to think deeply about the nature of reality, consciousness, and the universe. It is a must-read for anyone interested in exploring the frontiers of knowledge and understanding the complexities of the world we live in. Chapter 4 This explains everything Book AuthorJohn Brockman is an American literary agent and author. He is the founder of the Edge Foundation, an organization that promotes discussions of cutting-edge scientific and technological issues. The book "This Explains Everything: Deep, Beautiful, and Elegant Theories of How the World Works" was released on January 3, 2013. In this book, Brockman presents insights from leading scientists and thinkers on a wide range of topics, offering explanations for various phenomena in the world.Some of the other books written by John Brockman include "The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution," "The New Humanists: Science at the Edge," and "Thinking: The New Science of Decision-Making, Problem-Solving, and Prediction." In terms of editions and popularity, "This Explains Everything" is one of the most well-received books by John Brockman, with multiple editions and translations available. It has been praised for its engaging content and the diverse perspectives it offers on complex scientific concepts.Chapter 5 This explains everything Book Meaning & ThemeThis explains everything Book MeaningThis book by John Brockman delves into explaining various complex phenomena and concepts in a simple and understandable way. It...

Jeffrey Epstein had his tentacles slithered into many pies and one of the most fertile hunting grounds for him was always John Brockman's so called Billionaire's dinner. A get together of some of the most powerful people in technology, academia, finance and politics, the dinner provided the perfect place for Epstein to ply his trade and entice people with his offerings.(commercial at 8:28)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://au.news.yahoo.com/jeffery-epstein-billionaires-dinner-john-brockman-photos-sarah-kellen-173443481.htmlThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5003294/advertisement

Jeffrey Epstein had his tentacles slithered into many pies and one of the most fertile hunting grounds for him was always John Brockman's so called Billionaire's dinner. A get together of some of the most powerful people in technology, academia, finance and politics, the dinner provided the perfect place for Epstein to ply his trade and entice people with his offerings.(commercial at 11:36)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://au.news.yahoo.com/jeffery-epstein-billionaires-dinner-john-brockman-photos-sarah-kellen-173443481.htmlThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5080327/advertisement

Jeffrey Epstein had his tentacles slithered into many pies and one of the most fertile hunting grounds for him was always John Brockman's so called Billionaire's dinner. A get together of some of the most powerful people in technology, academia, finance and politics, the dinner provided the perfect place for Epstein to ply his trade and entice people with his offerings.(commercial at 9:37)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://au.news.yahoo.com/jeffery-epstein-billionaires-dinner-john-brockman-photos-sarah-kellen-173443481.htmlThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5003294/advertisement

Jeffrey Epstein had his tentacles slithered into many pies and one of the most fertile hunting grounds for him was always John Brockman's so called Billionaire's dinner. A get together of some of the most powerful people in technology, academia, finance and politics, the dinner provided the perfect place for Epstein to ply his trade and entice people with his offerings.(commercial at 9:37)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://au.news.yahoo.com/jeffery-epstein-billionaires-dinner-john-brockman-photos-sarah-kellen-173443481.html

Jeffrey Epstein had his tentacles slithered into many pies and one of the most fertile hunting grounds for him was always John Brockman's so called Billionaire's dinner. A get together of some of the most powerful people in technology, academia, finance and politics, the dinner provided the perfect place for Epstein to ply his trade and entice people with his offerings.(commercial at 9:37)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://au.news.yahoo.com/jeffery-epstein-billionaires-dinner-john-brockman-photos-sarah-kellen-173443481.html

John Brockman is a legend in the literary world. He has represented some of the finest minds in science in regards to their written works. His firm is considered the most prestigious. He was also one of Epstein's biggest enablers.Brockman was used by Epstein to open the door to relationships with the top scientists on the planet. The door he used was called the Edge foundation.Who is John Brockman? What was his role in this whole macabre story?(commercial at 13:04)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-enabler

Jeffrey Epstein had his tentacles slithered into many pies and one of the most fertile hunting grounds for him was always John Brockman's so called Billionaire's dinner. A get together of some of the most powerful people in technology, academia, finance and politics, the dinner provided the perfect place for Epstein to ply his trade and entice people with his offerings.(commercial at 9:37)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://au.news.yahoo.com/jeffery-epstein-billionaires-dinner-john-brockman-photos-sarah-kellen-173443481.html

This week, podcast co-host Margaret Walls joins Resources Radio for her first episode, with guest Eli Fenichel, the Assistant Director for Natural Resource Economics and Accounting in the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House. Fenichel and Walls discuss the recently announced plan from the Biden-Harris administration to integrate the value of natural resources and the environment with measurements of the national economy, such as GDP. References and recommendations: “National Strategy to Develop Statistics for Environmental-Economic Decisions: A US System of Natural Capital Accounting and Associated Environmental-Economic Statistics” from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of Commerce; https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Natural-Capital-Accounting-Strategy.pdf “This Explains Everything” by John Brockman; https://www.harpercollins.com/products/this-explains-everything-john-brockman

John Brockman is a legend in the literary world. He has represented some of the finest minds in science in regards to their written works. His firm is considered the most prestigious. He was also one of Epstein's biggest enablers.Brockman was used by Epstein to open the door to relationships with the top scientists on the planet. The door he used was called the Edge foundation.Who is John Brockman? What was his role in this whole macabre story?(commercial at 14:08To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-enabler

John Brockman is a legend in the literary world. He has represented some of the finest minds in science in regards to their written works. His firm is considered the most prestigious. He was also one of Epstein's biggest enablers.Brockman was used by Epstein to open the door to relationships with the top scientists on the planet. The door he used was called the Edge foundation.Who is John Brockman? What was his role in this whole macabre story?(commercial at 14:08To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-enabler

You're struggling to advance your writing career. You reach out to a mysterious book agent who seems to be the key to success, along with his exclusive group of intellectual heavy hitters. Little do you know, that group is not all it seems... and it's closely connected to an absolute monster. Journalist Virginia Heffernan shares the origins of male-dominated intellectual organization Edge, its promise of merging the arts and the sciences to create a "third culture," how she joined through founder John Brockman, and the lengthy list of prominent academics, billionaires, and artists involved, from Elon Musk to Richard Dawkins--to Jeffrey Epstein. Plus, the "billionaires' dinners," its close financial ties to Epstein, and the overlap with the Intellectual Dark Web. Got your own story about cults, extreme belief, or abuse of power? Leave a voicemail or text us at 347-86-TRUST (347-868-7878) OR shoot us an email at Trust Me Pod @gmail.com INSTAGRAM: @TrustMePodcast @oohlalola @meaganelizabeth11 TWITTER: @TrustMeCultPod @ohlalola @baberahamhicks TIKTOK: @TrustMeCultPodcast

effrey Epstein had his tentacles slithered into many pies and one of the most fertile hunting grounds for him was always John Brockman's so called Billionaire's dinner. A get together of some of the most powerful people in technology, academia, finance and politics, the dinner provided the perfect place for Epstein to ply his trade and entice people with his offerings.(commercial at 8:29)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://au.news.yahoo.com/jeffery-epstein-billionaires-dinner-john-brockman-photos-sarah-kellen-173443481.html

Jeffrey Epstein had his tentacles slithered into many pies and one of the most fertile hunting grounds for him was always John Brockman's so called Billionaire's dinner. A get together of some of the most powerful people in technology, academia, finance and politics, the dinner provided the perfect place for Epstein to ply his trade and entice people with his offerings.(commercial at 8:28)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://au.news.yahoo.com/jeffery-epstein-billionaires-dinner-john-brockman-photos-sarah-kellen-173443481.html

Heute ist Ursula Lindl von der SAGAFLOR AG bei uns im Franchise-Rockstars Podcast zu Gast. SAGAFLOR ist ein echter Franchise-Riese mit insgesamt über 1,3 Milliarden Euro Umsatz. Viele von Euch werden den Namen gar nicht kennen. So ging es zumindest mir, obwohl ich doch in der Franchise-Branche recht kundig bin. Dafür gibt es aber eine einfache Erklärung, wie uns Ursula im Gespräch verrät. Der Name SAGAFLOR leitet sich nämlich von SAmen, GArten, FLORistik ab und wurde schon vor 55 Jahren als Einkaufskooperation von Fachhändlern der Branchen Garten und Heimtier gegründet. Im Interview verrät uns Ursula mehr zu den beeindruckenden Zahlen und was SAGAFLOR in Zukunft noch alles geplant hat. Hört am besten einfach mal in die Podcastfolge hinein. ❤️

For access to full-length premium episodes and the SJ Grotto of Truth Discord, subscribe to the Al-Wara' Frequency at patreon.com/subliminaljihad. Dimitri and Khalid explore various aspects of the 2003 German documentary “The Net: LSD, The Unabomber, and the Internet”, including: the Digerati's seething contempt for Kaczynski's anti-tech ideology, John Brockman's Edge Foundation & close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, Kaczynski's hatred of serrrious scientists, Harvard's postwar “culture of despair”, Dr. Henry A. Murray's obsessions with Moby Dick/sado-masochism/unethical polyamory, Kaczynski's 3-year participation in Murray's abusive psychological “study”, Murray's satan obsession, writing “The Personality and Career of Satan”, the Harvard MK-Ultra LSD experiments, Murray and Tim Leary, the “trickle-down” distribution of LSD from elites to the masses, Steward Brand and Ken Kesey doing [MK?] “Search” with the Merry Pranksters, the CIA-funded Macy Conferences, the mysterious death of Christiana Morgan, and the ongoing consequences of living in a spiderworld built by Epstein's techno-optimist friends.

Jeffrey Epstein had his tentacles slithered into many pies and one of the most fertile hunting grounds for him was always John Brockman's so called Billionaire's dinner. A get together of some of the most powerful people in technology, academia, finance and politics, the dinner provided the perfect place for Epstein to ply his trade and entice people with his offerings. (commercial at 8:28)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://au.news.yahoo.com/jeffery-epstein-billionaires-dinner-john-brockman-photos-sarah-kellen-173443481.html

Jeffrey Epstein had his tentacles slithered into many pies and one of the most fertile hunting grounds for him was always John Brockman's so called Billionaire's dinner. A get together of some of the most powerful people in technology, academia, finance and politics, the dinner provided the perfect place for Epstein to ply his trade and entice people with his offerings. (commercial at 8:28)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://au.news.yahoo.com/jeffery-epstein-billionaires-dinner-john-brockman-photos-sarah-kellen-173443481.html

Cybernetics, Plato, Plato's Republic, Bronisław Trentowski, mysticism, Freemasonry, Messianism, Trontowski's concept of cybernetics vs modern form, Louis Couffignal, André-Marie Ampère, feedback, Claude Shannon, information theory, Technocracy Movement, Alexander Bogdanov, Cosmism, Norbert Weiner, Vannevar Bush, MIT, the Rad Lab, Lincoln Lab, J.C.R. Lickliddder, First Law of Cybernetics, "Nudge theory," Lewis Mumford, "Megamachine," "The Machine," Chile, Allende, Project Cybersyn, Project Camelot, cyberculture, Stewart Brand, John Brockman, the Edge Foundation, Jeffrey Epstein, TED Talks, MIT Media Lab, memetics, memes, memes as cultural transmitters, Richard Dawkins, "converging technologies," George Soros, Soros' influence on cybernetics, Soros' as cybernetic coup master, Macy Conferences, LSD, Milton Erickson, neuro-linguistic programming, NLP, behavioral modification, MK-ULTRA, Ewen Cameron, Donald Hebb, Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, anthropology, Harold Abramson, Frank Olson Get bonus content on Patreon Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this week's show we have a broad ranging discussion with the well known journalist and author Virginia Heffernan. Virginia has written a bunch on the topic of technology, social media, scientism, and especially the Edge organisation. We discuss her research into Edge and related figures but also range further afield to cover debates in academia, the culture war and gurus, anthropology debates in the 90s, race & IQ rationalists, and other such topics. One short service note is that Matt is incognito for part of the conversation as he had a prior appointment so you will have to endure Chris functioning on his own but do not fear our intrepid psychologist re-emerges to offer some words of wisdom at the end. Also, the conversation with Virginia was recorded in advance of the events in Ukraine so no recent events are discussed (which is probably for the best). For those who want to do a bit more digging on the topics discussed, below are a bunch of related articles and you can also follow Virginia on Twitter (@page88) and check out her new podcast 'https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/this-is-critical/id1584858105 (This is Critical)' which encourages people to look critically at a wide array of topics, which is quite on brand for us! Links https://www.wired.com/story/an-end-to-pornography-sophistry-and-panty-raids/ (Virginia's piece on Edge & John Brockman) https://www.wired.com/author/virginia-heffernan/ (Virginia's essays on Wired) https://virginiaheffernan.substack.com/p/what-to-do-about-jordan-peterson (Virginia's Substack piece on Jordan Peterson) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/books/review/the-contrarian-peter-thiel-max-chafkin.amp.html?referringSource=articleShare (Virginia's Substack piece on Peter Thiel) Virginia's Website Virginia's book: Magic & Loss- The Internet as Art https://www.insider.com/chris-chan-arrest-geno-samuel-youtube-series-hiatus-2021-8#:~:text=Samuel's%20%22Chris%20Chan%3A%20A%20Comprehensive,spans%20Chandler's%20life%20through%202017. (Insider article on the sordid tale of Chris chan) Two articles Chris wrote on his ancient blog about the Captain Cook debate (https://god-knows-what.com/2009/09/06/the-battle-over-captain-cooks-corpse/ (part 1) and https://god-knows-what.com/2009/09/16/the-battle-over-captain-cooks-corpse-part-2/amp/ (part 2)) This Week's Sponsor Check out the sponsor of this week's episode, Ground News, and get the app at https://ground.news/gurus (ground.news/gurus).

John Brockman is a legend in the literary world. He has represented some of the finest minds in science in regards to their written works. His firm is considered the most prestigious. He was also one of Epstein's biggest enablers.Brockman was used by Epstein to open the door to relationships with the top scientists on the planet. The door he used was called the Edge foundation.Who is John Brockman? What was his role in this whole macabre story?(Commercial at 17:52)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Source:https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-enabler

John Brockman is a legend in the literary world. He has represented some of the finest minds in science in regards to their written works. His firm is considered the most prestigious. He was also one of Epstein's biggest enablers.Brockman was used by Epstein to open the door to relationships with the top scientists on the planet. The door he used was called the Edge foundation.Who is John Brockman? What was his role in this whole macabre story?To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Source:https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-enabler

Episode 005 - Is Denial Always A Bad Thing?What is Denial? Denial is a type of defense mechanism that involves ignoring the reality of a situation to avoid anxiety. Defense mechanisms are strategies that people use to cope with distressing feelings. In the case of denial, it can involve not acknowledging reality or denying the consequences of that reality.5 Stages of Grief - Elisabeth Kübler-Ross1. Denial is NOT always a bad thing (in the short term)2. Surround yourself with people that can recognize your patterns and issues.3. Be Intentional - Prioritize your journey of loss and healingWays to be intentional... Laugh often Get enough sleep Journaling Grief to Growth Journal (available at grieftogrowth.org) Don't Grieve Alone! How to help someone in denial... Be Present! "Don't opt for absence because you feel ill-equipped."Recent Episodes mentioned on this podcast: Episode 2 - The Ripple Effect of Grief (Kari's story) Episode 4 - Grieving in Faith (with John Brockman)

Tomado del libro Eso lo Explica Todo: ideas bellas, profundas y elegantes sobre cómo funciona el mundo. Edición de John Brockman.

Tomado del libro Eso lo Explica Todo: ideas bellas, profundas y elegantes sobre cómo funciona el mundo. Edición de John Brockman.

Tomado del libro Eso lo Explica Todo: ideas bellas, profundas y elegantes sobre cómo funciona el mundo. Edición de John Brockman.

Tomado del libro Eso lo Explica Todo: ideas bellas, profundas y elegantes sobre cómo funciona el mundo. Edición de John Brockman.

Tomado del libro Eso lo Explica Todo: ideas bellas, profundas y elegantes sobre cómo funciona el mundo. Edición de John Brockman.

Tomado del libro Eso lo Explica Todo: ideas bellas, profundas y elegantes sobre cómo funciona el mundo. Edición de John Brockman.

Tomado del libro Eso lo Explica Todo: ideas bellas, profundas y elegantes sobre cómo funciona el mundo. Edición de John Brockman.

Tomado del libro Eso lo Explica Todo: ideas bellas, profundas y elegantes sobre cómo funciona el mundo. Edición de John Brockman.

Tomado del libro Eso lo Explica Todo: ideas bellas, profundas y elegantes sobre cómo funciona el mundo. Edición de John Brockman.

Tomado del libro Eso lo Explica Todo: ideas bellas, profundas y elegantes sobre cómo funciona el mundo. Edición de John Brockman.

We are honored to have John Brockman share his and his wife, Joslyn's story of loss and how they have experienced growth in the process. Psalm 34:18 "The Lord is near to the brokenhearted..." What do you do when you're in the moment that is your worst fear? "Sometimes the world wants to fix you and they can't...so they suppress you." What does it say about your faith if you just give up when you don't get what you want? John and Joslyn Brockman http://johnandjoslyn.com Grief to Growth http://grieftogrowth.org #grief #growth #loss #trysomy18 #hope #faith

We dive right back into the world of Academia this morning by discussing Epstein's ties to John Brockman and the EDGE foundation.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The covid-19 pandemic has shaken the EU’s conception of order and exposed a gap between European aspirations and actions. Firstly, Europeans are confronted with the fact that raw power, not rules, is the main factor determining today’s global dynamics. Secondly, global politics are now centred rather in Asia than Europe; the Sino-American rivalry has shifted attention away from European issues. In this week’s podcast, Mark Leonard stars as guest – not host – to discuss with policy fellow Ulrike Franke und head of ECFR’s Berlin office Jana Puglierin these “twin shocks”. What are possible ways to deal with these new geopolitical realities shock and what does this mean for the transatlantic relationship? To what extent will the US elections be a game-changer? Should Europe reinvent its geopolitical approach? And in which ways can Germany help Europe to redefine its strategy in this deeply changed scenario? Further reading: “Geopolitical Europe in times of covid-19 ” by Mark Leonard: https://www.europesfutures.eu/vault/geopolitical-europe-in-times-of-covid-19 This podcast was recorded on 7 October 2020. Bookshelf: -"Possible Minds: 25 Ways of Looking at AI” by John Brockman -"Zeitenwende", Special Edition of the Munich Security Report on German Foreign and Security Policy.

John Brockman (editor) - The Universe

Conferme dal mondo dell'università sulla necessità di valutare i ragionamenti dei computer.Ecco il post citato: https://lucadebiase.nova100.ilsole24ore.com/2019/04/14/etica-ed-efficienza-vanno-insieme-nellintelligenza-artificiale/Ecco le opere citate:- "The Black Box Society” (2015)- "Guida galattica per autostoppisti" 1979, Douglas Adams- Elizabeth Holm su “Science” (5 aprile 2019)- “Possible minds” (2019) libro collettivo curato da John Brockman

Sam Harris introduces John Brockman’s new anthology, “Possible Minds: 25 Ways of Looking at AI,” in conversation with three of its authors: George Dyson, Alison Gopnik, and Stuart Russell. George Dyson is a historian of technology. He is also the author of Darwin Among the Machines and Turing’s Cathedral. Alison Gopnik is a developmental psychologist at UC Berkeley and a leader in the field of children’s learning and development. Her books include The Philosophical Baby. Stuart Russell is a Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at UC Berkeley. He is the author of (with Peter Norvig) of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, the most widely used textbook on AI.

In this episode of the Making Sense podcast, Sam Harris introduces John Brockman's new anthology, "Possible Minds: 25 Ways of Looking at AI," in conversation with three of its authors: George Dyson, Alison Gopnik, and Stuart Russell. SUBSCRIBE to continue listening and gain access to all content on samharris.org/subscribe.

John Brockman's newly released book Possible Minds: Twenty-Five Ways of Looking at AI is the springboard for this Seminar on Artificial Intelligence. Brockman will interview several of the contributors to the book, Rodney Brooks, Alison Gopnik and Stuart Russell on stage. Following the interviews, Kevin Kelly will host the Q&A and discussion with the group. John Brockman is founder and publisher of the online salon Edge.org, a website devoted to discussions of cutting-edge science by many of the world's foremost thinkers, the leaders of what he has termed "the third culture." Rodney Brooks is a computer scientist and roboticist, former Director (1997-2007) of the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and founder of Rethink Robotics and iRobot Corp. Alison Gopnik is a professor of psychology and affiliate professor of philosophy at the University of California at Berkeley. Her areas of expertise are in cognitive and language development, with specialties in the effect of language on thought, the development of a theory of mind, and causal learning. Stuart Russell is a computer scientist focused on artificial intelligence and computational physiology. He is a Professor of Computer Science at the University of California, Berkeley and Adjunct Professor of Neurological Surgery at the University of California, San Francisco.Kevin Kelly is a Long Now Board member, founding executive editor of Wired magazine, and a former editor/publisher of the Whole Earth Review. He is a writer, photographer, conservationist, and editor and publisher of the Cool Tools website.

Andy and Dave discuss a series of announcements: President Trump signs an Executive Order to prioritize and promote AI; the U.S. Department of Defense releases its 2019 AI Strategy; DARPA announces an Intelligent Neural Interface program focused on improving neurotechnology, and DARPA announces Guaranteeing AI Robustness against Deception (GARD), intended as an almost immune-system like approach to increase the resistance of ML models to deception; Securities and Exchange Commission filings from both Google and Microsoft disclose in “risk factors” that products with AI and ML may not work as intended, and may exacerbate a variety of problems, which could adversely affect the companies’ branding and reputation; and Uber AI releases Ludwig, an open source deep learning toolbox that allows users to train and test deep learning models without writing code. In research topics, DeepMind sets its sights on using ML to conquer Hanabi, a cooperative game with imperfect information, that requires a “theory of mind.” The Allen Institute for AI releases “Iconary,” a game of Pictionary with an AI partner. Research from Expedia Group uses a attentional convolution network for facial expression. IBM publishes research on a neuro-inspired “creativity” decoder. IBM Research AI and Arizona State University examine when AI bots might lie (in the context of “acceptable” social white lies). And research from Munchen demonstrates that humans are less likely to hurt or sacrifice a robot, if it is more human-like. In reports, the McKinsey Global Institute examines Europe’s Gap in Digital and AI. In papers, Johns Hopkins University publishes an opinion paper on the strengths and weaknesses of deep nets for vision, and the Centre of AI in Australia and the University of Illinois at Chicago publish a comprehensive survey on graph neural networks. John Brockman will be releasing a new book, Possible Minds: 25 Ways of Looking at AI. A TED Talk from Hugh Herr looks at bionics ability to extend human potential. And registration is now open for the Sackler Colloquium on the science of Deep Learning at the National Academy of Sciences.

Pastor John Brockman delivers a powerful word about making room for Jesus in our everyday lives. May we be a people who put Him in the center of all we do! 

Once again (though perhaps for the last time) John Brockman of Edge.org has asked a variety of intellectuals to answer his question of the year. This year it was "What is the Last Question?" I spend this episode discussing some of the responses, specifically how they relate to things I've mentioned in previous podcasts and how well they fit into the category of a "last question." And then at the end I give my  "last question."

9×9 is 81 and we are here. The weather is colder and we have some wind today. This episode brought out the usual networking of concepts. In it, I discussed: putting fear to the side when making moves editor John Brockman and his book I’ll be looking at soon how books come out after the … Continue reading "81: Books Come Out After The Majority Is Done, And Doing Deep Work" The post 81: Books Come Out After The Majority Is Done, And Doing Deep Work appeared first on The Armen Show.

On today's 'Global Exchange' Podcast, we look at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's second visit to China, and what it means for the Canada-China relationship. Join Colin in conversation with Rob Wright, Hugh Stephens & Randolph Mank for an in-depth discussion on the possibility of a Canada-China free-trade agreement, the implications of a China visit on Canada's position in CPTPP & NATFA, as well as the broad development of a strong bilateral relationship between the Trudeau and Jinping governments. Bios: Colin Robertson (host) - A former Canadian diplomat, Colin Robertson is Vice President of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and a Senior Advisor to Dentons LLP. Randolph Mank - a three-time former Canadian ambassador and businessman, with over thirty years of experience in Asia and around the world. His foreign service career included assignments in Tokyo, Stockholm and Jakarta, followed by Ambassadorial appointments in Indonesia (2003-06), Pakistan (2008-10) and Malaysia (2010-12). He is a Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. Hugh Stephens - Mr. Stephens has more than 35 years of government and business experience in the Asia-Pacific region. Based in Victoria, BC, Canada, he is currently Executive-in-Residence at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada and Vice Chair of the Canadian Committee for Pacific Economic Cooperation (CanCPEC). He is also a CGAI Fellow. Rob Wright - Rob Wright served as Canadian Ambassador to China from 2005-2009. He served as Ambassador to Japan from 2001-2005. From 1995-2001 he was Canadian Deputy Minister for International Trade. He is a member of the CGAI Advisory Council. Related Links: - "After the TPP: What's Next for Canada in Asia?" by Hugh Stephens [CGAI Policy Paper] (http://www.cgai.ca/after_the_tpp_whats_next_for_canada_in_asia) - "A World Larger Than Trump's: China's" by Ferry de Kerckhove [CGAI Policy Paper] (http://www.cgai.ca/a_world_larger_than_trumps_chinas) - "With no formal trade talks, Trudeau leaves international trade minister in Beijing" by Chris Hall [CBC News] (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-china-trade-talks-1.4432975) - "Trudeau says trade with China an answer to rising populism" by Mike Blanchfield [The Canadian Press] (http://business.financialpost.com/pmn/commodities-business-pmn/agriculture-commodities-business-pmn/justin-trudeau-set-to-meet-xi-jinping-on-second-day-of-china-trip) Book Recommendations: - Randolph Mank - "This Will Make You Smarter: New Scientific Concepts to Improve Your Thinking" - by John Brockman (https://www.amazon.ca/This-Will-Make-You-Smarter/dp/0062109391/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1512503759&sr=8-1&keywords=this+will+make+you+smarter) - Hugh Stephens - "Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man's Fight for Justice" - by Bill Browder (https://www.amazon.ca/Red-Notice-Finance-Murder-Justice-ebook/dp/B00LD1ORX6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1512503768&sr=8-1&keywords=red+notice) - Rob Wright - "The Silk Roads: A New History of the World" - by Peter Frankopan (https://www.amazon.ca/Silk-Roads-New-History-World/dp/1101946326/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1512503775&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Silk+Roads) Follow the Canadian Global Affairs Institute on Facebook, Twitter (@CAGlobalAffairs), or on Linkedin. Head over to our website at cgai.ca for more commentary. Produced by Jared Maltais. Music credits to Drew Phillips.

This episode, Hamish and Kevin talk about John Brockman's website Edge.org and its great feature, the Annual Question Centre. We try our hands at answering a few and fail miserably but entertainingly!

I'm excited to release this interview with Jason Calacanis during the launch of his new book, Angel: How to Invest in Technology Startups-Timeless Advice from an Angel Investor Who Turned $100,000 into $100,000,000. I've been a super fan of Jason since coming across his show This week in Startups when he produced it on set with black curtain backdrops and large wooden dining room tables. A lot of people give GaryVee credit for the foresight of thinking like a media company — but Jason got to it first. Behind the bravado is a kid from Brooklyn that worked his tail off to get to where he's at, challenged with lessons of success & failure weaved into the fabric of his story. Today, Jason leads Inside.com with the same burning passion to take on the big platforms as he did with his first startup, Silicon Alley Reporter.  Sit back and enjoy this episode with Jason, as he walks us through the mind of an angel investor and how to start thinking scale in your small software business. Listen the episode Matt Report - A WordPress podcast for digital business owners How to find an angel investor for small startups w/ Jason Calacanis Play Episode Pause Episode Mute/Unmute Episode Rewind 10 Seconds 1x Fast Forward 30 seconds 00:00 / 00:44:23 Subscribe Share RSS Feed Share Link Embed Download file | Play in new window | Duration: 00:44:23 Interview transcript Hey, everybody. Welcome back to the Matt Report season five. We're winding down season five. In fact, folks who were listening, now you should have heard the last episode of season five. But I get a bonus episode with one of my favorite people on the internet, Jason Calacanis. Jason, welcome to the program. Jason C.: Hey, thanks for having me. Matt: Creator of Weblogs, Inc sold to AOL. Early investors in Uber, Thumbtack, created a company called Mahalo and fought Google at every turn and corner. Created another company that I originally found you through is This Week In, the sort of all the YouTube stuff and live video stuff you were doing. Now you're running Inside.com, news and entertainment delivered via email. I am a huge fan of that as well. You run LAUNCH Incubator and events, and now you've written the book, the book of angels as it were. It's angels- Jason C.: Yes, of angels. I like that. Matt: Angel: How to Invest in Technology Startups—Timeless Advice from an Angel Investor Who Turned 100 grand into 100 million buckaroos. Jason, welcome to the program again. Did I miss anything? Jason C.: It's- Matt: I probably did. Jason C.: Probably. Well yeah, it's one of the great things about history is like people only remember the victories if you have them. Then they forget all the losses. But you brought up Mahalo, so that was great, my PTSD started triggering. Mahalo, we basically pivoted into Inside.com, so the story ended up well. But we're working like dogs, get a return for those Mahalo investors. I never give up. It's one of my either charming or stupid qualities depending on the situation that I never give up. Matt: Obviously, want to talk about the book. For me, I'm not a super heavy book reader. I got it, I got an early copy. I did a little Jason Calacanis of my own, I just contacted your publishers. I sort of worked my way in through the backdoor and I said, “Hey, I'd love to talk to this guy.” Jason C.: Hustle. Matt: I definitely want to talk about the book, but real quick. This Week In network, I mean god, you had This Week In Web Design, of course This Week In Startups. You had I think This Week In Movies as well. Do you think that you were just so early, like the technology wasn't there? Jason C.: Yeah, for sure. What we did was we tried to do a network of shows seven years ago. It was a little experiment. Me and a couple of my friends put 100k in each. We got to the point where it was making some money and there were two breakout shows, Kevin Pollak's Chat Show and This Week In Startups. All the other shows, we were trying to groom talent. We had people like Mark Suster doing This Week In Venture Capital. Then we had other people doing This Week In Movies. We did a Mad Men recap show long before things like Talking Dead. We kinda pioneered that space of doing a show right after. We had a lot of, I would say, early signs of success. Maybe we should've stuck with it. But I came to this great realization, which was the more important, the more powerful, the more networks, the more credible the hosts, like Kevin Pollak, Mark Suster, myself, the greater the chance of success. If it was an emerging host, it probably had very little chance of success. We were able to get an unlimited supply of emerging talent to host a podcast. But none of them were breaking out. It probably would've taken us three or four years of trying to get them to break out. We had somebody named Dave Pensado doing Pensado's Place and he was awesome too. But all those people had in common that they didn't really need us because it's so easy to create a podcast that if you're a rich powerful person, or not even rich. If you just have 500 to let's say $2,000 to produce an episode, you can just do it yourself and not have a boss, not be part of a network. We kept having people who would just call in rich, like Mark Suster's like, “Yeah, I can't do it for the next year. I gotta raise a fund. I got things to do.” I just had this realization that all the great podcasters would be independent and I was right. If you look, Leo Laporte stayed independent, Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, Adam Carolla. All these people have become independent, let's call it $1 million to $10 million enterprises. I think probably Leo and Joe Rogan are above 5 million. They have this like, call it $2 to $5 million space like This Week In Startups, and maybe Sam Harris, and maybe Adam Carolla. In other words, it's enough money for those people to love doing it and not to need to have anybody as their boss. So all those people who are trying to making podcasting networks have had a hard go of it. Even Leo, who's got a lot of great shows, but he's had a hard time keeping talent on the network because they go have a life event. They get married. They go have kids and want to do something else. It's just hard to be a manager of talent like that. I mean Sirius XM is doing a good job of it, but they have this like huge bankroll. So I think podcasting is this very unique space because you don't need somebody. If you go down that list, all these like podcasting companies, they don't really … Malcolm Gladwell doesn't need the podcasting company in other words. He can just do it himself. If he does it with a podcasting company, it's probably because they're overpaying him. Matt: These shows, these either networks or these individual shows that somebody's running, they become massive platforms and catalysts to sell all their either goods and services or maybe even in your world, you get the advertising, you do a million bucks a year. You pay your staff, whatever. But it's also it connects you with so many people at the same time. It makes you become the [crosstalk 00:05:39]- Jason C.: My view on podcasting when I heard about it from Dave Winer and the pod father, Adam Curry when they were teaching me about it. I was like okay, I'm just gonna record two conversations from lunches I had in a week, and then all of a sudden it turned into we're about to hit 800 episodes for This Week in Startups. It just turned out to be a networking thing for me. Then all of a sudden, it started making money and getting 150,000 downloads in episodes. So it's a pretty big audience now and it's a great way for me to find founders to invest in. Matt: If people are listening to that and they're like, “All right, that's it. I'm gonna go start my podcast.” Folks, it's still a slog. It's still some hard work. It doesn't come that easy. I know. I'm only at maybe 300 episodes and man, some days it can be super draining to keep this stuff going. Let's just talk about the book. The structure of this book, for a dullard like myself who doesn't like to read, it is … I mean you say in sort of the winding chapters that this is the playbook. This is your decade plus of experiences sort of all put into this one book. I love the framework was I mean was that your idea? Or when you get to a publisher, they say, “Look, that's a complicated topic. We need to sort of piecemeal this for people reading it.” It's not all this hoopla and sort of Zen like stuff. This is the real deal. Jason C.: Yeah. The pitch was interesting. I've had a very famous book agent for a decade. His name is John Brockman. He does something called Edge.org and he's got Daniel Dennett, Jared Diamond, Sam Harris, had Marvin Minsky, just all the greatest authors that are out there, and Brian Greene, and then me. I would always get these like Blogging for Dummies, Podcasting for Dummies. Search engines, SEO for Dummies. They just wanted me to be the dummy author and it was always like chintzy. It was a couple of stories about my angel investing. People started to realize, “Oh, he's hit a unicorn. Oh, he hit a second unicorn. Oh, he hit three unicorns.” When that started to get released, the value of the portfolio started to get released and Wall Street Journal did a story on it, people were pinging my agent saying, “Hey, is he gonna write a book?” I just thought to myself everybody I meet, like the stupider or more inexperienced they are, the greater the chance they've written a book. So like people who have no life experience and nothing to share, they write books in order to become subject matter efforts. I just thought isn't that backwards? Like, shouldn't the books go to the subject matter experts? I just thought what am I a subject matter expert on? Like, I was a good entrepreneur. I'm not like an elite great entrepreneur, like folks I've invested in who have done much better than me. I was a good entrepreneur. But angel investing is something I have a lot of credibility on since I've done 150 investments now and now six of them have become unicorns. Another company today announced that they raised over a billion dollars making medal 3D printers called Desktop Metal, which I was an investor on the first round to fund it. Matt: Nice. Jason C.: I was like this is something I could do. Then I looked at it and I said how do you frame that? I could make something for angels, but really the book is about how wealth is created in the 21st century as opposed to how wealth was created in the 20th century. That's really what I'm going for and if you read the book, you realize it's not just for angel investors. It's for anybody who wants to know how many is gonna be made in the next century. Money and wealth is not created by real estate and being rich dad, poor dad, secret millionaire on the block, art of the deal. You're not gonna become rich through some deal making or real estate in all likelihood. That dream is over. That was a really good model when the white collar boom was happening. You could get a white collar job, marry somebody with a white collar job, bring peanut butter and jelly to lunch, and then just don't go out to dinner, take staycations. Matt: Right. Save, save, save. Jason C.: Save, save, save. Pay down your house. But at that time, when our parents bought their houses, my parents bought their brownstone in Brooklyn for I think $45,000. My mom was making as a nurse 40,000 and my dad was probably making 30,000 as a bartender. Their house was one less than one times their yearly income. Now if you live in New York, a brownstone's a million dollars, and most people are making, let's say they were, forget about blue collar, just white collar people. They're probably making 100 to 150k each, so let's just call it best case scenario, 300,000 a year. A brownstone in Brooklyn's a million dollars or $2 million depending on where in Brooklyn, so it's five times, seven times the household income. Forget about Manhattan or other places. In San Francisco, it's an even further joke. So the idea that you would have these two white collar people suffer and then hit this amazing real estate thing, then buy a second home, or leverage it into a second home, is kinda laughable. Also, people are graduating with what? At the same time, people's debt is growing, so there's educational debt. People coming out of school with 50, 150k each, so they have household debt of 150,000. Then what happens? Boom, you had  the $150,000 in debt, you're not paying for your mortgage until you're 35. In this book, I explain hey, if you can get on cap tables of high growth companies, specifically in Silicon Valley, because the hit rate there is so much better and the numbers are just, add a zero or two from any other market in terms of the scale of those companies, you could really hit a home run and move from poor to rich, from middle class to rich, from rich to ultra rich. That's really what I was trying to do there. My hope is that if 100,000 people buy the book, and 5 or 10% of them start angel investing, maybe 1,000 of them have this incredible, or 100 of them have this incredible result. If the other ones just are plus or minus 50% of their money, that's a fine outcome too. Angel investing is something that's becoming something that a lot more people can do. Matt: Yeah and I want to talk about that, but I also looked at this book of course for the folks who are listening, the WordPress product companies, hosting companies, people who are doing upwards of maybe a million bucks a year selling WordPress plugins. This is a great book to reverse engineer these frameworks, right? Jason C.: Of course. Matt: How does Jason go to look for founders? Now these founders out there I mean pick up the book just because now you can reverse engineer that and it structures so damn well that you just zero in right on the part where Jason's negotiating or setting up the interviews. I mean it's an amazing tool. Jason C.: Exactly correct. That is a very astute point. There's actually a cheaper in there for founders where I just say like, “If you're a founder and you bought this book to game the system, congratulations. You're smart. You smart mother effers, like I salute you. Then here's what you need to know about what angels are going through and how they make their decisions because they are human beings too who are trying to figure this out.” You're not trying to game them. What you want is to really be in sync. For the people making a million dollars a year, like basically either become angel investors or they could actually read the book and understand hey, this is what venture capitalists and angel investors are looking to do. How do you accelerate a million dollar, that wedge strategy of doing templates, and being a single person who makes a million dollars a year, and one person with a couple freelances makes a million? How do you add a zero to that revenue or two zeros? I think if you read the book, you'll have an idea of how things like that can scale. Matt: A little bit on that point, so a lot of folks who do do this, who are doing the WordPress thing, and they're selling some digital products, a lot of them are developers. They started coding in the basement. They upgraded to coding in the garage. Now they're in a coworking space, coding at the coworking space. They're not sort of the marketing type or the entrepreneurial type in the sense of I want to scale this thing. But what can be said about at least talking to maybe an angel investor? I mean are there some benefits to taking … a lot of these folks are just sort of gun-shy for taking money. Are there some benefits to it that you could sort of peg off for people who might be afraid? Jason C.: Yeah. If you have a cash producing business, let's say it's profitable in throwing off a $250,000 a year salary for you. That's pretty amazing. Consider yourself lucky. You can work from home. You control your schedule. You start bringing investors in, they are gonna be looking, an angel investor is gonna be looking typically for a 5 to 10x return. Not this angel investor. I'm looking for people who can do a 100 for 500. But really, 50 to 100 is probably what professional angels are hoping that some of their companies do. A regular angel might be looking for 5 or 10 times their money in seven years. Venture capitalists are trying to invest millions of dollars and maybe do 10x as well with an outside chance of 100 or 200x. So you know that about them and you are kinda lighting a fuse or hitting a starter pistol when you do take that money. So it's a very astute observation. Your life is gonna change. You're gonna have to send updates to them. They're gonna have questions. They're gonna give you money, but they're also, hopefully if they're connected, gonna give you credibility, and resources, and help you strategize about how to add that zero to your revenue. So that everybody involved, all stakeholders, your customers, your partners, your employees, yourself as the founder and the investors, win. That's what the cap table is all about, the capitalization table. So you have to create a cap table, sell them some shares, give your employees some shares and say, “Hey, we're all gonna go on this journey. The company has a million in revenue. We value out of 5 million. There's 5 million shares in the company. They're all worth a dollar. The investor just put in a half million dollars. They bought 10% of the company. They gave us 500,000. Let's deploy that $500,000 intelligently. We'll hire five sales people and give them $50,000 plus commission and hire two more developers. Now we got seven people cranking.” What the people who are your grinders and your audience, the people who know how to grind out and make a real business that people find value from, they typically have the great product sense and the great customer sense. But they don't have the scale sense, right? Or they don't have it yet. Matt: Right. Jason C.: What they have to do is study what they've learned, study their customers and say, “Hey, maybe the top 5% of our customers or top 10% have a need that we've learned about, that we can double or triple down.” If they looked at it and said, “You know what? We have these three customers out of 1,000 who are financial companies, and they keep asking for this set of features. Let's tell them that we're building that product and let's get them to pay $25,000 a month for that product.” That's what kinda pulling the string as an entrepreneur and learning about a market, that's what I respect about those grinders, the people who get to a million dollars in revenue. I just did my first cannabis investment. I wasn't expecting to do one until maybe California was legal and maybe two years from now when things were a little more sorted. But I found a company that's making a million dollars from advertising, and doing cannabis tourism, and doing cannabis magazines, and cannabis festivals. I was like okay, that's a good starting point. If they know how to make a million dollars from just traditional advertising, and events, and stuff like that, maybe they'll figure out some bigger business, and they have a bigger business in mind. So I love those scrappy entrepreneurs. Matt: Yeah. I see that come up a lot. Like, I see a lot of people who are scrappy, doing a million bucks a year, but then they see these ideas get funded for multi millions of dollars and they haven't made a nickel yet. Meanwhile, these people are making hand over fist, hundreds of thousand dollars in cash every single month. I mean is that attractive when a company's making money or does that signal like this is only as big as you're gonna get? Jason C.: Yeah. Matt: Like, we should maybe not invest in that. Jason C.: An amazing question. For some people, it is a signal, a negative signal. Like, these people think small. But for people who are in the know, like savvy people, they're gonna look at it and go, “That person built what we call a dude business, or a dudette business, which is dude makes a million dollars a year. Dude makes half a million dollars a year.” Those people are so smart. I have a friend, Phil Kaplan, who created a company called DistroKid, and previous he did Effed Company and a couple of other startups. He's really brilliant and he makes these companies like just himself and a bunch of freelancers, and they get to millions of dollars in revenue. If you can be lean like that, you're gonna learn stuff, and then there's a time to figure out, “Okay, I built MailChimp, or SurveyMonkey, or examples of companies built off revenue that all of a sudden started to scale.” In SurveyMonkey's case, they took investment and then I believe in MailChimp's case, they had 400 million in revenue, and they had never taken anybody's money. So both things can work. If you want to work with a group of elite investors, when you come with that million dollars, and explain your vision, and say, “Listen, we made a million dollars. It was quite nice. We can grow this business 20% a year for the next 10 years and we'll make $10 million.” That's awesome. “We want to build a billion dollar company. Here's the billion dollar opportunity and here's why we need $1.5 million for 15% of the company. We're gonna build it from here to hit these goals.” That seems pretty credible to me. If it hasn't grown for five years and it's just slowly growing, and you say, “We're gonna make this accelerate,” you have to have a good story. So is it, “Why hasn't it grown faster?” It might be that you just never had outbound sales. You add an outbound sales team and everything changes. So they would want you to test that theory and probably give you 500k to test it. Matt: Got it. Jason C.: But most people don't take enough risks. Out of that group of people who are making that million dollars a year, half million dollars a year, what they don't realize is they're so concerned to protect the nest egg, and their upper middle class lifestyle, or let's say affluent life style. Maybe not rich, they could stop working, but they kinda have a nice place in life. They don't want to risk it, which I understand. But what you have to realize is if you don't risk it now, there's no chance of outside success. If you go for an outside success and it fails, and you've built a million dollar business before, you're gonna be able to build another million dollar one. It's kinda like there's this kid who climbs Yosemite and other mountains without a rope, Alex Honnold, or whatever his name is. It's just like you watch these videos and you're like, “My god, please don't do that.” I don't recommend people climb mountains without ropes, but if you're climbing the startup mountain and you fall, it gives you more credibility, and you just get to start over at the bottom of the mountain again. You don't die. People have this idea that's if you fail in your startup, you're dead. No, you're more credible, you've learned something, and you get to play. You put another quarter in the machine, you get to play the video game again. Matt: Yeah, absolutely. I mean that's obviously well said. I want to circle- Jason C.: Take more risk is my advice. Matt: Yeah and on that note, you mentioned something earlier about sort of they understand the scrappiness of creating the product, understanding the customer, and the love of building a business, right? That's why they did it. But they don't understand the scale factor. Is that what you would argue a good angel would come in and say, no pun intended I guess, but come in and say, “Hey look, we're gonna bless you with a … maybe point you in the right direction for an advisor, or building an advisory council,” or something like that? Does a good angel do that for their entrepreneurs or do you try to stay hands off and not really push them in a particular direction? Jason C.: It depends on what the founder wants. If the founder wants me involved, I get involved. If the founder doesn't need my help, I get less involved. I like to get a monthly update from the founder because it creates discipline with them to write the update. It takes them an hour to write the update, share the key metrics of the business, talk about the challenges, talk about the wins, talk about the losses, and how we might be able to help. If you have that discipline where you have your metrics dialed in and you write that update, and you send it to 10 investors, and say your management team, you can have like a really open dialogue. The companies that do that go a lot further because they maybe create a plan. If you have a plan to be successful and you execute the plan, you will be more successful. You might not succeed, but you will definitely be more successful. People who decide, “I'm gonna create a two year plan to grow my business from 1 million in year one to 3 million. In a year or two, I'm gonna go from 3 million to 9.” If they don't succeed at the plan and they hit 2 in 6, they will probably be further along than people without a plan. I'm a big fan of planning, and having people involved, and talking about the strategy, and paying attention to the data and the metrics. The great companies do that. Matt: I think you mentioned on a recent episode of your show that the folks who are shy or shy-ish of saying, “No, I'm gonna not give you that weekly or monthly update,” as sort of an indication to you that they're not taking their job seriously, or they might not be taking your relationship with handing them some cash seriously in that regard. Jason C.: Yeah, for sure. We definitely like to find people who are just serious about the business and want to do the business right. I think if you're gonna take angels, you need to look at, especially if you're in that zone of 500,000 to a million, a simple email to 10 different angels saying, “I have a business called blank. We make money by doing blank for blank. Here's a revenue chart, quarterly, monthly, week, whatever, and here's a link to our product demo.” Like, literally that's what? Less than five sentences. You all of a sudden get this massive … we click on the links, and we go check it out, and then we're gonna take the meeting. Most people write their life story and what they plan on doing, the talkers, the tourists. What I love about your audience is they're not talkers and tourists. They're people who have actually built real businesses and they just maybe haven't built the business that is designed to be a billion dollar business. But if you can build a million dollar business, truth be told, you can build a $10 million business. Now, if you have built the million dollar business, I don't know that means you can build a $100 million one. But if you build a million, you can definitely get to 10. If you can get to 10, you've got a business that's gonna be worth 5 to 20 times that number and you can build a team around you of investors who can tell you what people you need on your team to hit that next milestone. That's the trick. You're bringing these people in, they're invested, and now you have five people working toward your success who have skills that you don't have. Again, why fear the downside risk when there is none? It's not life or death and people have a life or death approach where they just don't take enough risk. I believe, in my heart, people don't take enough risk. Matt: It's funny you say that because I'm a mentor in an accelerator program out here on the East Coast. A lot of these folks coming in, and it's sort of like a sustainable accelerator, so businesses that are gonna help the local community, drive jobs, that kind of thing. Nothing like in the tech sector, although some come through with the tech sector. So many people starting companies now, they feel like it's life or death, right? Some of them are trying to do it because they're jaded from the Shark Tank shows that are out there. They think like, “All I have to do is get to this, and I'm gonna win a million bucks,” right? They think of it like a game show I guess and it's sort of not the case. But also, look, you can get up the next day. You can start another business, get another job, or something like that, and take another swing at it I guess. Jason C.: It's correct. Shark Tank's an amazing show for inspiring people to get involved. It has put in people's mind that that money in some cases is like the reward, that's the prize, when in fact that's the starter pistol as we talked about earlier. That just means okay, now you've deployed it, and those people want you to return. It's an investment, which means they want a return on capital. So yeah, I think it's been great that so many people are inspired to start companies, but finishing is important. Matt: As an investor, this is the inside baseball question for the direct folks in the audience, we're all using WordPress. It's all opensource. Does that scare you as an investor? Do you not touch opensource? Do you know investors that do and don't that might be some guidance for folks listening? Jason C.: It is amazing. Everybody wants to do opensource based startups. They [inaudible 00:25:55] WordPress.org and I've got the name of the other CMS, but the Boston company that now- Matt: Oh, Acquia, Drupal. Jason C.: Yeah, Drupal. Yeah, so these companies are real and they make a ton of money. I think Android has put to bed anybody's fear that like you can't do an open source thing and also control it, right? Google's done a pretty good job of having their cake and eating it too, haven't they? They have like Android, and they figured out, and there's a- Matt: Tesla's doing opensource I think even with their chargers coming up, right? They want to opensource their charging station so other manufacturers can- Jason C.: Build them. Matt: Build them. Jason C.: Yeah, I think they … What everybody realizes is at a certain point, you pick where you want to make your money and make your company defensible. So for Google, everything is opensource, except for their algorithm and their search engine. You can't figure out, that's a black box, right? But they'll opensource everything else to kill their competitors. Then Facebook is like, “We'll make our hardware platform opensource and we'll have everybody working on grinding the hardware quest down. But we're sure we're not gonna make our ad network, or a social graph, that's not gonna be available. It would be lightly available in the API. If you get any kind of traction on the API that gets people to leave Facebook, we're gonna turn you off.” The API for Facebook says, “The API is not designed to make people leave Facebook.” So if you use the API thinking you're gonna bring people to your platform, the second you get traction, they just say, “You're breaking the terms of service.” Matt: Yep. So let's pivot and talk about your current business, Inside.com. Is playing in somebody else's sandbox, I mean as you learned with Mahalo, as sort of some of us listening now. We've learned that from WordPress.com versus WordPress.org, two different businesses, two different entities. Is your play in email sort of saying, “You know what? To heck with these platforms. I'm just gonna go direct.” Jason C.: It's exactly … you couldn't be more right. After years of being frustrated by … Google was a big partner of ours. I was in their first quarterly report for Weblogs, Inc was the partner that they shared that was making money off of advertising. We were making over $2,000 a day. We were like the first million dollar independent company partner. So they used us as a case study, Weblogs, Inc and Gadget, and they used New York Times. I had this great 10 year relationship. I knew the founders of the company. I knew everybody there. Then they just decided to like go ham on us, and all the other content sites, and destroy us. Then when I called them, like I couldn't get my phone calls returned. I was like, “We're partners.” Then Matt Cutts is like, “We don't have partners and you don't have a penalty against you.” I'm like, “90% of our traffic's gone and here's 1,000 emails with your team talking about how great our partnership is.” They basically lied and you can see them getting dinged. They just got a $2.7 billion fine just on comparison shopping, so they're gonna get dinged for local. They get dinged for all these other things as well. They really use their monopolistic position to hurt the companies in their ecosystem, which I understand. I wouldn't have done it that way. They were loved originally by partners. What they should've done is just given us a licensing fee for our content and said, “Hey, if we put your content on the one box or whatever, we're just gonna give you 10 cents a CPM.” All of a sudden Yelp would've been getting a million dollar a month check and everybody would've been happy. Google would've been making 100 million off of that. There was a way for them to do it, and I think they probably regret it now, and they're probably trying to fix it. Or they're laughing all the way to the bank, it doesn't matter. Matt: I feel like they're doing it again with YouTube content and sort of just- Jason C.: Changing the rules. Matt: Yeah, sucking the life out of ad revenue. Jason C.: Yeah. No, all of a sudden they said, “If you have under 10,000 views, no ads.” If CNN talks about a terrorist attack, they can have advertising. If an independent person who helped build YouTube into what it is, like Philip DeFranco, mentions a terrorist attack, they won't put ads on it. So Philip went crazy on them. He said, “Wait a second. I helped build this platform and now you're changing it?” So Philip's leaving the platform. I saw that coming. I left the platform. Wmail is one of these great things. You can go direct and you can make money directly from consumers, so not even having to rely on advertising. Now we're going and saying to our customers, “Hey, pay for the content. We'll give you some extra content if you pay. If you want free, you get whatever it's gonna be, 20% or 60% of the content for free. Some percentage, 50/50, we're not sure yet, 60/40, will be for the paid people and for people who contributed.” We did it with LAUNCH Ticker, our first email newsletter. Of the 27,000 people, we have over 1,000 paying, so about 4%. If I can replicate that with the 200,000 subscribers on Inside.com's 26 newsletters, we'll have a great business. We'll have 8,000 paid subscribers. We'll be making a million dollars a year. That pays for a lot of journalists and you have 20 journalists working from home for that. I'm really interested in owning a deep direct relationship. Now, if you think about it, Gmail is even trying to- Matt: Oh yeah, that was gonna be my next question. Jason C.: For that, with their tabs and putting you in their thing. But it's so hard for them to do. We are even going to be going … We started experimenting with SMS and owning people's relationship there. I think use any of these other platforms if it gets you customers, but own a direct deep relationship. I can't tell you how many people I know who have apps and have no emails. It's like get the email address of these people and email is the big growth hack for Twitter and for a lot of other sites where they email you, “Here's what you missed.” That was the big hack for a lot of these companies. So if you're not collecting emails everywhere, and providing massive value to those email subscribers, you're doing it wrong. Matt: Yeah and I mean as again folks who are listening now, WordPress itself, being an opensource platform, you can do whatever you want. I mean we have tons of folks in the audience who are building membership sites. People are coming to the site. They're paying either $9 bucks a month, $200 bucks a year, transaction happens right on a WordPress site. They can control the content, put up a paywall, all that fun stuff. What's the product evolution of Inside.com? Do you then spin back to where you were five, six years ago and start creating video content along with this stuff, audio content, along- Jason C.: Yeah, anything's possible. I think the goal is once you have 10,000, 20,000 emails, you start to have this virtuous cycle where the news is coming to you. You can bolt anything onto something with 20,000, 30,000 emails, and that's gonna have some amount of success, so it's a very astute observation. It's very possible Inside AI could have a weekly podcast, and the email would drive the podcast. The email content would drive the topics of the podcast, so it's possible we can layer on podcasting onto email. What I found was every business I looked at kept saying if email's the growth thing, why don't we make email look [inaudible 00:32:41], right? Matt: Right. Jason C.: If everybody's looking and saying, “Hey, email is the thing to get growth,” what if the entire product is centered around email, and engagement, and opening it? So that's really what I'm focused on. I set a goal in the beginning like, “Let's get a certain number of opens.” We hit that. Then I said, “Let's get to 50 newsletters. We're halfway there.” Now I'm saying, “Let's get to 1 or 2% of the people who are free, paying. That just started three or four weeks ago, but it's promised thousands of dollars in monthly reoccurring revenue.” It's a very lightweight business, like many people who are part of your audience, I'm like literally aspiring to hitting that million dollars in revenue and having 20 full time 50k a year journalists working from home. A 50k salary for a journalist working from home, or 40k plus benefits, or something in that range, I mean you can get people with three, four or five years experience. We have this thing in New York and San Francisco where they think journalists need to make 70, 80, 90, $100,000. It turns out if you're living in New Hampshire, or Arizona, or other places, to get a work from home job with benefits for 40 or 50k is a tremendous tremendous opportunity. Matt: Yeah, absolutely. Jason C.: Because you can't get that salary. If you do get that salary, you probably have to drag your ass into an office. Matt: Right, right. I do miss your Inside Drones YouTube series that you were doing at one point. I do miss that. That was good. Jason C.: We'll get back to it. What we found was we weren't getting … it was cart before horse. When we started doing some of those tests, we weren't getting the engagement that we wanted, and then they were trying to figure out how to regrow it. So it's like oh, let's work backwards, you know? Matt: As we sort of wrap up here because I know you're a little crunched on time. How do you live in that happy chaos? Let me just stage that. I was talking to a founder today and in my mentor session, it was like okay, you're selling your product. You're out there, you're pushing it. But then there's like this little cloud above you. That little 20% of ideas, and testings, and little things you want to try sort of just floats up there. You sort of pull things out every now and again, like your Inside Drones, maybe cart before horse. How do you manage that? Because I feel like you do a lot of that. You're always testing things. You're always trying new ideas. You don't shy away from it. Jason C.: No. Matt: Is there a way for you to manage that? Jason C.: Yeah, for sure. Here's how I look at it. I look at startups themselves when I angel invest and I look at my own little tests as satellites, little missions. If you wanted to find life in the universe, I think the way to do it is to send out 100 probes to 100 different planets that could have life on them, and just see if you get a return signal, right? Matt: Right. Jason C.: That's the way to look at these experiments. If you get to a planet that you think is in the Goldilocks zone and shouldn't be inhabitable, and you get there and there's nobody there, great. You can cross that one off the list. As you start crossing them off the list, you're gonna start getting data. So oh, doing the podcast about drones didn't work, but doing a newsletter did. Okay, what's making the newsletter grow? Oh, doing interviews with people who are CEOs of drone companies means they retweet it, and people get value from it, and blah blah blah blah. You start figuring out what works, which experiments are getting you closer to finding life and which ones are not. Sometimes you gotta cross things off the list to know they don't work. That's really what's entrepreneurship is about, is you're just trying to triangulate around a signal. Sometimes it's a weak signal, but the signal starts getting stronger and stronger, and revenue and engagement are the signals. So open rates are the signal. When we started Inside, we have a newsletter called Daily Brief, which is just about the news of the day. We realized hey 40, 50% of people were opening it in the mornings. Then people were telling us the next day that a lot of the news was stale. So I said okay, let's run a test. Take the thousand people on the list and send like 1,000 of the 10,000 people or 20,000 people, whatever it is, a second edition at 3 o'clock in the afternoon with whatever else has happened, like an update. Just tell them it's an update on what was happening in the morning news. Like, four people were like, “I didn't ask for this.” We're like, “We'll unsubscribe you.” Three of them were like, “Don't unsubscribe, I love it.” But they were kind of upset that they were … I just told the whole list, “Listen, we're moving to twice a day. If you don't like it, unsubscribe.” Someone's like, “I only want once a day.” I was like, “We don't provide that.” They're like, “Okay.” They're like, “You can't do that.” There's always like a couple of people in every crowd where the people at a restaurant who are like, “You can't charge for bread,” and the restaurant's like, “We charge for bread.” “Okay, fine.” Or, “A hamburger should come with french fries. How do you charge for french fries?” Then you would say, “Well, not everybody wants french fries, so we charge an extra dollar for french fries. That's just the way we choose to do it. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.” Sometimes people listen too much to their costumers, so you gotta understand the overall impact of the metrics. That just requires having not a discussion about emotions, or feelings, or predictions, or who's in charge, but data and the crafting of experiments. The Lean Startup's a great book by my friend Erick Ries that talks about this lean startup methodology, which everybody listening to this should be familiar with. Matt: Yeah, definitely. Jason C.: But what's the least costly and quickest way to get the signal to understand if this is gonna work or not? That's your goal. How can you cheaply figure it out? The way I cheaply figure it out was let's just put a newsletter out there. Inside had a news app, hundreds of thousands of people downloaded the app. Less than 1% used it a day. When we send emails, 30, 40, 50% of people open each one and we send two a day. So you put that together, we went 50x using an old technology, and now we don't have seven developers working on an app, eight developers working on an app. The whole app team was maybe eight people, very highly paid people. We can redeploy those eight people's salaries, and hire a dozen journalists, and get further. That's no dig to the … It just turned out that news apps didn't work. I mean I was an investor in Circa and a bunch of other news apps I loved, and used, and nobody made a news app that's worked. It just doesn't work. People forget they have it. Matt: Yeah, I remember when you launched that, and I was like oh man, I don't know if I'm gonna be using this app all the time and I installed it. But then when you pivoted to the straight up email, I was like yes, this is … Because this is all I, I swear to god, this is not just because you're on my show and because I'm a super fan. But it's like the only place I read news now. I don't go into Facebook and even dare click on an article. One, because I don't want to get retargeted. Two, I don't want to see all the bullshit comments that people have to say about stuff. I just want to see the news headlines, get the synopsis, and then click on it if I so desire. I think Inside really hits the mark on that. Jason C.: Thank you. Matt: Oh man. One last followup on that. Ad free and just go membership monetization model moving forward or make sure- Jason C.: Probably a combination. In the free ones, we'll have free ones, and you can rock out with a free one, and there's a little bit of advertising in it, and then we'll have the space of users who pays. One of the things we're experimenting with is just letting people turn off the ad. In Launch Ticker, we let the thousand people turn off the ads, and I think 10 of them or 20 of them took the time to do it. So you can turn the ads off technically by just clicking a button in your profile settings, and it turns out nobody does. People like to see the ads if they're targeted, so I think you can have your cake and eat it too. I think you can have a paid Vanity Fair, though with ads. So it's- Matt: That's a pretty cool idea because I guess if somebody clicked on that, you could. The paid for newsletter just simply doesn't come with ads. If you don't want to see ads in your email, just scrolling the headlines, just pay for it. I mean it's super easy, makes sense. Jason C.: I think like there's this group of people, like when Hulu came out with … I had a Hulu subscription for $10 bucks. It had ads. It was making me crazy because Netflix doesn't have ads and I'm paying $10 bucks for that. Then they made a $13 version that had no ads. I upgraded to that. I think there's probably like 20% of people are sensitive enough that they would pay the extra $3, an extra $36 a year. Then most people would not. In this day and age, I don't know you have to choose. I think it would be brilliant for Netflix to have a version where today, this Saturday, Mercedes is making Netflix free, and you can watch Orange is the New Black and all the original shows are free this Saturday, brought to you by Mercedes. You have to watch a Mercedes ad at the beginning and take a survey at the end. Mercedes could just make a Saturday Mercedes day on Netflix. Netflix gets all the people to download and sample the shows. They give them $10 million or $5 million for doing it. Like, just do one day a month where Netflix is free. It'd be great onboarding. Matt: Yeah, no absolutely. Jason, I can't thank you enough for taking the time to do this. Look, I am finally- Jason C.: Thanks for reading the book. Matt: Yeah, no problem. Jason C.: I appreciate it. I was like oh, you send a book to a lot of people, and they're like, “Yeah,” you know. I'm like, “What did you like about the book?” You actually have like specific moments in the book. You actually read it, so I really appreciate that. Matt: I actually thought you were gonna say, “How did this schmuck get the book?” Jason C.: No, it's- Matt: Listen, I am only a 10 minute flight away from Nantucket, so whenever you want to have a beer the next time you're in town, you let me know. Jason C.: Oh my gosh, so you're on the Cape somewhere or where? Matt: Yeah, I'm at Dartmouth, Mass. So it's just I hop anywhere to New Bedford, hop on the airline, it's about 10, 15 minutes in air. It's beautiful. Jason C.: I love that place. I love that place, yeah. No, no. Be careful. Matt: Where can folks find you on the web to say thanks? Jason C.: Oh, well Twitter. My Twitter handle is Jason, J-A-S-O-N, same with my Instagram. If you went to check out Inside.com, take a look. Angel, the book, is in stores now. If you tweet me your receipt, I will give you a unicorn number and a name. Matt: That is hilarious by the way. Jason C.: It's pretty hilarious. Yeah, like 300 people have done it, so we give them a unicorn name and a unicorn number, so you count up. We're gonna do 1,000 unicorn names for the first thousand people who tweet their receipts. We're 300 in, so that's good. Matt: Go grab the book, folks. Even if you're not considering angel investment, it's an amazing book to reverse engineer, to find those angel investors out there and get that money into your business. Try to scale. Stop being the development in the basement. Or be the developer in the basement if you want, but- Jason C.: Yeah, just add a zero. Matt: Just add a zero. Just add a zero. Jason C.: That's what I always tell my founders, like just add a zero. Then they add the zero, so I said, “Okay, let's add one more and we're done.” Matt: Oh, that's awesome stuff. It's MattReport.com, MattReport.com/subscribe to join the mailing list. Thanks everybody. Jason C.: Thanks Matt. ★ Support this podcast ★

We all have worries. But as trained observers, scientists learn things that can affect us all. So what troubles them should also trouble us. From viral pandemics to the limits of empirical knowledge, find out what science scenarios give researchers insomnia. But also, we discover which scary scenarios that preoccupy the public don't worry the scientists at all. Despite the rumors, you needn't fear that the Large Hadron Collider will produce black holes that could swallow the Earth. It's Skeptic Check, our monthly look at critical thinking … but don't take our word for it! Guests: David Quammen – Science journalist, contributing writer for National Geographic Magazine, author of Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic Sandra Faber – Astronomer at the University of California, Santa Cruz Paul Saffo – Technology forecaster based in the Silicon Valley Seth Shostak – Senior astronomer, SETI Institute, host, Big Picture Science Elisa Quintana – Research scientist, SETI Institute Lawrence Krauss – Theoretical physicist, Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University  Inspiration for this episode comes from the book, What Should We Be Worried About?: Real Scenarios That Keep Scientists Up at Night edited by John Brockman. First released May 5, 2014. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

ENCORE  We all have worries. But as trained observers, scientists learn things that can affect us all. So what troubles them should also trouble us. From viral pandemics to the limits of empirical knowledge, find out what science scenarios give researchers insomnia. But also, we discover which scary scenarios that preoccupy the public don’t worry the scientists at all. Despite the rumors, you needn’t fear that the Large Hadron Collider will produce black holes that could swallow the Earth. It’s Skeptic Check, our monthly look at critical thinking … but don’t take our word for it! Guests: David Quammen – Science journalist, contributing writer for National Geographic Magazine, author of Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic Sandra Faber – Astronomer at the University of California, Santa Cruz Paul Saffo – Technology forecaster based in the Silicon Valley Seth Shostak – Senior astronomer, SETI Institute, host, Big Picture Science Elisa Quintana – Research scientist, SETI Institute Lawrence Krauss – Theoretical physicist, Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University  Inspiration for this episode comes from the book, What Should We Be Worried About?: Real Scenarios That Keep Scientists Up at Night edited by John Brockman. First released May 5, 2014.

Check out RailsClips on Kickstarter!!   01:56 - Testing and Test-Driven Development (TDD) The iPhreaks Show Episode #92: Unit Testing with NatashaTheRobot 03:23 - Panel Experiences with TDD Unit Testing The Difference Between Faking, Mocking, and Stubbing 08:10 - Value Objects 09:08 - How To Do TDD “Red, Green, Refactor” BDD (Behavior-Driven Development) The Cucumber Book: Behaviour-Driven Development for Testers and Developers  by Matt Wynne and Aslak Hellesøy The RSpec Book: Behaviour-Driven Development with RSpec, Cucumber, and Friends  by David Chelimsky, Dave Astels, Zach Dennis, Aslak Hellesøy, Bryan Helmkamp, Dan North 11:28 - Jaim’s TDD Process 13:44 - Value and Getting Started with Testing Ruby Rogues Episode #178: Refactoring Ruby with Martin Fowler 21:58 - Writing Tests First “If Code is Easy to Test, It’s Easy to Change.” 27:18 - Testing on a Team Automation guard (Ruby) clang Continuous Integration (CI) 32:47 - Higher Level Testing 36:54 - KIF 38:00 - Other Ways of Testing UIs 39:44 - Who Writes the Tests? 44:06 - Test Data and Environments Test Time => Feedback 46:50 - Lower-level to Higher-level Tests Transition Value ROI (Return on Investment) 51:51 - Recording User Interactions Picks John Reid: UIViewController TDD [Screencast] (Jaim) Test-Driven iOS Development (Developer's Library) by Graham Lee (Jaim) WatchKit FAQ (Alondo) This Idea Must Die: Scientific Theories That Are Blocking Progress (Edge Question Series) by John Brockman (Alondo) Martin Fowler: The Test Pyramid (Pete) Working Effectively with Unit Tests by Jay Fields (Pete) Avery Brewing IPA (Pete) A Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula K. Le Guin (Chuck) 80/20 Sales and Marketing: The Definitive Guide to Working Less and Making More by Perry Marshall (Chuck) Miracles and Massacres: True and Untold Stories of the Making of America by Glenn Beck (Chuck)

Check out RailsClips on Kickstarter!!   01:56 - Testing and Test-Driven Development (TDD) The iPhreaks Show Episode #92: Unit Testing with NatashaTheRobot 03:23 - Panel Experiences with TDD Unit Testing The Difference Between Faking, Mocking, and Stubbing 08:10 - Value Objects 09:08 - How To Do TDD “Red, Green, Refactor” BDD (Behavior-Driven Development) The Cucumber Book: Behaviour-Driven Development for Testers and Developers  by Matt Wynne and Aslak Hellesøy The RSpec Book: Behaviour-Driven Development with RSpec, Cucumber, and Friends  by David Chelimsky, Dave Astels, Zach Dennis, Aslak Hellesøy, Bryan Helmkamp, Dan North 11:28 - Jaim’s TDD Process 13:44 - Value and Getting Started with Testing Ruby Rogues Episode #178: Refactoring Ruby with Martin Fowler 21:58 - Writing Tests First “If Code is Easy to Test, It’s Easy to Change.” 27:18 - Testing on a Team Automation guard (Ruby) clang Continuous Integration (CI) 32:47 - Higher Level Testing 36:54 - KIF 38:00 - Other Ways of Testing UIs 39:44 - Who Writes the Tests? 44:06 - Test Data and Environments Test Time => Feedback 46:50 - Lower-level to Higher-level Tests Transition Value ROI (Return on Investment) 51:51 - Recording User Interactions Picks John Reid: UIViewController TDD [Screencast] (Jaim) Test-Driven iOS Development (Developer's Library) by Graham Lee (Jaim) WatchKit FAQ (Alondo) This Idea Must Die: Scientific Theories That Are Blocking Progress (Edge Question Series) by John Brockman (Alondo) Martin Fowler: The Test Pyramid (Pete) Working Effectively with Unit Tests by Jay Fields (Pete) Avery Brewing IPA (Pete) A Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula K. Le Guin (Chuck) 80/20 Sales and Marketing: The Definitive Guide to Working Less and Making More by Perry Marshall (Chuck) Miracles and Massacres: True and Untold Stories of the Making of America by Glenn Beck (Chuck)

What you put in your body directly affects your moods and ability to do stuff. In this episode Sam and Simon discuss getting to know your body and how to prime it for pure awesomeness. Turns out beer might have a place in your productivity diet - and, of course, coffee. Stuff and people mentioned in this episode:Varenicline that Sam is using to stop smoking.Champex. Not a medicine.23andMe genetic testing.Bonk by Mary Roach.Sophia Wallace.Comedian Simon Amstell.Your brain on coffee vs. beer.This Will Make You Smarter by John Brockman.What Is Your Dangerous Idea?by John Brockman.How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big by Scott Adams.The Walking Dead - a great TV show based on an awesome comic.Breaking Bad - another great TV show that Simon watched after everyone else.

John Brockman and Al Filreis in '99 hosted 9 internet pioneers for a discussion about digital culture.

--{ Thoughts of "Change" We Think Ours, Alas, Though Really via Lackeys of Ruling Class: "Economics is Theory Based on Plusses & Debits, Rulers Now Bringing Us Carbon-Energy Credits, To Be Hailed as an Equitable Sustainable Philosophy, Distribution of Necessities via Global Bureaucracy, Those Who Own Resources Remain in Control, With Even More Power Over Stomach and Soul Of Each Human Being Reduced to Sufferance, Eternally in Plan of Oligarchic World-Governance, With Global Charter, High-Sounding Constitution, A Single-Bodied Control to Be the Solution, Banker-Funded Marx Expounded the Creed, "Each According to Ability, According to Need", If You Noticed the Soviet, Leaders Were Healthy No Lack of Mod-Cons As Though They Were Wealthy, Governance Owning Means and Goods of Production And Distribution Equates Much Human Destruction, Technocracy Inc. is a Front for This Plan, Where "Better" I.Q.'s Direct Lives of Man, Eugenics in Disguise Plans Much Human Bleeding, Depopulating "Wrong" Kind, See Where it's Leading" © Alan Watt }-- Populace Always Used for What They Think is "Their" Revolution - Public Given "Their" Internet/Technology - The Matrix, Being Born into Pre-existing System - British Empire - Milner-RIIA-CFR Organization and its Specialized Branches for World Government, Fabian Society etc. - Control of Finite Materials - Technocrats (Brzezinski et al) and Technocracy - Socialist Blend of Capitalism/Communism - Revolutions in Culture and Society, Destruction of Family Unit, Separation of the Young - Hippie Era, Funded and Led by Military-Industrial Complex/Academia - Counterculture and Cybernetics, Mind-Altering Experiences - "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski - Carbon Taxation and Trading Energy - H.G. Wells' "Shape of Things to Come" (1933) - John Brockman and Steward Brand - George Bernard Shaw's "Man and Superman", Elimination of the "Useless" in New Society - The Soviet Experiment/Laboratory - World Resource Takeover - Farce of Money - Masters' Guidance (at Right Time) into New System - Economy-Wide Carbon Pricing, Coastal Clearances - One Central Organization Owning/Controlling All Production and Distribution - Gov. Issued Credits - Social "Progress" through Science - Hubbert, Technocracy Inc., Peak Oil Theory. (See http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com for article links.) *Title/Poem and Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - June 25, 2010 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)

Sermon delivered by Rev. Tamara Lebak, Assistant Minister, Jan. 13, 2008.Tim O’Reilly writes that John Brockman’s magazine The Edge (www.edge.org) is “A remarkable feast of the intellect... an amazing group of reflections on science, culture, and the evolution of ideas. Reading the Edge question is like being invited to dinner with some of the most interesting people on the planet.? This month The Edge put the question to over a hundred scientists and scholars “What have you changed your mind about? Why?? Articles were submitted by Steven Pinker, Alan Alda, Michael Sherman, Richard Dawkins and many other names that you would likely recognize. I scanned for theologians and UU ministers and found none. The question intrigues me. How much and what kind of evidence instigates a change of mind? A change of heart? Over your lifetime, what have you changed your mind about and why? And how is this relevant to our religious community today?